Very strange Kodak Numbers showing up inside actual negatives?! Pictures inside!

[AgX]

In all the time I've used 120 film (from a school kid onwards), from Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Ferrania, Fuji, and no doubt a few odd makes I've forgotten, in a variety of camera from a Brownie (red window!) to a Rollei, I've never seen this problem. Films bought from a variety of sources, some outdated, others long before fridge storage was thought of.

I got hundreds of sample film-artefacts collected by two major manufacturers. Ranging over decades.
Not one sample shows such "wrapper offset"

 

[Prof_Pixel]

My best educated guess is that Kodak can no longer make their own backing paper, and now must buy it from a third party source. This severely limits their corrective action choices.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

My best educated guess is that Kodak can no longer make their own backing paper, and now must buy it from a third party source. This severely limits their corrective action choices.

Yes, but it doesn't limit their responsibility to their customers.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Yes, but it doesn't limit their responsibility to their customers.

Like I said earlier: "Nobody purposely sells bad product; if the problem can't be solved, the only other option is to stop selling it."

 

[JW PHOTO]

My best educated guess is that Kodak can no longer make their own backing paper, and now must buy it from a third party source. This severely limits their corrective action choices.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[RattyMouse]

Like I said earlier: "Nobody purposely sells bad product; if the problem can't be solved, the only other option is to stop selling it."

It doesn't matter to me because I won't be buying TMAX400 anymore.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Like I said earlier: "Nobody purposely sells bad product; if the problem can't be solved, the only other option is to stop selling it."

Stop selling it at least until the weak link is found. Automobiles get recalled, food gets recalled, but I guess film just doesn't fall into any class for immediate action by the producer. To be fair on this the automakers and food producers wouldn't do damn thing either unless the Consumer Protection Agency or some governmental organization didn't push them to fix a problem. I just hope this doesn't hurt sales too much or ruins peoples precious memory pics.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Absolutely true... but Kodak lost my money until it's proven the problem is mitigated and I have batch numbers that are safe.

 

[markbarendt]

This severely limits their corrective action choices.

How?

Is there but one source of paper in the world?

 

[fdonadio]

Another completely different session of mine with T-MAX 400 film

Lovely photo! She's looks so calm and I like the freckles. And it frightens me a little... It seems she'll open her eyes at any moment!

Too bad a see that damn number 6 on her neck...

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Is there but one source of paper in the world?

I'm quite sorry to say it, but is quite possible there is NOW only one source of backing paper.

 

[RattyMouse]

Stop selling it at least until the weak link is found. Automobiles get recalled, food gets recalled, but I guess film just doesn't fall into any class for immediate action by the producer. To be fair on this the automakers and food producers wouldn't do damn thing either unless the Consumer Protection Agency or some governmental organization didn't push them to fix a problem. I just hope this doesn't hurt sales too much or ruins peoples precious memory pics.

Exactly. Do what it takes to protect your customers. We have more than enough evidence that TMAX 400 has an issue that Kodak cannot control.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes This happens to other film makers. The difference with Kodak is the frequency of reports of problems. Much much more frequent.

No. Kodak cares even though once it leaves there control problems occur in some supply chains. Part of the reason you do not hear it about other films is because people expect problems due to the low price and figure that complaining will not help.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Some of the Kodak haters are really showing that they are good about making sweeping claims based on what they had for breakfast. They need to get over themselves or start their own film factories.

 

[Ai Print]

Manufacturers of premium priced products get premium bashing when they fail to communicate with their customers.
The customer is always right, especially in regards to bulletproof product like film.
Business 101. Not a rocket science.

I have been a full time working photographer for nearly 30 years and if there is one thing that I have learned, it is that creating partnerships with companies who's product and or service I want to rely on has always proven far more workable a solution than one that is adversarial.

