Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Equipment > Cameras - medium format

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 17th May 2016, 12:33 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Under the circumstances, it's interesting that the client wouldn't settle for digital inkjet or Giclee prints. Now that's commitment to the traditional way. Nice. And good to know all your appendages remain intact

Last edited by Svend; 17th May 2016 at 12:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 17th May 2016, 02:59 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Gould View Post
...and one person I know, a hobby photographer who has used Tri x for ever has felt forced to abandon the film in favor of Ilford because for the last few months He could never feel sure of getting usable negatives, and Kodak and Kodak alaris seem to be very quite on the whole problem, gives me the impression of trying to sweep it under the carpet, shame as kodak film is great, but with this bad publicity they are certain to lose market share
Richard
I, for one, don't intend to stop using Kodak 120 film just because of this glitch. From what I've read, they are aware of the batch numbers affected, have disclosed those openly, and have rectified the problem. So going forward there should be no more issues (theoretically). Based on that, I would be comfortable using Tri-X and Tmax in 120 again. As long as one keeps an eye on the emulsion numbers from the shop things should be fine. That said, I don't make my living with photography, so can understand the reticence that you may have in using Kodak again. Further, Kodak should perhaps be more communicative about this -- it sounds like they're being rather closed, which doesn't help win back their customer's confidence.

I hope this all gets sorted out soon, so when the dust settles we can just relax and shoot whatever film we want, including Kodak.

Svend
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 17th May 2016, 03:06 PM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,433
Default

Not a case that he wouldn't settle for digi prints, but for over ten years they had run these History reenactments twice a year, and I had photographed every one in black and white, on film and printed in the darkroom and they decided that they would rather keep to the tradition, that inkjet or Giclee prints would look out of place, their words not mine, as the next one would be photographed on film and printed in the darkroom, I have the next in September and needless to say I will use Foma film and not Kodak. I love local history and this time of the year I would say that the majority of the photography I do for myself is around heritage sites and events, and if I can get paid for doing it so much the better, Professionaly I work very part time now, only doing something I get a lot of enjoyment out of and this fits the bill for me
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 17th May 2016, 03:15 PM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,433
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SvendN View Post
I, for one, don't intend to stop using Kodak 120 film just because of this glitch. From what I've read, they are aware of the batch numbers affected, have disclosed those openly, and have rectified the problem. So going forward there should be no more issues (theoretically). Based on that, I would be comfortable using Tri-X and Tmax in 120 again. As long as one keeps an eye on the emulsion numbers from the shop things should be fine. That said, I don't make my living with photography, so can understand the reticence that you may have in using Kodak again. Further, Kodak should perhaps be more communicative about this -- it sounds like they're being rather closed, which doesn't help win back their customer's confidence.

I hope this all gets sorted out soon, so when the dust settles we can just relax and shoot whatever film we want, including Kodak.

Svend
I haven't used much Kodak film for years, since they re worked TriX and ruined one of the best films of all time by reducing the silver content, it was never the same after that, I Had been using some odd rolls of Fomapan 400 with the old tri x and it was so close to the original TriX in looks that I switiched over completely yo it for all my work. personal and professional, and have not looked back, it was just for this one job that I got the Tmax, If Kodak had been more open about all of this then I wouldn't feel the way I do, but their customer relations over this whole matter is and has been appalling, but it appears to be more widespread than they are admitting to, they are only talking about Tmax400 and it has affected the whole range of their film to a greater or lesser degree,
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 24th May 2016, 12:30 AM
Jerry Bodine Jerry Bodine is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Seattle area, Washington state
Posts: 169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyNL View Post
Thanks Jerry, I have 60 rolls of tmax 100 with the exact batch numbers as stated in the post.
Marty, there is a post on APUG today that I've cut/pasted below that may give you hope for replacement:

I've had a response to my enquiry to Thomas Mooney (profilm@kodakalaris.com) about the 6 un-exposed pro-packs (30 rolls) of TMY-2 that I have that fall within the batches identified as problematic.

