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

mooseontheloose · Dec 27, 2015

MattKing said:
FWIW, I've used every Google trick I know to see what I could locate on the internet respecting this problem. I have found very few complaints of it - essentially just the ones here on APUG plus the one involving Death Valley on rangefinder.com that I referred to above.

There is, of course, nothing particularly scientific about this, not least because very few people use a common description of it - "wrapper offset" just isn't that common a phrase, and if you search on "numbers" it won't help a lot.

That tells me that the problem is far from widespread.

This problem also appeared on Facebook within the last couple of months, but for the life of me I can't find the original post. I think the person was based in Europe (UK?) somewhere.

Worldwide, people have been experiencing this exact same problem, a problem that hasn't occurred before in the history of this particular film (I think). The problem may not be widespread, but it is there. I don't use Tmax but the randomness of this problem has me worried about whether this will affect their other products as well. Which means I'll probably switch over completely to Ilford or other film companies, since its not worth the risk. That said, I like Kodak products and hope they find a way to resolve this issue (publicly) to reassure their consumers that not only will this film, but all of their films, will work as expected without any of these issues.

Marco Buonocore · Dec 27, 2015

I just wanted to chime in and say that I have seen the exact same problem on a colleague's roll of TMAX 400 recently. It was newly purchased film. It had to be scanned, retouched, and printed digitally. Beautiful work as well. In speaking with them, the film was not handled in any way out of the ordinary.

I know they're not on APUG. I think it's sometimes easy for us to forget that there are plenty of film users and photographers who do not participate on the forums. I suspect this problem is bigger than just 5 or 6 people, that's for sure.

Prof_Pixel · Dec 27, 2015

Marco Buonocore said:
It was newly purchased film.

But nobody knows the film's history BEFORE it reached him.

Sirius Glass · Dec 27, 2015

Prof_Pixel said:
But nobody knows the film's history BEFORE it reached him.

That is the question. What happened from the time the film left Kodak's control until it was purchased? Was it refrigerated the whole time? Did it sit in a hot warehouse? Did it sits in a hot truck?

Marco Buonocore · Dec 27, 2015

Prof_Pixel said:
But nobody knows the film's history BEFORE it reached him.

I see where you're going with this line of questioning; I get it. But has this been a problem in the past? Not for me, and I've shot thousands of rolls of Kodak 120 film. I've never particularly worried about the "film's history" before, not once. Black and white film has - in my lifetime - been hard to screw up. You've had to do something quite wrong in order to get a null and void negative.

These negatives with the numbers coming through, they're null and void. Useless for the most part. The fact that this problem coincides with the change in paper backing is a pretty strong coincidence. In the past I have bought large quantities of film in one go, and shoot my way through it - I don't see myself doing that now, that's for sure.

Sirius Glass · Dec 27, 2015

Marco Buonocore said:
I see where you're going with this line of questioning; I get it. But has this been a problem in the past? Not for me, and I've shot thousands of rolls of Kodak 120 film. I've never particularly worried about the "film's history" before, not once. Black and white film has - in my lifetime - been hard to screw up. You've had to do something quite wrong in order to get a null and void negative.

These negatives with the numbers coming through, they're null and void. Useless for the most part. The fact that this problem coincides with the change in paper backing is a pretty strong coincidence. In the past I have bought large quantities of film in one go, and shoot my way through it - I don't see myself doing that now, that's for sure.

There is no coincidence with the changing of the paper. It occurred years a go when film or the camera was left in a hot car for a long period of time. It can and will happen to any paper wrapped film if the film is mishandled.

Sal Santamaura · Dec 27, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
...What happened from the time the film left Kodak's control until it was purchased? Was it refrigerated the whole time?...

It's been a loooooong time since yellow refrigerated Kodak trucks delivered film to dealers. Ain't nobody doing that today. Nor is it necessary.

The emotional reactions in this thread are pretty amazing. I have no evidence, but follow the troubleshooting guideline of asking "when a problem suddenly arises, what changed?" In this case, I'd wager revised backing paper is the root cause. Ilford suffered the same issue, probably purchasing from the same paper supplier. However, we'll probably not know until Kodak puts out another release showing its "new, new backing paper."

I'm a big fan of vertical integration. The era when Kodak could operate that way ended many moons ago. When one outsources, one is subject to unanticipated problems and has great difficulty correcting them. Since Kodak Alaris stills sells Eastman Kodak sheet film made entirely on Bldg. 38's coating line (no backing paper involved), this seems like a good time for TMY-2 lovers to move up to 4x5.

Old-N-Feeble · Dec 27, 2015

Gee whiz... this makes me want to order a year's supply if film in the early springtime so the warehouses are emptied of film that could have been delivered there in hot trucks... plus the film can't be terribly overheated on its way from the warehouse to me.

