Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,911   Posts: 1,584,686   Online: 745
      
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 123
  1. #91
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,756
    Quote Originally Posted by brianmquinn View Post
    Yes you could. The point of the order was Kodak owned the majority of the film making and developing in the US. Preventing them from selling process paid mailers was an attempt to get some competition in the market.

    From:
    http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0096.htm#9

    "The markets for color film and color photofinishing in 1954 were indisputably controlled by Kodak" (J.A. 75). Kodak had over 90% of the amateur color negative film market in 1954 (J.A. 214). Kodak did the photofinishing on all of its own color film (J.A. 220-21), because it controlled the technology, and because its photofinishing was included in the cost of the film (J.A. 234).(9)

    9. The customer or retail dealer mailed the exposed film to Kodak for processing, and the prints were returned by mail in two to three weeks (J.A. 219-20). Kodak did the photofinishing of color film in large laboratories, supervised by engineers, due to the sensitivity of the process (J.A. 217-19). It refused, however, to process film produced by any other company, because its equipment could be contaminated by different chemicals they used (J.A. 220-21).
    Kodak could sell process-paid mailers, separately from film. They could not sell film in the U.S.with processing included in the purchase price.
    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.

  2. #92
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by brianmquinn View Post
    Yes you could. The point of the order was Kodak owned the majority of the film making and developing in the US. Preventing them from selling process paid mailers was an attempt to get some competition in the market.

    From:
    http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0096.htm#9

    "The markets for color film and color photofinishing in 1954 were indisputably controlled by Kodak" (J.A. 75). Kodak had over 90% of the amateur color negative film market in 1954 (J.A. 214). Kodak did the photofinishing on all of its own color film (J.A. 220-21), because it controlled the technology, and because its photofinishing was included in the cost of the film (J.A. 234).(9)

    9. The customer or retail dealer mailed the exposed film to Kodak for processing, and the prints were returned by mail in two to three weeks (J.A. 219-20). Kodak did the photofinishing of color film in large laboratories, supervised by engineers, due to the sensitivity of the process (J.A. 217-19). It refused, however, to process film produced by any other company, because its equipment could be contaminated by different chemicals they used (J.A. 220-21).
    See, on the one hand, I don't like big business when you look at the little guy struggling, on the other hand, Kodak started as a small company and grew itself with (somehow) good practices, if it weren't a good company at the time, people wouldn't buy it. So the anti-trust stuff kinda annoys me, if they offered their product with both a process payed, and film without processing as options, I see no issue with that, they give you both options, if they are the only game in town that's because they are probably producing a better product than the other guys, which is good for consumers. Any lab can refuse to process other peoples products if it contaminates their labs, like how some labs won't cross process E-6 in C-41 chemistry because they fear it will throw things off. And it's a legit claim, they shouldn't be responsible for other film companies chemistry. On top of that, since the other film companies didn't have to worry about their product being developed by kodak, they could have their own labs do it, its' better for them, and in fact could offer their film and process payed at a lower rate than kodak prices and therefore get better sales. If they aren't capable of surviving under those conditions where they are actually getting customers to process their own film, then they shouldn't be in business, survival of the fittest. If on the other hand they were forcing labs that were non-kodak labs to refuse other film, that's a different story. Mom and pop should be able to develop whatever film they want at their local lab. But a warehouse lab owned by kodak, they can do what they want. Just like Dwayne's Photo can do what they want, they decided they were done with Kodachrome and shut their machine down (I was a cool machine I saw it in person [and shot pictures of it on Kodachrome64] heh) then that's their choice. However if they were doing things like "you can only sell Kodak film at your store or we wont sell to you" then that's NOT ok, but having free market choice on who to buy and have film developed with, that's the companies business.

    I'm sure some of what I mentioned that I believe is NOT ok was part of that anti-trust from the sound of it, but the process payed bit I don't agree is an issue.

    Thanks for learnin' me
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #93
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,946
    Images
    60
    Dwayne's didn't shut down Kodachrome - Kodak did, by shutting down supply of the processing chemistry. They coordinated the shut-down together.

