|
|
|
-
 Originally Posted by 25asa
Kodak exiting is not looking on the bright side.
Ilford doesn't make 100UC.
Ok, they don't make one thing or the another but they make a ton of other and they are in it for the long haul. So as far as I am concerned the side is bright as the materials we want to use will still be available even though different. And there is still Fuji Film, Foma as well,
I don't see the problem.
-
Originally Posted by Brac
I doubt whether Kodak would have to worry too much about environmental concerns regarding its film plant in China. That fact, plus cheap labour coupled with no effective unions is why manufacturers are falling over themselves to locate there.
As for inkjet printers I wish Kodak well but they have left it a bit late as the market is dominated by just 4 makers - HP, Canon, Epson & Lexmark. Other people who tried seem to have given up, such as Olivetti & Xerox and Sharp didn't make any real inroads either.
Actually, I think the size of the chiness market is why so many are falling over themselves to get in.
-
Originally Posted by Brac
I doubt whether Kodak would have to worry too much about environmental concerns regarding its film plant in China. That fact, plus cheap labour coupled with no effective unions is why manufacturers are falling over themselves to locate there.
As for inkjet printers I wish Kodak well but they have left it a bit late as the market is dominated by just 4 makers - HP, Canon, Epson & Lexmark. Other people who tried seem to have given up, such as Olivetti & Xerox and Sharp didn't make any real inroads either.
Kodak, I believe, was obliged to build their joint facility with Lucky to the same environmental standards as in the USA. I'll let PhotoEngineer speak to that (if he's interested).
Incidentally, Kodak has moved its color film production back to the USA from China.
To make a long story short - wages are rising quickly in China and there's a factory labor shortage. Don't look for it to be a panacea for the film industry's ills.
-
If I understand it correctly, Eastman Kodak has a long history of chemical manufacturing - and much of that manufacturing had wider applicability than just to the photographic industries. They developed and manufactured many products - at one time they competed with the likes of Dupont in the depth and breadth of their product lines.
I wouldn't be surprised if much of their environmental exposure relates to that history.
If my knowledge of Forte is correct, they are unlikely to have that type of exposure.
Kodak has a history of responding well to environmental concerns, as they become apparent, but much of Kodak's pioneering work was done before anybody understood those concerns.
I suggest that modern manufacturing processes are much more likely to be environmentally "gentle" - thus I would be surprised if the Kodak/Lucky facilities were very problematic.
IMHO it is the historic facilities and resources that create the most concern for Kodak.
Matt
-
Why not move Kodak to Latin America? The entire region could be the next big market.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
If my informations are right all eastern European manufacturers are facing little or no environmental cleanup charges.
All of them are located either directly next to densly habitated areas (housing) or actually in them since the 50ies and have been regulated very strictly in the past.
Most of them have been producing film and papers only, which is actually a pretty clean production with little bad side products.
Possible candiates for pollution are more the producers of the input materials like gelatin, silver nitrate, liquid chemicals or salts.
These have been made within these factories only to a very limited extend, also in the past.
I have seen almost every coating line in eastern europe and most of them are very, very nice pieces of land. Beautifully located with own woods and dwells. More of a recreation park than an actual factory.
The reason is simple: Back when they were founded in the 1920ies to 1940ies climatising and air purification was THE issue. So they planted trees (mostly cedar trees) in order to give shade and pure air around the factorie buildings which were neat looking, long, one story brick buildings.
So you have always a HUGE piece of land with woods and some scattered small nice buildings and lots of alleys to walk on from building to building.
One of the major problems is that within their own property they tried to squeeze all possible poluters (like the energy creating building) as far to the corner as they could so no smoke hit the factory in bad wind conditions.
This is one big issue when trying to scale down the factories now. Changing all the steam pipes and mooving the generators is difficult and costly next to the spread out shematics of building locations on the lot.
Regards,
Mirko
-
Originally Posted by MattKing
If I understand it correctly, Eastman Kodak has a long history of chemical manufacturing - and much of that manufacturing had wider applicability than just to the photographic industries. They developed and manufactured many products - at one time they competed with the likes of Dupont in the depth and breadth of their product lines.
I wouldn't be surprised if much of their environmental exposure relates to that history.
If my knowledge of Forte is correct, they are unlikely to have that type of exposure.
Kodak has a history of responding well to environmental concerns, as they become apparent, but much of Kodak's pioneering work was done before anybody understood those concerns.
I suggest that modern manufacturing processes are much more likely to be environmentally "gentle" - thus I would be surprised if the Kodak/Lucky facilities were very problematic.
IMHO it is the historic facilities and resources that create the most concern for Kodak.
Matt
This is correct. Kodak Chemicals division, on Ridge Road in Rochester was one of the largest fine chemical manufacturers in the USA. They invented and pioneered the 'vacuum still' a method of making highly pure organic compounds and as a result became the worlds largest supplier of vitamins in the entire world. There specialties were vitamin E and vitamin A, and the work on vitamin E led directly to the original work on highly stable dyes in the 1960s, 20 years before Henry Wilhelm began his work. At that time, Kodak paper was far superior to any other paper on the market due to the use of antioxidants that were similar to Vitamin E.
Each year, they published a new huge catalog that contained many of the chemicals used in film making including developers, sensitizing dyes, and addenda.
This plant is now closed.
It was more properly called DPI or Distillation Products Industries.
PE
-
Originally Posted by firecracker
Why not move Kodak to Latin America? The entire region could be the next big market.
Kodak built a plant in Brazil for just this reason.
Due to economic growth, the South American economy is exploding and moving directly to digital.
The Brazil plant closed about 2 years ago.
PE
-
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Kodak built a plant in Brazil for just this reason.
Due to economic growth, the South American economy is exploding and moving directly to digital.
The Brazil plant closed about 2 years ago.
PE
It seems that China, Aferica, India and South American are leapfronging to digital. The loan Indian paper company closed a few years ago as well. A computer ink jet printer and digital camera are much less expensive than a start up analog system.
-
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Kodak built a plant in Brazil for just this reason.
Due to economic growth, the South American economy is exploding and moving directly to digital.
The Brazil plant closed about 2 years ago.
PE
What products did they make in the Brazil plant?
|
|
Adv Reply
