andyfalsetta Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 This photo was taken on Kodak T-Max Professional 400 using a Zeiss Ikon folder (532/16) I'm not sure if the artifact will be visible after I attach the photo but maybe it will. I was on vacation and the film was kept in a lead lined bag as I went through the TSA checkpoint on the way to my destination and on the way back home. In the image you will see a flaw above the left rear chair; this is due to some mistake I made in developing/handling the film. The artifact I need help understanding is above the table and chairs and appears on the wall. What I see is a very faint "Kodak 3" in the continuous tone above the table. Can you see it? And more importantly, can anyone comment on what might have caused this? My unqualified opinion is that the TSA scanner was able to penetrate the bag and the printing from the backing paper was "imprinted"/burned into the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 How old is the film? A few years ago, Kodak had some problem with the inks used for the backing paper, resulting in such print through. As far as I know, it can't happen from X-rays. The usual X-ray machines use a scanning beam, such that it results in lines, usually diagonal, across the film. If the ink absorbed X-rays, it would result in darker numbers on the positive. Also, it would print though many layers of film, not just to one layer. I am not actually sure how they come up with inks that can be against the emulsion for years (I have had almost 60 year old VP) and not cause problems. They solved this about 100 years ago, I don't know why it reappeared. Otherwise, keep film in factory sealed packaging as long as possible, and cool but non-condensing environment after opening. Moisture could definitely cause problems between film and backing paper. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 printing from the backing paper One of many links Kodak 120 film - backing paper problems - emulsions affected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Bowes Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 Hello everyone. This backing paper bleed thru is now about 4-5 years old. I do not know the exact thread, but if you search for "John Sexton" you will find it some where in Pnets archives. Kodak replaced 12 rolls that I had and others also got replacements from Kodak. The article will give you the emulsion numbers and Kodaks email address. I have noticed several repeats of this problem but have not noticed any follow ups by the authors. Does anyone know if other 120 film types by different manufactures have had this bleeding occur? Aloha, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Bowes Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 I just pull out the left over 4 rolls from this event from my freezer (use the film for testing only). Film is 400Tmax (catalog #8568214) with the batch number being 0151 002 with a 09/2017 date. Several other emulsion numbers were involved, so dig up the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Bowes Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 I can not leave things half vast. . . A search using site yields nada, so went out to Google and did a "John Sexton Kodak film bleed thru" search and landed on Reddit. found the emulsions, but no Kodak phone #. Tmax 400 0148 004 thru 0152 Tmax 100 0961 thru 0981 TriX 0871 thru 0931. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmac Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 Same problem with this Ektar 100, expired in 2011, bought in 2016 and went in the freezer. Exposed in late 2016, frozen again and finally developed Nov 2018. I strongly suspect this film was subjected to heat before I bought it. I bought 10 rolls and of the rolls I have exposed so far, none look right after developing and scanning. Post processing still won't make them look right. The films were an overseas purchase but I have no idea if they were affected by Xray or not The tail end of the Ektar 100, I worked on it to brighten it up for better viewing of the arrows. The images on this film also have very faint numbers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 By the way, the TSA is good at hand inspecting film if you ask. They say that only ISO 800 and above should need it, but then again, I like to use Diafine with higher EI, so I ask for hand inspection. Sometimes they want to open the box and/or can, especially if they don't look factory new. I recently asked for hand inspection of film that expired many years ago, and the inspector commented on that. (Maybe 1974, so it might have been older than the inspector.) In other countries, I have often not been able to avoid X-ray. In that case, the lead bag might be a good idea. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyfalsetta Posted December 6, 2018 Author Share Posted December 6, 2018 If this paper imprinting problem is 5 years old, all I can say is "Its BAAaaack". The film is brand new; expiration 3/20 purchased from B&H. The batch is 0157 002. Thanks for the responses and especially the suggestion to request a hand inspection, even if TSA scanning couldn't have caused this. I'll try to contact Kodak through their customer service ports and post my results good or bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyfalsetta Posted December 6, 2018 Author Share Posted December 6, 2018 Update: I Googled kodak backing paper problem and the first hit was John's post. There is an email address in the post - Profilm@Kodakalaris.com I just sent an email to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 Been a while since I subjected film to TSA's tender mercies, but the Urban Legend in photo circles at the time was that Multiple passes through scanners were / could be a problem. Outside the U.S., particularly "Exotic" locations, all bets were off. The backing paper issue was pretty well documented, so you should get answers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Horton Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 I had this problem a year ago and Kodak sent me another case of film. I wouldn't say they replaced it because they gave me a different film. Apparently, they were still trying to sort out the issue. You can see the Kodak 7 (upside down) on the bus windshield. And I've had the same luck with the TSA. They never ask about the ISO. I nicely ask if they can hand check my film canister and they've never missed a beat. