j_r_thompson

<p>Wow! Lots of info in response to my original query. And I think it answers my question. I followed the suggestion to check out the comments on the APUG website and found the list of bad batch numbers for TMAX 400 which was stated as follows:<br> <strong>Kodak T-Max 400<br />Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152</strong><br> <strong><br /></strong>I checked the boxes of film I had recently received and they are both <strong>0151 001 09/2017</strong> which fit into the "bad" range! So that question solved, I am left with 9 rolls of unexposed film ($50+!) and have contacted my supplier who I feel was unaware of the problem and then will try the Kodak contact listed above. Since Kodak has supposedly fixed the problem I think that I will stick with TMAX because I have been previously satisfied and my darkroom procedures are set up around TMAX film as well as TMAX developer. But I will be careful to review the batch numbers in case a bad shipment gets through again. Hopefully it will not be "fooled me twice, shame on me"!<br> So, thanks to all for your attention. I applaud this forum for providing an answer that I do not know if I could have figured out any other way.</p>

<p>I have seen the discussions regarding ideal developer temp, i.e. that for TMAX film Kodak is now recommending 75deg while some say 68deg and I have been using 72deg which is in the middle of the charts. Does anyone have an opinion as to which is best or does it make a real difference. I have been getting great negs at 72deg but I can control my temperature easily and they might be better at a different temp)</p>

<p>Thanks for the prompt responses! Good to know that others are having this problem, (not really). But do you know if this a problem on all rolls of Kodak, or likely just some batches? I have 8 unexposed rolls on my shelf but would rather not hassle with returning them unless they have fixed the problem, but what you say about priceless shots is so true. </p>

<p>I develop a lot of TMAX film in my darkroom. I just shot a roll of 120 TMAX 400 with my Rolleiflex and pushed it to 1600 in exposure and developing which I have done before with no noticeably weird results as follows. In this case there were some areas of bright white where a Kodak stamp showed thru faintly on the prints. It runs vertically and says "KODAK 12" along one side and "KODAK 6" along the other. So it matches the print on the paper backing used as a negative counter on cameras that have the back port. I guess I am getting a reflection through the black side of the paper backing? Is this normal, to have an embedded image on your negatives? Usually you cannot discern it at normal developing but beware, it is there! Perhaps this is real old film where the image bleeds thru the backing over time? (It is a new batch of film that I just ordered but it may have been on a shelf for many years, who knows?) Just wondered if anyone else has ever noticed this.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for the advice. I think the backing paper slipping on the take up spool is a good possibility. I will try this out and hope for the best. One last question. Do you think there are any 'lockouts' associated with the back or should the winder and counter etc work normally when the back is open for inspection. Thanks again.</p>

<p>I have a Rolleiflex 3.5 EVS Automat Tessar Type II TLR Camera that after running a dozen rolls of film correctly, has developed a problem in that the first frame is off the roll of film, the second is half off, and thereafter all frames work with the proper spacing between them. Camera allows the standard 12 exposures and after developing, the first exposure and half the second do not appear on the developed film and there is a 2 to 3 inch blank area on the end of the roll.<br> Problem is seemingly with the mechanism that automatically senses the location of the first edge of the film when loading and that this is not registering correctly.<br> Interesting coincidence is that this problem began when I tried my first roll of Ilford film after using Kodak T-Max previously. All heck broke lose with strange frame spacing. I suspect that the Ilford film is thicker (as I also had problems in the darkroom with the film showing "crescents" from improper handling of the thicker or stiffer film). So I returned to T-Max and said never Ilford again for this camera.<br> But the improper registering of the first frame continues.<br> Is this an adjustment problem that needs CLR or is there something I am missing in my loading procedures, or is there a secret way to get it back in sync?</p>