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

Element 6

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
44
Location
Washington, USA
Format
35mm
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

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
1,917
Location
Penfield, NY
Format
35mm
Old-N-Feeble said:
The comparison isn't "life and death" corporate decisions, but rather "product failure" corporate decisions based on politics and/or greed and/or incompetence.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,805
Location
South Texas
Format
Multi Format
So what's the bottom line then, Prof?
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Prof_Pixel said:
As a result, many components have been outsourced, with apparently, undesired results.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
Prof_Pixel said:
The bottom line - if they (Kodak and their supplier) can't resolve the issue, kiss 120 film goodbye.
Click to expand...

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
Enough bickering folks. Let's try to stick to information in this thread.
 

ME Super

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
1,479
Location
Central Illinois, USA
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RattyMouse

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format

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

Subscriber
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
1,292
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format

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

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
1,917
Location
Penfield, NY
Format
35mm
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

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Good point!

(at least in theory... )
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ai Print

Subscriber
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
1,292
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

Attachments

  • B_Paper.jpg
    540.6 KB · Views: 181

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,966
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

Here is the graphic on Kodak's website:
 

Free-heeler

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
4
Location
San Francisco
Format
Medium Format
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:
 

Tumbles

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2016
Messages
119
Location
SF Bay Area
Format
Med. Format RF
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:
 

JW PHOTO

Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,148
Location
Lake, Michig
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
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

Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,148
Location
Lake, Michig
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF

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

Member
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
1,553
Location
Chicago, IL
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…