If I find I have a problem with my Tmax-400 in 120, a film that I use heavily, I will report back on here and then work with Kodak to help pin it down so that those of us who want to continue to rely on the product come up with a solution faster than just playing the blame game.

I'm a pretty happy guy when I do things this way.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I have been a full time working photographer for nearly 30 years and if there is one thing that I have learned, it is that creating partnerships with companies who's product and or service I want to rely on has always proven far more workable a solution than one that is adversarial.

If I find I have a problem with my Tmax-400 in 120, a film that I use heavily, I will report back on here and then work with Kodak to help pin it down so that those of us who want to continue to rely on the product come up with a solution faster than just playing the blame game.

I'm a pretty happy guy when I do things this way.

What you say is all true, but if you traveled miles to shoot a location shoot and got proofs back that had numbers etched into the faces of your clients.................................I don't think you'd be a very happy camper. Your clients wouldn't get a big kick out of it either. I do understand what you're saying, but Kodak Alaris or whoever has had enough time to announce a problem, pull the film or fix it. Of course that's just me speculating that they changed a link in the normal process of manufacture, which I think they did. If they did change something then they already know where the problem originates from. Many people were very quick to tell me to support the main companies like Kodak and Ilford when I wrote on these forms about buying Chinese Shanghai GP3 film and having the number bleed problem with that. Now it looks like I'm stuck with Ilford. Just kidding, but it is true I won't be buying any TMY2 for a while. Such a great film too! John W

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Now it looks like I'm stuck with Ilford.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear they end up having the same problem.

 

[MattKing]

How?

Is there but one source of paper in the world?

As I understand it from some of Simon Galley's posts, the answer is there is just one left.

 

[Ai Print]

What you say is all true, but if you traveled miles to shoot a location shoot and got proofs back that had numbers etched into the faces of your clients.................................I don't think you'd be a very happy camper. Your clients wouldn't get a big kick out of it either. I do understand what you're saying, but Kodak Alaris or whoever has had enough time to announce a problem, pull the film or fix it.

Yeah, I would be ticked, and if the images I shot today in sub zero weather that can not be repeated have numbers on them, I will not be happy either. But I want to be able to use this film instead of another one, so I would stick to my statement of helping them in any way I can to figure it out, that is what a partnership is.

I have had things happen before, that is pretty much assured after decades of doing this. Flying off the handle in some kind of useless rant solves nothing, giving people the benefit of the doubt that they both did not mean to hose you intentionally and that they are working on it has worked for me 100% of the time.

 

[MattKing]

How many here are willing to pay for climate controlled shipping? That may be the only way to ensure protection against damage to what is a moderately fragile product.

In this world where the majority of product is shipped huge distances using the cheapest option, there seems to be a wilfull blindness to the fact that film is relatively fragile, and probably should receive a bit more care than is provided by your usual FedEx employee.

There is a thread on rangefinderforum.com where the OP has experienced similar problems with either Portra or Ektar. If you read through the thread, you will see where he/she eventually mentions that the problems occured in film that spent several days in ambient temperatures in Death Valley - considerably hotter than 100F temperatures.

I feel for someone who ends up with film that has been damaged in transport or storage either at or after it was in the hands of the retailer, but I cannot see how a manufacturer who has no contractual or other relationship with the damaging party can do anything more than:
1) provide clear direction on proper handling; and
2) if it sees fit (as Kodak Alaris apparently has) to supply replacement film to the end user.

There seems to be a perception that film being damaged by environmental factors is a new thing. That just isn't the case. Historically, it was always a potential problem. The difference was that, historically and in major markets, if you purchased film from a Kodak dealer, most likely that film had been warehoused and shipped by Kodak to that dealer, and that dealer had a vested interest in maintaining its dealer status.

Sadly, that distribution system was only sustainable when volumes were high. Kodak and others now have no control over who is retailing their product.

There certainly were some exceptions - "Imported to USA" film comes to mind - but it was open to the customer to decide whether or not to accept that risk.

