Qualex is GONE!

<p>Effective March, 2009. See here: <a href="http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6563182">http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6563182</a></p>

<p>So, here are the Essential Questions:</p>

<ol>

<li>What will happen to in-store Kodak-based send-out services? </li>

<li>Is Dwaynes' slide film contract with Qualex or EK itself?</li>

<li>Who will be taking over EK's film developing service, if anyone?</li>

<li>What happens to those (like me) with a substantial store of Kodak mailers? Will just the C-41 ones finally "expire" or will the slide film mailers be dead too?</li>

<li>(the Eternal Question) Is this another step toward "the death of film" or "the rebirth of film"(as a niche product)?</li>

</ol>

<p>Let it be known that there are other ways to process film than sending it to kodak. Kodak was never the high quality option when processing, and if you really care about your film do it yourself or send it to a pro lab.</p>

<p>There will always be processors. A minilab machine doesn't need much throughput to continue running. I am concerned for my grandmother, but I don't see this affecting many professional photographers. They handled what remaining amateurs there were; seeing as that market is gone I can fully understand why they are too.</p>

<p>Of course they're not pulling K14 yet. They have a huge stack of unprocessed film waiting to be sold. That would be stupid.</p>

<p>The market they serviced is gone, there's no need to take it up. You should find a pro lab or process the film yourself. It's fun.</p>

<p>The eternal question: no. It is the death of the amateur 800 ASA market.</p>

<p>THIS IS NOT GOOD. It will probably cause more consumers to go digital which will put film one even more of a decline. Kodakchrome will not be as easy to send out and will be more expensive(for most people..I send directly to dwaynes). Digital strikes again!!</p>

<p>I doubt there are very many uninformed folks using Kodachrome these days due to the limited number of mass marketers who still sell the film - those who are using it are probably already sending it direct to Dwayne's or know that other processers such as Fuji will take it in and send it to Parsons KS for you.<br>

<br /> I'm not going to shed any tears for Qualex - the day in 1988 when Kodak created them and started moving away from directly owning its processing operation was the beginning of their slow decline, long before digital came along.</p>

<p>I worked at the Pennsylvania lab as a quality assurance technician calibrating printers processors and minilabs when digital was just a few years old. It was the largest Qualex plant in the world. On a slow night we processed 12,000 rolls. After a major holiday we might process 73,000 rolls in one night. The production staff was between 75 and 90 employees. Our paper WASTE in one month might come up to 13 tons. It was an amazing experience. Damn we were good.</p>

<p>Walmart in Canada dropped Qualex earlier this year. I guess I'll have to get my Super 8 Kodachrome sent directly to Dwaynes now.</p>

<p>I just called Qualex and they did not have any alternative to tell me about. As far as your Kodak Mailers....don't they all expire in March 2009? I am really thinking that this is more of the death of film. Everytime I turn around I see a local place closing, never mind Qualex! I will just continue to send all of my C-41 and E-6 to Dale Labs for beautiful processing and send some E-6 and all of my K-14 to Dwaynes</p>

<p>IIRC, the mailers are good until 12/09. Maybe someone else can confirm</p>

<p>This is a knife in the back by Kodak to all their loyal customers throughout the years who used their convenient dropoff locations like CVS.I've shot hundreds of bricks of E6 Kodak film over the past thirty years and I'll guarantee them I've purchased my last one.Another thought,don't count on me ever purchasing another product with your name on it because I hate to get screwed twice.</p>

<p>Douglas-Why don't you just send your E-6 through the mail to a good lab?</p>

<p>Patrick,<br>

That's not why I'm ticked (we have numerous other options here in northern Ohio but most are more expensive),its because those Qualex folks always did a good job with my E6 and CVS charged only $6 for 36.We have a CVS on just about every corner in Cleveland.My 'problem' is Kodak dumping those people and the thousands of outlets that depend on those labs.Yes,it will drive more people to digital because it will become a bigger hassle for many film shooters to get processing done.I'm sure the primary motivation (besides reduced film volume/profit)is more film shooters will throw in the towel and buy a Kodak point and shoot digital along with one of their new ink jet printers.I know they need to adapt to survive but you don't screw over the people who were your bread and butter for a good many years.If they still sell film and are making a profit at it then they should support the processing end too.</p>