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chauncey_walden Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 I've had film (35, roll, sheet) pass through carryon scanners as many as 10 times including in places like China and Africa and have never seen any ill effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 By the way TMZ specifically says no X-ray. It is reported to be sensitive to cosmic rays, too. The rule that I have known for a long time is that color film is about as sensitive (to various things) as a black and white film two stops faster. But yes, I also don't have any film known to have been affected from airport X-rays. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 It seems to affect the black parts of the positive. A few years ago, I developed a roll of VP122 with pictures of the Mackinac bridge under construction, about 1956. It was a little fogged, or maybe it was actual fog, and maybe a little underexposed. But after sitting next to the numbers for 60 years, no numbers printed through. Note that it was out of the sealed package for those 60 years. I do find it amazing that there were no problems after 60 years, but given that, I don't see how they messed it up now. Twice! -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Bowes Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 Getting your ink from the lowest bidder & down sizing your QA staff MIGHT be a cause. . No ?? Aloha, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Parsons Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 Getting your ink from the lowest bidder & down sizing your QA staff MIGHT be a cause. . No ?? Aloha, Bill But surely a Reputable company would never do that . . . Oh, see what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julio Fernandez Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 Not likely an X-ray problem. I routinely do trips where 120 and 35mm film go through 4 to 10 X-ray scans for hand bagagge and no problem appears. However, I have had the same problem with old, expired 120 BW film, i.e. ink markings in the paper appear as ghosts in the negative. This with Ilford and Lucky film. More than 5 years expired. I believe this may happen because of the ink chemistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Bowes Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 The Shanghi films were well known for this bleed thru problem. IMHO, Kodak purchased some ink from them when they closed operations about 4 years ago ! I could be wrong, but. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyfalsetta Posted December 10, 2018 Author Share Posted December 10, 2018 First Class customer service from Kodak Alaris. I sent the email as mentioned and included as much detail as possible including, of course, the flawed image. I got a reply from their Product Manager today explaining what they have done to address the problem and letting me know they are replacing the 5 pack of film. I'm very pleased that they didn't choose to put me through some delaying or evasive process and immediately did the right thing. In contrast, I am going round and round with Budget Rent a Car over a sour experience and after being told my case is being escalated to management for a response in 72 hours, its been a week and nada, nothing, silence. Kodak Alaris, your timely and effective response was refreshing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Bowes Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 No complaints about Kodak's Customer Service. . it was, and still is, spot on, but why this problem is reoccurring some years down the line has me not buying new stocks of 120 film from them until I am assured the "problem" is gone. Aloha, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyfalsetta Posted December 19, 2018 Author Share Posted December 19, 2018 Update. The replacement rolls of T-Max 400 Professional arrived just as Kodak promised. Lot number 158 002 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Horton Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 Then they must have sorted it out finally! When they replaced mine, they wouldn't swap it for the same film because they said they were still trying to figure out the source of the problem. As a side note, I'm currently finishing up my last roll of the bad stuff. We'll see how it turns out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesevidon Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 Hello everyone. This backing paper bleed thru is now about 4-5 years old. I do not know the exact thread, but if you search for "John Sexton" you will find it some where in Pnets archives. Kodak replaced 12 rolls that I had and others also got replacements from Kodak. The article will give you the emulsion numbers and Kodaks email address. I have noticed several repeats of this problem but have not noticed any follow ups by the authors. Does anyone know if other 120 film types by different manufactures have had this bleeding occur? Aloha, Bill It looks to me like it is "Kodak 8" but I do see it. I assume the scratchy stuff to the viewer's left is on the wall and not an artifact. Roll film backing does have #'s on the back for older cameras that have the red or green sighting windows, and that is probably what you see. Photoshop healing brush should get rid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now