Richard, you are correct about the issue of processing being included in the sale price of Kodachrome. And that was broken by the ruling. I am trying to remember about my use of 35 mm Agfachrome in the 70s, early 80s. I believe a mailer came with the package on a prepaid basis. But Agfa was small potatoes compared to big Kodak. I haven't used slide film for 20 years so I don't know what is done now. But Agfachrome now (I believe) is E-6 processed and anyone can do it. John --- Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Jensen" <jwjensen356@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 3:36 PM > Subject: [rollei_list] Re: 'Kodak, Don't Take My > Kodachrome' > > > > Richard, it was in the early 50s (1954?, 1955?) > that > > the courts ruled that the monopoly Kodak had on > > processing Kodachrome had to stop. As a result of > > that ruling, independent labs could get into the > > business of processing Kodachrome. If Kodak > wanted to > > stop processing Kodachrome they could have/should > have > > stopped then. But they didn't. > > > > John > > > I'm not sure what issues the court decided. The > main one > was that Kodak was including the price of processing > in the > price of the film. I think by that time Kodak had > already > licensed some independent labs to process Kodachrome > to take > the load off Rochester, but I am not sure. I think > its > likely that Kodak never made much money from > processing. The > film was sold as a system, much like Kodak's > original box > camera which was returned to the factory for > processing and > printing and returned loaded with fresh film. > I think Kodachrome is a victim of the shrinking > market > for film. Remember, that Kodak and Agfa are very > large > companies who made enormous volumes of photographic > products. When the market for something shrinks > there are a > lot of operating costs that don't shrink, I think > this is > what all of the photo products companies are > fighting. > Kodak, at least, seems to be trying to keep some > aspect of > their original business but the pressures of having > to > return a reasonable profit to investors pretty much > limits > what management can do. Some management is simply > ruthless > about loosing parts of a company, sell them off for > what can > be gotten or simply eliminate them, take a one time > charge, > and be finished with it. Where there is a stable or > expanding market there is reason to try to fix > poorly > performing businesses but where there is simply not > much of > a market, or it is shrinking, the problem is not a > broken > business that could expand its share but a simple > lack of a > place to sell the products no matter how well they > are made > or how well the company is run. This is a completely > > different thing in my mind from the disastrous and > reprehensible mis-management of companies like > General > Motors or the big steel companies in the U.S. who > just > decided to shut down whole cities and move > elsewhere. Those > moves were made in an attempt to substantially > reduce > operating costs by eliminating well paid labor, this > is > something else. I wish Kodak luck in preserving > their > traditional business. Actually I also wish Ilford > and Agfa > well, but even if one or all survive they will do so > in a > different form than existed in the past. > > --- > Richard Knoppow > Los Angeles, CA, USA > dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > --- > Rollei List > > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > with 'subscribe' > in the subject field OR by logging into > www.freelists.org > > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > with > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging > into www.freelists.org > > - Online, searchable archives are available at > http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list > > --- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list