Re: Silly little Kodak History question.

From: [email protected]
Date: 07/13/05-02:27:29 PM Z
Message-id: <31197633.1121286449925.JavaMail.root@wamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Kodak wanted the cartridges back becase they reloaded them. Only in the late 1980's and early 1990's did independent Kodachrome labs spring up (at one time Kodak and Viewmaster the 3d Reels) were the only ones processing Kodachrome in the world...today sadly, the Kodachrome process is headed the way of the Autochrome...

-----Original Message-----
From: fotoobscura <fotoobscura@gmail.com>
Sent: Jul 13, 2005 4:22 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Silly little Kodak History question.

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The other day at a Flea Market I picked up a severely outdated box of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 14:27:36 2005

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