Jump to content

Where has all the 120 TMax 100 gone...?


EoinC

Recommended Posts

From a thread I read on another forum, Kodak recently changed the material they were using for the backing paper, soon after that people started reporting the frame number appearing on their images, Kodak appear to have stopped producing TMax 120 until they fix that problem.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I suggest you contact mr Posner at B&H he is the best person to answer your question?

From Kodak:
The following Kodak Professional film emulsion numbers may exhibit image problems, under some circumstances, only in 120 format roll film:
(Emulsion numbers can be found on the film box, the foil wrapper, and printed on the clear edge of processed film near frame number 11.
Kodak T-Max 400: emulsion 0148 roll 004 through emulsion 0152
Kodak T-Max 100: emulsion 0961 through emulsion 0981
Kodak Tri-X: emulsion 0871 though emulsion 0931
Any film with lower or higher emulsion/roll numbers should be free of any problem.
Please direct additional questions to: profilm@kodakalaris.com

Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video

 

A more detailed explanation and examples can be found here:  http://www.johnsexton.com/newsletter05-2016.html#anchor04

Edited by chris_livsey
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, All.

I remember the issue being raised here, but assumed that, as the batches had definitive ends, that production was continuing (which it apparently is) and would keep up with demand (which it apparently isn't). I haven't experienced any issues with availability of TMax 400 or Tri-X in 120, but this is also a sample set of one, which has little value.

 

I hope that TMax 100 is resuscitated. It's not my favourite film, but I appreciate every option that still exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have 600 rolls of tmax left (135) out of the 1000 rolls I purchased. Excellent film. But I wouldn't hesitate to go Delta100 if I had to switch. Nice deeper blacks.

Funny enough, Delta100 is what gets closest to Tri-X from my experience.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, it is possible Kodak is dealing with an additional TMX100 120 problem, beyond the backing paper imprinting.

 

Not quite 2 years ago (Jan. 2015), I started getting what I call a "flor" (from the yeast scum that forms on the surface of aging sherry) on all my TMax 100 120 images. A "chrysanthemum blossoms" pattern in the grain - all across the image, but most visible in skies and other bright areas. A worst-case example below.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

I went through a dozen rolls checking possible user problems (fine bubbles in freshly-mixed one-shot developer (HC110), biological growths in my Photo-flo, etc. etc.) Replaced all my chems, tried other developers (D76, DDX, Rodinal), let the developers "settle" after mixing and before use, tried them on other films as well. Results - TMX always showed this to a greater or lesser extent - there was no hint of it on any other films (even TMY), even in the same chemicals and conditions. It's not on the fillm, it's in the film base or emulsion.

 

I tried new rolls/batches of TMX every so often throughout 2015, up until it became unavailable, and the problem was still always there.

 

Anyway - IMHE, Fuji ACROS is the closest match to TMax 100, if one really wants the T-Grain "look." Delta 100 is a fine film, but a different curve and color response (paler skies, unfiltered). I've been using TMY 400 until TMX 120 reappears, at which point I will retest it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, it is possible Kodak is dealing with an additional TMX100 120 problem, beyond the backing paper imprinting.

 

 

 

I don't think this is separate, it is characteristic of backing paper issues, although why TMY didn't show it is open to debate but we do not (and presumably Kodak do) know which batch of paper was used for which run.

 

I have posted this extreme example before, it shows backing paper affecting the film but strangely still not provoking number print through:

 

15888751382_5a02878ac4_n.jpg

 

Poorly stored OOD HP5+

Edited by chris_livsey
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

...Anyway - IMHE, Fuji ACROS is the closest match to TMax 100, if one really wants the T-Grain "look." Delta 100 is a fine film, but a different curve and color response (paler skies, unfiltered). I've been using TMY 400 until TMX 120 reappears, at which point I will retest it.

