All right Tim. WAS not used.
I test every emulsion before I use it on my work. However one defect did creep in, on a few rolls of 120 T max 100 the frame numbers and the word "Kodak" repeatedly show up on the image. Apparently the inked numbers and type on the backing paper was still wet and when it contacted the film when rolled the ink transfered to the emulsion, yielding a shadow that appears on the film. Unfortunately it appears on a portfolio image and at some point I will have to to extensive retouching to correct this. But hey Kodak will generously replace the rolls of film.
I really do find it amazing the amount research and development that has gone into not only the film, but the whole manufacturing process of it. Kodak (and friends, but I'm guessing Kodak really is a step above the rest) seems to have thought of every single facet and investigated it thoroughly, from box manufacturing on down. It really is quite impressive and its a shame that both the film industry is tanking like it is and that I'll never be privy to all the really interesting things that go on behind the scenes...
Of course they've been doing this for 100 years!
Originally Posted by Tim Gray
Personally I've never had a problem with Kodak quality, be it film, paper or chemicals.
As an FYI we at ILFORD Photo use exactly the same IR finishing mapping system for the master rolls : Also we use negative pressure in the coating machine to keep out dust, but like PE says its amazing what still gets in.
KODAK and FUJI I am sure will have exactly the other QC measures we have as well...PE talked about roll tickets to cut out defects on film but :
Testing on all the raw materials ( every time )
Random tests and audits at suppliers
Tests on all the emulsions during and after they are made and before coating
Tests on every aspect of each production run of film and paper
Storage of sample parts ( unprocessed ) of every single master roll
of paper or film kept for 5 years so as we can always compare with
any customer complaint on that batch
Further tests at ageing ( hardening ) stages, before finishing, after
finishing and then random tests from warehouse stock. If you are a quality
supplier, you are a quality supplier, its just that KODAK, ILFORD Photo
and FUJI have to do most QC in the dark...!!!
Is it 100.00% no....but very nearly.
We will no doubt have another APUG factory tour next June, you can see QC in action
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
See the IR testing? But I know what you mean and I left out that entire list you posted as I was just looking at the master coated roll testing. I think the only difference may be hardening. Last I coated, there was no change in hardening after coating. If there was, it would be an error, so there may be a slight difference in testing in that regard. We looked for a given level of hardness on the roll at the end of the coating machine. Then it was just randomly checked at finish time and if different, there was an error.
We used an abradometer and a swellometer for those tests.
Thanks for the most interesting post.
This thread gives me thought about how much I took for granted the quality of film from both Kodak, Ilford and Fuji. Thank you to everyone at all three companies.
Kodak is (was?) an amazing company. There was a time when, if it was photographic, Kodak made it. And almost always in house. In various posts, Ron has affirmed what I had always suspected -- that Kodak controlled the manufacturing process from beginning to end. They made their own silver nitrate, made and printed their own packaging, made their own chemicals (in Tennessee), made their own gelatin. They epitomized both horizontal and vertical integration. The only comparison I'm aware of was, when Henry Ford built the River Rouge plant in Detroit, it was said that coal and iron ore came in one side and cars came out the other. (They say that vertical integration doesn't make economic sense any more, but I'm mildly skeptical...)
Originally Posted by Tim Gray
And while Ilford, Agfa, DuPont and others certainly did fundamental research in photography, Kodak was the king, with labs in at least two or three countries.
The times they are a changing...
At least with Azo, Kodak made their own paper--and I think they made their own paper for all of their other papers. When Paula and I toured the plant, they started us at the beginning of the process--paper making in HUGE vats. We looked down on it from two stories up.
I took the tour from the plant floor, and saw the entire operation from pulp through baryta or titanox and then if RC, the final application of the RC. I also worked with the various tints as we could order out small batches of supports with tints for experiments. Those machines were in the basement of B9 which was just demolished.
The RC machine ran continuously with RC going in one end and down to a trap to be remelted and reused. When an experiment started the equipment was hot and ready to go. No paper was fed through the double sided hopper until the coating was ready to go.
It was an amazing sight. And, very HOT due to the calandering process. All papers were hot press with multiple hot rollers and embossing rollers for the various surfaces.