Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,911   Posts: 1,556,240   Online: 939
      
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 86
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Cameras are a sore point for me.

    It is another reason why I feel that LF cameras will probably be the Analog wave of the future. They can be maintained more easily due to their ruggedness and relative simplicity. And, the film does not have to be really fine grained and really sharp for good results.

    As the more complex 35mm cameras fail, then repair parts vanish and repair eventually may become impossible. IDK.

    Art;

    I really don't see this as being that funny. It is serious stuff to me. Sorry.

    PE
    Ron as I hate to admit it I have to agree with you on this. Alot of older cameras 35mm and MF parts are no longer being made and once those parts vanish that are still in the hands of camera repair person the camera will be scraped. Which to me is a sad reality.

    And being funny I do not see it that way either as to me it is nothing but a plain tragedy.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Roger;

    There are a lot of other inventions that were not Kodak inventions either, but a lot that were.

    DIR couplers, colored couplers, muli component color films with 14 or more layers, a host of color developers, antioxidant stabilzers, Kodachrome, and some of the items are just improvements on others, such as t-grains and selenium sensitization (never used due to toxicity). Along with that goes 2 electron sensitization and a host of other things that make todays films more stable and with better reciprocity including Iridium stabilzation.

    Color negative was developed at about the same time by both Kodak and Agfa. The Kodak film paradigm still lasts and the Agfa one died as everyone making color products converted to the Kodak method due to superior quality and coatability.

    So, whatever their management was like, R&D was about 20 years ahead of the rest of the pack except for a few notable exceptions. In the 20s to the 50s there were Agfa, Dupont, Haloid, Dynachrome and a few smaller companies. All of them fell by the wayside due to Kodak's superior quality and leading technology.

    Later, 3M and others went on to try (And BTW, Ferrania in Italy makes color film and was once part of 3M. AFAIK, it is in bankruptcy but is still operational due to outside support.). The old 3M plant in the midwest was finally 'bought by Kodak'.

    And, IIRC, Dupont invented the variable contrast paper and it was called Varigam. At least it was the first on the market here that I remember.

    So, there was and is good and bad at Kodak, but the people tried hard and a lot of my friends are now out looking for a job. They went from about 80,000 here in Rochester to about 20,000 (approximate round numbers) since the 90s. Thats a lot of unemployment in one small city.

    PE
    Dear PE,

    You will never find me attacking ANYONE on the R+D side at Kodak, nor production (management is another matter), and I fully take all your points about Kodak's contributions to photographic research. As I said, I would never belittle Kodak's contributions; my sole point was that the post I quoted about everyone else stealing Kodak's ideas was an exaggeration, and a fairly severe one at that.

    You do not recall correctly about VC, but it is a common (and understandable) misconception in the United States, as Ilford's release of Multigrade was somewhat delayed because of Britain's recognizing the Nazi menace slightly faster than the USA. At that time Ilford did not export to the US, but there was a personal and professional friendship between lead chemists that led to Ilford's supplying the MG dyes; to Defender, before Du Pont took over, IIRC, though I cannot remember.

    I am told by insiders at Ilford that they were surprised at Kodak's bothering with tabular grains, which (in Mike Gristword's words) 'are not an inferior technology [to their epitaxial technology], but are not as well behaved'. Like colour neg, it was 'waiting to be invented' and came from at least two sources at the same time.

    Finally, Frances was born in Rochester; her uncle Herbie was a pilot at Kodak; her father worked there for a while; there are still one or two relatives there, though most moved -- in her father's case, partly because of the way he was treated by Kodak, being fired because he had three hernias in fairly quick succession, and they didn't like paying his medical bills. For obvious reasons we are more aware than most of what is going on at Kodak and in Rochester, though of course nothing like as aware as yourself.

    Cheers,

    R.

  3. #43
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by kjsphoto View Post
    And being funny I do not see it that way either as to me it is nothing but a plain tragedy.
    I understand that some people view change as a tragedy, but this change is definitely not Kodak's fault, but our fellow photographers who are quick and quickly going digital.

    At the recent Photo LA, I can't tell you the number of digital and digitally manipulated fine art prints there were. Let's just say, there will be much more next year, and the year after, ...

    Look, traditional photography will not die, so threads like this serve as entertainment to me, for the most part.

    Regards, Art.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    Dear PE,

    Why am I not surprised by this, even though I am horrified? Any other CEO who took such a cavalier attitude to the source of OVER HALF of the revenues of the company he was hired to run would be the subject of a Mafia contract, never mind dismissal.

    Given the man's talent for ruining Kodak, he may well succeed in his ambition. But I wonder if Kodak will still be in business on January 2nd?

    Cheers,

    R.
    Roger,

    I think the mistake many people make here, is that - quite understandably - they do not know how to interpret financial statements.

    Kodak absoutely, 100%, loses money hand-over-fist with film.

    Film is operatinally profitable, yes, but that does not take into account the costs of idling 1000's of workers who are no longer needed. How does that all get financed? - debt, debt, debt.