MattKing · Dec 27, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
There is no coincidence with the changing of the paper. It occurred years a go when film or the camera was left in a hot car for a long period of time. It can and will happen to any paper wrapped film if the film is mishandled.

Not just paper wrapped film.

MattKing · Dec 28, 2015

Marco Buonocore said:
I just wanted to chime in and say that I have seen the exact same problem on a colleague's roll of TMAX 400 recently. It was newly purchased film. It had to be scanned, retouched, and printed digitally. Beautiful work as well. In speaking with them, the film was not handled in any way out of the ordinary.

I know they're not on APUG. I think it's sometimes easy for us to forget that there are plenty of film users and photographers who do not participate on the forums. I suspect this problem is bigger than just 5 or 6 people, that's for sure.

I hope your colleague shared the details of his experience with both the retailer and Kodak Alaris. If there is a commonality between the occurrences, it is really important that some data gathering takes place.

I know very well that there is a wide world out there outside of APUG. Thus my attempts to search the internet for more occurrences. If the cause of the problem is something common to all recent batches of film - the new backing paper - it surprises me that I haven't had more success in finding more internet complaints about it.

Sirius Glass · Dec 28, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
There is no coincidence with the changing of the paper. It occurred years a go when film or the camera was left in a hot car for a long period of time. It can and will happen to any paper wrapped film if the film is mishandled.

MattKing said:
Not just paper wrapped film.

Oh, I thought that the number print through was on paper wrapped [paper backed] film. Where did the numbers come from to print through on the non-paper backed film? I am so confused. :confused:

MattKing · Dec 28, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
Oh, I thought that the number print through was on paper wrapped [paper backed] film. Where did the numbers come from to print through on the non-paper backed film? I am so confused. :confused:

I think I misunderstood what you meant by "it".

I was referring to heat related film damage in general - not just the subset which is wrapper offset.

AgX · Dec 28, 2015

RattyMouse said:
MattKing said:

It would be illegal (anti-competition legislation) for Kodak to exercise control over who is entitled to retail the product.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. Apple does this all the time. So does Canon, Nikon, and virtually every other electronic company. They have authorized retailers. It's not anti competitive at all. Instead, it insures product quality as well as some degree of price control.

Matt is correct to some degree. As national laws on sales have their impact too. Having authorized dealers and punishing dealers who use other sources is something different.

RattyMouse · Dec 28, 2015

Marco Buonocore said:
I see where you're going with this line of questioning; I get it. But has this been a problem in the past? Not for me, and I've shot thousands of rolls of Kodak 120 film. I've never particularly worried about the "film's history" before, not once. Black and white film has - in my lifetime - been hard to screw up. You've had to do something quite wrong in order to get a null and void negative.

These negatives with the numbers coming through, they're null and void. Useless for the most part. The fact that this problem coincides with the change in paper backing is a pretty strong coincidence. In the past I have bought large quantities of film in one go, and shoot my way through it - I don't see myself doing that now, that's for sure.

Exactly. We never had to worry about Kodak and their paper in the past. Now we do. We cannot trust Kodak film because their product cannot survive once released out into the world. That wasnt true in the past, but it is true today. Kodak film is now a gamble. A gamble I wont be taking.

Huub · Dec 28, 2015

Here is an another example of the same issue, taken from the Dutch analogue forum. Even though it is written in Dutch, the link to the flickr account shows the issue clear enough.

Hallo allemaal,

Ik ben nog niet zo lang geleden bezig met analoge fotografie en ik zit nog behoorlijk in de testfase . Nu heb ik vorige week een 120 rolletje laten ontwikkelen en de negatieven thuis gescand. Nu bevatten de eerste drie foto´s cijfers en het woord KODAK. Ik neem aan dat dit niet door mijn fotografie komt :. Heeft iemand enig idee wat dit heeft veroorzaakt? (Ik heb de foto zo aangepast in photoshop dat de letters en cijfers duidelijk te zien zijn). https://www.flickr.com/photos/fortgens/23983342495

Bedankt!

darkosaric · Dec 28, 2015

RattyMouse said:
Exactly. We never had to worry about Kodak and their paper in the past. Now we do. We cannot trust Kodak film because their product cannot survive once released out into the world. That wasnt true in the past, but it is true today. Kodak film is now a gamble. A gamble I wont be taking.

Yep. Ilford is the right way to go.

Xmas · Dec 28, 2015

RattyMouse said:
Exactly. We never had to worry about Kodak and their paper in the past. Now we do. We cannot trust Kodak film because their product cannot survive once released out into the world. That wasnt true in the past, but it is true today. Kodak film is now a gamble. A gamble I wont be taking.

To remind others Kodak have told your their diagnostics (ie over temperature between manufacture and develop) so they can recall etc.

But if you have a stache of the new pattern paper you need to develop and proof a film and if bad return the lot.

Most film pros used to buy in bulk and test. A reshoot is so embarrassing.

