Qualex is GONE!

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.

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.

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

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.

The eternal question: no. It is the death of the amateur 800 ASA market.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Patrick,
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.

I agree......but I will never give my Kodak 'chromes

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?

Is if to be Ohio folks at Qualex would love a cut in pay or benefits to stay afloat;
or is it you would love to pay more per roll to keep the lab afloat another year?
Or maybe Ohio could drop/halt taxes in film processing; or provide bailout money?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

POP TEST:
learn to plot data:
Plot labs in operation versus date
Figure the "slope"
Draw a line or curve thru the data points
Ponder
Draw another graph with digital sales versus date.
Qualex had about 50 plus labs in operation in 1995
Qualex had 22 labs in operation in 2004
Qualex had 3 labs in operation in 2008

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.

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.
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.

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

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.

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.
Anthony

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.

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.

3. Who will be taking over EK's film developing service, if anyone?
Is it obvious? - A group of Chinese investors will buy the film/paper/chemicals division. Bejing will be the new Rochestor.
Of course I hope this does NOT happen. Kodak should stick it out - and they are. Why did the new Ektar come out?

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?

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

Douglas; its not like some of us have as many choices with labs anymore;

its been a decline for along time.

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.

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.

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.

The plague of labs dying finally hit larger cities.

Its not like any of us really want this to happen.

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

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

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

many pros do nott use much E6 anymore either

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.

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

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..

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.

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.

Jeff,
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.

Douglas in the early 1950's one could shoot 4x5 Kodachrome; in the 1940's in came in 11x14".
Folks whined when Kodak dropped sheet Kodachromes in the mid 1950's for Ektachrome; there were even lawsuits.
The peak in transparency sales occured several decades ago.

In early 1960 one had high speed ektachrome at an asa of 160; 400 if pushed; kodacolor was just 80 then; once it was 50; then once 25.

Color print film didnt get as fast as slide until the later 1970's; today color print is faster.

A random sampling of folks average amateurs who have and do shoot slides and movies shot the most say in the 1960' and maybe 1970's ; its really not shortsided to notice a 4 decade long drop in reversal films; its like saying its shortsided that most folks do not use B&W TV's anymore; or if one notices that man landed on the moon; or if one notices that gasoline cost more than 30 cents per gallon.

The drop in reversal film sales has been going on for 4 decades now; once every dime store and drug store had Kodachrome and Ektachrome.

Its not rocket science that as film reversal film production drops processing labs die off; its a many decade old trend.

Trashing your legacy and still profitable film buisness for the sake of competing in the super saturated low end digital point and shoot/inkjet printer business is not shortsighted?I think they could do better with some fresh management.I think Jeff got it right with his last post.

John-What is the name of the lab that you own?

Douglas, what you and most other people have to realize is that George Eastman's dream was that of a world where everyone owned a camera. Right now the photo technology of the day is digital. It would be counterintuitive not to sell cheap, crappy digicams to the unwitting consumer. After all, what was the first Kodak camera?
P.S. I am not saying that Kodak should abandon film altogether. On the contrary, I think that Kodak should "finish what they had started" and sell film until the last film camera drops off of the face of the earth.

Nicholas,
Are you saying we in photography have descended into the same living hell that popular music (should we still term it as music?),plotless movies,trash TV,bottom feeder news media,crumbling infastructure,clueless government,hapless manufacturing,inept health care,good food etc,etc, has?Digital has succeeded in doing what Polaroid attempted to do decades ago - any dumbo with a index finger can become a world class photographer?Man,when I look around these days is sure doesn't seem to be working very well at all.Isn't technology wonderful.

Douglas, I'm glad you're staying with Kodak film. I can understand your anger with Kodak management though, and I think your reasoning as to their motivation is as correct as anything I can come up with..

