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

[Element 6]

I can't speak for Kodak film engineers. But working as an engineer in the Medical industry, product requirements are assessed and prioritized based upon their potential failure effects on people. If the failure does not affect safety, it has lesser priority than those that do. Like I mentioned before, most likely the supplier or Kodak performed an engineering change and due to reduced engineering staff or other factors, did not properly assess the impact. If I had to speculate, a supplier sales guy said it "it was better" and the assessment was taken at face value. I wouldn't think Kodak management knowingly adopted an inferior product to save a penny.

The take away is buyer beware until this formally addressed (if ever) by Kodak.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

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

We're getting WAY off base here! The likely cause of the film problem we've (some of us at least) been talking about here is the drastic reduction in AgX sensitized goods marketplace. There was NO WAY this reduced market could support the old Kodak infrastructure - PERIOD! This meant the downsizing of operations - people and facilities. As a result, many components have been outsourced, with apparently, undesired results.

George Eastman found the need to control supply sources when he was having problems with gelatine that came from cows that had been fed mustard seed. See http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB916612340706719000

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

So what's the bottom line then, Prof?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

So what's the bottom line then, Prof?

The bottom line - if they (Kodak and their supplier) can't resolve the issue, kiss 120 film goodbye.

 

[AgX]

As a result, many components have been outsourced, with apparently, undesired results.

Buying material from other manufacturers would not be a problem as such, as Kodak was unique in their selfsustaining. Other major manufacturers never had all sources on their own and still delivered good products.

The problem likely is not outsourcíng but downsizing. At the suppliers too.

 

[RattyMouse]

The bottom line - if they (Kodak and their supplier) can't resolve the issue, kiss 120 film goodbye.

You mean kiss Kodak 120 film good bye. I have never seen this problem once, not once, with Fujifilm 120 film. They have figured it out.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Enough bickering folks. Let's try to stick to information in this thread.

 

[ME Super]

Hey here's a thought... Develop the film yourself, or ask the lab to return the backing paper to you. Then when the problem shows up again, return the film and banking paper to Kodak at their request. As far ask I know, nobody's actually returned backing paper to Kodak. Then they may be able to get to the bottom of this mystery. Otherwise everyone's just speculating. And that makes as much sense as playing Tiddly Winks with manhole covers.

 

[RattyMouse]

Hey here's a thought... Develop the film yourself, or ask the lab to return the backing paper to you. Then when the problem shows up again, return the film and banking paper to Kodak at their request. As far ask I know, nobody's actually returned backing paper to Kodak. Then they may be able to get to the bottom of this mystery. Otherwise everyone's just speculating. And that makes as much sense as playing Tiddly Winks with manhole covers.

I will be developing my current stash of TMAX400 myself so this time I'll have the paper in hand if the problem re-appears. The last time this happened I had a lab develop the film and only have the damaged negatives, not the paper.

 

[Ai Print]

Hey here's a thought... Develop the film yourself, or ask the lab to return the backing paper to you. Then when the problem shows up again, return the film and banking paper to Kodak at their request. As far ask I know, nobody's actually returned backing paper to Kodak. Then they may be able to get to the bottom of this mystery. Otherwise everyone's just speculating. And that makes as much sense as playing Tiddly Winks with manhole covers.

Agreed on the speculating, doom and gloom posts.

The backing paper, *really* good call sir! I keep my backing paper for a variety of reasons, I'll pull the TMY-2 stuff aside and pair it with the negs, might run a couple rolls tonight.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Al Print,

It would be nice to know if the problem occurs before or after exposure. As I visualize things, the position of a number on a frame should be in slightly different place on a new roll before exposure than it is on the takeup spool after exposure. If you save your backing paper, and see the problem, taping the processed film back on the paper may help figure out if it's a pre exposure or post exposure problem.

 

[AgX]

Good point!

(at least in theory... )

 

[Ai Print]

I just got done running 10 rolls of TMY-2 in 120, all came out flawless. I did notice that the color of the backing paper was different roll to roll, not sure which is the newer style but I attached a photo of them either way. The numbers shown on the paper were the same within the same color ( light grey VS darker grey ).

I'll just keep on using the product and keep an eye out but so far, it's business as usual.

 

[MattKing]

I just got done running 10 rolls of TMY-2 in 120, all came out flawless. I did notice that the color of the backing paper was different roll to roll, not sure which is the newer style but I attached a photo of them either way. The numbers shown on the paper were the same within the same color ( light grey VS darker grey ).

I'll just keep on using the product and keep an eye out but so far, it's business as usual.

Here is the graphic on Kodak's website:

 

[DanielLum]

I like this .. it's the same reason, why I am here

 

[Ai Print]

Here is the graphic on Kodak's website:

Hmmm.....mine are all the older type then, latest expiration date of 4/2016. Just ordered another 100 rolls so I'll see what those look like.

 

[Free-heeler]

Just posted about this on the other thread...

