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

  • From: John Jensen <jwjensen356@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:36:54 -0700 (PDT)

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

--- Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bob Haight" <rhaightjr@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:49 PM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: 'Kodak, Don't Take My
> Kodachrome'
> 
> 
> >
> > ...and that is why Kodak wants to discontinue the
> > product. No one can get it developed easily. Bob
> > --- Marc James Small <msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
>    I don't know why Kodak wants to discontinue
> Kodachrome 
> but supporting the unique processing technique might
> be a 
> good reason. Kodak has been cutting back on the
> availability 
> of processing for several years, I think in the
> hopes that 
> when it becomes difficult enough to get the film
> processed 
> they can stop making it and abandon the process
> alltogether. 
> I think Kodak wanted to discontinue Kodachrome from
> the time 
> Ektachrome was put on the market in the late 1940's.
> 
> Ektachrome could be processed by the user or an
> independant 
> laboratory. The problem was that the quality of
> Ektachrome 
> was simply not up to that of Kodachrome. If the two 
> processes had been equal Kodachrome would have
> disappeared 
> nearly sixty years ago. The film itself is probably
> easier 
> to make than any chromogenic film but the complex
> process 
> must be done by an atomatic machine and requires a
> lot of 
> careful control over the state of the chemistry. No
> one 
> other than Kodak is going to supply machines or
> chemical 
> supplies. If this were a new and expanding market
> such a 
> monopoly would be good for Kodak, as it is, its
> probably a 
> financial burden.
> 
> ---
> 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

Other related posts:

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