Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,900   Posts: 1,584,403   Online: 716
      
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 103
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasadena
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by wilson View Post
    every time you spend money at walmart your soul dies a little. they are a vile, vile corporation. why can't you send it to dwayne directly and cut out this horrible middle man.saving a couple bucks isn't worth the great cost of keeping this abomination in this country/world.
    God bless Walmart

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    McKee, KY 40447 USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    82
    Sound great. I use Wal-Mart for 35mm slides both E-6 and Kodachrome, but didn't know about the availability of 120 processing.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    13

    thanks!

    This will be a big savings for me now that Qualex is finished. I had been using CVS's qualex send away service and it was almost $7 for a 120 color print roll develop with prints. Now I can develop more than 4 times as many rolls even without qualex. Let's hope fuji and dwaynes remain in business with walmart.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Appleton, WI
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    18

    A few q's answered..

    Fujicolor handles Wal*Mart's outprocesssing in the US. They do NOT follow Wal*Mart's 'unsuitable prints' policy.

    If you want to make sure it gets sent out, drop it in the drop box specifically for "3 day" service. If you do not know where that drop box is, ask. Most of the associates can at least tell you that. In my experience, (worked at a wm1hr lab 2004-07) the service is very reliable, although mistakes do occur as with any process. IMO the quality is pretty good too.

    They will process just about anything via sendout that can be processed reliably in modern equipment (*20 formats in color/e6/b+w, 126 and 110, 135, supposedly movie, interneg, slide copying, etc etc. They have a flipbook stick to the drop box explaining everything they can do)

    Talk all you want about how saving a buck here and there will destroy the planet, but that buck is the difference between me being able to budget processing of one roll or five. And why buy five rolls if I can only afford to process one? Woops, there go film sales.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Welland, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by nickrapak View Post
    IIRC, Qualex was never profitable, not from day one. I also believe that at the end, KL-200 and KM-25 didn't sell enough to justify making an entire roll.
    You say it's a bad thing when a company cuts its losses, but honestly, if you were in charge of a company facing dire prospects, wouldn't you cut what loses the most money?
    Where did you hear that Qualex wasn't profitable? There's no reason why they couldn't make a profit. Now, Wal-Mart is very demanding of the lowest price from its suppliers, and Qualex was probably trying to raise its fees which is why Wal-Mart dumped them. Losing Wal-Mart is probably the main reason why Kodak is closing Qualex. Nobody should now be surprised if the quality of Wal-Mart's send-out developing goes down. Whoever took it over had to outbid Qualex!

    Regarding K200 and K25, there is no reason whatsoever why Kodak cannot make a profit on all of their Films. They would simply charge enough money to profit. A Master Roll is not that large, and can be stored in a freezer till it's all sold. The fact is that Kodak would have sold a lot more K200&25 if they had offered it to ALL of their customers -- including 120, Sheet, and 8&16mm Movie customers. I'm a Supe8 user, and believe me that Super8 and 16mm users would have been delighted to have K25,200 & K64. However, Kodak wasn't interested in serving them with Kodachrome. That was a lot of lost sales for Kodachrome! The only Transparency Film that Kodak offers Super8 users now is E64T.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasadena
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,718
    I can guarantee you that if Kodak simply put a sound stripe on their Super-8 film as they once did, small film makers would be beating their door down to buy it at high prices. I can also promise that if Kodak reintroduced K25 with, for instance, a processing mailer it would be an instant hit. I really do think Kodak has a disconnect between their customers and their product strategy. Kodak has a good knowledge of the low-end consumer markets and very high end movie industry and military markets, but only a dim awareness of the small artist market for their products.

  7. #37
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,944
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by davela View Post
    I can also promise that if Kodak reintroduced K25 with, for instance, a processing mailer it would be an instant hit.
    Sadly, in the USA, that would most likely put Kodak in contempt of court, and bring those departments of the US federal government involved in enforcing anti-trust rulings down upon them.

    Kodak might be just a little bit gun shy about things like this.

    Matt

  8. #38
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,883
    Why would that be an anti-trust situation? Have Kodak made an official statement to the contrary?

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Fort Smith, NT, Canada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    438
    Hello Better,

    If I understand your question correctly:

    It is not that it would be. It is an old case, already decided, which is why Kodak stopped selling prepaid processing film in the US. It did in Canada and IIRC the rest of the world. Kodachrome sold in Canada is no longer sold processing included, but that is probably for other reasons. I don't have the details of the legal case at hand, but it is well known and documented. PE would have them at his finger-tips.

    Cheers,
    Clarence

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Horsham, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    751
    There were actually two cases.


    United States V. Kodak (1954) determined that Kodak did not have the right to sell film with processing included, pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act.

    Kodak V. United States (1994) determined that Kodak no longer possesses market power over the film and photofinishing markets. However, Kodak has obviously seen a reason not to bundle photofinishing and processing together for the last 15 years.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin