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

[georg16nik]

The flickr photo (https://www.flickr.com/photos/fortgens/23983342495), which Huub referred to in post #140, says “Taken sometime in 2004”, so not related with the recent paper facelift and most likely due severe storage abnormalities.

 

[RattyMouse]

August of this year, again on Kodak TMAX400.

http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00dSDK


In the tread from this post you can read in one reply, "FWIW, this also just happened to me, also with Kodak Tmax 400".

 

[markbarendt]

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.

Was your problem reported formally to Kodak, or your lab, or the retailer you bought the film from with examples/scans showing the problem, info about where and when you bought the film, how it was shipped to you, how it was stored, and did you request replacement?

 

[RattyMouse]

Was your problem reported formally to Kodak, or your lab, or the retailer you bought the film from with examples/scans showing the problem, info about where and when you bought the film, how it was shipped to you, how it was stored, and did you request replacement?

Nope, as I was days away from making the 8,000 mile move back to the US. My final rolls of film shot in China (after living there 6 years) were caught up in this problem. I shot the film, mailed it away, got it back, and then moved back to the US within days. I had a lot more important things on my mind at the time than Kodak's film quality. I'm just sorry that my very last walk through Shanghai was caught up in this mess. Very bad timing for me.

 

[markbarendt]

Very bad timing for me.

That it is.

My point though is that Kodak doesn't know that you Mr. RattyMouse, had a problem.

How many others are in that same boat with you?

 

[darkosaric]

That it is.

My point though is that Kodak doesn't know that you Mr. RattyMouse, had a problem.

How many others are in that same boat with you?

If Kodak is more active (like Ilford or Adox) on APUG and other forums / social media - then Kodak would know about it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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!

...

Hello all, I am not so long ago in progress with analogue photography and I am still quite in the test phase . I now have a last week 120 film to develop and the negatives scanned at home. Now include the first three photos figures and the word Kodak. I assume that this is not by my photography is :. Does anyone have any idea what has caused this? (i have the photo as adapted in photoshop that the letters and figures are clearly displayed).

 

[AgX]

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 ?

No:

Same issue here in Switzerland with T-max 100 (five rolls affected out of the same box)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nope, as I was days away from making the 8,000 mile move back to the US. My final rolls of film shot in China (after living there 6 years) were caught up in this problem. I shot the film, mailed it away, got it back, and then moved back to the US within days. I had a lot more important things on my mind at the time than Kodak's film quality. I'm just sorry that my very last walk through Shanghai was caught up in this mess. Very bad timing for me.

So it could have happened while it was in the mail to the photo finisher, right? So the only thing you can do, besides stewing in your own juices, is to contact Kodak and ask them if sending in a scan is good enough or should you send in the negatives.

 

[Huub]

No:The flickr photo (https://www.flickr.com/photos/fortgens/23983342495), which Huub referred to in post #140, says “Taken sometime in 2004”, so not related with the recent paper facelift and most likely due severe storage abnormalities.

It was posted the day before yesterday, with the text that the film was acquired recently, processed by a commercial lab and good until 2018. So not from 2004 and definitely related to the current problems.

 

[RattyMouse]

So it could have happened while it was in the mail to the photo finisher, right? So the only thing you can do, besides stewing in your own juices, is to contact Kodak and ask them if sending in a scan is good enough or should you send in the negatives.

Technically, anything can happen once the film is out of my hands.

In Shanghai, it costs all of $2 for same day courier delivery. I shipped the film in the morning and it was in the lab's hands by 4pm that day.

I'll let you speculate on how probable it was that the problem developed during the 7 hours the film was in transit.

 

[georg16nik]

It was posted the day before yesterday, with the text that the film was acquired recently, processed by a commercial lab and good until 2018. So not from 2004 and definitely related to the current problems.

So, he mistyped the year.

 

[markbarendt]

If Kodak is more active (like Ilford or Adox) on APUG and other forums / social media - then Kodak would know about it.

I agree that Kodak could benefit from participating more here but expecting them to read every thread that contains the word Kodak is a bit of a stretch. IMO you are over estimating the importance of APUG in the world. Sure it's important to us but the list of active participants isn't that big.

Simon's response to each thread where a problem was mentioned was simple, essentially he would say; send us the evidence so we can figure this out. Why would we expect Kodak or Fuji or Adox or Ilford to act on anything less?

Since the recent sale of Ilford, Simon's/Ilford's voice has disappeared too. So Kodak isn't alone.

As consumers if we want relief from a problem we need to formally complain and send proof to Kodak or whomever so that they can address the problem.

 

[Hatchetman]

I would expect Kodak film to withstand the heat of the Sahara or the Amazon jungle. You think film shouldn't withstand 150 degrees in a hot rental car parked at Disney World in July?

