MovieStuff wrote:
Yes but if Kodak doesn't consider Dwaynes a "qualified lab" then why does Kodak send half their film there for processing?
Like you, I don't really buy that part of the argument. But you have to agree that Kodak had a little bit more leverage when they were processing half themselves and sending half to Dwaynes, b/c that way they could always demand a standard of quality or retract the business. They did go thru periods of sending more sometimes less others to Dwaynes didn't they? Then again, that didn't necessarily have anything to do with quality, esp. given your claim that the Lausanne lab never did markedly better than Dwaynes anyway.
My point is simply this: if I were making the call at Kodak, I wouldn't mass produce and try to sell a film stock that required the business stability of a single, completely unrelated entity. They wouldn't feel so compelled to pull K40 if there were a couple dozen active labs around the world processing it to some reasonable level of quality.
ccortez wrote:you have to agree that Kodak had a little bit more leverage when they were processing half themselves and sending half to Dwaynes, b/c that way they could always demand a standard of quality or retract the business. They did go thru periods of sending more sometimes less others to Dwaynes didn't they? Then again, that didn't necessarily have anything to do with quality, esp. given your claim that the Lausanne lab never did markedly better than Dwaynes anyway.
It had nothing to do with quality and everything to do with coporate politics, as I understand it. Again, they are still processing film for Kodak and will be while Kodak maintains the party line about lack of quality labs after Kodak Switzerland closes down. Gee, I wonder if Kodak would give people a processing discount on film sent to unqualified labs? 8O
ccortez wrote:
My point is simply this: if I were making the call at Kodak, I wouldn't mass produce and try to sell a film stock that required the business stability of a single, completely unrelated entity.
Agreed.
ccortez wrote:
They wouldn't feel so compelled to pull K40 if there were a couple dozen active labs around the world processing it to some reasonable level of quality.
But how many kodachrome super-8 processing machines did Kodak actually make? How many has Kodak actually dismantled and destroyed?
It's possible that the real truth is Kodak never anticipated the continued popularity for a format that has had very little new camera production in the last 20 years.
This is the problem with designed obselence, usually most well made products continue to have an after life that bean counters don't consider important and as a result they take the position of killing off something rather than allowing it to live on.
Whatever happened to the Kodachrome super-8 processor located in Hollywood up until the late 80's?
If Ektachrome 64 proves acceptable as an alternative to Kodachrome 40, it will have been a very wise move by Kodak because now they will have actually helped all the existing labs in the world handle their product and it could result in an increase in Super-8 sales and the reintroduction of super-8 film in markets that had stopped carrying super-8 film.
Alex wrote:I thought that Kodak had some kind of a certification program where if a particular lab was up to Kodak specs the lab could "brag" about it in writing and in advertising.
Sure.
"Pro8mm has received 5 years running the Kodak's Quality Assurance Award for Exceptional Quality Control in the Processing of Motion Picture Film. "
Something to keep in mind and temper one's opinion with when reading posts about Pro8 on here by people with murky vandettas and off-kilter perceptions on reality.
My whole problem with this issue is that it appears that Kodak made the decision to discontinue K40A in S8 solely based on their decision to demolish the Swiss lab and make some money by selling the land, which is now located in a high-demand area. I talked with Grant, head of D'Waynes a few days ago and he said that Kodak gave him no advanced warning of their decision and that they will continue to process K40A 8mm as long as Kodachrome is manufactured. I told him that E6 would probably not generate as much revenue for D'Waynes because of a new competition with other labs and a higher cost since processing would probably no longer be available via Wal-Mart. He agreed that it would not be "as much fun". Clearly, there is a lab that will continue to support us if we continue to get K40A slit down to S8 somehow. I am still investigating the possibility of using Casseta cartridges, maybe with some sort of agreement for D'Waynes to send them back to me so I can reload them. Since D'Waynes does offer K40A rawstock, I am sure they have a lot of "pull" and could get Kodak to commit to continuing to manufacture the film with we the consumers merely having to solve the problem with European shooters now that they no longer have their lab in addition to the problem of loading the film into cartridges due to the expense and small number of those cartridges. Perhaps it'd be better to make K40A for more of the DS8 crowd in addition to catering it to the Supermag, as those two systems have none of the cartridge hastles of standard S8.
i'm beginning to get more drooly about the prospects of a dry-to-dry processor that could be switched between e6, c41, b/w neg, and b/w rev. i'd give a lot of money to buy or build one of those...
ccortez wrote:i'm beginning to get more drooly about the prospects of a dry-to-dry processor that could be switched between e6, c41, b/w neg, and b/w rev. i'd give a lot of money to buy or build one of those...
