I got hundreds of sample film-artefacts collected by two major manufacturers. Ranging over decades.
Not one sample shows such "wrapper offset"
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 Films bought from a variety of sources, some outdated, others long before fridge storage was thought of.
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.
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.
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."
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."
This severely limits their corrective action choices.
Another completely different session of mine with T-MAX 400 film
Is there but one source of paper in the world?
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.
Yes This happens to other film makers. The difference with Kodak is the frequency of reports of problems. Much much more frequent.
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.
Now it looks like I'm stuck with Ilford.
How?
Is there but one source of paper in the world?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kodak and others now have no control over who is retailing their product.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?