Yes, that Elite look is something special.. It's probably the main reason I bother to post on the whole subject of film- I'd hate to lose this great product. As I think we talked about before, I use the pro version just because I got such great results right from the start that I'm afraid to rock the boat. I don't shoot a huge amount, as time and access to subject matter is limited, so I guess I rationalize the extra cost, but I don't think it's too bad in the scheme of things. And I've tried the others, like Velveeta, and even K-64, but I agree the new Kodak E-6 is the best; the only thing that came close was my brief use of K-25 before it was pulled. And, of course the 100 speed is way different..

After shooting my first two rolls of B&W, Kodak T-Max 400, I'm now in love with yet another film.. just blown away with this stuff! I intend to shoot them both as much as possible, along with some Kodak 400 speed print film.

I just went to Kodak's corporate website to double-check what I said before about how profitable film still is to them, and this seems to be confirmed by their most recent quarterly results. I'm certainly no financial expert when it comes to Kodak's numbers, but at least for this most recent quarter, the earnings (the bottom line!) for film, though declining, still dwarfs their other divisions. Also, I think there is some overlap in relation with film use in the other two divisions, in that many of us film shooters print with ink jets, etc..

At any rate, even when going by strict segment divisions: Earnings from the Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group were $77 million; Graphic Communications Group: $33 million; Consumer Digital Imaging Group: $23 million.

Film is still very profitable for them it seems.. It's a mystery to me why they do not support it with advertising.. Aren't petroleum costs a factor in film? If so, one would think that with that cost now down (they blamed raw material costs as one factor in the decrease in film segment profits), some money could now be freed up for advertising..?

I can't figure it out, and can only conclude that something is fishy as far as management's skill and/or integrity, goes.. No surprise in that regard, as I think in this 'New Gilded Age' of obscenely excessive CEO entitlement, they should all be reformed, given that their completely unjustified and obscenely high levels of compensation are corrosive to our hard won democratic society. They certainly don't "add value", as they all argued ten years ago, with the Nasdaq at 5000.. They're getting paid 500 times what the average worker receives.. but, why?

I've listened to all of the film/digital capture debates, and after all the song and dance, it's clear to me that film offers a great value/quality/elegance/practicality proposition for at least many of us. Why Kodak's management doesn't at least try to get this message out is very puzzling, given film's present, and with some intelligent support, its future profit potential.

Yes, I think the the empty suits at the top of Kodak are responsible for their demise as the premier film maker, not the production workers. But yes, sales of all film is off. There are several reasons.

1. The natural progression of things. There was quite the hue and cry when National Geographic changed over from color illustrations to Kodachrome images. But, progress marches on.

2. The folks in the picture business did their damndest to change our picture taking habits so we would buy new digital gear for their profit. Over the years they have also switched us from glass plate to cut film to roll film to 35mm and even to APS, how stylish.

3. The folks in the picture business have dumbed down. They have lied to us. Remember all the claims and even articles in the popular photo magazines that proclaimed that at the 1MP level, digital cameras had exceeded 35mm film quality? If that was true, why have we bought 3, 6, 12 and now 24MP cameras? I remember when 110 film was supposed to equal or be superior to 35mm, then they tried to tell us that the smaller APS film actually gave better enlargements than 35mm. There were plenty of "unbiased" articles in the photo magazines to back up the vendor's claims. A lot of consumers bought into all the BS, and each and every time it was shoveled out to boot.

4. Consumers have accepted BS and the lesser results. "Pro" photographers have sold 2-3MP 11x14 and larger enlargements of portraits, products, etc. and assured their customers to pay a higher price for the increased quality over medium and large format productions (while laughing all the way to the bank).

5. Film manufactures have quit marketing their product. Remember when Kodak had the back cover and often several mid-magazine multi page spreads featuring their various film based products? The film companies drastically reduced their advertising and promotion, then patting themselves on the back, congratulated themselves for their wise decision to save the advertising monies when lower sales resulted. Were they as wise as they think or is there some relationship between advertising and sales levels? If not, why advertise at all?