The reality is, if you buy film and have it shipped long distances, including accross borders, there is a small but real danger that it will suffer damage on the way.

It doesn't particularly matter what type of film it is, nor does it matter what brand it is.

It may be that a higher speed, T-grain film like TMY is more susceptible to this type of damage then others. Or it may be that it is just a matter of chance that a few unrelated cases of damage happen to have involved the same, highly popular film. or it may be there is a common factor that can be traced down, like a delivery truck break-down on its way to, for example, B & H's warehouse.

I have seen evidence here on APUG of a small number (less than 6?) of unfortunate people who have experienced this problem. There seems to be no consistent similarities between their experiences. There is similar evidence that a large number of people have had no problems with same film. That leads me to conclude that the problem isn't with the film its general distribution, but rather with other not yet identified commonality between the circumstances of those who have experienced those problems.

 

[Arklatexian]

Very strange Kodak Numbers showing up inside actual negatives, etc.

How many here are willing to pay for climate controlled shipping? That may be the only way to ensure protection against damage to what is a moderately fragile product.

In this world where the majority of product is shipped huge distances using the cheapest option, there seems to be a wilfull blindness to the fact that film is relatively fragile, and probably should receive a bit more care than is provided by your usual FedEx employee.

There is a thread on rangefinderforum.com where the OP has experienced similar problems with either Portra or Ektar. If you read through the thread, you will see where he/she eventually mentions that the problems occured in film that spent several days in ambient temperatures in Death Valley - considerably hotter than 100F temperatures.

I feel for someone who ends up with film that has been damaged in transport or storage either at or after it was in the hands of the retailer, but I cannot see how a manufacturer who has no contractual or other relationship with the damaging party can do anything more than:
1) provide clear direction on proper handling; and
2) if it sees fit (as Kodak Alaris apparently has) to supply replacement film to the end user.

There seems to be a perception that film being damaged by environmental factors is a new thing. That just isn't the case. Historically, it was always a potential problem. The difference was that, historically and in major markets, if you purchased film from a Kodak dealer, most likely that film had been warehoused and shipped by Kodak to that dealer, and that dealer had a vested interest in maintaining its dealer status.

Sadly, that distribution system was only sustainable when volumes were high. Kodak and others now have no control over who is retailing their product.

There certainly were some exceptions - "Imported to USA" film comes to mind - but it was open to the customer to decide whether or not to accept that risk.

The reality is, if you buy film and have it shipped long distances, including accross borders, there is a small but real danger that it will suffer damage on the way.

It doesn't particularly matter what type of film it is, nor does it matter what brand it is.

It may be that a higher speed, T-grain film like TMY is more susceptible to this type of damage then others. Or it may be that it is just a matter of chance that a few unrelated cases of damage happen to have involved the same, highly popular film. or it may be there is a common factor that can be traced down, like a delivery truck break-down on its way to, for example, B & H's warehouse.

I have seen evidence here on APUG of a small number (less than 6?) of unfortunate people who have experienced this problem. There seems to be no consistent similarities between their experiences. There is similar evidence that a large number of people have had no problems with same film. That leads me to conclude that the problem isn't with the film its general distribution, but rather with other not yet identified commonality between the circumstances of those who have experienced those problems.

When I worked in a camera store 50 or so ago, problems would surface, mostly with film processing companies.
One time a local pastor left films to be processed from an overseas trip. When he picked them up, almost every roll had problems. He was livid. We replaced every roll with fresh film but he would have none of that. He wanted us, a dealer, to pay for him to take a trip to where he had been so he could retake the pictures. It seems that while the film was in the chemicals, lightening hit a transformer just outside the building which caused the film to sit in the chemistry for over an hour. The pastor would not consider this an "act of God" which was listed by the lab on its envelopes. We always felt that he was far more content with "cursing the darkness rather than lighting a candle" as the saying goes. Reading these remarks today reminded me of our experience many years ago......Regards!

