It's surprising that, freed from the prohibition, Kodak didn't resume offering processing and film together. I certainly would have paid more for premium quality results that a manufacturer could claim when controlling all aspects of its own film process. Then again, nobody ever got rich basing marketing decisions on my consumer preferences.
So when I see "positive" film stock for sale, is that the film which the negative film is exposed onto? That is, the positive film will become basically a negative of a negative but with higher contrast?
The consent decree that limited "processing included" Kodachrome was allowed to lapse/cancelled by the anti-trust authorities when it became moot.
It's surprising that, freed from the prohibition, Kodak didn't resume offering processing and film together. I certainly would have paid more for premium quality results that a manufacturer could claim when controlling all aspects of its own film process.
Actually, they didn't. They still fought the decree being terminated.
Kodak moved for both to be terminated- that 1954 decree, and the 1921 decree. The court ruled in Kodak's favor, and it was appealed by the government lawyers, who, after all, have to justify their existence somehow. Kodak's motion was upheld on appeal in 1995.
caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1300513.html
I had decided to resurrect my father's and grandfather's Super8 cameras, so this is a bit exciting. However, I want to be able to project from the film, which is why I will use a reversal B&W instead of the available color options to send it out for telecine. I'd really like the computer file too, but I want a positive film more. Hopefully there will be some sort of option for this (either transfer to print, or E-6 cartridges).
I would argue both in principle and practice (ie reality). That has been my experience with respect to still and motion pictures. Could perhaps be an interesting discussion.
Just to give one quick example of my position regarding you point about 8x10. In my experience, while the quality of your output might be higher when using 8x10 because it is cumbersome relative to 35mm, I have generally observed the opposite effect.
...
I know I can have both formats telecined to a digital file, but what I really want is to project traditionally - so I'd really like a positive color stock for Super8 (and regular 8 too). Yes, I've supported Film Ferrania's kickstarter.
...
...
its not the image quality its the experience. plenty of people have taken wonderful images with every format that exists, and in this modern day it really doesn't matter what the format is, its about having a good time...
John, I wasn't referring to enjoyment of process, "experience" etc. I was speaking plainly about the creative and artistic quality of still images and movies made using digital capture technologies vs the pre-digital age. Ken used the 8x10 vs F2 example to illustrate his point, which was that when things are more cumbersome or difficult (or what he considers to be so), in practice the results are better. All I'm saying is that this generally runs counter to my observations regarding still and moving pictures.
In Canada, processing was included in the price of the film until Kodak Canada stopped processing the film.
I expect that that was the case in other parts of the world as well..
The happy factor is something totally separate. I'm talking strictly about the quality of the art (output).
AFAIK, the without processing deal was a USA only thing. When I worked at Eatons in the 1970s we got some of our film from a grey market dealer who sold us Kodachome from the UK with processing included. we sent it through the regular channels and it came back fine. UNTIL one day they had processing problems and though off a whole batch of Regular 8, unfortunately on a day when one of our regular customers had just sent in many rolls from a big vacation. The returned films came back with a replacement roll and a letter apologising "On behalf of Kodak Limited, the manufacturers of the film" A cople of months later the stores buyer came out to our location and told us we were going to only carry film ordered from Kodak. I suspect that the incident clued Kodak Canada into the fact we were selling imported stuff.
The edge printing was slightly different on the processing included or not included versions, one with black letters on a light background and one with light letters on black. BUT i forget which was which. If someone brought in film from the states they had to pay to get it processed.
OH and in the heyday, one did not have to mail Kodachome in Canada. most photo shops had Kodak bag service, and your film was stuck in an envelope with your name by the photo dealer and placed in the bag. The bag was picked up every day and a few days later the film came in a cardboard box with the name portion of the envelope. (including the tag number) The box would be rubber stamped with teh price if your film did not include the processing.
also Processing included film had a P in the type number Like KA-459P or KR-135-36P
That seems more like the technical quality angle. I didn't think that's what Ken meant. It isn't what I was talking about when I referred to output quality. I was talking about the creative/artistic aspect, the seeing (as it relates to photography). Ken's LF/small format analogy was an extension/illustration of his reason for not going to the movies (which had to do with story, character development, not image quality). I disagree with all of it, not only in principle but practice.
In my experience I might go a step further regarding photography formats, but we're off topic. Regarding movies, I'll just say there are at least as many (more, I think) excellent story/character-driven movies being made now as ever. I think Ken is missing out, but we're going in circles, so instead I'll daydream about winning the Powerball jackpot. Man, would that change things for me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?