I bought a brick of ten and tested one before a shoot

Nothing has changed except I never got a bad sample from Kodak until post 2010.

JW PHOTO · Dec 28, 2015

darkosaric said:
Yep. Ilford is the right way to go.

I bet Ilford shareholders are smiling about this right now. All this talk about switching to Ilford has to make them happy. Hey, I just figured out what and where the problem came from! It's corporate sabotage! Ilford planted a mole in Kodak's plant on the 120 film line to print numbers on several random batches of 120 film.....................? Seriously, like I said before, Kodak already knows where the problem is. They're just trying to figure out the cheapest way to solve it. It makes it a little harder when you are not making your own backing paper anymore and have to deal with a second party on this issue. I do know there has to be a lot of "gun shy" folks out there like RattyMouse who are not going to touch any Kodak film for sometime. Not just TMY400 either! This, along with Kodaks very strange pricing, might not be good for the company, but it could be a nice wakeup call.

canuhead · Dec 28, 2015

Have shot hundreds of rolls of 400 TX in past year, give or take and all with white backing, and have not had this issue at all. So I guess this problem is specific to Tmax 400 then ?

JW PHOTO · Dec 28, 2015

Xmas said:
To remind others Kodak have told your their diagnostics (ie over temperature between manufacture and develop) so they can recall etc.

But if you have a stache of the new pattern paper you need to develop and proof a film and if bad return the lot.

Most film pros used to buy in bulk and test. A reshoot is so embarrassing.

I bought a brick of ten and tested one before a shoot

Nothing has changed except I never got a bad sample from Kodak until post 2010.

What you say would hold true if there is no time factor involved. If the trouble is with the ink dye itself your theory probably won't work. If the dye is emitting gases that cause a reaction with the emulsion it might not be instantaneous. You could buy 100 rolls, test one and think you're home safe. Only to find out months down the line that now your remaining stock is junk. That is what was believed to have been happening with the Chinese Shanghai GP3 120 film.

darkosaric · Dec 28, 2015

JW PHOTO said:
I bet Ilford shareholders are smiling about this right now. All this talk about switching to Ilford has to make them happy. Hey, I just figured out what and where the problem came from! It's corporate sabotage! Ilford planted a mole in Kodak's plant

This reminds me of Nokia: when Nokia started to go down (in rise of android phones and iPhone) - what they did? They got CEO from Microsoft who forbid to install android on Nokia phones. Then Nokia went down completely and was purchased by Microsoft for peanuts.

But to go back on the subject: I would rather support healthy awesome company like Ilford or Foma (who produces also B&W papers) then dying company that was once big and important. I don't use Nokia phone any more.

RattyMouse · Dec 28, 2015

Huub said:
Here is an another example of the same issue, taken from the Dutch analogue forum. Even though it is written in Dutch, the link to the flickr account shows the issue clear enough.

Hallo allemaal,

Ik ben nog niet zo lang geleden bezig met analoge fotografie en ik zit nog behoorlijk in de testfase . Nu heb ik vorige week een 120 rolletje laten ontwikkelen en de negatieven thuis gescand. Nu bevatten de eerste drie foto´s cijfers en het woord KODAK. Ik neem aan dat dit niet door mijn fotografie komt :. Heeft iemand enig idee wat dit heeft veroorzaakt? (Ik heb de foto zo aangepast in photoshop dat de letters en cijfers duidelijk te zien zijn). https://www.flickr.com/photos/fortgens/23983342495

Bedankt!

Sure seems like Kodak has a major problem here.

As we can continually see from this thread, people are no longer trusting Kodak quality.

RattyMouse · Dec 28, 2015

canuhead said:
Have shot hundreds of rolls of 400 TX in past year, give or take and all with white backing, and have not had this issue at all. So I guess this problem is specific to Tmax 400 then ?

I have not heard anyone claim a problem with Tri-X so hopefully you will be OK with your future film use.

markbarendt · Dec 28, 2015

RattyMouse said:
Sure seems like Kodak has a major problem here.

As we can continually see from this thread, people are no longer trusting Kodak quality.

Have you sent your problem film back to Kodak?

RattyMouse · Dec 28, 2015

markbarendt said:
Have you sent your problem film back to Kodak?

My problem film occurred back when I was in China. My dark room was shut down and so the film was processed by an outside lab. I had no paper from this film so nothing to send to Kodak.

I'n not sending my negatives to Kodak.

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

mooseontheloose

Marco Buonocore

Prof_Pixel

Sirius Glass

Marco Buonocore

Sirius Glass

Sal Santamaura

Old-N-Feeble

MattKing

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

Sirius Glass

MattKing

Moderator

AgX

RattyMouse

Huub

darkosaric

Xmas

JW PHOTO

canuhead

JW PHOTO

darkosaric

RattyMouse

RattyMouse

markbarendt

RattyMouse

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

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency