Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,503   Posts: 1,543,419   Online: 857
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Kodak did not produce a peel apart product. It was produced internally but never sold on the open market.
    I don't recall seeing this in stores. But I vividly remember advertising for this. Did they actually advertise for something they never sold?

  2. #22
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,007
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by StorminMatt View Post
    I don't recall seeing this in stores. But I vividly remember advertising for this. Did they actually advertise for something they never sold?
    No advertizements, no sales, no release of product. One run was made and it was destroyed before release. One or two internal tests were made on this production run.

    PR-10 and Ektaflex were the only products sold. Ektaflex was peel apart, but not to be used in-camera. It was an enlarging "paper" only.

    PE

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    346
    Ektaflex? Yeah. We used to use that for quick color prints back in the 1980's when we were first starting to run daily 4 color in the newspaper.
    Seems you exposed the paper normally in the enlarger then fed it through rollers in a plastic box - blue on top, white on the bottom - and it came out laminated. You pulled it apart to reveal the print after a certain amount of time.
    Made darn good prints without plumbing or water at room temperature as I remember.
    Buddy of mine with more money than sense bought up an entire upright freezer full of the paper and all the chemistry he could get his hands on when it was discontinued.
    I had completely forgotten about this stuff until I saw this thread.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    No advertizements, no sales, no release of product. One run was made and it was destroyed before release. One or two internal tests were made on this production run.
    Then what were 'Trimprints'? I'm sure they were instant prints that were supposed to be more like conventional RA-4 prints.

  5. #25
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,007
    Images
    65
    The pictures shown here: http://kodak.3106.net/index.php?p=201 contain examples of a PR-10 film pack and a non-PR-10 camera. The sad histoy of the peel apart film, never released, was that it use a chromogenic pod which left a stain behind. Therefore there was no public release.

    This film pack was trade trialed only and used at the wedding of the Kodak CEO's daughter (Walt Fallon at that time). He got purple stains on his hands from the pod goo and put a hold on the release of the product. The problem was never solved and that product was never sold. Only PR-10 was sold. (but see below)

    One case of PR-10 and one case of this peel apart product were preserved (by court order IIRC) in a locked refrigerated "safe" in the sub basement of the Research Labs. If the product was ever released, then it was a momentary event and was not general. By that, I mean that pre-release ads were probably drawn up and samples sent out and then recalled. BTW, I have seen the locked freezer, and have a single Polaroid type pack in Kodak trade dress, one of the only left existing. I worked with the people doing the early tests.

    This was a very sad event at Kodak, as the problem was warned against in advance by a good friend of mine. See patetnts by Barr, Bush and Thomas for early Kodak examples of instant materials. These are the classic foundations for the technology you refer to.

    The PR-10 camera was long and relatively and had a V shaped back which contained a set of mirrors to reverse the image due to the format of the PR-10 film and the orientation of the pack. On one model the print came out with a hand crank and on the other the film had a motorized advance.

    Film for the peel apart had a 2 stage manufacturing process with two machines in the plant. One to make the film pack and the other to make the print part and assemble the system. These were RAMs and FAMs (Film Assembly Machines) and were only ramped up for a short time. The PR-10 was produced by one machine called a COMAM or a Continuous Motion Assembly Machine. They were in full production for the entire lifetime of the PR-10.

    For a short time, Kodak manufactured and tested an internal prodct and they prepared plans to sell it. It was to be a product identical to Polaroid, but AFAIK, this was also restricted to testing due to the clear possible infringement problem even though most of the patents had expired and it did use some innovation. I'm not clear on the situation there, but AFAIK it was not in production at the time of the trial, only PR-10 was. Our entire division was disbanded the morning after the decision and everyone concerned (several hundred of us) had to find new jobs.

    PE
    Last edited by Photo Engineer; 06-19-2009 at 06:12 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Added information and fixed an error

  6. #26
    Anscojohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,727
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by StorminMatt View Post
    I don't recall seeing this in stores. But I vividly remember advertising for this. Did they actually advertise for something they never sold?
    *****
    I also seem to remember selling a product designated "Trimprint." If I recall correctly (never a given) after a considerable period of time, the print could be snapped out of the pod/support/ matrix (whatever the proper term) for easier insertion in photo albums.
    John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

  7. #27
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,007
    Images
    65
    John;

    PR-10 was designed to have that done. That was a second improvement. Here are the list of PR-10 changes I remember.

    1. Glossy prints and square corners
    2. Matte prints (or kinda silk finish) and round corners
    3. Peel apart or "pop out" prints that could be separated from the pod and backing

    4. The end.

    PE

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1

    Instant Color, Pavell

    I'm 70 years old, originally from White Plains, NY. We had neighbors named Pavell (sp?) and I remember my father talking about the fact that Mr. Pavell had developed a color process and was in a legal battle with Kodak. Anyone know anything about this?

    I'm retired from teaching photography at the University of Iowa and an artist/photographer

  9. #29
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,007
    Images
    65
    Pavelle sued Kodak in the '70s due to the change from Ektaprint C to Ektaprint 3 for paper and from C-22 to C-41 for film. Mr. Pavelle said that this was done to hurt small companies. He won the lawsuit as Kodak was branded the big giant villain in this case. Actually, we didn't pay much attention to the Pavelle kits and so Mr. Pavelle may have thought we targeted him but nothing could be further from the truth.

    Kodak was also sued by Berkey and GAF at the same time and for similar reasons.

    Losing the lawsuits when we had evidence to help win it was a blow to EK and changed direction on several projects including the use of CD-6 in other products than Kodachrome. In the end, Kodak was hurt internally and the customers lost out on some neat products. Mr. Pavelle won a small skirmish that really did more harm than good. My opinion from being involved in this skirmish. I was deposed by the court to offer written testimony.

    PE

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC_0257.jpg 
Views:	42 
Size:	694.7 KB 
ID:	60026

    Hi All,

    Here she is PR144-10. I bought the colorburst 50 today and started trawling and found this thread. Thanks for the links to modify was curious if the Instax worked as a possible replacement.

    Cheers

    Johnnie

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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