PDA

View Full Version : Kodak Comeback, Quick Read



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18]

CGW
05-12-2012, 06:47 PM
A cogent point, PE.
He had a point of view, and it was based at least in part on his background, but that didn't make his opinions right.
He misinterpreted data more than once.

OK, like what? He understood microeconomics and didn't have much time for the magical thinking, fabulism, and misinformation often used to counter his arguments. Been awhile since I've seen a messenger shot up as badly.

lxdude
05-12-2012, 07:07 PM
It's hard to quote him, because when he left he took his posts with him.

But after the dissolution of the 3 separate groups and establishment of the current commercial and consumer groups, he said that the film division was gone. And he meant gone. It wasn't, of course-only the external structure changed, with the film division serving both.

He also declared that a condition of bankruptcy was that film production would cease. He somehow gleaned that out of the statements, saying that it would be a requirement in that situation. He was wrong; no one else here could find what he was talking about, but did find some statements which contradicted that.

He wasn't a messenger-he was a person with an opinion. People working in finance are often sure of opinions which turn out to be wrong. A lot of people have become painfully aware of that in the last several years.

Photo Engineer
05-12-2012, 07:10 PM
He also stated that the film division was not making money, but it is. In fact, for the last several years it is the only manufacturing division at EK that has steadily returned a profit. Although it is also steadily decreasing mostly due to the decline in MP use which was thoroughly reported in another series of threads.

PE

Hatchetman
05-12-2012, 07:51 PM
I read a quote in the Wall Street Journal today, by The Intelligent Investor columnist, Jason Zweig. He was broadly talking about risk management and the "Feynman Principle," which states "You must not fool yourself - you are the easiest person to fool."

Nobody knows how this thing is going to play out.

CGW
05-12-2012, 09:45 PM
He also stated that the film division was not making money, but it is. In fact, for the last several years it is the only manufacturing division at EK that has steadily returned a profit. Although it is also steadily decreasing mostly due to the decline in MP use which was thoroughly reported in another series of threads.

PE

All he did was state the obvious: when gravely wounded in all four limbs, it's cold comfort that to know you're bleeding less from your right arm. Exsanguination results anyway.

lxdude
05-12-2012, 09:49 PM
All he did was state the obvious: when gravely wounded in all four limbs, it's cold comfort that to know you're bleeding less from your right arm. Exsanguination results regardless.

That is not what he did. He stated flatly that the film division was not profitable, when the financial reports stated otherwise.

Photo Engineer
05-12-2012, 09:52 PM
Not if you cauterize the wounds in the worst limbs. In this case, the film and chemicals divisions were doing well, but digital printers were doing poorly. Perez kept pushing digital printers in the face of HP and Canon and it just was not and is not working out.

If you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results, well, this is a sign that something serious is wrong. In this case, as stated elsewhere, the wrong divisions were sold or scaled back. In fact, to state it more broadly, Kodak is/was a chemical company, but they sold off all of their chemical divisions which seem to be doing well. One shining example is Eastman Chemical at Kingsport Tenn.

PE

CGW
05-12-2012, 09:53 PM
That is not what he did. He stated flatly that the film division was not profitable, when the financial reports stated otherwise.

Too bad his posts got scrubbed. We'll see where things stand later in the year. It's not a robust company, as we all know.

Many here resented--and rejected--his arguments that demand for film was in freefall and far from bottoming out. I'm not seeing data that contravene this.

PKM-25
05-13-2012, 12:46 AM
Too bad his posts got scrubbed. We'll see where things stand later in the year. It's not a robust company, as we all know.

Many here resented--and rejected--his arguments that demand for film was in freefall and far from bottoming out. I'm not seeing data that contravene this.

We get this, I get this and after some private message sessions with him, I understood where he was coming from. At least he replied to my messages, you did not.

I think it sucks he is gone and I think it really sucks his posts are gone. He can be found on RFF...

But he could no sooner answer the question in private that I had asked him on the threads: What are we photographers supposed to do with this information? Some of us are technical photographers, some are emotional ones, either way, it's pretty obvious that outside of framing our own pursuits of furthering the future of film, we are at the mercy of many forces of both economic and societal shifts...

So what are we supposed to do? If film is doomed at least in terms of Kodak product like some of the speculation may suggest, what the hell is a creative person who likes the option of film to do?

Any suggestions CGW? Because frankly the fact I try to inspire to people by telling them details about what I do daily to keep positive about the future of film being labled by you as an effing press release has more people than just me wondering what in the hell your aim is on this site...


We get the doom and gloom man, we are not stupid, we just don't know what the f__k to do about it other than put our best foot and film based image forward.

Diapositivo
05-13-2012, 10:12 AM
Future is unknown to everybody, including the Cassandras of this site. They might be right. They might be wrong. We don't know and they don't know. "Past performance is not an indication of future results", that's true also as far as film sales are concerned.

I don't understand in which way "pessimism" might influence the photographer, be it professional or digital.
If your clients go on requesting analogue work, or if you like making analogue work, just buy films and chemicals and go on with your business.
When it is not anymore possible to do so, switch to something else.

We'll have to die one day which shouldn't prevent us from living now.
The fact that a certain film might be discontinued in the future does not prevent me from using it now and does not discourage me in any way. My investment in cameras and darkroom equipment is already done.

The only persons who might be affected by this kind of speculations are those who are just now making an investment in film cameras. But film cameras being still relatively cheap, that shouldn't discourage them either.

Speculation about the future is not going to be conducive to anything useful for our hobby/profession, whether you are a pessimist or an optimist.

I'm an optimist but I would go on using film even if I were a pessimist. Actually I would use more of it if I were a pessimist.

Fabrizio

Photo Engineer
05-13-2012, 10:16 AM
Film is in decline and we do not know when it will bottom out.

So, while we have it, and life itself, we should do the best we can with what we have.

PE

Sal Santamaura
05-13-2012, 10:25 AM
...What are we photographers supposed to do with this information? Some of us are technical photographers, some are emotional ones, either way, it's pretty obvious that outside of framing our own pursuits of furthering the future of film, we are at the mercy of many forces of both economic and societal shifts...

So what are we supposed to do? If film is doomed at least in terms of Kodak product like some of the speculation may suggest, what the hell is a creative person who likes the option of film to do?

Any suggestions CGW? Because frankly the fact I try to inspire to people by telling them details about what I do daily to keep positive about the future of film being labled by you as an effing press release has more people than just me wondering what in the hell your aim is on this site...Dan, thanks for framing that response so well. You're quite a bit younger than I and, therefore, still retain a patience when dealing with this relentless drumbeat which, unfortunately, tends to fade over the years.

If only people on one's Ignore List weren't quoted. :D