In article <55joi5$cir@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>, jaybird@china.rh.ncsu.edu says...

>I am not one of the "anti-Kodak posters at least until now.
>You are correct in assuming that I haven't used Kodak in the
>last six months. Why would I want to? I have had poor quality
>come from them in the past and on the suggestions of friends tried
>them again. Everything was fine for a while and then back to only
>marginal quality. Kodak may be doing wonderful now but, can they
>be counted on today AND six months from now or will they be
>be back up to their old tricks? Maybe Kodak isn't
>consistenly bad but, they are also not consistently good.
>Why take chances? I'll continue to get things done locally
>and with CONSISTENTLY good results.

I sent 6 rolls of Kodak Elite 100 to Fuji for processing
(in Fuji mailers) on October 28th. Two rolls came back
several days ago (with a magenta cast, and numerous
scratches), the others have not appeared as of November
9th. Our best local lab is notorious for scratching
film, but otherwise it does consistently good work (but
why are the few images on a roll that I need often almost
the only ones that are scratched?!). A lab in a city about
1 1/2 hours from here does good work, but transportation
of the film is awkward. I am still looking for a good
solution to the slide processing problem, and miss
Kodak's former quality of service (back before they sold
the labs to Qualex).
Hope This Helps