Does anyone have contact info for Kodak Alaris? I can't find anything on their site, and the last social media activity was last year. I have a claim open (as yet unresponded to) on Kodak.com.

I've had this numbers problem on at least three different rolls, all T-Max 400. I have one roll left from a propack that had the problem and the numbers printed on the foil package are: 0149 001, expires 02/2017. Apologies if I'm mucking up the apug etiquette by posting on different boards, classic FNG behavior I know. I'll post more when/if I hear from kodak.

Here's a scan I did this morning:

 

[David Brown]

Does anyone have contact info for Kodak Alaris? I can't find anything on their site, ...

https://www.kodakalaris.com/b2b/landing-page/servicesupportcontacts

 

[Free-heeler]

https://www.kodakalaris.com/b2b/landing-page/servicesupportcontacts

That is for their data storage department. (I know, I know. Let's not get in a philosophy debate about film being a storage medium). I was able to get through with: profilm@kodakalaris.com

 

[Tumbles]

I thought I'd jump on and add to this. This happen to me from a box that I bought from Freestyle in January. I had though it might be moisture, since I shot 4 of the rolls in foggy coastal weather, but then I found the same thing on the roll that I shot in dry weather. I guess the photoshop clone brush is going the only route with these photos.

I mailed custom support, and this is the response I got:

I am very sorry to hear you are having difficulty with our 120 format T-Max 400 film. We have had a limited number of inquiries for similar problems. As of the beginning of this year, we’ve made modifications to the backing paper which we believe should eliminate the potential for this type of imperfection going forward. I will send replacement film spooled with this new paper.

Please let me know the emulsion number of the rolls you had problems with. You will find this information printed on the foil wrap and/or printed between frames 11 &12.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I don't have time to read all 8 web pages on this. So can somebody tell me the bottom line on this Kodak frame number problem? Is it resolved now, or is buying Kodak 120 film a crap shoot from here on in?
Another thing--best as I know, this site is a leading photographic site, and the Kodak company doesn't come on here and say pea turkey.

I agree that somebody from the company should be a PR man/woman here. It just bugs the shlit out of me when companies want my/our business, but could care less about building relationships. Absolutely no reason for not having a "go between" to answer questions and promote their wares. Very bad business practice as far as I'm concerned. Also, I really think Ilford should be looking into finding a knowledgeable person to replace Simon now that he is gone.

 

[Xmas]

I agree that somebody from the company should be a PR man/woman here. It just bugs the shlit out of me when companies want my/our business, but could care less about building relationships. Absolutely no reason for not having a "go between" to answer questions and promote their wares. Very bad business practice as far as I'm concerned. Also, I really think Ilford should be looking into finding a knowledgeable person to replace Simon now that he is gone.

That costs money I only want to buy Ilford film cheaper - I don't care if feathers on web sites are ruffled. So I don't need Simon replaced.

There is a Ilford rep who posts product availability information.

Kodak did report back to RattyMouse indicating the problem was too high storage temperature!

I'm perfectly happy with Foma and Ilford 400 ISO 120. Not bought any Kodak 120 or 220 this decade yet.

 

[JW PHOTO]

That costs money I only want to buy Ilford film cheaper - I don't care if feathers on web sites are ruffled. So I don't need Simon replaced.

There is a Ilford rep who posts product availability information.

Kodak did report back to RattyMouse indicating the problem was too high storage temperature!

I'm perfectly happy with Foma and Ilford 400 ISO 120. Not bought any Kodak 120 or 220 this decade yet.

Xmas,
I understand about being cheap(frugal) since I'm Dutch with a little Jewish thrown in, but I'd be willing to bet that Simon got paid no more for visiting these forums. The way corporations work now all they would do is assign you to occasionally view this or other forums, along with your other duties, and tell you just to be thankful you have a job. Sorry, but I'm sure they already PR person, just that he or she is not touching base here. It's called "part of the job"!

 

[Xmas]

Xmas,
I understand about being cheap(frugal) since I'm Dutch with a little Jewish thrown in, but I'd be willing to bet that Simon got paid no more for visiting these forums. The way corporations work now all they would do is assign you to occasionally view this or other forums, along with your other duties, and tell you just to be thankful you have a job. Sorry, but I'm sure they already PR person, just that he or she is not touching base here. It's called "part of the job"!

Simon was a director answerable to the board/owners.
We are a small % of the film user base.
The new directors do not see the need - clearly. Beyond a product announcement and dialogue on ULF options, the last - that Simon had ignored.
Kodak don't see the need.
Foma don't manage much.
Ferrani do intermittently.
Adox do intermittently.
The last company I worked with want progress reports for what I did in unattributed time, answer R&D.
It is a new company, not the same Ilford.
They need to be more efficient not waste time.

 

[Hatchetman]

APUG is a great a free way for companies to gauge customer interest, likes, dislikes....generate ideas, etc. It is foolish not to check in once in a while to see what your film customers are up to and talking about.