Kodachrome processing cost?

Discussion in 'Color: Film, Paper, and Chemistry' started by malcao, May 31, 2010.

  1. malcao

    malcao Member

    Messages:
    55
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    Sweden
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Just got 5 rolls of Kodachrome back with a letter from Kodak "Processing costs are not included in the sales price of your films".

    I have been using Kochrome for more then 30 years and it have always been included in the film price so I checked the box "Notice: Film price includes Kodak processing".

    So why does Kodak want me to pay for processing cost?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2010
  2. rdp

    rdp Member

    Messages:
    2
    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    i believe it's just an error, don't pay these 16chf per film
    (same happened to me, with kodak's apology for that "processing cost" letter after my question to lausanne)
     
  3. Tony-S

    Tony-S Member

    Messages:
    775
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Location:
    Fort Collins
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    As far as I know, only one place still processes Kodachrome - Dwayne's in Parsons, Kansas, USA.
     
  4. rdp

    rdp Member

    Messages:
    2
    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    you are right, k-lab lausanne resends kodachromes to kansas ... however, i was really surprised - last processing took one week, it's unbelievely fast for rather complicated route CZ->CH->USA->CH-CZ, maybe they started their k-lab again ? :smile:
     
  5. benjiboy

    benjiboy Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,530
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Location:
    U.K.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    If it was processed in the U.S the reason you are being charged is that they don't know that it's from Europe, and was sold process paid, because in America it is illegal to sell film process paid because of the Anti-Trust laws that consider that selling film with strings attached (processing) is Anti-competitive, which is why most independent labs in the U.S used to be able to process Kodachrome.
     
  6. tiberiustibz

    tiberiustibz Member

    Messages:
    1,749
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    Tufts Univer
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Somebody said the credit system was ending. It's probably an error though.

    Dwayne's machine can process a lot of film. They normally do it same day or overnight, it's the shipping that kills you.
     
  7. malcao

    malcao Member

    Messages:
    55
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    Sweden
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Even the envelope says "processed-payed film only". The film is sent to CH from EU and they want payment in CHF so I doubt that it's a US problem. Maybe Kodak tries to educates KR users that E6 process costs money :wink:
    I sent Kodak CH an email and asked for the reason, but no reply.
     
  8. nickrapak

    nickrapak Member

    Messages:
    751
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    Horsham, PA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Does the film canister have red or black ends? If the ends are red, this means that it is process-paid, and you should not have to pay. If the ends are black, it was not prepaid.
     
  9. malcao

    malcao Member

    Messages:
    55
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    Sweden
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Old film it's red, new film it's black. But in the field Notes it's written "Film Price INCLUDES Kodak Processing".
     
  10. lxdude

    lxdude Member

    Messages:
    6,943
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Redlands, So
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Actually, that judgment was rescinded in 1994, along with another prohibiting Kodak from producing film to be sold under private labels, like they now do with Freestyle. The court decided that Kodak no longer had such dominance that such practices would be anti-competitive. Also, it was not illegal to sell film process paid, just for Kodak to do so. I used to get Agfa and I think also Fuji slide film with process paid mailers here.
     
  11. Steve Smith

    Steve Smith Subscriber

    Messages:
    9,083
    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Location:
    Ryde, Isle o
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Strange that you can have a law which is applied selectively.


    Steve.
     
  12. CCOS

    CCOS Member

    Messages:
    45
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Location:
    Denmark
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Strange, I got 2 Kodakchrome 64 from 1982 just taken and mailed Kodak Denmark about how to procces them.
    The answer was that if they are the "new" kind form midt 1970 I could just sendt them to Lausanne in the bags that came with them.
    If the film in 1982 was sold as pre paid in Denmark that also the fact to day even so many years after.

    So I belive that until 31 dec 2010 it's possible to get the KodakChrome processed in Switzerland to.

    Jesper
     
  13. Steve Smith

    Steve Smith Subscriber

    Messages:
    9,083
    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Location:
    Ryde, Isle o
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    That's what I did with some 1986 Kodachrome last year.


