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

[BetterSense]

I'm willing to go back to TMY after they post which batch numbers, or emulsion numbers, or at least expiration dates that have the new/improved paper. Then, I'm not exactly sure how to know which batch/emulsion numbers I will be getting if I buy film from a big online retailer...maybe Freestyle or other small outfits will be willing to check or label the film. Really, it sounds like Kodak should be doing a recall here if they know there was a problem. I.e. send us your film from batches XYZ and we will replace with new film. Pull back batches of film from retailers if possible etc. etc.

Until I get more info from Kodak on the batch numbers or expiration dates I will have to switch to HP5 (not a true replacement) or Delta 400.

 

[MattKing]

Simon was a director answerable to the board/owners.

Simon was a director and one of the owners who bought the assets out of receivership.

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

Kodak Alaris reported the same to me, after I communicated to them about the threads here on APUG. And most likely that that is accurate - because wrapper offset is not a new problem, and it frequently occurs when film is exposed to too high temperatures. Most likely, the problem with the "new"ish backing paper is that while it passed all of the normal quality control checks, it turned out to unexpectedly have been more susceptible to wrapper offset under certain outside of the recommended conditions. Conditions that historically would have been more rare, because the distribution channels for film were much more likely to be temperature controlled and prompt.
So Kodak Alaris responded by causing changes to be made to the backing paper - they reduced the usability of the paper (numbers are harder to see - just like Ilford) in order to make it even less susceptible to wrapper offset.
Historically, they probably would have had the in-house resources to re-design the paper to deal with the problem without decreasing its usability. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

 

[MattKing]

I'm willing to go back to TMY after they post which batch numbers, or emulsion numbers, or at least expiration dates that have the new/improved paper. Then, I'm not exactly sure how to know which batch/emulsion numbers I will be getting if I buy film from a big online retailer...maybe Freestyle or other small outfits will be willing to check or label the film. Really, it sounds like Kodak should be doing a recall here if they know there was a problem. I.e. send us your film from batches XYZ and we will replace with new film. Pull back batches of film from retailers if possible etc. etc.

Until I get more info from Kodak on the batch numbers or expiration dates I will have to switch to HP5 (not a true replacement) or Delta 400.

I've been advised by someone else who has been advised by Thomas Mooney of Kodak Alaris that the newest backing paper has been used in the latest batches, starting with the beginning of 2016, which start with emulsion numbers that begin with "153".

 

[Prest_400]

I've been advised by someone else who has been advised by Thomas Mooney of Kodak Alaris that the newest backing paper has been used in the latest batches, starting with the beginning of 2016, which start with emulsion numbers that begin with "153".

Interesting. May this also affect the Color films? I have Portra 400 from the 12/2015 batch (top of mind, as I don't have the box here now), so prior any change. Ordered a couple of P160s that may be more recent. But so far no one complained of anything other than TMY (emulsion-ink reactivity?)

Jonathan Canlas posted a few photos of a roll affected by humidity and heat exhibiting the imprinted numbers. I assume it is post-exposure damage. https://www.instagram.com/p/BEbYsPiPTS1/

this only happens to 120 film that is out of the wrapper and left to its own accord in Hawaii. Moisture and condensation.

However, given that it is promptly processed, humidity does not get into the sealed foil prior to using the film, so only heat?

As of writing this, my lab mentioned that Kodak is just shipping their next batch of Portra and Ektar after a shortage between productions. In another thread it was deemed as normal, I was thinking about some involvement with the backing paper.

 

[tomfrh]

Until I get more info from Kodak on the batch numbers or expiration dates

It is now fixed due to the recent change in backing paper, however there is still old stock out there.

Expiry date 02/2017, problem exists (note: not all rolls display the problem)
Expiry date 03/2018, problem resolved

I will only buy stock 03/2018 or beyond.

Another thread on it:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I included photos of the backing papers, so you can see in advance whether you might have faulty film.

 

[Andre Noble]

Is there anyone else who feels that merely decreasing the amount of the faulty reactive ink is not a sufficient long term solution?

 

[tomfrh]

It's hard to know what exact changes have been made.

I'm happy with their response so far. They've acknowledged the issue and have made changes which appear to have resolved it.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Isn't there such a thing as "reverse engineering"? I do it all the time when I run into problems with something or process I've changed and now it's not working.

 

[Ai Print]

Expiry date 02/2017, problem exists (note: not all rolls display the problem)
Expiry date 03/2018, problem resolved.

I just had a roll pop up with the ink problem, have another 12 to run so I will keep my fingers crossed but I have a feeling it is my batch of 02/2017 that is the culprit, I have been pulling from batches in 2016, 2017 and 3/2018 to see if I could make it happen.

Out of my 44 pro packs of 120 TMY2, only 2 are from 2/2017. There is a bunch of 2015 / 2016, ten 9/2017 and ten 3/2018. If it turns out that all of 2017 is bad then I have enough 15, 16 & 18 to hold me over until it can be replaced.

I'll run some more film, and see how badly I got hit then get back to B&H / Kodak to see what they want to do....

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak should recall and replace all known defective film.

