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.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
And being funny I do not see it that way either as to me it is nothing but a plain tragedy.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
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.
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.
Originally Posted by kjsphoto
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.
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
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.
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?
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.
"Life moves pretty fast, if you don't stop and look around once and a while, you might just miss it."
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Regarding LF cameras being the survivors...
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
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.
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.
Don't need to. Already have one. It's like my M3; it should last longer than I will.
Originally Posted by DougGrosjean
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.
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.