Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!aioe.org!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!news.misty.com!not-for-mail From: "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: For sale... Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:44:07 +0000 (UTC) Organization: MGT Consulting Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <020320111732265419%nospam@nospam.invalid> <030320110312589455%nospam@nospam.invalid> <030320111022404708%nospam@nospam.invalid> <040320111324155538%nospam@nospam.invalid> <050320111625113014%nospam@nospam.invalid> <060320111939111024%nospam@nospam.invalid> <070320111727431612%nospam@nospam.invalid> <070320111908384915%nospam@nospam.invalid> <090320110823373009%nospam@nospam.invalid> Reply-To: gsm@mendelson.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.65.228.114.dynamic.barak-online.net X-Trace: max.inside.misty.com 1299678247 19432 85.65.228.114 (9 Mar 2011 13:44:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@misty.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:44:07 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-11 (Linux) Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.sys.mac.apps:535 nospam wrote: > kodachrome film had to be sent out (so it took a week or so to get > back), while ektachrome could be processed on site in the same or next > day. dwayne's was the only facility in the *world* just before they > ceased kodachrome processing a few months ago. Kodachrome could be processed on site too. You needed a fairly complex machine, but not much more complex than a compelte C-41 film to print minilab. The problem with the machines is that by the time they were built, (1990's) the demand for Kodachrome had dropped to the point that a Wal-Mart photo department was not interested in them. A large professional lab would (and did) buy them, and most large cities had at least one. As the demand for Kodachrome dropped, and they were no longer run 24/7, they became to expensive to maintain. Kodak wanted to get rid of Kodachrome because of the chemicals involved in the processing. While there were changes along the years, the process was basically the same as the 1930's process, developed when there was no such thing as environmental impact. In order to continue selling Kodachrome in large quantites, Kodak would of had to re-engineer the process to use what are considered safe chemicals by modern standards. Since Kodak has been focusing on digital photography since the late 1990's, they spent their money improving the Ekatchrome line of film, and getting rid of Kodachrome. In the last 10 years, they have had to combine production facilites and processes, reduce the number of products they make, and drop unprofitable lines, such as Kodachrome and their entire line of photographic papers. This is not much different than Apple after Jobs' return. Under his guidance, Apple dropped unprofitable products, and modernized the ones they made. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.