Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/12/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Charles E. Love, Jr. wrote: > > > Well, to start with, if at all possible I wouldn't use Kodalux. There are > still some alternatives for Kodachrome, I think--one is BWC (I think that's > the name) in Miami Beach ... > Kodalux, on the other hand....there are lots of stories, but my favorite was the period of about a year when their machine chopped up the first picture > on every roll of Kodachrome I sent them. Repeated complaints produced the > response that it must be the camera, but I sent them rolls from different > cameras. I checked with other photogs, and they had the same problem. > > The decision Kodak made to sell their processing to a drugstore processor (a big one, but low quality--Qualux) was the beginning of the end for > Kodachrome, I think. It saved Kodak money since they fired all their > experienced staff, but the quality went way down. I think I heard somewhere > that Kodak boughtthe processing back very recently--anyone know? > > Charlie > Yes, Kodak is back in the kodachrome developing business. There has been a noticeable change for the better in quality control: it is now called Kodak Premium Processing on the slide mounts. I use the prepaid mailers bought at a discount and patiently wait the one week turnaround time. During the depths of the Kodalux regime (they did improve eventually) I also used A&I Color in Los Angeles: processing was superb but shipping from east coast to west and back became a bother and expense. It is my understanding that Kodak originally divested themselves of the processing business as part of their settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency re their huge pollution problem at Rochester, NY. Although I use plenty of Fujichrome, IMHO, Kodachrome and Leicas were made for each other. Mike Gardner