They have already "reverse engineered" it and that is how they have verified the problem.

PE

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Kodak should recall and replace all known defective film.

They have already "reverse engineered" it and that is how they have verified the problem.

PE

But they're not likely to recall the faulty film, right?

 

[keith stewart]

I just found this site yesterday after unsuccessfully goggling this problem and not finding any information.
I have had this same problem with Kodak TriX 400 consistently over the last 12 months since I started shooting film.
I have shot more than 50 rolls of 120 TriX 400.
I did email Kodak early on but did not receive any response.
My camera is Hasselblad 501cm with A12 film backs.
Here are 2 photos, not the best and have increased contrast to make it easier to see the imprint.
I am from Qld in Australia.
I store the film in my fridge and sometimes freezer until ready to use.
I have very many photos on many rolls of film with this problem, it seems to me that it is on a lot of photos but most you may not notice due to good exposure. it is more noticeable in areas of flat grey sky and when you add a lot of contrast or adjust a lot for bad exposure but has also appeared on good exposure shots as well. The point is that even though you may not notice it, I suspect the imprint is lurking discreetly in the image when this shouldn't happen at all and can become more noticeable when the photo is pushed more in the editing phase.
There is some banding in these photos as well, this i have narrowed down to my scanner having a problem (due to be fixed) and is unrelated to the negitive.
I am not getting up Kodak, I am just trying to understand why I am getting this problem.
OK, so its not X-ray, its not light leak because my film backs do not have any red window, could be due to hot Australian weather, also it does get humid here, the film was in my Freezer - perhaps fridge would be better?

 

[mooseontheloose]

Hi Keith,

Welcome to APUG. We have a number of threads going on about this problem, but (there was a url link here which no longer exists) lists the emulsion numbers affected, including Tri-X film. I've already contacted Kodak Alaris about some films I have from problematic batches and they got back to me right away, so I highly recommend you contact them about this problem.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

 

[keith stewart]

OK thank you, I will contact Kodak about my TriX 400. Unfortunately I do not have the batch numbers for this film now. I have 4 new box's of TriX400 within the bad batch range so will watch carefully for this again but keep all rappers, backing paper ext so I can identify and report more clearly if it happens again. Thank you.

 

[mooseontheloose]

OK thank you, I will contact Kodak about my TriX 400. Unfortunately I do not have the batch numbers for this film now. I have 4 new box's of TriX400 within the bad batch range so will watch carefully for this again but keep all rappers, backing paper ext so I can identify and report more clearly if it happens again. Thank you.

The batch numbers are also on the film, to quote from another thread:
In the space where one finds edge printing, on the side where frame numbers 1 through 12 are found, there is what appears to be an emulsion number. The numbers are in a very thin and light font.

Plus, I think it would be fine to send scans of the affected films as well.

 

[keith stewart]

OK great, I see the batch numbers, will investigate further. Thank you.

 

[MattKing]

OK great, I see the batch numbers, will investigate further. Thank you.

Welcome to APUG.

Be sure to also tell Kodak Alaris about the film you have that has not been exposed.

 

[RattyMouse]

But they're not likely to recall the faulty film, right?

Nope. Apparently they are going to let their customers hang out to dry.

As we can see in this thread, more and more people are coming out with this problem and further, their attempts to contact Kodak go unanswered.

Not the way to handle a massive failure with your product line.

 

[canuhead]

Interesting Keith. There has to be something else going on beyond the backing paper since I have close to probably thousands of rolls of TriX 120 and I've not had this imprinting with my film. I wonder how your film got to Aus ? Be good to know if it flew or took the slow boat as that *might* have an affect.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

From previous threads my impression is that the company which makes the backing paper really calls the shots. Kodak and Ilford have managed to get the printing lightened on the paper but little else. What can the user do ? Buy fresh film from a reputable source, keep it cool and use it promptly. The problem seems to be caused by heat. This is certainly plausible as heat would increase the diffusion of chemicals in the ink to the film. Remember that the ink is in direct contact with the film emulsion.

 

[AgX]

People have used roll-films for many decades, under various climate conditions.

Suddenly these artefacts appear and "heat" is called the cause. It rather is a manufacturer issue instead and must be handled by the manufacturer.

 

[MattKing]

People have used roll-films for many decades, under various climate conditions.

Suddenly these artefacts appear and "heat" is called the cause.

As I've posted, these aren't new. I used to see similar problems on mistreated (heat, humidity) films when I used to work in photographic retail.

The current batch of problematic films seem more susceptible to damage, so those problems do need to be dealt with. What has complicated the matter is the fact that the incidence of problems is sufficiently small as to create the initial impression that the problem wasn't anything out of the ordinary. Clearly that has turned out not to be the case.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It would be interesting and informative if we knew of any changes made recently to the ink formula. I don't think that the film maker determines what the ink composition is.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

One of the hardest problems to test for involves the effect of time. The ink may have passed all tests even those that artificially account for storage time. However there may still be an undetected problem that shows up only with long term storage. Thus my advice to do everything possible to shorten the time between purchase and processing. Film is a perishable product and should be treated as such.