Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,834   Posts: 1,582,393   Online: 908
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Earth
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    I'll expand and clarify my original statement.

    The consent decree in the 50s put an end to Kodak sales to any private individual or photofinishing lab in the US. Those stores closed. Distributorships were set up via wholesalers.

    Sales to the general public were nonexistent except in the very early days of Kodak...
    PE
    What was the "...consent decree in the 50s" ?

    Too young to remember all but those 'itsy bitsy teeny weeny yellow poka dots....'

  2. #22
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,530
    Images
    65
    Kodak operated under different rules in each country based on local laws. In the US, they could operate Kodak stores for anyone in the beginning, then were restricted to just professionals and photofinishers and then no one but wholesalers.

    The consent decree stated roughly that Kodak could no longer sell film in the USA with processing price included, and that they must make color processes available to others. Thus Kodachrome was sold as just "film", and we had C22, E1, Type R and Type C in the mid 50s. All R&D on the processes and films was undertaken by EK, but by law, any other company could use the processes and so Fuji, Agfa and Konishiroku came out with compatible films and papers and used the Kodak chemistry. This saved them a lot of money.

    In the 60s and 70s, similar lawsuits prevented Kodak from making further changes to E6, C41 and Ektaprint C.

    Oh, and a further clarification. Kodak did not sell film to customers in their earliest stores. They sold or "rented" cameras already filled with film. They returned negatives, prints and a camera refilled with film. The cameras were called Kodaks and through this usage Kodak almost lost their trademark name.

    PE

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,149
    Ron I have also bookmarked the sire you quote and thanks but I have to say that trying to get to good info on Kodak by googling Kodak in the U.K. is impossible. If you were thinking of trying analogue and wanted to consider Kodak, you'd quickly give up. There is nowhere near the info that is to be easily found on the Ilford site. Pity.

    pentaxuser

  4. #24
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,530
    Images
    65
    Well, Kodak includes data on sensitometry, spectral sensitivity, grain, sharpness, process information, some formulas, and lots of other things. What do you want more than this? Post your wants / needs.

    PE

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North America just north of that sharp right turn North America makes on the Atlantic coast.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    Yup, it's annoying, I live a few hours from Rochester, I wonder if I went there if I could buy film, probably not. In your browsing of the site you will notice that they still list BW400CN in 120 format as a product, they no longer are making that film, if you have it freeze it, if you see it buy it, if you have some and don't want it I do. I am a die hard Kodak film fan, but it looks like I will have to switch to either Ilford or Fuji at some point. Honestly, my money is on Ilford.

  6. #26
    SchwinnParamount's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,086
    Images
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeSeb View Post
    Schwinn, is there some point to this thread?
    It was humor but if you don't get it, that's Ok.

  7. #27
    MikeSeb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Prospect (Louisville), KY, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by SchwinnParamount View Post
    It was humor but if you don't get it, that's Ok.
    My bad, then. Problem with having no body language to judge by.
    Michael Sebastian
    Website | Blog

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    69

    Film at Kodak, consumer division.

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    The consent decree stated roughly that Kodak could no longer sell film in the USA with processing price included, and that they must make color processes available to others. Thus Kodachrome was sold as just "film", and we had C22, E1, Type R and Type C in the mid 50s. All R&D on the processes and films was undertaken by EK, but by law, any other company could use the processes and so Fuji, Agfa and Konishiroku came out with compatible films and papers and used the Kodak chemistry. This saved them a lot of money.

    In the 60s and 70s, similar lawsuits prevented Kodak from making further changes to E6, C41 and Ektaprint C.

    PE
    The magic date for the consent decree is 1954, when a lawsuit was filed over the matter.

    Dieter Zakas

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    421
    Images
    1
    To my way of thinking, the Gov't destroyed Kodak and a lot of other "successful" companies -or at least cut down the contributions they would have made if they'd let them go and make a good profit to reinvest in more R&D! Almost criminal from a business owner standpoint.

    On the other subject, I love Kodak's films, but do hate how they hide the film section. I have emailed them a few times about this, stating and in one case diagraming exactly how easy it would be for them to have a FILM link there on the home page. Never even so much as received a reply about it. I know they get my emails, though, because I've received replies regarding other things from them.

    Why do they act like they don't want to tell the public about their film? I realize they want to be seen as a digital ( read progressive ) company these days in the mind of their shareholders and the public ( and really, one cannot fault them for that, regardless of personal philosophy), but WHY not leverage their film legacy? It was a good one at that, very respected in the art world and the business world. Why act ashamed of it and hide it? I'm fairly young yet, and even my generation thinks of film when someone says Kodak. Instead of dropping their consumers like a hot potato, why don't they leverage the trust that was created with film, and then try to slip in some "latest, greatest digi stuff" on the consumer? From a business point, that would make much more sense.
    People make decisions off of emotion, not facts. The film info would invoke a lot of beneficial, nostalgic, positive emotions that would encourage consumers to "Buy Kodak", and that is exactly what Kodak needs right now!

    OK, end rant.
    Last edited by Jedidiah Smith; 06-17-2010 at 02:27 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Spell check

  10. #30
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,754
    The consent decree was because of Kodak's dominant position in the marketplace. In particular, Kodachrome and Kodacolor enjoyed such dominance without significant competition that bundling their processing meant controlling the market for color processing. That was considered anti-competitive, as it meant that competing color films would be at a strong disadvantage because they could not be processed in Kodak's chemistry, and Kodak's control of processing squeezed out competition from the processing market. In 1994, the courts decided Kodak's marketplace dominance was much reduced, and the decree was rescinded. Another earlier consent decree from I think 1921, forbade Kodak from packaging film to be sold by other companies under those companies' own labels. That was also rescinded in 1994.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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