    Operational profitability is not bottom-line profitability. OK, in theory, depreciation can help cash flow. But in a world where film isn't really commercially viable - Kodak's large-scale manufacturing infrastructure isn't worth much.

    Kodak is:
    1) Too big to exist as a niche manufacturer of film (too much debt)
    2) No brand to speak of in consumer electronics
    3) Aside from CCD sensors, does not have its own supply chain (take lenses as an example - "Retinars" are outsourced to one OEM, while the upmarket lens offerings are outsourced to Schnedier).

    So, given the above, what exactly SHOULD Perez do?

  5. #45
    Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oakville and Toronto Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,371
    Images
    311
    Open letter to Mr. Perez,

    Suggestion, fire your communications department and hire me instead. You are either being given crap advice or not following good advice. As mentioned on this forum. Kodak will not survive as a "digital" company. I would rebrand the firm as a company of "Photoimaging Experts."

    That way you can have your cake and eat it too. Of course the obvious is stated that film that catagory you loath is keeping big Yellow afloat and the consumer digital camera catagory is losing money because of non existant margins. Ignoring reality this long means you will be facing an interesting meetings with the board and shareholders explaining why your best laid plans are not coming together.

    I am 3/4 the way through the PR certificate at Ryerson and I can work out of the Toronto office on Eglington if its still open.

    Bill
    "Life moves pretty fast, if you don't stop and look around once and a while, you might just miss it."
    Ferris Bueller

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Cameras are a sore point for me.

    It is another reason why I feel that LF cameras will probably be the Analog wave of the future. They can be maintained more easily due to their ruggedness and relative simplicity. And, the film does not have to be really fine grained and really sharp for good results.

    As the more complex 35mm cameras fail, then repair parts vanish and repair eventually may become impossible. IDK.

    Art;

    I really don't see this as being that funny. It is serious stuff to me. Sorry.

    PE
    Regarding LF cameras being the survivors...

    Yes, and no. Ultimately, in the electronic age that started with, say, the Canon AE-1, much of the complexity of 35mm cameras was reduced and they became composed of several subassemblies produced using automated manufacture.

    If you've seen repair diagrams for, say, a Canon EOS-5 - there's a lot fewer parts (actually, assemblies) per se vs a Canon FTn. Naturally, you generally don't replace individual parts with an EOS-5 - you have to replace whatever assmebly failed. That won't help us much in the future, as these assemblies aren't being produced.

    But it does allude to a problem with the manufacture of LF cameras.

    LF Cameras are, obviously, composed of many fewer parts (perhaps less than 0.5%) than your typical 35mm camera (especially a mechanical one)LF Cameras - even wooden field cameras - have to be produced to a very high degree of precision. The problem is that both that degree of precision, the materials used, and the form factors of the parts, prevent any real use of automated manufacture. There's been some effort by Toyo (and a couple smaller outfits) to use ABS or CFC plastic in cameras - but this is done for weight and not ease of manufacture.

    As any optical designer will tell you - the real reason why a Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 lens has 16 elements isn't because it's a superb design with highly-corrected optics - it's because it must be produced at a certain cost using idiot robots that are sloppy. Those last 6 elements are how you get around that...

    Manual labor isn't going to get any cheaper - not even in China. If you thought LF cameras were expensive before (no particular reason that you should) - you'll be in for a shock in another few years.

  7. #47
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,187
    Images
    65
    Lots of good comments here.

    I agree with all of them.

    Roger, I was not targeting you, sorry, I was trying to make a similar distinction between research, sales and general management. I was aware that you knew a lot about EK due to your wife having lived here.

    Yes, LF cameras are going to increase in importance as 35mm parts vanish and the simplicity and longevity of LF cameras become apparent. As film quality decreases, which it will, the usefullness of LF cameras will become even more apparent.

    Epitaxial emulsions were essentially a great advance. I worked with the 'inventor' in the same department as they were gradually evolving. I also worked closely with the Kodak scientist who developed the thin t-grain and some of the new processes to make them. In their hands, the t-grain became the norm and quite predictable. That was primarily the big 'secret' in Kodak emulsion making and began in Wey and Whitely and continued in very closely guarded trade secrets.

    PE

  8. #48
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by DougGrosjean View Post
    Have you tried to buy a slide-rule lately?
    Don't need to. Already have one. It's like my M3; it should last longer than I will.
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

  9. #49
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,187
    Images
    65
    Aldevo;

    BTW, Kodak is officially out of debt and has a small surplus. This is due to the sale of the "Health Imgaging Division" reported elsewhere on APUG.

    In additiion, film sales are profitable and that is what is currently keeping Kodak's head above water and was paying off the debt. So, if the sale of that division balanced the debt and then some, it was a benefit. Now Kodak can realize more of the profit on the remaining film sales which are color film and the associated print paper. Motion Picture films are also profitable.

    What is unprofitable? Kodachrome, E6 films and chemicals.

    PE

  10. #50
    bherg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    sweden
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    89
    There isnt an extremly wealthy member here at Apug? that can buy so much stock to get stock majority and replace that Perez ?

    or chop it up to two companies kodak film and kodak di****l.

    Cheers Johannes



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin