Re: Silly little Kodak History question.

From: Wayne D ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/13/05-02:13:30 PM Z
Message-id: <004e01c587e7$577c82a0$f05bccd1@oemcomputer>

My guess is that when the film was returned for processing the cartridge was
either re-used or melted-down. The "property of Kodak" released Kodak from
any legal obligation to return the magazine keeping the ultimate cost down
for the consumer (no added handling and postage costs). It also allowed them
to control what was in the magazine - no weird film stocks entering the
process. AFAIK no other company in the world ever processed 16mm
Kodachrome - too esoteric, and the equipment is outrageously expensive and
must be run continuously. The Plotz hit the fan recently in France I think
when the independent film makers basically pleaded with Kodak to continue
making 8mm Kodachrome, their stock of choice. I'm betting that the problem
is that there may only be one or maybe two processors in the whole world
that can still handle the film, and Kodak is undoubtedly losing money every
day that they keep them operating.


----- Original Message -----
From: "fotoobscura" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:58 AM
Subject: Silly little Kodak History question.

> Hi.
> The other day at a Flea Market I picked up a severely outdated box of
> unopened Kodachrome color movie film (for 16mm magazine camera) (exp.
> 3/61). There is a long notice on the side of the box that talks about
> defective in manufacture, etc but the part that piqued my interest was
> the part that read:
> "The magazine is the property of Eastman Kodak Company, and film price
> includes a deposit on the magazine."
> I suppose what I don't get is how you can put a deposit on a magazine
> and why Kodak is trying to retain ownership of a product that may never
> even be processed by their labs? (likely not!) This is not a film that
> couldn't be processed at almost any photo/camera shop. What is it about
> the magazine? What are they afraid of? Bulk loading the magazine
> repeatedly? Ripping them off?
> This area in ownership seems to have crossed my path many times. e.g.
> the idea that you have bought something that you don't actually own.
> Its a silly little question but I'd be interested in an answer :)
> p.s. Now is good as any to remind anyone with severely outdated C22/E4
and *any* K11/K12/K14 process film that I will likely buy it. Namely
interested in non-motion picture film. 120 a big plus (620 too).
> Cheers,
> Alex
> --
> Alex Swain
> Photographer
> Washington, D.C. - Burlington, VT
Received on Wed Jul 13 14:14:42 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 08/25/05-05:31:51 PM Z CST