Re: Silly little Kodak History question.

From: fotoobscura ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/13/05-02:22:28 PM Z
Message-id: <42D57804.9020406@gmail.com>

Interesting. Thanks.

FYI On the back it reads:

"For Processing:

Your dealer can arrange to have this film processed by Kodak or any
other laboratory offering such service."

Below there is an old tag from a camera shop that reads "Bring this film
for developing to Adams Camera Shop.".

So I guess camera shops were infact developing Kodachrome motion picture
film then.

Wayne D wrote:

>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.
>
>Wayne
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "fotoobscura" <fotoobscura@gmail.com>
>To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>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The other day at a Flea Market I picked up a severely outdated box of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
>>http://www.zoom.sh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Jul 13 14:22:45 2005

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