6. Qualex. Many people got green faces on their prints. Many people got slide mounts where the hole in the center was not full of film. Many people got nothing back. Some people got something back, but after a Looooooong wait. In my humble opinion (and all my opinions ARE humble) Qualex did more to kill off Kodachrome than film speed.

Kudos to the good folks like fellow Photonetter Ron Andrews who worked on the floor at Kodak making good products better for us photo enthusiasts. Shame on the empty suits.

Hasta la vista, Qualex! You won't be missed.

Film manufactures have quit marketing their product. Remember when Kodak had the back cover and often several mid-magazine multi page spreads featuring their various film based products? The film companies drastically reduced their advertising and promotion, then patting themselves on the back, congratulated themselves for their wise decision to save the advertising monies when lower sales resulted. Were they as wise as they think or is there some relationship between advertising and sales levels? If not, why advertise at all?
I agree too that film makers have reduced advertising.
BUT where today would one advertise film for a good bang for the buck?

One cannot buy tri-x at Walmart or Walgreens or Kmart or Sears; once all four retailers had 620, 120 tri-x; and even Kodachrome.

Sears in Detroit once sold Nikon F; Nikkormat.
The largest retail store in the USA; ie Walmart thats open many places 24/7 doesnt carry a roll of tri-x or slide film.

These declining film E6 and regular B&W film products are NOT often available anymore from a local store in many areas; its a mail order product.

A Kodak advert for a new wazoo 120 color print film in LIFE magaizine might be effective in the pre Kodapak 1962 era; but then EVERY drugstore carried 120 film; todaya tightly focused advert in Rangefinder magazine might sort of work abit.

Re <i>5. Film manufactures have quit marketing their product. Remember when Kodak had the back cover and often several mid-magazine multi page spreads featuring their various film based products? The film companies drastically reduced their advertising and promotion, then patting themselves on the back, congratulated themselves for their wise decision to save the advertising monies when lower sales resulted. Were they as wise as they think or is there some relationship between advertising and sales levels? If not, why advertise at all?</i>

I agree too that film makers have reduced advertising. BUT where today would one advertise film for a good bang for the buck? One cannot buy tri-x at Walmart or Walgreens or Kmart or Sears; once all four retailers had 620, 120 tri-x; and even Kodachrome. Sears in Detroit once sold Nikon F; Nikkormat. The largest retail store in the USA; ie Walmart thats open many places 24/7 doesnt carry a roll of tri-x or slide film. These declining film E6 and regular B&W film products are NOT often available anymore from a local store in many areas; its a mail order product. A Kodak advert for a new wazoo 120 color print film in LIFE magaizine might be effective in the pre Kodapak 1962 era; but then EVERY drugstore carried 120 film; today tightly focused advert in Rangefinder magazine might sort of work abit.

"One cannot buy tri-x at Walmart or Walgreens or Kmart or Sears"
It wasn't too long ago-maybe a month ago-that I walked into a local CVS Pharmacy for some cheap print film, and noticed that they also had Tri-X in stock. I bought a couple of rolls to hopefully encourage them to continue stocking it.
Perhaps a year ago, I was able to get TMAX 400 at Walmart. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case.

Thanks for asking Patrick, the lab is Tech Photo & Imaging in Fairfield, NJ. You can see us at www.techphoto.net

John, do you do 70mm C41? I've got a couple of rolls of respooled 116/616, and I can't find anyone local who can develop & print it for me. Fairfield isn't exactly local, about a half hour drive for me, but I'll take a run out there if you can do that...

Mr. Burke, I think you make some good points, as does Kelly. Yes, film sales are off, but from the figures I see from their most recent financial report, Kodak's profits from film still dwarf those from their other products. In fact, when the other two main divisions' profits are added together, they are still less than those from film.. This is from their 3rd quarter report. I'm no financial expert and don't want to draw too much of a conclusion from this, but still..

Also, regarding your point #1, that it is "the natural progression of things". I'm not so sure at all.. I tend to look at film photography and digital capture as two separate technologies, but maybe I'm wrong.. I think it is much more due to your point #2.