Although this site gives plans for a B&W processing machine I don't see any problem using the same design for E6. (Why C41?)
For that matter I don't see why a determined amateur (or professional) could not use the same approach to design and build a K-14 machine.
Bob said......that the K-14 recipes are public information,
that Kodak would communicate the patent, that the chemicals needed
are widely available, and that they would do everything they could to
help. He also said that if a lab were available, he doesn't see any
reason not to provide the emulsion.
Is there something in the K-14 process other than just sending the film through a series of baths? Does the film have to be split into three different layers in order to apply the dyes and then cemented back together?
For that matter I don't see why a determined amateur (or professional) could not use the same approach to design and build a K-14 machine.
Bob said......that the K-14 recipes are public information,
that Kodak would communicate the patent, that the chemicals needed
are widely available, and that they would do everything they could to
help. He also said that if a lab were available, he doesn't see any
reason not to provide the emulsion.
Is there something in the K-14 process other than just sending the film through a series of baths? Does the film have to be split into three different layers in order to apply the dyes and then cemented back together?
"What he is saying is very clear. If someone opened a lab which could come up to their standards then the stock could be supported, and therefore they could make it. What they dont want is people to be offering crappy processing with the risk that customers will blame Kodak."
Sorry about the delayed response, but this doesn't make any sense at all. The extent of Kodak's "standard" for processing is that "quality assurance" award. Not that many labs have received that, and I'm sure many of the labs that aren't "Kodak certified" do perfectly good work. As a matter of fact, if you look on the list of labs on the Kodak site, you'll find that relatively few are certified. Frankly, the number of "certified" labs for E6 in Super 8 or Plus-X (for example) aren't that many.
As several other posters pointed out, implying Dwayne's isn't up to their "standards" when they send up to half of their film there is sheer corporate spin and has no attachment to reality.
As Roger stated, E6 processing ranges from crap to great. Kodak sells the stock with the implicit knowledge that processing is not provided by Kodak; it's up to the user to source it out themselves, and Kodak can assume no responsibility for the results.
The party line in this case is pure spin, retroactively attempting to justify a myopic decision. Support and quality have absolutely nothing to do with the decision to kill K40, for the simple reason that most labs that will do E6 are not "Kodak certified," and the fact that Dwayne's processing was good enough for Kodak themselves.
Evan Kubota wrote:E6 processing ranges from crap to great. Kodak sells the stock with the implicit knowledge that processing is not provided by Kodak; it's up to the user to source it out themselves, and Kodak can assume no responsibility for the results.
The party line in this case is pure spin, retroactively attempting to justify a myopic decision. Support and quality have absolutely nothing to do with the decision to kill K40, for the simple reason that most labs that will do E6 are not "Kodak certified," and the fact that Dwayne's processing was good enough for Kodak themselves.
Exactly.
To be clear, I hold nothing against Kodak for dropping K40. I mean, we all knew it was coming at some point and businesses have to make certain decisions to protect the bottom line. If Kodak were to simply say, "Hey, we all love Kodachrome but we can't make a good enough profit on it anymore" then I could respect that. But, instead, we're thrown a bone that if there were just one "qualified" lab left then Kodak would continue making K40, as if Dwaynes is qualified now to process for Kodak but wouldn't be qualified later to process for you and me directly.
Thus, if there were 30 labs left that could process K14 in Super 8, that would be 30 labs closing down in about a year or so due to lack of film stock to process, of that I am quite certain. Shifting the blame to the labs for not processing K14 seems unnecessary but, more interestingly, it reveals how much Kodak is aware of the popularity of Kodachrome since they obviously do not want to shoulder the fallout from the decision to drop such a cherished emulsion. Perhaps they underestimated the reaction to that decision.
