SteveFranz Loc: Durham, NC

[quote=jamesg]An ad from May 16, 1924 - I have no clue if the link will work

Wow, Wallaces Farmer, that's a name from the past. I grew up in SW Minnesota reading that magzine.

rdw845 Loc: San Francisco Area

I worked in a camera shop from about 1953 through about 1962. There was no such service to my knowledge during the 50's. For much of the 50's the photo service was "7 hour," picked up in the morning and returned in the afternoon. I also worked in a photo lab at the same time and this was the common service. 35mm cameras were just becoming popularized. The Argus C3 was $39.95. The results were pretty good. The Rolleicord was a popular camera selling in the range of $90 to $125. The Rolleiflex was about $250 as I remember. The first Nikon came on the market, the Nikon "F." As I recall, there was little or no market for Canon cameras. Now I have probably told you more than you wanted to know.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Really cool stuff.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

Interesting. And (while it may have nothing to do with photography, I like numbers and their peculiarities), what is meant by 100% profit. Think carefully before you answer.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I would think they meant selling it for double the cost.

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

Great recall. But you didn't tell us what photofinishing cost in 1953 -1962. I worked in retail camera stores and the camera dept. of mass merchants for 65-70. Photofinishing was in the range of $2 something to $5 for b/w and color, 12 shot rolls. Kodachrome went to Kodak for processing. At a couple of dollars per hour salary, I couldn't afford sending my pictures out. But, I could afford a 9 cent McDonalds burger, 15 cent fries and 15 cent milkshakes for lunch.

Ron 717 Loc: Pennsylvania

I always got my negatives back when I sent to kodak for processing. They probably kept a copy of the negative if they offered to print without you sending it back. I never asked for any reprints in those years.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I wouldn't think making copy negatives from all the film they developed would be cost effective. I'll bet they really did keep the negs. They aren't Kodak, they are soliciting Kodak customers.

TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA

They damn well better return the negatives, they belong to the photographer.

BebuLamar

As they said they have the negative on files. Someone suggested that they make copy of the negative to keep on file but making copy of negative isn't easy. You have to make copy twice if using a negative film otherwise you have to use more expensive positive film. At that time I am not sure they even invented positive film yet.

Doc Barry Loc: Huntsville, Alabama USA

Popular Mechanics, January 1935, page 31 (Vol. 63, No. 1).
Sample with "trial order" roll developed and 8 prints 25c; reprints 3c. Ideal Photo ... N. C. FILMS Developed 2 prints of each negative and two enlargement coupons 25c. Summers ... Embossed Christmas cards from your favorite Kodak negative.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Many photo processing services now, like Walgreen's, sends your film off to get developed, and they scan them and keep, or probably throw out, the negatives. Saves the shipping. You have to read their small print.

rdw845 Loc: San Francisco Area

Retailers think in terms of markup, or profit margin, not profit. So, if something costs $6 and is sold for $10 there is a 40% margin. The true meaning of 100% profit would be an item that is sold for which there is no "cost." People sometimes will use it as double the cost to arrive at "100%" profit, but in reality that is only 50% profit because the other part of the selling price is "cost."

Photo finishing in the 50's was about $2 to $3 for black and white. Color paper prints could be made by Kodak (Kodacolor) or film based prints using an Ansco film base paper. Cost of developing and printing in color was $4 or $5 at the time. Kodak always developed Kodachrome slides because of the complexity of the process (I believe the color dyes are added in the process) while with Ektachrome and Anscochrome the color dyes are in the film and brought out by processing. Kodak would pick up rolls of Kodachrome for development and deliver them back the next day, unless you marked something "rush" then it would take an extra day.

Film sold for about .45 to .50 per roll. Tri-X was about the fastest black and white film on the market. It could be push processed to ASA 800 using D76. Other processes came along to produce low grain high ASA black and white film processing. Kodak made or had made nearly every type of photo product, but never really made inroads into the high quality camera market with cameras manufactured here in the U.S. Kodak had a large division office in San Francisco. Eastman sold film paper chemicals and most every photo item. They were a good company.

Hope this is of interest to some of you.

rdw845 Loc: San Francisco Area

As to copies of negatives, this was not a common practice. Filing in a high volume plant would have been a nightmare. When a roll of film was lost by the plant (a rare occurrence) it was a big deal.

There is more to tell but don't want to bore you.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

You are cherry picking specific items to make a point. First off mops are for hard floors while vacuum cleaners are for carpets. Sure people had iceboxes but the ice man delivered just as the milk man did. Maybe not easier but simpler. What is so tough with an operator. Tell the operator the number and she calls. Pretty simple. Surgeries are not always safe these days.

Life in general was simpler years ago.

Dennis