<p>I agree......but I will never give my Kodak 'chromes</p>

<p>Douglas; so what is your answer for a *financial model* for Qualex or another film lab to *stay afloat*; with declining sales; less film to process; higher overhead per roll?</p>

<p>Is if to be Ohio folks at Qualex would love a cut in pay or benefits to stay afloat;<br>

or is it you would love to pay more per roll to keep the lab afloat another year?<br>

Or maybe Ohio could drop/halt taxes in film processing; or provide bailout money?</p>

<p>The "more expensive labs" have survived and the value based one died; thus one may ponder if the more expensive labs have a wiser management; yea an evil one that is profit driven; one that has profits to cover expenses.</p>

<p>Labs have been dying off for over a decade across the USA; its actually an ancient thing.</p>

<p>Many folks get ticked off when the last local lab croaks and they have to mail away film and often pay more. Once there was a Kodachrome lab in each major city</p>

<p>A friend had her C41 mini lab die off after 9/11 ; they survived until 2002 and croaked. The lab was in a retirement village area; seniors stopped flying after the long lines to wait it; wearing depends and taking ones shoes off. The lab had about 80 to 90 percent of its customers as seniors.</p>

<p>Another local lab died off last week; one that processed 120 and 35mm C41 and E6 too. Folks too were *ticked off* the last few years as prices rose; now they are *ticked* that their doors are shut.</p>

<p>Many chemicals do not last forever in a film lab; they have to be replaced even if no rolls are processed. Thus as volumes drop in a lab the costs per roll skyrocket; since the light bill; wages; insurance; rent still have to be paid.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>POP TEST:<br>

learn to plot data:<br>

Plot labs in operation versus date<br>

Figure the "slope"<br>

Draw a line or curve thru the data points<br>

Ponder<br>

Draw another graph with digital sales versus date.<br>

Qualex had about 50 plus labs in operation in 1995<br>

Qualex had 22 labs in operation in 2004<br>

Qualex had 3 labs in operation in 2008</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>I'm not going to shed any tears for Qualex - the day in 1988 when Kodak created them and started moving away from directly owning its processing operation was the beginning of their slow decline, long before digital came along.</em></p>

<p>Digital was around in long before 1988; it just was using older graphics programs on Mac or PC ; folks made signs; graphics; photos using 36" wide pen plotters; we scanned in images with a hand held scanner; and created this giant plot/plt file for the poster. Aldus came out with PageMaker in about that era in a Windows version; later some of us got Aldus Photostyler.<br>

1988 is the year the popular HP deskjet came out. The Sony Mavica came out in 1989; The Dycam in 1990; the Kodak in 1992.</p>

<p>Digital photography is thus about 19 years old now; within one year of Qualex's age. Digital photography is older than photo.net.</p>

<p>Since Digital photography is so old the folks at Qualex might have noticed a trend; and Kodak might have spent more on Digital than the later APS boondoggle; a last hope in creating a new bastard film format to lock in film sales and upgrade fees to deal with the weird new cartridge.</p>

<p>I stopped buying Kodak products years ago. The company has the most inept management on the face of this planet. Forget that you can't get developing, just think about how many billions of dollars of value's been destroyed by these jokers. The company has not has a firm direction in over a decade. No wonder they can't figure out a profit model that works.<br>

Anthony</p>

 

<p>I am in the same boat with Douglas. I loved getting my slides for $6 bucks at CVS. Process only was less than 3 bucks. Dang.</p>

<p> There's nothing to worry about. Someone/thing will fill the void. Of course, the bean counters hidden away in the Kodak corporate boardroom are being foolish (again?). They should realize that traditional photography - film/paper/chemicals is experiancing a re-emergence. Shut down one or two labs, see what happens.</p>

<p>3. Who will be taking over EK's film developing service, if anyone?<br>

Is it obvious? - A group of Chinese investors will buy the film/paper/chemicals division. Bejing will be the new Rochestor.<br>

Of course I hope this does NOT happen. Kodak should stick it out - and they are. Why did the new Ektar come out?</p>

<p>Kelly,your recent post was a epipihany for me.After reviewing your formulation I've decided instead of spending fifty bucks a month on slide film development it would be a wise choice to donate all my obsolete film gear to Goodwill and go out and hose away three or four thousand on a kick butt digital slr outfit that should be worth about a hundred dollars in a few years.Ever consider a career in Kodak management? </p>

<p>Gee Doug-- I'll take that film gear off your hands.... I personally think that is crazy to drop film and go digital!</p>