    When Dwaynes stopped processing Kodachrome, they were the last ones left, because the other labs, both Kodak and independent, had shut down theirs, due to the economics. Many of those labs could have been re-started (prior to 2010) because the equipment was available, but the economics stopped it.

    And as part of the anti-trust decree, Kodak was forced to put a lot of resources into assisting their competitors in setting up and maintaining their Kodachrome lines.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #94
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Dwayne's didn't shut down Kodachrome - Kodak did, by shutting down supply of the processing chemistry. They coordinated the shut-down together.

    When Dwaynes stopped processing Kodachrome, they were the last ones left, because the other labs, both Kodak and independent, had shut down theirs, due to the economics. Many of those labs could have been re-started (prior to 2010) because the equipment was available, but the economics stopped it.

    And as part of the anti-trust decree, Kodak was forced to put a lot of resources into assisting their competitors in setting up and maintaining their Kodachrome lines.
    Thanks for the correction. It was simply an example, obviously poor one, of companies choosing to do what they want, though again, a poor example. Though it certainly put Dwayne's on the map more than it had been so lucky them!
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #95

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    However if they were doing things like "you can only sell Kodak film at your store or we wont sell to you" then that's NOT ok, but having free market choice on who to buy and have film developed with, that's the companies business.
    I worked a major nation drugstore chain in the 1980s. We were only allowed to sell Kodak film. If we wanted to sell any other brand, even a store brand Kodak would have sued us. Our chain had a contract with Kodak to get the "reduced prices on their film" This is the truth. So you see it was legal and common to do the thing you said was NOT OK.

    Also the break up of the Bell company allow you to wireless tap type where you want today.

  6. #96

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281
    Is this the beginning of the end for tranny film altogether? When you think about it, the media generally doesn't want it, (they demand digital) slide projectors are disappearing, as it becomes ever easier to view your efforts on the TV screen. There is probably a higher demand for colour neg., people still like prints to handle, and black & white is probably the primary area where film based results are preferred by many.
    Another factor in the demise of tranny could be less and less labs around to process the film.
    I see black & white as the main future for film based photography.

  7. #97
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by rolleiman View Post
    Is this the beginning of the end for tranny film altogether? When you think about it, the media generally doesn't want it, (they demand digital) slide projectors are disappearing, as it becomes ever easier to view your efforts on the TV screen. There is probably a higher demand for colour neg., people still like prints to handle, and black & white is probably the primary area where film based results are preferred by many.
    Another factor in the demise of tranny could be less and less labs around to process the film.
    I see black & white as the main future for film based photography.
    Cost is key, it's almost double for transparency when you look at the total cost and you can't wet print only scan so many who wet print can't use it period.

    It comes down to that really, C-41 isn't really that less in quality than transparency that its worth the extra cost of E-6 and you can't even process it at home anymore in the US, at least not with a proper 6 bath kit.

    *side note* whenever I read "tranny" I don't think of transparency film....


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #98

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    671
    Why do I keep reading that 3 bath E-6 kits are poor quality? What evidence do you have to support this claim that all 3 bath E-6 kits are bad? The Tetenal Colortec E-6 Kit is available from Freestyle for amyone in the USA to buy and use at home. APUG members with huge amounts of experience and knowledge have said how good this kits is.

    Show me one well done test that shows it is inferior to a 6 bath kit.

  9. #99
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by brianmquinn View Post
    Why do I keep reading that 3 bath E-6 kits are poor quality? What evidence do you have to support this claim that all 3 bath E-6 kits are bad? The Tetenal Colortec E-6 Kit is available from Freestyle for amyone in the USA to buy and use at home. APUG members with huge amounts of experience and knowledge have said how good this kits is.

    Show me one well done test that shows it is inferior to a 6 bath kit.
    PE has stated many times that the blix does not fully eliminate all the silver and that over time the image can degrade, also the Arista kits don't contain stabilizer which they don't tell you you need in order to avoid color fading... I can't speak for the tentenal kits on the stabilizer but blix is still blix. It also doesn't last very long, were a separate fixer and bleach will last much longer once mixed so you can space out your use of the chemistry instead of worrying about it oxidizing too soon.


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #100

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Btw it appears Ferrania will be making a 100 speed E-6 film soon... Good news....


    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    Internet cite please.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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