I think Kelly has an excellent point in that even if the manufactures of film were to advertise, where? I'm afraid maybe that's the main answer to what I was asking.. I simply wish there was a way for them to get the word out, if they had the will, but don't have the answer.. I remember 15 years ago, when I became interested in photo, someone with more experience warning me not to pay too much attention to the ads in my photo magazines as, "they will constantly make you think that you need new equipment". After reading Kelly's thoughts, it hit me that I haven't subscribed to a single photo magazine for years, mainly because of the bombardment of ads, which of course now are for digital equipment, and because the articles seemed to be too focused on technology. (If anyone can recommend an excellent substantive photo magazine w/ few ads, I'd appreciate it.)

Hi, Kelly...

Yes, where to advertise? One of the problems is that once you reduce or quit your advertising program folks that follow your ads (yes, some do, especially Kodak's who would often make "how-to" tips part of their ads) no longer look for them. I'm glad that I do not have to put a career on the line guessing, but I think I'd try the photo magazines, especially in the EU and orient. Canon, Fuji, Nikon etc. all advertise there and must get some bang for their buck. I'd do whatever it took to make sure the magazines also did a flattering show and tell article on my wonderful new product.

Hi, Jeff Z...

You again made a good point about Kodak's revenue percentages. I read an earlier post about that from you. That is one of the reasons I wrote as I did...Kodak certainly has the revenue from film sales to support advertising. Some business people feel that advertising is only warranted when sales support it. Others feel that advertising is most necessary when sales don't support it to help create a sales situation. Some feel that more advertising budget is warranted when sales are falling off in order to stem the tide. Kodak is certainly in the first and second category. I feel that if they don't start soon, they will have to make a decision as to whether to consider the second category.

Kodak just released Ektar 100, one of the best print films on the market. I tried to buy a second brick but B&H was out. How did that happen? What were Kodak's marketing geniuses thinking. Did they grossly underestimate the market partly because they don't listen to their customers? Did the sales rep who has the B&H account not bother to track sales from one of Kodak's largest retailers and who furthermore cater to Pro and "Advanced Armatures" which is Kodak's target market for a film like Ektar 100? If the marketing weenies did underestimate the demand, even though it was the talk of the film using forums, can't they play catch-up and push ahead another production run to keep the enthusiasm up for continuing sales before delighted users get discouraged and switch back to Reala or some other Fuji product whereby they loose the market section forever?

I think the top suits at Kodak went to business school with the top suits in the auto industry. Are we all familiar with the term "empty suit"?

Tom

P.S. Jeff Z... I'm not formal at all. I recently changed my Photonet name from Tom Burke as there was another with the same name and "9" icon behind his name. Recently I began getting remarks about his posts.

Hi Tom,
I think your ideas make sense for advertising in the overseas markets, but am still frustrated and perplexed that they don't seem to try hard at all to reach the many people here in N. America who still use and very often prefer film, and of course, the potential film users.. At the same time, as I mentioned, I don't have an answer as to how and where to reach these potential buyers, either..

Again, the Pro Film division people at Kodak are not at fault, in my experience. They've been absolutely great with phone support, have sent literature, and even discount coupons. But, it seems to me that they are largely unsupported in the overall strategy of business at Kodak..

I tend to think that Wall Street, and its emphasis on relatively short term profit, and the obscenely high levels of executive compensation based on these foolish short term goals (i.e., options, in addition to crazily high salaries), definitely figure prominently.. Also, the "group think", that digital imaging is the "only" way..

One reason I mentioned previously that I think of film as a separate imaging technology, is your example of the new Ektar. Film is a great and proven method of capturing images, which still has room to run as evidenced by this great new emulsion, and Kodak has been coming out with these great products fairly consistently, in spite of everything!