<p>Douglas; its not like some of us have as many choices with labs anymore;</p>

<p>its been a decline for along time.</p>

<p>In process cameras the death happened over a decade ago; digital replaced the process camera. Once there was about 5 makers of films; when it got to just 2; prices skyrocketed; when just one it went nuts. When I mentioned about 10 years ago how that process cameras died off due to digital; I basically got laughed at. This transistion started back in 1988; in the DOS era; before Photoshop; it was a done deal by roughly 1998.</p>

<p>When I had to buy a 35 megapixel digital 4x5 back about 10 years ago; it too was done because the local 4x5 E6 lab got flakey and croaked.</p>

<p>NOW in the last few years the issue of local labs dying has hit non rural areas; folks are "going thru" what some of us went thru and got laughed at 10 years ago.</p>

<p>The plague of labs dying finally hit larger cities.</p>

<p>Its not like any of us really want this to happen.</p>

<p>Here I used WW2 surplus Tri-x in the 1950's as a kid; in 4x5 sheets.</p>

<p>Hopefully there will be some E6 labs still around with decent prices for several decades; usable by mailorder.</p>

<p>The "masses" rarely shoot slides anymore; they shoot c41 films; its been that way since the 1970's.</p>

<p>many pros do nott use much E6 anymore either</p>

<p>Well maybe it will give a temporary boost to the few surviving cuatom labs like mine. We're the last holdout here in New Jersey still doing everything except Kodachrome, and I actually wish that we still had competition because it would make a market, if you know what I mean. Even though we're the last and have a virtual monopoly there's no advantage towards raising prices. If we gave processing away for free, I don't think we'd have any more market share or film being shot, and if we raised the price, we'd just chase people away to digital. Kodak made the right decision to close Qualex.</p>

<p>For those strongly resenting this decision I can clearly understand your feelings; "me too". Maybe some things to consider, though..</p>

<p>Over the years, I've talked with at least two seemingly well experienced people at Kodak Professional Film, and a few younger folks, through the customer service phone line. One individual I felt very lucky to speak with, as he was an older guy, in on the developments with Kodachrome, and then the new E-6 emulsions. Of course the blame is on management, not the film engineering people. I could feel the enthusiasm almost all of these people had towards film! It's not them at fault, it's the typical obscenely high paid, Wall Street pleasing scum seeming upper management, just like in most of our corporations. When you look at Kodak's financial statements, although film sales have clearly declined substantially, it is still hugely profitable, and also clearly their biggest source of profit, by far. And this seems to be the case despite almost no advertising that I see! I really don't get it.. </p>

<p>These are truly great films; I've just shot my first b&w, T-max 400, in a very inexpensive, but high quality 38 year old camera.. I'm blown away by the quality.. I've truly never had as much sheer fun with photography as I had with this camera from 1970, especially when I received the prints back from a good lab.. This seems to me, much of what the joy of photography is all about, and it was with such a relatively "old fashioned" technology.. Can't help but think that there are many people out there, as yet undiscovered, that Kodak could reach with these products, but management doesn't even seem to try.. Especially with this economy.. I can't help but think of all the great manual Canons, Olys, etc., etc. that could be purchased for the equivalent of the proverbial song, and the results they could achieve, compared with the many and varied digital products people are convinced by advertising and popular opinion to spend so much on.. But Kodak management doen't even try! I think they should be fired immediately, if not sooner :)! It seems clear to me, that management has pinned Kodak's hopes on digital. This seems foolish to me, given the "razor blade" nature of the film business , but what do I know.. I like simple things, that endure.</p>

<p>I will continue to purchase and enjoy these great films, though. Again, while I understand the anger so many us feel, I can't help but think that by boycotting Kodak products we only further hurt our prospects for keeping great films affordable.. Also, we hurt further film evolution if these people working on film at Kodak lose their jobs.. And many, or all of these films, are still made in the states; good for our economy at least in small part, and at least in principle. When we choose to purchase products made in nations that have relatively sensible environmental, human rights, and labor laws and regulations, as the U.S. does, it is always a good thing, imho. Anyways, that's my two cents worth.</p>

<p>Jeff,<br>

You are right,why take it out on the great people at Kodak who have been producing fantastic film for decades.It's not their fault the management running the company are a bunch of shortsighted number crunchers.I've loved the Elite look from the first roll shot back in the 90's.</p>