Wal-Mart's Send-Out Film Service

[nickrapak]

...Qualex is probably profitable too. Those Kodachrome Films they scrapped were profitable, but not enough for the current rotten bunch of Executives who run the Eastman Kodak Company.

IIRC, Qualex was never profitable, not from day one. I also believe that at the end, KL-200 and KM-25 didn't sell enough to justify making an entire roll.

You say it's a bad thing when a company cuts its losses, but honestly, if you were in charge of a company facing dire prospects, wouldn't you cut what loses the most money?

 

[craigclu]

FWIW, I recently had a roll of Portra 400VC that was used for some unimportant duties. I thought I'd give the Walmart processing a try and recieved back double prints on a roll of 120 in 6X7 for $2.04. I would have to say that the processing fees were over-priced, even at that! Very pale, colorless results in 3R prints. The negatives were clean, though but it took about 10 days. The prints reminded me of the one and only time I used Dwayne's for this sort of duty on 120.

 

[wilson]

every time you spend money at walmart your soul dies a little. they are a vile, vile corporation. why can't you send it to dwayne directly and cut out this horrible middle man.saving a couple bucks isn't worth the great cost of keeping this abomination in this country/world.

 

[removed account4]

wilson

it is more than just a couple bucks a roll i save by dropping my film off at sam's club,
more like 6 and 7$ a roll ( $4.04/roll doubles 24exp v 10.75/roll for same thing sent directly )
- includes shipping fees 1 way, not both ways, so it is even more ...

maybe you do, but i don't have thousands of extra dollars to spend on developing c41, e6 or 120 film.
if i had the money i would gladly bring every roll i shoot to someone local.

 

[MikeSeb]

every time you spend money at walmart your soul dies a little. they are a vile, vile corporation. why can't you send it to dwayne directly and cut out this horrible middle man.saving a couple bucks isn't worth the great cost of keeping this abomination in this country/world.

Sigh. Here we go again....

 

[davela]

every time you spend money at walmart your soul dies a little. they are a vile, vile corporation. why can't you send it to dwayne directly and cut out this horrible middle man.saving a couple bucks isn't worth the great cost of keeping this abomination in this country/world.

God bless Walmart

 

[geoferrell]

Sound great. I use Wal-Mart for 35mm slides both E-6 and Kodachrome, but didn't know about the availability of 120 processing.

 

[mongo6407]

thanks!

This will be a big savings for me now that Qualex is finished. I had been using CVS's qualex send away service and it was almost $7 for a 120 color print roll develop with prints. Now I can develop more than 4 times as many rolls even without qualex. Let's hope fuji and dwaynes remain in business with walmart.

 

[spotulate]

A few q's answered..

Fujicolor handles Wal*Mart's outprocesssing in the US. They do NOT follow Wal*Mart's 'unsuitable prints' policy.

If you want to make sure it gets sent out, drop it in the drop box specifically for "3 day" service. If you do not know where that drop box is, ask. Most of the associates can at least tell you that. In my experience, (worked at a wm1hr lab 2004-07) the service is very reliable, although mistakes do occur as with any process. IMO the quality is pretty good too.

They will process just about anything via sendout that can be processed reliably in modern equipment (*20 formats in color/e6/b+w, 126 and 110, 135, supposedly movie, interneg, slide copying, etc etc. They have a flipbook stick to the drop box explaining everything they can do)

Talk all you want about how saving a buck here and there will destroy the planet, but that buck is the difference between me being able to budget processing of one roll or five. And why buy five rolls if I can only afford to process one? Woops, there go film sales.

 

[TerryM]

IIRC, Qualex was never profitable, not from day one. I also believe that at the end, KL-200 and KM-25 didn't sell enough to justify making an entire roll.
You say it's a bad thing when a company cuts its losses, but honestly, if you were in charge of a company facing dire prospects, wouldn't you cut what loses the most money?