Probably some moron figured out a way to save a few pennies in reformulation or quality control.

This whole situation is very bothersome to someone who WANTS to support Kodak through their pocketbook!

 

[AgX]

In their currrent sheet on film storage (publication E-30) Kodak sets 21°C as maximum storage temperature, and advises not to leave film in a car parked in the sun.

 

[AgX]

We should not forget that a kind of brain-drain has taken place in the whole industry, and those knowledegable who remain likely have no convincing power at those who make decisions.

 

[markbarendt]

I would expect Kodak film to withstand the heat of the Sahara or the Amazon jungle.

Sure I'd expect to be able to use it there but with reasonable precautions. Many things go bad when subjected to conditions outside the norm. I might need a bit more shade and water than normal for myself for example to survive a 120 degree day. I say this from experience, not in the Sahara but in heavy industry working in 120 degree plus environs and when shooting in places like Death Valley and Phoenix in the summer.

Working at 30 to 40 below zero in Colorado and Nevada provides another whole set of problems with even steel getting fragile.

You think film shouldn't withstand 150 degrees in a hot rental car parked at Disney World in July?

No, I don't expect any makers film to survive stupidity. RTFM and take proper precautions or suffer the consequences.

Probably some moron figured out a way to save a few pennies in reformulation or quality control.

This whole situation is very bothersome to someone who WANTS to support Kodak through their pocketbook!

If people formally complain by asking for relief and returning product I have no doubt that Kodak will fix the problem.

 

[JW PHOTO]

We should not forget that a kind of brain-drain has taken place in the whole industry, and those knowledegable who remain likely have no convincing power at those who make decisions.

EXACTLY!

 

[removed account4]

RM:

i'd just sell the film at a loss on eBay
let the sell-page say the film has a chance
of being defective, showing numbers on the film because
of some sort of defect maybe heat during innitial transport to you overseas
maybe it is from bad ink, maybe excessive heat, maybe there is no defect ...
then take your $$ and start over.
it stinks that you got bad film, others too,
not only because kodak film costs a fortune
but because you used it in good faith thinking it was fine
to make photographs with it ... ( time, effort, "stuff", "scenes" /moments that don't exist anymore )
maybe whoever buys it ( or you ) can do a project where he/she ( you )
incorporate the numbers into the print as part of the image ...

hope whatever film you buy here in the states doesn't have the same problems !

happy new year -
john

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

We should not forget that a kind of brain-drain has taken place in the whole industry, and those knowledegable who remain likely have no convincing power at those who make decisions.

Sadly, I think this is correct. Does anyone remember the space shuttle breakup after management opted to launch despite warnings from technicians and scientists? What about automobile recalls years after management was warned by their techs and designers... costing many lost lives. Embarrassingly, this is the norm in the USA. This is caused by corporate and individual greed, without significant corporate and individual penalties for intentional failures. Okay... off my soapbox now.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Sadly, I think this is correct. Does anyone remember the space shuttle breakup after management opted to launch despite warnings from technicians and scientists? What about automobile recalls years after management was warned by their techs and designers... costing many lost lives. Embarrassingly, this is the norm in the USA. This is caused by corporate and individual greed, without significant corporate and individual penalties for intentional failures. Okay... off my soapbox now.

Summed it up very well. In a capitalistic society greed is what makes it go! In a socialistic society greed is what kills it. In the USA if you are a CEO and screw-up, but make the company profit you then get a big bonus. In a communist country if you are in control of manufacturing and you screw-up you lose your head. I would at least like to see the penalty for screwing-up somewhere in between.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Does anyone remember the space shuttle breakup after management opted to launch despite warnings from technicians and scientists?

Every clueless management type who believes that companies can be successfully run only by the results of repeated spreadsheet Recalc button clicks needs to have the name Roger Boisjoly burned into their brains with a red hot iron...

Ken

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Every clueless management type who believes that companies can be successfully run only by the results of repeated spreadsheet Recalc button clicks needs to have the name Roger Boisjoly burned into their brains with a red hot iron...

Ken

RIGHT!!

 

[Element 6]

I don't think the Space Shuttle issue should be compared to the Kodak issue. People died due to bad decisions. Kodak bad decisions do not result in death.

I am not sure what kind of risk assessment (if any) Kodak performed for their photographic film products. Must likely Kodak or a supplier requested an engineering change and the change was not adequately assessed for potential impact. Unfortunately, you can't really do a recall on exposed film. So it's buyer beware until the issue is formally addressed by Kodak. Critical images with the damage may be able to salvaged using"alternative" processes.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The comparison isn't "life and death" corporate decisions, but rather "product failure" corporate decisions based on politics and/or greed and/or incompetence.