[rollei_list] Re: 'Kodak, Don't Take My Kodachrome'

  • From: "JMN *" <retinaiiic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 04:14:34 -0500

You have to readdress the Kodak prepaid mailers to:

KODAK MAILER PROCESSING
C/O DISTRICT PHOTO
10501 Rhode Island Avenue
Beltsville, MD 20705

This is the only Kodak lab doing any kodachrome processing.

John

----Original Message Follows----
From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: 'Kodak, Don't Take My Kodachrome'
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:09:43 -0700

Richard,

I still have a few prepaid Kodachrome mailers for
Long Beach, not Rochester.

Jerry

Richard Knoppow 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
 > //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
//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
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. rollei_list
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2005