Kodak is dead!
The last time I looked, EK had the first true 35mm format digital sensor, and also the first near MF sensor on the market in the 90s. Right now, they have the highest density digital sensor on the market.
Originally Posted by aldevo
In addition, their color analysis software is being used by quite a few companies.
They have more in-house color technology and know-how than almost all other digital companies combined. Some of this has been leased from Kodak for use by these companies.
In addition, Kodak leads in OLED display technology for large screen display and 'foldable' displays.
I put things on ignore that irritate me (though nothiong on APUG irritates me to that point), not entertain me (threads like this one that contain pretty funny posts). Look, I'm just some schmuck who performs drive by posts. Best thing is to put me on ignore.
Originally Posted by Curt
Last edited by gr82bart; 01-23-2007 at 10:51 AM. Click to view previous post history.
If you say so. I do not have the time to post articles about Kodak's aquisitions, Google for it, they are there. Here's some;
Kodak completes Creo acquisition Printer Magazines June, 17 2005
Scitex Corporation is to sell its Scitex Digital Printing (SDP) Operation to Eastman Kodak.
As for the hobbiest carrying either digital or analog, I agree. Digital equipment, especially high end, is just too expensive. It would cost me over 100k to replace my 4x5 cameras and darkroom with highest quality digital equipment, from cameras to printers, servers, etc. There is also way too much competition in the digital arena. If there is now way for analog users to make money from their prints, analog will also fade.
Sounds like control of the media has gone digital and to those who can afford it.
As for the stock, I would not buy it right now, and if I could afford the risk, maybe even go short.
Originally Posted by aldevo
Time & tides wait for no one, especially photographers.
I am interested in this as I had researched the history of colour films for a paper at our local community college. my understanding at the time was that Agfa's chromogenic coupling of large molecules to prevent dye migration was the underlyeing principle of all current colour negative films. And that the seizing of that for war reparations allowed the production of many competing colour films Anscocolor, Ferracolor, Gevcolor, Telcolor, Pakcolor, and Sakuracolor.
Kodak modified that to use water insoluble molecules as opposed to large molecules to prevent migration of dye, and developed the orange colour masks.
Was this the paradigm you were referring to. To further my understanding of the history, I would greatly appreciate your expanding your statement.
I sometimes wonder if the history of photography is not unduly influenced by Newhall and his connection to Kodak and American Photography.to the diminishment of the rest of the world's contribution.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Indeed, Fisher developed the first coupler with a ballasted side chain containing a sulfonic acid. It was essentially a surfactant that changed the viscocity of gelatin. This technology was known and patented.
Originally Posted by cowanw
Due to the patents, the viscocity problems, and the difficulty of protecting these couplers, Kodak engineers recognized the need for protecting them from air, moisture and from the coating process and therefore the oil soluable coupler was born. This technology was so superior to that of Fisher, and that of Agfa that the entire color photo industry converted to the Kodak method in the 60s and 70s when the patents expired.
During the war, the Axis countries had many photo companies in Germany, eastern Europe and Japan which all used the Agfa paradigm, as did Ansco in the US. Kodak used their own method and added color couplers.
As a result, it was not until the 80s or 90s that other companies began to catch up in coating speed, dye stability and color purity, but by then Kodak had patented DIR couplers and DIAR couplers to further enhance color quality and image structure.
I have coated Fisher dyes and Fisher couplers. I can attest as to the difficulty of getting good coatings with them. They are hard to work with and an error is costly and messy.
Get out much?
Originally Posted by André E.C.
I think not with that statement. I buy and use Kodak products, they are hardly dead.
"I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~
the AGFACOLOR story...
Indeed, Fisher developed the first coupler with a ballasted side chain containing a sulfonic acid.
You mixed something up:
(I like that pun…)
Rudolf FISCHER did not invent the ballasted coupler. He was not even affiliated to Agfa.
Back in time prior to his invention there was that invention of Du Hauron of 1862 of making a colour image by overlaying three transparent sheet images (Tripack). Each forming a separation image (resembling red, blue and green hues) dyed in the corresponding hues. Thus the idea of subtractive colour imaging. Though not as convenient as we now are used to.
