RE: Silly little Kodak History question.

From: BOB KISS ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/13/05-02:32:56 PM Z
Message-id: <>

            Depends on what you mean by recently. I shot practical tests
for a Kodachrome lab in NYC called, if I recall correctly, NY Color Labs who
started up around the mid 80s. I used exclusively Kodachrome 25 when
clients wanted
35 mm transparencies for fashion shots in those day. I admit that Kodaks
processing at the Fairlawns, NJ plant was a bit more reliable than NY Color
but they were around for a long time.

 Please check my website: <>

-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne D []
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Silly little Kodak History question.

No, no one else ever developed Kodachrome until very recently. The equipment
cost (at one time) was about $10,000,000.00 dollars per setup, required
several thousand square feet of floor space, must be run continuously, and
passes many thousands of feet of film through it daily. Only Kodak could
afford to do it and they wouldn't license it to anyone else. At their height
I think Kodak had maybe 10 processors in the entire U.S., and maybe half
that number spread throughout the rest of the world. Curious, I checked the
Kodak home page. It appears that there are only 3 processors now operational
in the entire world, and the only one run by Kodak is in Switzerland.
"Dwayne" apparently bought a setup from Kodak and has it up and running.

There were several Kodachrome processes during Kodachrome's 60+ year history
(among them: K-11, K-12, and K-14 if I remember correctly). The older
processes can probably be developed into a B&W image but certainly not color
by other processors.

----- Original Message -----
From: fotoobscura <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 4:22 PM
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.


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


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).


Alex Swain
Washington, D.C. - Burlington, VT
Received on Wed Jul 13 15:32:00 2005

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