Kodak scam urgent!

Kodak is selling chromogenic film (T400CN) and calling it black and white. They are printing it on a chromogenic (color dye) paper called Ektamax RA or plain color paper adjusted to a neutral gray. Their customers, the large labs servicing photographers, are following suit. Real black and white, which does not fade, is more expensive for them to produce. Future generations will discover that they have family pictures in black and white dating back ten generations but the last two generations will have faded away. If you are concerned or injured by this fraudulent practice, please post your comments at the web site of Lieff ,Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, by November 19th. (http://www.lchb.com) They are contemplating filing a class action suit forcing Kodak to replace all of these prints with real black and white prints before the negatives fade.

-- tom reid (tommyreid@compuserve.com), November 15, 1999

Answers

Hi Tom,

LOL!

I'm not a laywer, but after spending six years fighting the deceptive practices of mail order photography retailers on behalf of the readers of Modern Photography, I think I know a scam when I see one. I will be generous, however, in calling the above proposed class action suit a frivolous one.

A scam? The images are black & white, even if the capture medium is based on color technology. The rc prints I that I print myself will probably fade faster. This reeks of better living through litigation.

To quote Bill Gates (something I never thought I'd do)...Has anybody heard some good lawyer jokes lately?

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), November 15, 1999.

I agree with Mason. There are generally two kinds of photographer who use T400CN & XP2:
1. Aurious but basic amateurs who just want to experiment with some B&W shots, without getting into the developing/printing. These people are generally not into archival quality, although I will grant youthat a small fraction of these photographs ultimately make it into the heirloom album.
2. Advanced amateurs and pros who use the film knowing full well what it is including it's advantages and disadvantages. These photographers will either print onto true B&W paper or at least scan the negs into high quality jpeg format.

Anyone wanting to do true B&W photography knows that you have to sweat a little. The 1 hour lab is no short cut.

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), November 15, 1999.

Hey Mason, have you (or anyone) contacted Tom Reid directly? I did a search at his site and couldn't get anything about this "scam", although Kodak is mentioned in a copier suit and something about X- rays. I tried searching on his name and got a few items, none of which had his name in them. He could be just a loose canon, stirring up you know what...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), November 15, 1999.

Hi Tom (Meyer, that is).

I think you're right...he's probably trolling. I've contacted the owners of the referenced site and asked them if they know anything about this.

I may forward this whole thing to The Onion (www.theonion.com) for further investigation :-)

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), November 15, 1999.

Sorry if this is too off topic but I have the opportunity to get something positive out of this

What, in G-d's Name does LOL mean?

I'm not sure who's sillier this guy or the fellow on Ebay calling Ken Hough a "prerana"

-- Sean yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), November 15, 1999.

Lots of Laughs. Or Lots of Love, according to context.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), November 16, 1999.

LOL=laughing out loud. ROFL=rolling on the floor laughing.

I think most informed photographers know what chromogenic film is and what its limitations are. I do not sense a scam here.

I know Kodak is a big polluter in Rochester, but other than that they have always treated me fairly when I had a problem with their product.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), November 16, 1999.

Hey folks, he seems to be serious. Here's an email he sent me, verbatum. BTW, I have contacted the law office he references and have asked them to verify his story.

From: "Tom Reid" To: Subject: Scam Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:27:53 -0800 X-Priority: 3

HI Mason, I am the culprit that posted the "Kodak Scam" message on your site. It seems like it stirred up quite a controversy! Isn't that what a good informative site is for?

I am not a lawyer. I own a wholesale black and white lab. I have extensive experience in photofinishing. Including 20 years with Kodak.

Preserving photographic images for posterity is my life's mission. That's why I chose black and white as a specialty. It is the only known way to preserve images for 150+ years.

Lieff, Cabraser is considering spending the necessary millions to bring this concern to the uninformed public. I am hoping that they choose to do so. They need to know how much interest there is in order to make a decision. That 's why I thought that your group could contribute. Good or bad. Positive and negative.

All ideas are worth consideration.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), November 16, 1999.

...and here's what the law firm had to say when I forwarded Tom Reid's message to them:

Dear Mr. Resnick:

Thank you for your message. Mr. Reid did not have permission to post any message concerning our firm.

Stephen H. Cassidy Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), November 16, 1999.

Well, so the plot thickens.

Someone with 20 years experience surely is well aware of the concerns over the archival qualities of chromogenic film and colour prints?

The general public may not be aware of this, because they generally know nothing about archival anyway. I would think that anyone who does know that real B&W can be archival also knows something about the the strengths and weaknesses of chromogenic.

I'm not aware of any misleading by Kodak (or Ilford, etc) on this issue. Film speed yes, archival no. Even with my complaints about the film speed issue, I wouldn't call it fraudulent.

Not that I'm a lover of Kodak. If it did go to court, I would follow the case with interest.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), November 16, 1999.

What about those ol' redeyed flash pictures? Who do I sue? I think I have a case here, all the camera manufacturers know that the distance between the flash and the lens is important to avoid red-eyness but still they put out those compact cameras with the flash almost built in to the lens. When I think of those historical events ruined by the red eyes; christmas -79, bachelor party of my friend Hans in -89, etc. etc.

A $million? 2 $millions?

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), November 17, 1999.

Hi Tom,

Guess what! In a 150 years I am going to be dead, and you will probably be too.

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), November 17, 1999.

I like Peter's idea. I once used Kodak's recommended development times and my negatives were blown out. That must be worth a couple million as well (it was a 36 exposure roll, after all).

And what about all the claims that every new fangled lens/camera "takes beautiful pictures". I'm sure we've all seen horrible shots taken with some of the best equipment. Maybe we really can blame our equipment!

Real or not, this Tom guy is trying to scab off a legit business.

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), November 17, 1999.

This an example of what happens when lawyers have too much time on their hands.

-- Chris Hawkins (peace@clover.net), November 21, 1999.

Tom, if your really take this seriously and think it's a genuine conspiracy, I sincerely suggest you find psychological assistance soon.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), November 22, 1999.