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

[RattyMouse]

I understand what you are saying. But, as I said above, I've used 120 film since schoolboy days and never had any problem of this type. At that time there was no thought of refrigerating film, films were bought from anywhere...the local pharmacy who kept a selection of them in a sunny shop window, the local Woolworths toy counter, etc., they were left in cameras from one Christmas to another, on the beach in the sun, in the car in case we needed a spare film. We had no idea that they were a "fragile product"

Something must have changed.

I dont see any threads on Fujifilm 120 rolls of film having problems. All that film comes from Japan to the US.

Apparently quality still means something in Japan.

I have shot close to 350 rolls of Fujifilm Acros film the past 4 years. Not one roll of film had this issue.

 

[HJK]

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

 

[markbarendt]

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

Welcome to APUG.

Did you return the product?

Did you get new film or ... ?

 

[HJK]

I will try to return the films next week and get new ones from Kodak Switzerland. Just recognized the issue this week.

 

[markbarendt]

I will try to return the films next week and get new ones from Kodak Switzerland. Just recognized the issue this week.

Let us know what they say.

 

[markbarendt]

As I understand it from some of Simon Galley's posts, the answer is there is just one left.

My thought is that it is "just paper". This isn't a high tech hard to make product. Kodak and Ilford and Fuji all know what it takes to make it.

 

[JW PHOTO]

My thought is that it is "just paper". This isn't a high tech hard to make product. Kodak and Ilford and Fuji all know what it takes to make it.

I think I remember Simon(Ilford) saying the paper backing was a very expensive part of the 120 film product. True or not I don't know, but if you have a fine product like TMY2 why would you even think about cutting a corner on the backing paper. It's not like Kodak film is selling far cheaper than its competitors. In fact it's the other way around. Also, if you know that's the problem why would you drag your knuckles on fixing the damn problem. I'd think you'd want to at least try and keep your customers happy. Other consumer product can be replaced with no harm done. Film images just can't be replaced. We'll see how long this takes to resolve. John W

 

[georg16nik]

My thought is that it is "just paper". This isn't a high tech hard to make product. Kodak and Ilford and Fuji all know what it takes to make it.

The UV friendly "just paper"....
Post #123 from (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I put some diffrient edition of back papers under utraviolet light
I found that the new Kodak Tmax400 has Fluorescent agents
Have a look of the picture,I doubt if this cause the problem.....

...
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmsIndex.jhtml

We’ve changed the look of our 120 roll film backing paper graphics. See before and after pictures below. This change will have no impact on product performance.

 

[markbarendt]

Also, if you know that's the problem why would you drag your knuckles on fixing the damn problem.

You wouldn't, I don't believe Kodak would either.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

My thought is that it is "just paper". This isn't a high tech hard to make product. Kodak and Ilford and Fuji all know what it takes to make it.

It's my understanding that backing paper is far from being 'just paper'. As manufactured at Kodak, it WAS a high tech product that involved multiple passes on a paper machine (which no longer exists) to get the desired properties

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

Welcome to APUG

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

This merits repeating.

"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."

 

[JW PHOTO]

This merits repeating.

"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."

Sirius,
I usually agree with you on most topics, but not this one. I'd be willing to put a ten spot down that says it's product related and not distribution related. Yes, distribution might play a factor in the bleed problem, but it's not the source of the problem. If distribution were the cause of this why hasn't this problem shown up years back. Kodak has been making TMY 400, TMX 100 and Portra 400 for years now and this is the first I've heard of the numbers bleed/transfer. My ten spot is on the backing paper. We may never know for sure as I think Kodak will keep what they find hush-hush, but watch for a change in the paper or numbers. It might just be that UV glow that's posted above? John W

P.S. We're only seeing a few folks here on this forum that have the problem, but how many have it that don't frequent this forum?

 

[Sirius Glass]

While I considered your ten spot proposal, I have not had problems with spots on my negatives or prints and I am not about to get one spot much less ten of them. Please keep the spots to yourself.

 

[markbarendt]

It's my understanding that backing paper is far from being 'just paper'. As manufactured at Kodak, it WAS a high tech product that involved multiple passes on a paper machine (which no longer exists) to get the desired properties

I have no doubt that the process for making the backing paper became more modern over the years but...

120 is a popular film format for still photography introduced by Kodak for their Brownie No. 2 in 1901. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film

If they could mass produce a good and reliable backing in 1901, it stands to reason that it would not be that tough today.