I quote:


"As of the beginning of this year, we’ve made some modifications to the backing paper which should minimize the potential for this type of issue moving forward. The first TMY-2 product made with this paper is emulsion 0153.
Please send me your address, and I will send you six (6) replacement ProPacks of T-Max 400 spooled with the new paper."

Last edited by Jerry Bodine; 24th May 2016 at 12:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 24th May 2016, 07:39 AM
MartyNL's Avatar
MartyNL MartyNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: based in The Netherlands
Posts: 3,341
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Bodine View Post
Marty, there is a post on APUG today that I've cut/pasted below that may give you hope for replacement:

I've had a response to my enquiry to Thomas Mooney (profilm@kodakalaris.com) about the 6 un-exposed pro-packs (30 rolls) of TMY-2 that I have that fall within the batches identified as problematic.

I quote:


"As of the beginning of this year, we’ve made some modifications to the backing paper which should minimize the potential for this type of issue moving forward. The first TMY-2 product made with this paper is emulsion 0153.
Please send me your address, and I will send you six (6) replacement ProPacks of T-Max 400 spooled with the new paper."
Thanks Jerry.
__________________
MartyNL

“Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action
is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.”
- Minor White, 1950
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 7th June 2016, 06:19 PM
MartyNL's Avatar
MartyNL MartyNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: based in The Netherlands
Posts: 3,341
Default

Just a quick update.

Kodak Alaris has given excellent service.
They take the complaint seriously, responded within 48hrs and appear to be treating the U.S. and Europe equally.

So while I'm not happy about losing my photo's, I'm very satisfied with the way that my complaint has been handled.
__________________
MartyNL

“Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action
is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.”
- Minor White, 1950
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 8th June 2016, 02:20 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Marty, that's great to hear. There seems to be a lot of anti-Kodak vitriol on the web fora. It's a puzzle to me as to why. Almost all of it seems to have no basis of fact or experience. Those who DO actually have dealings with the company seem to come away pleased at their response and service. Go figure....

Glad that this is working out for you.

Svend

PS -- I just ordered a bunch of TX and TMY in 120...I will check the batch nos. to make sure they are good, but I do not intend to stop using Kodak films just because of this one blip in their QC.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 8th June 2016, 05:07 PM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,433
Default

From all I read it would appear that Kodak Alaris is responding to this problem well, just unfortunate that their answer is to use fainter print so it becomes as difficult to use in red window cameras as Ilford, it should be usable, with great care, and I might at sometime give the Yellow box film another chance,
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 13th June 2016, 12:06 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,193
Default

Back to the red window for a moment -- I got my Isolette back from Certo6 recently and used it for the first time this weekend. I still really hate the red window in that camera. I used the little LED loupe in low light, and it was better -- barely usable; still a pain in the derrière. For comparison, I used HP5 again just to see how it would work out (and I didn't want to use a different film for this outing for image quality reasons). Next rolls will be Kodak or Fuji, as the Ilford numbers are still too pale even under the lighted loupe.

BTW, Jurgen K. did a great job on the camera, and for a very reasonable cost -- new bellows, CLA, light seal, and replaced a cracked lens element; all for about US$130 incl. return shipping. The bellows are a wonderful red-brown colour, which looks terrific with this old camera (I can post a pic if anyone is interested). I'm looking forward to seeing how the films turn out now that all is fixed.

Svend

Last edited by Svend; 13th June 2016 at 12:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FREE cassette darkroom window blind Timrudman Sale or Wanted 9 20th December 2011 08:06 PM
Red Window cliveh Cameras - medium format 11 19th April 2011 06:22 PM
Removing water stains VickiB Monochrome Film 11 14th March 2011 09:48 PM
Darkroom Window Blinds - Richards of Hull Mike O'Pray Darkroom 10 24th August 2010 04:34 PM
Pre - cut mats / window mounts Rob Archer Print Finishing 5 29th November 2008 05:46 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.