Where did you hear that Qualex wasn't profitable? There's no reason why they couldn't make a profit. Now, Wal-Mart is very demanding of the lowest price from its suppliers, and Qualex was probably trying to raise its fees which is why Wal-Mart dumped them. Losing Wal-Mart is probably the main reason why Kodak is closing Qualex. Nobody should now be surprised if the quality of Wal-Mart's send-out developing goes down. Whoever took it over had to outbid Qualex!

Regarding K200 and K25, there is no reason whatsoever why Kodak cannot make a profit on all of their Films. They would simply charge enough money to profit. A Master Roll is not that large, and can be stored in a freezer till it's all sold. The fact is that Kodak would have sold a lot more K200&25 if they had offered it to ALL of their customers -- including 120, Sheet, and 8&16mm Movie customers. I'm a Supe8 user, and believe me that Super8 and 16mm users would have been delighted to have K25,200 & K64. However, Kodak wasn't interested in serving them with Kodachrome. That was a lot of lost sales for Kodachrome! The only Transparency Film that Kodak offers Super8 users now is E64T.

 

[davela]

I can guarantee you that if Kodak simply put a sound stripe on their Super-8 film as they once did, small film makers would be beating their door down to buy it at high prices. I can also promise that if Kodak reintroduced K25 with, for instance, a processing mailer it would be an instant hit. I really do think Kodak has a disconnect between their customers and their product strategy. Kodak has a good knowledge of the low-end consumer markets and very high end movie industry and military markets, but only a dim awareness of the small artist market for their products.

 

[MattKing]

I can also promise that if Kodak reintroduced K25 with, for instance, a processing mailer it would be an instant hit.

Sadly, in the USA, that would most likely put Kodak in contempt of court, and bring those departments of the US federal government involved in enforcing anti-trust rulings down upon them.

Kodak might be just a little bit gun shy about things like this.

Matt

 

[BetterSense]

Why would that be an anti-trust situation? Have Kodak made an official statement to the contrary?

 

[CRhymer]

Hello Better,

If I understand your question correctly:

It is not that it would be. It is an old case, already decided, which is why Kodak stopped selling prepaid processing film in the US. It did in Canada and IIRC the rest of the world. Kodachrome sold in Canada is no longer sold processing included, but that is probably for other reasons. I don't have the details of the legal case at hand, but it is well known and documented. PE would have them at his finger-tips.

Cheers,
Clarence

 

[nickrapak]

There were actually two cases.


United States V. Kodak (1954) determined that Kodak did not have the right to sell film with processing included, pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Kodak V. United States (1994) determined that Kodak no longer possesses market power over the film and photofinishing markets. However, Kodak has obviously seen a reason not to bundle photofinishing and processing together for the last 15 years.

 

[wilson]

ahh ignorance is bliss....and so much easier. how much u pay for 120 e6 at walmart? it's time americans open there eyes and see more than dollar signs.

 

[nickrapak]

Where did you hear that Qualex wasn't profitable? There's no reason why they couldn't make a profit. Now, Wal-Mart is very demanding of the lowest price from its suppliers, and Qualex was probably trying to raise its fees which is why Wal-Mart dumped them. Losing Wal-Mart is probably the main reason why Kodak is closing Qualex. Nobody should now be surprised if the quality of Wal-Mart's send-out developing goes down. Whoever took it over had to outbid Qualex!

I heard it here.

Regarding K200 and K25, there is no reason whatsoever why Kodak cannot make a profit on all of their Films. They would simply charge enough money to profit. A Master Roll is not that large, and can be stored in a freezer till it's all sold. The fact is that Kodak would have sold a lot more K200&25 if they had offered it to ALL of their customers -- including 120, Sheet, and 8&16mm Movie customers. I'm a Supe8 user, and believe me that Super8 and 16mm users would have been delighted to have K25,200 & K64. However, Kodak wasn't interested in serving them with Kodachrome. That was a lot of lost sales for Kodachrome! The only Transparency Film that Kodak offers Super8 users now is E64T.

