Re: Silly little Kodak History question.

From: Wayne D ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/13/05-03:46:35 PM Z
Message-id: <000d01c587f4$581a0f40$f05bccd1@oemcomputer>

Bob,

Unfortunately that is "recently" for me. I remember the Kodalux and Quaalux (sp?) days as well as one or two well-heeled independent labs during the 80's (I think there may have been one in L.A. also). But the film under question had an expiration date of 1961, so there certainly weren't any independent labs offering K-11 processing at that time. I sent all my film to Fairlawn. If you want to get depressed try to find a "pro" lab in NYC offering any kind of transparency processing - they're almost all gone.

Wayne
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: BOB KISS
  To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
  Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 4:32 PM
  Subject: RE: Silly little Kodak History question.

  DEAR WAYNE,

              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 Kodak's processing at the Fairlawns, NJ plant was a bit more reliable than NY Color but they were around for a long time.

                          CHEERS!

                                      BOB

   

   Please check my website: http://www.bobkiss.com/

   

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Wayne D [mailto:wdewitt@snip.net]
  Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 5:02 PM
  To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
  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.

   

  http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-locale=en_US&pq-path=1147

   

  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.

   

  Wayne

  ----- Original Message -----

  From: fotoobscura

  To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca

  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 waseither re-used or melted-down. The "property of Kodak" released Kodak fromany legal obligation to return the magazine keeping the ultimate cost downfor the consumer (no added handling and postage costs). It also allowed themto control what was in the magazine - no weird film stocks entering theprocess. AFAIK no other company in the world ever processed 16mmKodachrome - too esoteric, and the equipment is outrageously expensive andmust be run continuously. The Plotz hit the fan recently in France I thinkwhen the independent film makers basically pleaded with Kodak to continuemaking 8mm Kodachrome, their stock of choice. I'm betting that the problemis that there may only be one or maybe two processors in the whole worldthat can still handle the film, and Kodak is undoubtedly losing money everyday that they keep them operating. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "fotoobscura" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:58 AMSubject: Silly little Kodak History question. Hi. The other day at a Flea Market I picked up a severely outdated box ofunopened Kodachrome color movie film (for 16mm magazine camera) (exp.3/61). There is a long notice on the side of the box that talks aboutdefective in manufacture, etc but the part that piqued my interest wasthe part that read: "The magazine is the property of Eastman Kodak Company, and film priceincludes a deposit on the magazine." I suppose what I don't get is how you can put a deposit on a magazineand why Kodak is trying to retain ownership of a product that may nevereven be processed by their labs? (likely not!) This is not a film thatcouldn't be processed at almost any photo/camera shop. What is it aboutthe magazine? What are they afraid of? Bulk loading the magazinerepeatedly? 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. Namelyinterested in non-motion picture film. 120 a big plus (620 too). Cheers,Alex -- Alex SwainPhotographerWashington, D.C. - Burlington, VThttp://www.zoom.sh
Received on Wed Jul 13 15:53:29 2005

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