No offense intended at all, but I have to take at least partial issue with your characterization of the auto industry execs, but mainly with what I view as our almost national overall view on this particular industry, which is unfair, in my opinion. I'll be the first to agree that something is drastically wrong at the top levels of almost every major corporation in the U.S., especially with the outlandish, obscenely high compensation levels which are totally unjustified by the"free market" methodology which these executives frequently like to espouse. Rather, it is an ultimate "good 'ole boys and girls club" behind this, along with the specialist agents who advocate for them in contract negotiations. Top executives in large companies now get approximately 500 times what the average worker gets; the historical ratio was about 25 to 1, up until around 1980, when the gap first started widening.

In regards to the auto industry though, what I'm getting at is something that was spelled out very well in a recent Newsweek article. Basically, the 'Big Three' have for decades now, been at a very unfair competitive disadvantage, and I'm not sure any executive leadership could have helped- only our government could have stepped in, in my view.. While the Big Three were saddled with outlandish obligations to their union workers, both present workers and with retirees, the many foreign car companies which set up shop in the states beginning about twenty years ago in about nine of our southern "right to work" (i.e., non-union) states, did not have this ongoing, and huge expense. These states, where companies like Toyota and BMW originally landed, and now many more are located, extend from S. Carolina over to Kentucky and Tennessee, and down to Texas. They were often given huge tax incentives to settle there, and again no union to deal with, and no retiree legacy costs.. This arrangement has been hugely beneficial to these states' economies. This is why their almost entirely Republican senators vetoed the bailout for the Big Three- it was based on their constituents' self-interest. Despite coming out with well respected, world-class cars in recent years, the Big Three cannot overcome this financial "legacy burden" that their competitors neatly side-stepped..

Again, nothing personal at all, as the polls indicate that most Americans have little pity for the auto industry, and blame its executives. While I'm sure they are probably not the greatest, I do think that there is little they could have done without concessions from the union for both present and past contractual obligations, and/or have the government level the playing field with their competitors.. And I'm not anti-union either. This is just a very sad situation that I feel strongly about, but have no direct or indirect monetary interest in.

The seeds of the legacy burden issues of the auto industry got planted roughly in the later 1960's early 1970's timeframe. As the sick joke goes; Detroit is a health care company that also makes cars. "General Motors, in the span of twenty years (1985 to 2005), went from 811,000 employees to only 324,000, giving GM 2.5 retirees per active worker"

The main advertising I really from Kodak is tweaking the consumer C41 films boxes at Walmart; placing disposables with cute packaging in the checkout areas.

Update: So while the Big Three spent close to $500 million over the last year for idle "workers" in the "Jobs Bank," Honda built a brand new factory in Indiana for about the same amount of money ($550 million).

Ok since Qualex is gone does this mean the "Film Bag Service" at Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, Savons is gone; fractured; farmed out to others?

WalMart and Walgreens will still send out because they use Fuji's services. Qualex is only Kodak.

I was wondering how many nonjapanese photographic film or auto factories were built on japanese soil over the past 50 years?How many imported cars (I'm talking nonjapanese models) are sold in Japan each year?Kodak film?The stench get worse the closer you get to the truth on this issue.Please,supply me with some solid facts and accurate numbers.

U.S. manufacturers have in the past blamed import and currency restrictions while Japanese automakers have countered that they just didn't make good small cars.
About 8.3 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in Japan in 2006 were imported, compared with a peak of 10.6 percent in 1996.

Folks,
What you all fail to realize is that Qualex was never setup as a profit center. In fact, the division consistently lost money, even during the good times. Kodak was willing to absorb the losses to keep the Kodak brand of film prominently displayed in the thousands of retail outlets it serviced. When film sales declined, this business model was no longer sustainable.

As a Photolab Supervisor for CVS, I will not miss qualex processing. Their delivery schedule was a work of bad fiction, thier processing quality sucked, and their store support people ranged from disintersted(on a good day) to downright nasty (typical). I have lost count of the number of free and reduced one hour processing vouchers i have had to give out over the years for either pisspoor prints from qualex or qualex delivering some poor sods film straight to the twilight zone