Re: Pinholes

["Eugenie Beuman" <elbeuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On March 18th, George Smith wrote:
>My experience with Kodak has been that I have found no company better at
>righting a wrong than Kodak.  It seems unfortunate that such anger is being
sent
>in their direction before even checking with the company.  I have not
>encountered this problem (in 35mm or 4X5), but do know of others who have
>encountered similar production problems with Kodak's materials.  Without
>exception, Kodak has made good on the defective products.

Hi George (and everyone else out there)
    When I was in my teens, there were few moments when I actually WAS angry
(haha).  But now, I am reasonably frustrated and perhaps disappointed. When
I spend close to $80 Canadian funds for 25 sheets of what is supposed to be
professional film and it is marred by production defects, this is not making
me happy. In fact, I had contacted Kodak Canada at one point and had spoken
directly with John Ball at Technical Services. From there I sent to him some
of my processed film which exhibited these problems and he kindly suggested
that my film was improperly stored or beyond the expiration date. I always
keep my pro film refrigerated but some of the film had been close to the
expiry date. Furthermore, I was told by Kodak Canada that HIE is especially
sensitive to 'ageing', regardless of the storage temperature. This
investigation occurred a couple of years ago, well before I was aware of
this Infrared Digest, and before I was aware that there were others out
there who were experiencing the same problem. I was buying my film from a
very reputable company in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and I know positively
that it is not grey market film. On my end of things, I am formally and
reasonably well educated in the area of handling black and white filmm and
paper, so I am certain that it is not very likely something that I am doing
wrong. At the time I had my film and negatives checked out by Kodak Canada,
I was given the impression that the pinholes were resulting from improper
handling on my part, and no further product was offered in lieu of the
problem. As George had suggested, I had, in fact, sought out the assistance
of Kodak first, but I was not satisfied with the final resolution. This is
simply a statement of an experience I had with asking for support from
Kodak.
    For anyone out there who does shoot 4x5 infrared and is not having
trouble with pinholes, I would be interested in finding out where you are
buying your film, for I don't EVER remember having a box that didn't have
some problems with pinholes. I have simply accepted that this film is quirky
and that I have to expect some kind of probles that will need to be fixed
later through retouching the neg. This has been my experience, but I tell
you, it's not right to pay that sort of money and not recieve prime quality
film.
    Do I still have any reason to be "frustrated" even a little bit??
    Think about it.
    Cheers!
    Clark  aka The Great Canadian Beaver Trap Theif
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: George L Smyth <GLSmyth@xxxxxxx>
Aan: infrared@xxxxx <infrared@xxxxx>
Datum: donderdag 18 maart 1999 3:21
Onderwerp: Re: Pinholes


>> Eugenie Beuman wrote:
>>
>> This message is to all of those who, have at one time or other, relished
the
>> thought of burning Kodak at the proverbial stake for this
emulsion-pinhole
>> fiasco.
>
>[clip]
>
>>     My question to anyone out there is this: has anyone out there been
>> successful in getting a replacement box of film from Kodak when they get
a
>> typical batch of pinholed emulsion?? How big of a production was it to
>> convince Kodak that it was their fault, and not the fault of processing
or
>> handling??
>
>My experience with Kodak has been that I have found no company better at
>righting a wrong than Kodak.  It seems unfortunate that such anger is being
sent
>in their direction before even checking with the company.  I have not
>encountered this problem (in 35mm or 4X5), but do know of others who have
>encountered similar production problems with Kodak's materials.  Without
>exception, Kodak has made good on the defective products.
>
>I would suggest that you give the company an opportunity to see the
described
>problem and evaluate it.
>
>george
>
>--
>
>Handmade Photographic Images
>http://www2.ari.net/glsmyth/
>*
>****
>*******
>******************************************************
>*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
>*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
>*       to                                           *
>*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
>*----------------------------------------------------*
>*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
>*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
>******************************************************
>

*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************