I pretty much agree with Roger. I was always going to be hugely disappointed if K40 went but it is more the manner of the announcement and lack of any coherant policy from Kodak that has annoyed me...and lack of a direct replacement process-paid(64T might be very useful but is not a direct replacement).
Perhaps they thought they could sweep K40 under the carpet without anybody noticing? I can forgive almost anything with an honest apology and explanation but we've had as much spin as a Labour party conference.
I know they tried to kill off Kodachrome slide film circa 1990 the pro photographers made such a stink they were forced to change their minds. Of course there are not enough super 8 K40 users to do that, but it shows that kodak can sometimes get it horribly wrong with a niche product. I know photographers who still spit tacks over that particular episode.
Evan Kubota wrote:"What he is saying is very clear. If someone opened a lab which could come up to their standards then the stock could be supported, and therefore they could make it. What they dont want is people to be offering crappy processing with the risk that customers will blame Kodak."
Sorry about the delayed response, but this doesn't make any sense at all. The extent of Kodak's "standard" for processing is that "quality assurance" award. Not that many labs have received that, and I'm sure many of the labs that aren't "Kodak certified" do perfectly good work. As a matter of fact, if you look on the list of labs on the Kodak site, you'll find that relatively few are certified. Frankly, the number of "certified" labs for E6 in Super 8 or Plus-X (for example) aren't that many.
As several other posters pointed out, implying Dwayne's isn't up to their "standards" when they send up to half of their film there is sheer corporate spin and has no attachment to reality.
As Roger stated, E6 processing ranges from crap to great. Kodak sells the stock with the implicit knowledge that processing is not provided by Kodak; it's up to the user to source it out themselves, and Kodak can assume no responsibility for the results.
The party line in this case is pure spin, retroactively attempting to justify a myopic decision. Support and quality have absolutely nothing to do with the decision to kill K40, for the simple reason that most labs that will do E6 are not "Kodak certified," and the fact that Dwayne's processing was good enough for Kodak themselves.
Not trying to be provocative, but people are reading far too much into this decision I am sure.
Fact is there is no where to get the stuff processed, therfore it can't be supported.
(and its not that good anyway, other than a few nice features that are outweighed by the bad ones)
Matt
Matt
Birmingham UK. http://www.wells-photography.co.uk
Avatar: Kenneth Moore (left) with producers (centre) discussing forthcoming film to be financed by my grandfather (right) C.1962
YOU don't think it is that good but a bunch of people DO. Just becuase you don't like it doesn't give you any right to say others cannot use it.
There IS somewhere that can process it, Dwaine's for a start.
This whole "we're tearing down the Swiss lab so nobody can process it" is a smokescreen. It has nothing to do whatsoever with whatever reasons Kodak may have for axing K40 super 8.
They obviously *want* to axe K40, otherwise they would have asked Dwain's if they could handle the increased business once the lab is gone...or asked if any other business was willing to take on K14 processing. Clearly if the will were there, Kodak could find a solution that kept K40 on the shelves. For whatever reason they want to get rid of it.
"Fact is there is no where to get the stuff processed, therfore it can't be supported."
Again, this sounds exactly like what Kodak has been saying. Keep in mind that *they* are the ones tearing down the Swiss lab, which is (1) of (2) labs that can handle K40. The second lab, Dwayne's, has stated that they will continue to process K40. To paraphrase Cold Mountain (mediocre movie), "they make the weather then complain that it's raining..."
How do we know that Kodak isn't simply liquidating some assets?? Perhaps the Swiss Lab is located on some really prime real-estate in Switzerland and the time and money are both good and needed right now??
I'm not suggesting this is what happened, but merely trying to make the point that it could be one of the many "REAL" reasons this is happening. After all, lots of companies sell off their properties in foreign countries when the "TIME IS RIGHT". Perhaps the real oversight here is that this one "just happens" to be the last Kodak super8 kodachrome lab in the world.
Anyhow, I'm sure Kodak is serious about the fact that anyone willing to start up a lab is In fact more then welcome to. The k40 recipe isn't going anywhere.. Heck they can pull it out two years from now if it was ever profitable to do so. Perhaps Dwayne's continues to process K40 well after the Swiss lab closes.
Mind you, if that happens, we'll just have to pay for it...
