Carlos Borda From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 538 posts, RR: 52 Posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1276 times:
As if the occasional "Kodak scratch" on the slide or mis-mount wasn't bad enough... I bring you this fine example of Kodak Quality processing. This is an example of what an entire roll (except for 2 slides) looked like when I got the box back from Kodak back in October 2000 after a special PHL shoot.
I received a kind apologetic little note with my box informing me in so many words that they had some rare problem with the chemical developing mix or something etc etc etc.
In return for the MAJOR malfunction, I received a free roll of K64 36 exp. with a voucher for free developing. Gee thanks Kodak.... and I still love ya no matter what till the end.
Here's 1 of 2 slides that made it thru the chemical devil alive and well.
I know about Joe P and his entire roll of AA Retro 757 shots that were all scratched and Guido Latz once had his entire roll of SAA/Nigerian 747-300 slides scratched too.... if any of you have any bad processing stories or examples to show (slides, prints whatever)... would love to hear and see them.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1205 times:
Made the lab I have my processing done get another machine for sleeving the negatives after about a dozen rolls all got back heavily scratched.
The scratches don't show up on 15x10cm prints made from the negs (they're too fine for that) so most users don't notice. They only show up in the harsh light scanners throw through them.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1183 times:
The damage doesn't all look like chemicals to me - it looks like some pretty agressive scratches (from the main gear down and back) too, the sort that happen when the machine jams whilst the film is going through.
Having had simiular problems myself on occasions, I've come to the conclusion that Kodak doesn't really give a toss about these sorts of problems - they upset a few photographers once in a while, but provided it doesn't become endemic, chances are it won't dent their business much. After all, one film and free processing is hardly compensation, especially if you're away from your normal location and have spent on a shoot, or expect to make money as a result - it shows how little they value a photographers efforts in shooting the stuff in the first place. Actually, I'm not convinced that Kodak is bothered anyway - I still suspect that without admitting it publicly they're running down Kodachrome slowly but surely, that upsetting a few photographers along the way such that they use other film doesn't really matter that much to them, and in fact might actually allow them to justify the film's demise more quickly.
My sympathies and understanding are with you on this one,
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1157 times:
I recently spent an entire morning standing in two feet of snow photographing trains. I made four exposures on Gold 100 of trains passing over an ancient stone railroad bridge. The four negatives were nice, and I had an 8X10 made of each. I then sent the negative strips to Kodalux to have Christmas cards made from the best of them, which was neg #8. When I got the box of cards back, the images were all blurry. So I sent the negs back to Kodalux for a redo on the card, but then I got back cards made from neg #4. I then realized that the strip with negs 5-8 on it was missing. This contained three of the four negs I shot that morning. They never found the strip of course.
That was my most recent dissapointment with Kodak, but there was also a completely botched Photo CD and a lost roll of B&W negs last year.
RWY-16 From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 106 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1151 times:
I had many problems with the KR64 films, too. So I changed to Fuji Provia and the E-6 processing. Since I started with these films, processed by Kodak (!), I am very satisfied. By the way, I prefere the Kodak E-6 process much more than all the other labs. They have - as much as I know - always very fresh chemicals, so the results are very good. I got bad E-6 slides from other labs (bigger grain and bad colours because of old chemicals in those labs). The Kodak processing is a bit more expensive here in Switzerland, but I think the quality is better.
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 55 Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1136 times:
While that example is bad I would say I've never had that problem. Worse I've had was the infamous "kodak scratch". But, giving credit to Kodak Fairlawn..I haven't had a problem going back 100 rolls or so. No scratches at all.
Rip53 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 14 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1119 times:
I once had a roll of a Pace 737-200 ruined by them. The entire roll came out green. Same note, same comp.
When I complained, they just shrugged their shoulders and said sorry.
What do you do? It even happens with Fuji.
Carlos Borda From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 538 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1072 times:
What really gets to me about what happened in my case was that it could have easily been a hot roll of some rare hybrid or something I shot away on some great vacation trip somewhere. That wasted roll had about 20 shots of that AF A310 and the rest was a mix of other common PHL items... it could have been a worse scenario really.
In all fairness to Kodak... that was the last time I ever had a problem with them. I've been major incident free with them since end of 2000... except for the rare occasional thin Kodak scratch here or there and/or slight mismount. And I've heard the same horror stories about Fuji too....
I know from past personal print photo experiences that the big Fuji lab here in Hackensack, NJ was nothing to brag about either when it came to processing. I think part of it is that the mentality for quality control is a lot different here in the US than in some of the other Kodak/Fuji labs around the world, which are stricter in that regard it seems to me. But we can go on and on with conspiracy theories.... this isn't about knocking Kodak, Fuji, 35mm or digital.
One thing for sure is that digital is not an option for me... I trade/sell K64 slides, and the print media outlets that I personally deal/dealt with prefer to use slides (of any kind) for their bigger photo projects.
I would love to however, acquire a digital camera like the Nikon D1 in the near future to compliment my 35mm gear. The digital quality I see from scans here is incredible now...it's great for when you want to share with friends on the web quickly and for instant uploading to a.net too.... I've become a closet fan of digital.
But trust me.... I will shoot K64 slides till the bitter cold brutal ruthless tear jerking end. Until they slam shut and lock the door on me at Kodak Fairlawn for good, I'll still be there. K64 emulsion runs thru my veins...