    Steve.
     
  14. benjiboy

    benjiboy Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,530
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Location:
    U.K.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Sorry, that was the last I heard, I'm obviously behind the times, in the U.K there were no independent labs that processed Kodachrome, it was only sold process paid.
     
  15. railwayman3

    railwayman3 Member

    Messages:
    2,025
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Any "Process K-14" 35mm Kodachrome (from its introduction in the mid-70's) should still be processable, but Dwaynes, in Kansas, US, is now the only lab in the world which can deal with it, and their service is scheduled to finish on 31st December.
    Kodak state, however, that the European process-paid films sent to them in Lausanne must reach them by 30th November 2010, presumably to allow them time to courier the films to Kansas before Dwaynes cease the processing service.
     
  16. railwayman3

    railwayman3 Member

    Messages:
    2,025
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I believe that at one time (1970's?) the UK Government Monopolies Commission also ordered that Kodak should make Kodachrome available here without the processing included (but did not prohibit the process-paid version). I don't think that many people purchased that version, as there were (SFAIK) no independent K-14 labs in the UK.

    I think that the issue here was, like the US, that Kodak were seen to be dominating the market and restricting customers' choice!
     
  17. lxdude

    lxdude Member

    Messages:
    6,943
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Redlands, So
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It's not considered selective because it is applied to any company which meets the criteria of the law. At the time of the consent decree Kodak was by far the dominant player in the US. (I earlier said "judgment" but that's inaccurate; the decree was dissolved by a judgment.) Kodak controlling processing of the dominant color films effectively closed the market to any other processor. The others were not seen a having a substantial portion of the market; so if bundling processing helped them compete, that was seen as OK.

    The basis of anti-trust legislation is a business entity being so dominant in its marketplace that its practices can stifle competition or eliminate competition by combining competitors.
    As a fairly recent example (the 80's), the merger of the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe railroads was challenged and eventually disallowed because they had too much overlap of lines in this part of the country and a lack of other competitors. Southern Pacific was later allowed to merge with Union Pacific and Santa Fe was allowed to merge with Burlington Northern. I'm reminded of that every time I see both Union Pacific and BNSF trains running on the tracks nearby. Otherwise pretty much the only carrier would have been the SPSF.
    :wink:There's a Kodak connection: The "Kodachrome" paint scheme used to unify the SP and the SF before the merger was denied, so called by railfans because it looked like a Kodachrome box of the time. It was a combination of Santa Fe's yellow "war bonnet" nose and SP's scarlet along the sides, along with a black top. And Kodachrome is the railfan's traditional film of choice.

    Another example from the same period is the breakup of the Bell system and its largest component, AT&T. What had been seen as an efficient and innovative phone system came to be seen as an impediment to innovation and new technology, with potential competitors frozen out of every aspect of phone technology. The breakup was not without its problems-like people getting "slammed", i.e., switched to another carrier without their consent, phone bills became impossible to decipher-but prices went down, especially on long distance. A working pay phone became a rarity with high charges the norm- I once used my home number linked calling card to make a local call home from a pay phone because its coin box was full, and found the ripoff company had legally charged me $13!
    The feds had good intentions but the execution should have led to their executions.:mad: But Bell brought it on itself by clearly acting to stifle all competition.

    Having a monopoly is not the primarily the issue; using a monopoly position to stifle competition, is. Microsoft is a good example. Microsoft had gained a near complete monopoly, but its perceived anti-competitive practices are what got it in trouble here and in the EU.
     
  18. Steve Smith

    Steve Smith Subscriber

    Messages:
    9,083
    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Location:
    Ryde, Isle o
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    In the UK, our railway system has gone the other way. Rather than merging companies, it was split up into lots of regional companies and we now have the ludicrous situation of having railway companies who own rolling stock but no track and a track company which has no trains.


    Steve.
     
  19. moose10101

    moose10101 Member

    Messages:
    697
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    Maryland, US
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    That's exactly what happened to the phone system in the USA when AT&T was split up in the 1980's.