----- Original Message ----- From: "jerome" Subject: Re: DC photographs
I am of the opinion that Kodak wants to kill Kodachrome, and the sooner the better. The process is very ecologically dirty, and consequently, very expensive. Qualex Canada has been a major thorn in my side since the company was formed by Kodak buying up just about every wholesale lab a decade ago. "Qualex" stands for "Quality and Excellence". "Qualex" as a comany is the antipathy of both (that just my opinion). Your films are probably sitting behind a machine somewhere in the bowels of the New Jersey plant, where they landed after being toosed aside by a staff member who wanted to go for coffee rather than loading them into the processor. William Robb > > Bob S wrote: > > > Kodak has cut back to only processing Kodachrome out of > > New Jersey, so my turn around time is now 10+ days > > instead of two! > > > Well, the turn around time for my last 4 rolls sent to Kodak is apparently > infinite. Got a letter stating that my package arrived with mailers, but no > film. I sent them off in a small manila envelope, which was not very sturdy... > evidently easily ripped. I usually send multiple rolls in a 2-day priority > envelope (and they return it to me in the same fashion) which is larger, more > timely, much more sturdy and supposedly less likely to get misplaced within the > USPS system... And it appears to me that Kodak *rushes* orders sent priority > and in bulk... my returned mailers are always marked accordingly ["Rush"] when > I send them this way. > > To be honest I'm still not sure who is responsible for my loss... USPS or > Qualex. What's odd is that I usually put the rolls of film *inside* the mailers > (but dont seal them). So the fact that Kodak did get the mailers, but without > film... bizarre. This has left lots of room for speculation... but I refrain > since the end result is the same: my shots are gone. <insert tear drop> > > Then again, this all could be a ploy devised by Pentax (!!) since it has left > me a bit disgruntled and more inclined to go digital sooner than I anticipated. > [weighing cost of digital with current photo budget...] um... maybe not. As > silly as it sounds, I think I'll also start putting my phone # on the canisters > that I send off. Just a little more insurance I suppose. Hey, it can't hurt and > the cost is nominal. > > But no worries! Kodak replaced my exposed film with unexposed film and new > mailers! Whoo hoo... happy day! But before I go off on my sarcastic rant, I > guess I'd admit that this is better than nothing.