Thanks, Andy. That is interesting. It's strange that it only appears in the TMX. I guess that all the other sources still available may be old stock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One critical overlooked ingredient of film is gelatin. Kodak supported a large gelatin rendering operation that used strictly cattle bones of a certain type. I'm wondering if a bean-counter took a cheap cut at both paper backing and gelatin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris - you could be right re my example. Although that makes for a lot of different visual patterns from one cause - mine spotty, yours fibrous, clear lettering for others.

 

Just as a reminder for all of us - we call it a "backing paper" issue, but the actual effects probably involve the front of the film. The emulsion of rolled-up 120 film is in direct contact with the backing paper of the next layer down in the roll, including the labelling ink.

 

http://www.brownie-camera.com/respool/respool07.jpg

 

The back of the film is protected by the plastic base (physical cause) and dark anti-halation coating (optical/fogging cause), and the paper right behind the film is plain jet black - but the front is pressed right up against the paper from 1 to 2 frames further along in the roll, with no such protection, and the ink there (frame numbers, "KODAK-KODAK-KODAK") might contain a chemical foggant, or a chemical sensitizer as Chris mentions, or simply offset-prints onto the emulsion if the ink softens with heat, or just never "sets" completely due to a problematic solvent or pigment choice.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Incidental update - This week I received an update that my B&H T-Max 100 120 order is still on backorder. That is now just over 5 months. I have no wild desire to have some of the film (and can get it easily from old stock), but keep the order open out of interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops! - just found some imprinted numbers in one of my pix on a roll of TMax 400 120 (400TMY-2). Emulsion (151 001) falls within the range already announced (see Chris's post #4). On 6x6 frame number 11 I got the imprint of the frame number for 6x6 frame 12, confirming that the numbers come from the back of the backing paper a few inches further along in the roll, not the paper backing the actual affected frame.

 

Of note - the black side of the backing paper on this roll (retrieved from the trash) shoes some (how to describe this?) "smudges" on the solid black surface - areas with a slightly different surface reflectivity. Still solid black, but slightly more matte - can only be seen with glancing light. Possibly coincidence, or possibly a side-effect of whatever (storage heat, pressure, problem in the coating/inking process) causes the visible imprints in the pictures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From Kodak:

The following Kodak Professional film emulsion numbers may exhibit image problems, under some circumstances, only in 120 format roll film:

(Emulsion numbers can be found on the film box, the foil wrapper, and printed on the clear edge of processed film near frame number 11.

[snip]

Kodak Tri-X: emulsion 0871 though emulsion 0931

Any film with lower or higher emulsion/roll numbers should be free of any problem.

 

 

Here's hoping the order of five rolls of 120 Tri-X due to arrive tomorrow will have a different number!  (Just checked the film edge on the last roll of my previous order (shot last week) and the number is 0841). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A couple of updates:

 

1. Talking with a pro photo store salesperson yesterday - he is not sure Tmax 100 120 will ever come back. Thinks Kodak may have problems with aging coating equipment that is too expensive to replace. They have another customer who has been working directly with Kodak for months, testing new batches, with no solution yet (problem more like the one I posted above in #10 - artifacts in the film grain, not frame numbers).

 

2. However, I see that Freestyle Photographic is currently expecting to receive their backordered TMax 100 120 on Feb. 24.

 

I also note that the imprinted numbers have shown up in rolls of Portra 400 and Ektar 120 (per posts on photo.net) - so not just a B&W problem.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I also note that the imprinted numbers have shown up in rolls of Portra 400 and Ektar 120 (per posts on photo.net) - so not just a B&W problem.

 

A link for the reports?

I had read elsewhere, not photo.net possibly Apug.org of Ektar problems, they were very faint numbers and letters but there, always doubt with a one off on storage which was the Kodak explanation for the Tmax that I don't think I have seen retracted, not that I believed that was the definitive answer. Not seen Portra reported I would be interested in batch numbers to check my stock.

 

Found the Ektar:

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/kodak-quality-control-slipping.142968/

 

Long thread now, with storage in transit being probable cause, again.

Edited by chris_livsey
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...