Film at Kodak, consumer division.

[SchwinnParamount]

Schwinn, is there some point to this thread?

It was humor but if you don't get it, that's Ok.

 

[MikeSeb]

It was humor but if you don't get it, that's Ok.

My bad, then. Problem with having no body language to judge by.

 

[KarnyDoc]

The consent decree stated roughly that Kodak could no longer sell film in the USA with processing price included, and that they must make color processes available to others. Thus Kodachrome was sold as just "film", and we had C22, E1, Type R and Type C in the mid 50s. All R&D on the processes and films was undertaken by EK, but by law, any other company could use the processes and so Fuji, Agfa and Konishiroku came out with compatible films and papers and used the Kodak chemistry. This saved them a lot of money.

In the 60s and 70s, similar lawsuits prevented Kodak from making further changes to E6, C41 and Ektaprint C.

PE

The magic date for the consent decree is 1954, when a lawsuit was filed over the matter.

Dieter Zakas

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

To my way of thinking, the Gov't destroyed Kodak and a lot of other "successful" companies -or at least cut down the contributions they would have made if they'd let them go and make a good profit to reinvest in more R&D! Almost criminal from a business owner standpoint.

On the other subject, I love Kodak's films, but do hate how they hide the film section. I have emailed them a few times about this, stating and in one case diagraming exactly how easy it would be for them to have a FILM link there on the home page. Never even so much as received a reply about it. I know they get my emails, though, because I've received replies regarding other things from them.

Why do they act like they don't want to tell the public about their film? I realize they want to be seen as a digital ( read progressive ) company these days in the mind of their shareholders and the public ( and really, one cannot fault them for that, regardless of personal philosophy), but WHY not leverage their film legacy? It was a good one at that, very respected in the art world and the business world. Why act ashamed of it and hide it? I'm fairly young yet, and even my generation thinks of film when someone says Kodak. Instead of dropping their consumers like a hot potato, why don't they leverage the trust that was created with film, and then try to slip in some "latest, greatest digi stuff" on the consumer? From a business point, that would make much more sense.
People make decisions off of emotion, not facts. The film info would invoke a lot of beneficial, nostalgic, positive emotions that would encourage consumers to "Buy Kodak", and that is exactly what Kodak needs right now!

OK, end rant.

 

[lxdude]

The consent decree was because of Kodak's dominant position in the marketplace. In particular, Kodachrome and Kodacolor enjoyed such dominance without significant competition that bundling their processing meant controlling the market for color processing. That was considered anti-competitive, as it meant that competing color films would be at a strong disadvantage because they could not be processed in Kodak's chemistry, and Kodak's control of processing squeezed out competition from the processing market. In 1994, the courts decided Kodak's marketplace dominance was much reduced, and the decree was rescinded. Another earlier consent decree from I think 1921, forbade Kodak from packaging film to be sold by other companies under those companies' own labels. That was also rescinded in 1994.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Consent degree?

Well, I imagine I don't have enough time to devote sufficient study to the matter...
It seems I have mixed opinions on the goodness of such controls... I don't think I can come to good personal POV soon, so I will just leave it on the shelf for now.

On one hand
why not allow the creators do what they want with their own creations?
Competition can come from unique and different methods
rather than similar but different ones.

And, besides, no one said they can't try....

In some ways its like telling a sports man he is too good to compete in a competition because it would be unfair to others less well gifted, or physically / mentally prepared...

What was the law suit about?
that is,
Who vs Who?

 

[Ray Rogers]

So those Film Mailers were Kodak's way at getting around the decree?

I remember visiting Germany in early the late 70's or early 80's and Perutz Film and possibly Agfa as well (sold at Hertie...) was mostly (or all?) processing included...
why was that?

 

[lxdude]

Kodak was allowed to compete in the processing market but not to use its dominant position in the film market to control the processing market. Its control of the processing market also put competitors in the film market at a disadvantage because of its proprietary processes. It's not illegal to have a monopoly or near monopoly in itself. What is illegal is a practice which in conjunction with marketplace dominance has the effect of stifling competition. Lack of competition is seen as inhibiting innovation and alternatives, and as giving the dominant company the ability to charge whatever it wants due to a lack of alternatives.
Only Kodak was prohibited from bundling processing. Other companies could and did in the USA, and Kodak could anywhere else. At one time I bought both Fujichrome and Agfachrome with processing included.
Kodak Mailers offered a way to get processing done when there was no place to drop it off, like when you live in the boonies, and also to get it processed when traveling, when it obviously can't be dropped off someplace and picked up days later. I used Kodachrome mailers frequently as I could buy them much cheaper (anyone in SoCal remember Fedco?) than dropping off Kodachrome at my local photo store for Kodak processing.


I used to see the lack of bundled processing as a minor annoyance, until Kodak's processing went to hell for a while in the late 70's (long before the Qualex fiasco). After too many scratches, pinholes, off color and dust, I stopped using my beloved Kodachrome for a while. Eventually another company was recommended to me for K-14, and they did excellent work, so I was back in business with K25 and K64. Without competitive K-14 processing Kodak would not have sold me any more Kodachrome until I knew I could trust them again.
In the interim I shot Ektachrome 64 (cold and grainy), Fujichrome 100 (gaudy and grainy), and Agfachrome 64 (really nice color, well balanced, rather like Kodachrome with creamy whites, and grainy.) At that time, nothing measured up to the K-14 films overall. And only Agfachrome has resisted fading as well as the Kodachromes.

 

[nickrapak]

What was the law suit about?
that is,
Who vs Who?

United States V. Kodak (1954) established the consent decree

US v. Eastman Kodak Co., 63 F.3d 95 (2nd Cir. 1994) repealed the consent decree.

 

[Photo Engineer]

United States V. Kodak (1954) established the consent decree

US v. Eastman Kodak Co., 63 F.3d 95 (2nd Cir. 1994) repealed the consent decree.

In this reference, you see both cases referred to which controlled sale of film to customers and film with processing to customers (among other complaints). Left out are the minor law suits that ensued which I referred to above by Berkey, Pavelle and GAF and then later by Polaroid.

These suits hurt no one but the customers, especially in the latter 4 cases. Repealing the consent decree has come quite too late to save analog photography, as without this decree, the Qualex fiasco referred to probably would never have happened, and today's processes would have been a lot better than they are. These cases hindered R&D and thus innovation.

I could give some specific examples but why bother.

PE

 

[nickrapak]

In this reference, you see both cases referred to which controlled sale of film to customers and film with processing to customers (among other complaints). Left out are the minor law suits that ensued which I referred to above by Berkey, Pavelle and GAF and then later by Polaroid.

These suits hurt no one but the customers, especially in the latter 4 cases. Repealing the consent decree has come quite too late to save analog photography, as without this decree, the Qualex fiasco referred to probably would never have happened, and today's processes would have been a lot better than they are. These cases hindered R&D and thus innovation.

I could give some specific examples but why bother.

PE

But the government was doing "what was in our best interest!" :rolleyes:

 

[AgX]

Well, Kodak includes data on sensitometry, spectral sensitivity, grain, sharpness, process information, some formulas, and lots of other things. What do you want more than this? Post your wants / needs.

PE

Yes, agreed. I even found pages on their server you cannot access by following their registry.


I just found out that on their german section they list professional films within their shop. I guess this is something new.

Well, on second sight I realize they offer only type 135. For someone looking for type 120 , entering their webshop and following their "Professional Film" link that will be a dead end street...