Talk:C-22 process

message: I understand there is a balance between 'advertising' [even if not intending to do so] and informing people about places that still perform rare services like C-22 film processing.  That being said, having found an old undeveloped roll of C-22 film, I found the list of places willing to develop it extremely helpful & can see it being useful to others.  
I also did some additional research however and found numerous complaints from a wide variety of people across forums, blogs & threads on the topic in regards to one of the processing companies [Rocky Mountain].  The complaints weren't arbitrary in regards to 'quality' [which SHOULD be rightfully left out of an article like this] however they were in regards to the company taking orders, collecting payment, receiving film & customers not ever hearing back for [significantly longer than the anticipated & somewhat understandable] 6 month - 1 year period.  
I don't know how one would officially designate a 'reference' in regards to the suggestion that Rocky Mountain be removed from the list, as the suggestion itself comes from compiling information from across a wide variety of [seemingly unrelated] sources over a period of numerous years.  That being said, after reading all of the various information available in regards to various consumer experiences with the company, based on their business practices, it seems somewhat irresponsible to 'endorse' [even in an informative way] a company with such significant [albeit difficult to quantify] negative reviews [based entirely on their business practices & not the quality of work which they apparently do not do].  
Technically [based on numerous reports of their business practices] it would seem that they actually 'PROCESS' C-22 film, they simply claim to do so & collect money / film.  
My point is - I find a list like this very helpful and don't recommend removing it entirely however it would seem that the inclusion of Rocky Mountain [given the significant amount of concern from such a wide variety of sources] should not be included on such a list.  I don't however know the proper way to cite/explain/reference such concerns, thus don't feel comfortable making such an edit myself, but perhaps someone more familiar with contributing to Wikipedia could review my concerns and/or make a better determination as to the continued inclusion of Rocky Mountain on this list.  
I'm slightly hesitant my calling attention to this type of issue supports those who feel such a list ['seemingly endorsing' services via specific companies] is not a good idea at all, which is why I want to emphasize that such information IS INDEED helpful to people such as myself [I found an old family camera with a roll of exposed 126/C-22 film still inside, requiring processing].  My own curiosity led me to do further research thus discovering the significant number of various claims in regards to Rocky Mountain, for which I became concerned for those who might simply stop researching after having discovered this list of labs.  Thus prompting me to [hopefully] bring this to someone's attention that can properly determine the best way to handle such a situation [ie probably not a good idea to include RM as they don't seem to actually be physically processing the film] without creating a justification to have the entire list removed [as it is VERY helpful for people such as myself].  
Given my concerns aren't based on quality [for which it would be understandable even if a majority of people were simply complaining about a poorer level of quality resulting from film developed by a specific lab] they are based on the business practices / ethics being reported by numerous consumers who reportedly sent film in, paid for services and have not only not received any processed film/negatives back, are unable to even have the original film sent in returned to them. 
 DeziWright (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation  

message: Is it known which year C-22 was introduced?  And what came before it?  There is on eBay a roll of C116 with a develop by date in 1956.  That makes it close to when this article says that it started.  (Not that anyone is going to develop a roll from 1956.)  Gah4 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  year 

message: It is my understanding, though not having actually tried it, that C-41 chemistry at lower temperatures, and for appropriate times, works well for C-22 film.  I don't know about a reference, but if there is one, it might be worth adding here.  Gah4 (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-41 

message: Which color developing agent does C-22 use?  Gah4 (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  agent 

message: It seems that a recent edit deletes a link to the C-22 formula for copyvio reasons. As far as I know, chemical formulae are not copyright, though they maybe patented or trade secret. There is no mention here in talk about the removal. Gah4 (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  formulae, patents, trade secret, and copyright?