Re: Silly little Kodak History question.

From: Richard Knoppow ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/13/05-03:37:46 PM Z
Message-id: <00e401c587f3$2b850df0$64695142@VALUED20606295>

----- Original Message -----
From: "fotoobscura" <fotoobscura@gmail.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:22 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.
>
  The label is from the shop who sold the film. If returned
there they would send it on to Kodak. While 8mm and 16mm
movies were still popular Kodak maintained processing labs
in Rochester and in Hollywood, I think also in the mid-west
someplace. The ten million dollar cost for a processing
machine mentioned in other posts may have applied to motion
picture processing but not to still film machines. They were
expensive but much less so, perhaps one million dollars. The
Kodachrome process is very complicated compared to other
E-6. Motion picture processing for any type of film is best
done in continuous, automatic, machines.
  The reason for returning motion picture magazines is two
fold: Kodak did not want them bulk loaded; they were
expensive and were re-used. Currently, Alan Gordon
Enterprizes, in Hollywood, supplies film in 16mm magazines,
see: http://www.alangordon.com/s_GSAPmags.html

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
 
Received on Wed Jul 13 15:38:19 2005

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