Further there were the works of Homolka and others who described staining developers, whose oxidized forms, themselves or the couplings of those, formed a dye. (Primary Color Development).
Fischer invented in 1911 the coupling of the oxidation-product of an apt developer with a colorless `coupler´ and embedding these, forming apt hues, in three differently sensitized emulsion layers (ThreeLayer).
Thus he gained more freedom in creating dyes in contrast to using primary color development, and further changed Hauron’s loose tripack into a fixed trilayer. However, those couplers and even dyes turned out to be diffusing throughout the three layers, spoiling color image forming.
He was working for “Neue Photographische Gesellschaft” who used his ideas to market photographic printing papers which brought up mono(!)-chrome images.
There seem to have come up a dogma then that the Fischer-principle was a deadend to natural colour film.
Though not scoring, Fischer showed the principle for both!! the Agfacolor- as well as the Kodachrome- technique: `3-layer chromogenic´.
Now to the Agfacolor-Process:
It was invented by Schneider and Fröhlich/Kumetat
Schneider in 1934 was busy with fine-grain development. He was placed under the `D´ of the `R&D´ department of Agfa. Whereas the color-guys sat at (scientific) Research, and were then busy with `optical´ colour by means of the lens-grid-technique as well as silver dye-bleach and even the combination of both. Schneider thought that creating a dye-image with staining developers would lead to a lesser grain. (The later Agfa Vario-XL and other following chromogenic B&W films regained this idea.) When not scoring he thought that somehow! this dye-forming could lead to the simple natural-colour film. Staining developers did not show an outcome, but then he remembered Fischer’s ideas. He also remembered the technique of mordant dyes adhering somewhat to gelatine as he had tried two years before (antihalation) by means of certain functional groups known for mordant dying of cotton’s cellulose. Some outcome was to expect and though the struggle for the optical path was going on the CEO of the film plant decided to have the development department a go. The same days when Kodak announced their Kodachrome technique.
At this point Fröhlich from Research department and Kumetat had the idea to just add a fatty tail to the coupler as he was employing at another diffusion problem. (To my understanding a mechanic feature rather than applying non-valent forces, making it bulky in the solid gelatine) However these new couplers turned out to be merely soluble in the melted gelatine. Schneider on his turn had the idea of adding sulfo- or carboxylgroups, making the tail less `fatty´ but still keeping it bulky.
From the moment these two additions to the couplers did not interfere with their dye-forming capacity and fine adjusting and getting it mature for poduction the `New´ (in contrast to the old additive) Agfacolor-Film was born in 1936 with the work of fifty scientists involved. Though before there had been some uncertainty about whether going the reversal (as Kodak) or the neg/pos way.
Fischer tried in vain his part to be honoured by Agfa in the name giving of the new film. I guess at a memorial at the Agfa plant his name was engraved together with those three Agfa men, but am not sure about that.
The Agfacolor era ended in 1991 when after a ten year period of preparation the C-41-type Orwocolor QRS100 was brought to the market. Few months later all coatings at Wolfen were stopped and Orwo was going to be liquidated.
Now back to today. PE, let aside aspects of profitibility (change of process/coating difficulties), could a modern film based on the Agfacolor principle not yield higher resolution than a C-41 film with its oil-based couplers?
Well, I don't think I mentioned which Fischer it was, as there were many by that name involved in the field of photogrphy, nor did I mention that he worked for Agfa, merely that Agfa used the method he developed.
He developed the idea (pun here too) of attaching a sulfonic or carboxylic acid group to a coupler so it could be incorporated into films for production of chromogenic images. An octadecyl group was used to ballast the resultant coupler in place. This is from Mees and James, page 393 and the example is figure 32.
Agfacolor films up to the pre C41 days were fine films but were not masked and they were coated at slow speeds without the benefit of a slide hopper. This made production speeds slow.
I feel that the Fischer type couplers might yield better sharpness and resolution than oil-based couplers, but have never seen a test that would prove this. I have coated Fischer type couplers myself.
I feel that the best coupler might be one attached to a polymeric bakbone, either synthetic or natural (gelatin). I have worked with the latter quite a bit.