Roger, My statement was a bit too broad (Everyone who followed after Kodak were just using or stealing Kodak's existing technology). There were many other companies that contributed to the research and advancement of photography, but Fuji is a company who benefited from Kodak's years of research. I think we can all agree Kodak was the main event in it's time. It's sad to see the mind set of someone like Mr. Perez, it's clear he doesn't have clear direction for this corporation. "But I still dance with the one that brought me".
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
People complain about the cost of Kodak color chemistry compared to that of others, even Fuji chemistry, but consider this.
No one has ever invested a penny in color chemistry R&D since 1960 except Eastman Kodak. Everyone else has benefited from this as a freebie, and so all R&D costs have been borne by Kodak. All of the modern color processes are dependant on that R&D, and even the Kodachrome process was donated to the public domain by Kodak about 20 years ago.
So, Fuji and all other manufacturers of color chemistry get profits from the sale of the chemistry but Kodak has to pay off the R&D investment first before they take a profit.
Kodak was even sued for this development work and the plaintiffs won and Kodak lost adding another cost. (Ansco and Pavell among others)
Interesting? I think so.
If EK stock is any indication, back in 1997 stock over 90 per share, today trading at 24.60. The stock chart shows a strong downward trend. If it breaks 20, well, not good.
Kodak definitly does not have an edge on digital anything, let alone digital photography. What digital technology they have, they bought through aquisitions and is not the best.
The best digital cameras, both consumer and pro are not Kodak.
Time & tides wait for no one, especially photographers.
I don't doubt your statement but at least looking at these numbers, it seems difficult for them to have pulled this off.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Granted, this was for the quarter ending 9/30. Even so, they would have to put the entire balance of 2.35 bil USD sale to debt reduction in addition to another 990 mil USD to be debt-free. Don't forget that Onex has to hit certain numbers with the devision for EK to get that last 200 mil...
Plus, the last article I read suggested that only 1.15 bil from the sale would be put to debt reduction.
If you look at the Financial Statements, there are two big issues that, frankly, scare most analysts away from ever looking at the stock (not that having analysts looking over your shoulder constantly is a good thing...perhaps some of the chemists at EK can invent a spray for that?)
1) They claim immense depreciation quarter to quarter in Cash Flow. Much of this is from the film operations. But the controversy is that nobody much has faith in what that stuff is really worth as far as residual value. So nobody knows (or has reason to suspect) that the numbers are valid.
#1 is, actually, a business case that is used as an example at Suffolk Law School in Boston.
2) Discontiuing operations is, generally, categorized as a non-recurring cost. Therefore, it does not show up as expenses in calculating gross or operating profit numbers. If I recall correctly, EK had about $202 million in restructuring costs attributable to the film unit in Q3 against an operating profit of about $140 million.
I won't challenge the last statement - but then I'm not a digital photographer. Are you?
Originally Posted by RAP
You are absolutely 100% wrong, however, about Kodak merely "buying" digital technology. Their sensor technology - by the way - seems to be good enough for Sinar, Cambo, Olympus, and Leica who all use Kodak CCDs in one form or another...
Also, EK may have something to say in commercial digital photo finishing. Every analyst I've ever read strongly believes that the "hobbyist" inkjet printer market will simply go straight in the dustbin.
I have no idea whether EK will succeed. But let's at least give them their due.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
I really don't see this as being that funny. It is serious stuff to me. Sorry.
Art for Arts sake, too bad you feel that way, why not just put this thread on ignore?
I agree Ron, I came to that conclusion a while back and when I mentioned it here, having said my Mamiya will break down sometime and there won't be any knowledgeable repair persons, someone said just buy another body. I felt that I needed to step above that kind of simpleton answer and think the process through. With sheet film all I need is a box with bellows to focus, a film holder and a lens. No electronics, through I have nothing against electronics, even a shutter is optional.
Another note; I have some roll film holders for 120 and if my Mamiya goes out I can still use the films that I can't get in sheet such as Ilford Pan 50 and Rollei Pan 25, in my Busch 2X3 and 4X5. Until these films aren't available anymore that is. If I need a hand held camera my Busch can be used with sheet and roll. With Grafmatic sheet holders, I have a half dozen new ones collected over the last two years, I can have added flexibility even if I had to start cutting down film to fit. It's interesting how easy it was to get new in box cut sheet film holders for 2X3. Considering that Edward Weston made portraits contact printed from 4X5 I think I could enlarge a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 a bit to make a fine photograph if that is what it comes to later on. By then the smaller camera might be all that I would want to carry around.
Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand
Whoa! Public domain? As in no trade secrets anymore? Or just as "principles only, technological details under lock."
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal
, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11
My APUG Portfolio
Appended to the original copy of the US Patent on Kodachrome which I hold as co inventor with Dick Bent, is a note that this patent is abandoned by Eastman Kodak.
That means it is public domain.
This is for the most recent Kodachrome process.
Yep, no restrictions.
Kodak's credit rating is in the process of being considered for being revised upwards due to the removal of nearly $2B of debt. Your figures are probably correct, but that was what was reported locally. However, the costs they are taking for the layoffs of 20,000 people were not considered at that time.
That adds additional burden. But then, other sales are pending. This is mainly property.
Sure, I wouldn't disagree with any of that.
Originally Posted by lightranger
You are almost certainly right about the latter but I remain to be convinced of the former. Unfortunately I cannot reveal the source which leads to my lack of conviction, but with respect, it was someone whose expertise and knowledge were probably even greater than yours -- and I do not say that to deprecate your expertise and knowledge for a moment, as both seem to be very considerable, and far greater than mine.
Originally Posted by aldevo