Yes, Kodak can make a profit on any film, provided the price is high enough. However, would you or anyone else purchase K25 or K200 at $30 per 36 exposure roll, knowing that the film is still being produced?
Yes, if Kodak offered Kodachrome in 120 and sheet sales would go up. But could you think about the expense involved with setting up a MF and a LF line for the K-14 process? It would probably run in the tens of thousands of dollars to just set up the machine, before the tanks are even filled with chemicals!

I will agree that the discontinuation of K40 in Super 8 was sad. However, introducing three Kodachrome emulsions for a format that can only support one color positive transparency emulsion at a time.

 

[CRhymer]

There were actually two cases.


United States V. Kodak (1954) determined that Kodak did not have the right to sell film with processing included, pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Kodak V. United States (1994) determined that Kodak no longer possesses market power over the film and photofinishing markets. However, Kodak has obviously seen a reason not to bundle photofinishing and processing together for the last 15 years.

Hello nickrapak,

Thank you for the links. I was unaware of the second case.

Cheers,
Clarence

 

[MattKing]

There were actually two cases.


United States V. Kodak (1954) determined that Kodak did not have the right to sell film with processing included, pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Kodak V. United States (1994) determined that Kodak no longer possesses market power over the film and photofinishing markets. However, Kodak has obviously seen a reason not to bundle photofinishing and processing together for the last 15 years.

Nick:

I too thank you for the second link.

Matt

 

[davela]

That's funny because my dad and later me used to buy kodak film with processing mailers all through the 1960's till the 1980's.

There were actually two cases.


United States V. Kodak (1954) determined that Kodak did not have the right to sell film with processing included, pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Kodak V. United States (1994) determined that Kodak no longer possesses market power over the film and photofinishing markets. However, Kodak has obviously seen a reason not to bundle photofinishing and processing together for the last 15 years.

 

[davela]

ahh ignorance is bliss....and so much easier. how much u pay for 120 e6 at walmart? it's time americans open there eyes and see more than dollar signs.

Sorry, helping the AFL-CIO unionize Walmart and cause another great American enterprise to tank is not in my interest and never will be.

 

[kodachrome64]

ahh ignorance is bliss....and so much easier. how much u pay for 120 e6 at walmart? it's time americans open there eyes and see more than dollar signs.

During hard economic times, many people don't have the extra money to spend on principle. With Kodachrome I save around $14/roll to get it back at the same time by going to Wal-Mart. Even if it were only $4/roll it would be worth it. Why pay 50% more for something when I don't have to?

 

[Venchka]

One note: Make sure that you put your film in the envelope for the external service. Mark the envelope with the process you want. I say this because not every person at every film counter at every Wal-Mart knows about the Outside Service and the envelopes to use. Most do, but I did run into a couple people who didn't know what I was talking about.

 

[wilson]

again with the dollar signs.... I said nothing regarding unions ,quite the opposite. and what about all the great american enterprises it destroys?

 

[removed account4]

sorry wilson, i am not at all ignorant of their policies ...

i know they in the habit of lowering their prices so the competition folds,
and then they jack the prices up again ... higher than before ...
when there is no where else to shop.

no i am not a fan of the resulting vacant main street,
and the "super center" built next to a perfectly good vacant building next door,
just because it had to fit the cookie cutter mold of all their stores.

no i am not a fan of saying things are made in usa and
then the stickers fall off that say the product is actually made in mexico.

i am not rich by any means, and yes saving 10 dollars a roll of film is a lot
of money that i save 100+ times a year.
are you going to send me a bank cheque for the difference between my pro lab, and local finisher,
and for the 80min's worth of gas i am going to spend (round trip to pro lab ) so i won't get my film sent to fuji + dwaynes ?
i will send you my address and you can start sending me cheques next week,
i'll have some e6 and c-41 to process soon.