Here are a few companies that might want Kodak's or Ilford's business, I'd bet there are more.

http://onyxpapers.com/services/

http://voith.com/en/markets-industries/industries/paper/paper-grades/specialty-papers--12788.html

http://mpm.com/products-and-capabilities/custom/

 

[Ai Print]

I don't think it is really fair to say that Kodak is either hiding their findings or not working on the problem just because they have not publicly acknowledged it yet. Most companies have very set strategies when it comes to this and given how important a product like Tmax 400 is to the film using photo world, you can bet they are taking any and all reported issues seriously.

Also, there are pretty good reasons that there may be more cases of this than is being reported here. Not everyone lives for or on internet forums and some are like me, would rather deal directly with Kodak in their partnership with them so that they can fix the problem quickly with a minimum of PR damage control. I tend to not want to throw companies I depend on under the ruthless photo enthusiast forum bus.

 

[DWThomas]

I have no doubt that the process for making the backing paper became more modern over the years but...



If they could mass produce a good and reliable backing in 1901, it stands to reason that it would not be that tough today.

Here are a few companies that might want Kodak's or Ilford's business, I'd bet there are more.

http://onyxpapers.com/services/

http://voith.com/en/markets-industries/industries/paper/paper-grades/specialty-papers--12788.html

http://mpm.com/products-and-capabilities/custom/

Some good points there. But we also need to consider many of today's films are faster and cover a broader spectral range than in 1901. Then we also don't appear to know yet 100% whether the problem is from light or chemicals. I still find myself wondering if the problem is really the paper itself, or more likely the final overprinting of the numbers, etc. on the paper. There have been a lot of changes in printing inks since 1901 -- probably just since circa 1980 or so in response to environmental concerns.

One might think it wouldn't be too challenging to come up with a series of tests pressing film against the printed paper with varying pressures, temperatures, and humidity levels -- and time periods. Such tests would ideally happen periodically, especially on creation of a new batch of paper. (Of course, for all we know, the manufacturers may do that.)

It might be interesting, when the problem appears, to grab unexposed rolls from the same package (where possible) and prior to going through a camera unroll one and look at the emulsion under a microscope under angled light to reflect from the surface. One could also shoot some at a gray background and develop it, etc., etc. (Likely this is an argument for buying same batch quantities and do-it-yourself testing.)

Since My Faire Spouse will be retired this coming year, I'm contemplating several semi-major trips, assuming for at least one I'll take a TLR loaded with ISO 400 film. (On more leisurely automobile travels I lean toward the Bronica and a tripod with ISO 100 stuff.) I've so far not seen a problem with 400TX, but the rolls I have, were in hand for a year or two -- I'm thinking that backing paper is also different from further back. This whole discussion doesn't make me feel as good as I would wish! But then we seem to thrive on FUD lately. I had been contemplating some comparisons between several such films, including the one under current discussion before my next purchase. I've not stocked up on film for the trip(s) yet, so I guess I will wait another month or two for more data (as well as shoot a few of the rolls I have).

Maybe a low level of complaining could also be acceptance of "the Holga mystique!" Scary! :munch:

 

[AgX]

It might just be that UV glow that's posted above?

I argued on this matter above (see posts #17 to #25)

 

[MattKing]

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.

There is some combination of relatively rare circumstances that leads to this. Those circumstances may include the recently revised backing paper, or it may be that use of the new backing paper coincides with some other change like a new re-seller with storage issues that has come into the market - i.e. it is simply a coincidence that muddies the water.

As to whether Kodak controls who retails the product, most of the small retailers aren't buying from the main distributor, but rather from third party middle-men, who have much lower minimum volume requirements. It would be illegal (anti-competition legislation) for Kodak to exercise control over who is entitled to retail the product.

The "UV glow" referred to above? I don't see how it could be a direct cause, as the paper blocks UV light, but it certainly reveals that there are significant differences in the makeup of the inks.

 

[Sirius Glass]

May be the OP should just stop storing his cameras and film in the glove box.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

That tells me that the problem is far from widespread.

There is some combination of relatively rare circumstances that leads to this.

... and that makes it the most difficult of problem types to solve - the intermittent problem.

 

[RattyMouse]

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

Welcome to APUG. Sorry to hear about your problem. I was hit with it too, having lost 5 rolls of images using TMAX 400. We have confirmed problems in the US, Asia, and Europe. More people are hesitating to use Kodak film due to their increasing quality issues.

 

[RattyMouse]

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

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.

 

[RattyMouse]

May be the OP should just stop storing his cameras and film in the glove box.

Yeah, that's a serious comment. Not.

 

[JW PHOTO]

May be the OP should just stop storing his cameras and film in the glove box.

Yes, the glove box is a bad place, but the microwave is much better! If I had some new TMY2 on hand, which I don't and won't for a while, I'd run those test just to see if I could duplicate the problem.