 

[Ai Print]

How many here are willing to pay for climate controlled shipping? That may be the only way to ensure protection against damage to what is a moderately fragile product.


In this world where the majority of product is shipped huge distances using the cheapest option, there seems to be a wilfull blindness to the fact that film is relatively fragile, and probably should receive a bit more care than is provided by your usual FedEx employee.


There is a thread on rangefinderforum.com where the OP has experienced similar problems with either Portra or Ektar. If you read through the thread, you will see where he/she eventually mentions that the problems occured in film that spent several days in ambient temperatures in Death Valley - considerably hotter than 100F temperatures.

I am willing to pay for it but I really take care of it by maintaining a large stock plus re-filling in the cold months, makes it a safer bet. As far as in the field, I spend time in places like Death Valley in a small solar powered truck camper that has a refer that keeps all my film both refrigerated and frozen depending on type.

I just don't want any problems so I put a high priority on keeping things going in my favor.

 

[railwayman3]

How many here are willing to pay for climate controlled shipping? That may be the only way to ensure protection against damage to what is a moderately fragile product.

In this world where the majority of product is shipped huge distances using the cheapest option, there seems to be a wilfull blindness to the fact that film is relatively fragile, and probably should receive a bit more care than is provided by your usual FedEx employee.

There is a thread on rangefinderforum.com where the OP has experienced similar problems with either Portra or Ektar. If you read through the thread, you will see where he/she eventually mentions that the problems occured in film that spent several days in ambient temperatures in Death Valley - considerably hotter than 100F temperatures.

I feel for someone who ends up with film that has been damaged in transport or storage either at or after it was in the hands of the retailer, but I cannot see how a manufacturer who has no contractual or other relationship with the damaging party can do anything more than:
1) provide clear direction on proper handling; and
2) if it sees fit (as Kodak Alaris apparently has) to supply replacement film to the end user.

There seems to be a perception that film being damaged by environmental factors is a new thing. That just isn't the case. Historically, it was always a potential problem. The difference was that, historically and in major markets, if you purchased film from a Kodak dealer, most likely that film had been warehoused and shipped by Kodak to that dealer, and that dealer had a vested interest in maintaining its dealer status.

Sadly, that distribution system was only sustainable when volumes were high. Kodak and others now have no control over who is retailing their product.

There certainly were some exceptions - "Imported to USA" film comes to mind - but it was open to the customer to decide whether or not to accept that risk.

The reality is, if you buy film and have it shipped long distances, including accross borders, there is a small but real danger that it will suffer damage on the way.

It doesn't particularly matter what type of film it is, nor does it matter what brand it is.

It may be that a higher speed, T-grain film like TMY is more susceptible to this type of damage then others. Or it may be that it is just a matter of chance that a few unrelated cases of damage happen to have involved the same, highly popular film. or it may be there is a common factor that can be traced down, like a delivery truck break-down on its way to, for example, B & H's warehouse.

I have seen evidence here on APUG of a small number (less than 6?) of unfortunate people who have experienced this problem. There seems to be no consistent similarities between their experiences. There is similar evidence that a large number of people have had no problems with same film. That leads me to conclude that the problem isn't with the film its general distribution, but rather with other not yet identified commonality between the circumstances of those who have experienced those problems.

I understand what you are saying. But, as I said above, I've used 120 film since schoolboy days and never had any problem of this type. At that time there was no thought of refrigerating film, films were bought from anywhere...the local pharmacy who kept a selection of them in a sunny shop window, the local Woolworths toy counter, etc., they were left in cameras from one Christmas to another, on the beach in the sun, in the car in case we needed a spare film. We had no idea that they were a "fragile product"

Something must have changed.

 

[bdial]

This thread reminds me that I need to order some Tmax 400.

 

[RattyMouse]

Kodak and others now have no control over who is retailing their product.

False.