Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,189   Posts: 1,658,883   Online: 913
      
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 123
  1. #81
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,644
    I bought process paid film (Scotch/3M I think) marketed as Focal) at K-Mart at least in the late 70s. I don't know how broadly that decree applied.

  2. #82
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,857
    It applied only to Kodak. It was finally rescinded in the 90's, and the gummint fought that!
    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.

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    674
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Yea, the US government is dumb... at least with that...
    Do a little research on the Kodak anti-trust case before you call it dumb.
    Would you pay $100 for a roll of C41 film and developing? That is what it used to cost in today's dollars.
    And Kodak was in a habit of buying it's competition then shutting them down or raising he price of the product after they owned the it all.
    We only got some price adjustments when Fuji came on strong in the USA.

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by brianmquinn View Post
    Do a little research on the Kodak anti-trust case before you call it dumb.
    Would you pay $100 for a roll of C41 film and developing? That is what it used to cost in today's dollars.
    And Kodak was in a habit of buying it's competition then shutting them down or raising he price of the product after they owned the it all.
    We only got some price adjustments when Fuji came on strong in the USA.
    Could you buy kodak film without the process payed?

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    674
    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).

  6. #86
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,857
    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.

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    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

  8. #88
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,838
    Images
    63
    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

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    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!

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    674
    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.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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