Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,347   Posts: 1,682,500   Online: 763
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49
  1. #31
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    I'm really not sure what sort of remarks you were expecting or why the remarks here surprise you. The implication seems to be that our reaction is a disappointment to you. By and large we're consumers with a concern for the future. There's a disconnect between your expectations (which remain opaque to me) and the very predictable, obvious and understandable comments and questions that have been posted.

    This sort of cognitive dissonance is very frustrating to me. It would help me if you could help us understand what sort of interaction on this subject you had in mind.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  2. #32
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,673
    Images
    65
    Only the early remarks in which people thought an on-the-shelf research item could be zipped into production surprised me. That, as I said earlier was due to my poor phrasing of the OP, and I now understand it in that light and that particular thing has damped out due to our several responses.

    The main intent was to show that although Kodak has much information within the research labs, a lot of it will find no home in products due to the gradual demise of analog products as the money and market are not available for the transfer of the technology.

    It is serving a purpose as seen in AgX's post indicating other companies interest in Kodak technology if Kodak cannot use it. This may be of value to everyone, so in this regard my OP may have been of some benefit all around.

    So, you can consider it (apart from bad wording) an alert to everyone not to expect too much new from Kodak even though a lot of new technology exists and to alert some interested parties to the fact that they might want to see if Kodak has anything of use to them.

    In fact, this comment by Jim Weaver was taken totally out of context of a much longer 'paragraph' in his talk. I have only mentioned that part that may be of interest or use here.

    PE

  3. #33
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,648
    Images
    4
    I have simple wants. I'd be happy if Kodak would return to cutting plain old Tri-X in 2 1/4x 3 1/4.
    sigh.
    juan

  4. #34
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Thanks for the response, PE. I understand better now.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  5. #35
    mjs
    mjs is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Elkhart, Indiana (USA)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,111
    Images
    2
    We may regret not having "pollution-free" processes as environmental concerns grow. My greatest worry about traditional chemical photography is that the chemicals will become unavailable or prohibitively expensive (for example, being declared hazardous waste.) Either the ones I use or what goes into the manufacturing processes.

    Maybe I'm just being Chicken Little out of ignorance (what I know about chemistry could be printed on my forehead in poster sized type!) In any case, it was interesting to see the sorts of things a major research lab was looking into. Thanks!

    Mike

  6. #36
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    10,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    It is serving a purpose as seen in AgX's post indicating other companies interest in Kodak technology if Kodak cannot use it. This may be of value to everyone, so in this regard my OP may have been of some benefit all around.
    Well, in case of misunderstanding I must say I don’t really know any such company. (It would be nice if I myself had one of those niche ideas…) But following postings on Apug and having an eye on what is going on in the photographic world, I got the impression that those wannabe niche companies are out there. But as always, it takes two to tango and it could also be that those minors/micros not even dare to knock at the majors doors to inform about such ideas PE hinted at.
    But aside from doomsday talk, this change of times in the industry is interesting and I am curious what new ideas it will bring up aside from mainstream techniques.

  7. #37
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,673
    Images
    65
    Apparently, no one is knocking on Kodak's door.

    These things I post are only the most superficial of product ideas or even trade trialed items. I could add a lot more.

    PE

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Well, considering the remarks here today, I can just add that I cannot discuss any of these in detail in any way. And, if other companies are interested in them they should contact Kodak.

    <snip>
    PE
    Are you sure that there weren't any stock analysts wearing fake glasses and moustaches at your get-together yesterday? I see EK went up 9% today on 5x the normal volume and not a buyout rumor to be found!

    Ahh, if only the sort of stuff you mentioned WERE the sorts of things that would get analysts excited...all our fears would be baseless.

    I appreciate your posts on these sorts of subjects, though. Analog photography has been around for perhaps 175 years and yet more useful developments might be feasible if people would just stay interested...

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Apparently, no one is knocking on Kodak's door.

    These things I post are only the most superficial of product ideas or even trade trialed items. I could add a lot more.

    PE
    Well, I think it would be accurate to say that EK DOES have emerging technology that others want to purchase...but not on the analog side of the house.

    On the plus side...I did read an article today that predicted digital camera sales have just about peaked and could tail off rather dramatically after 2010. They cited super-saturation of markets and imminent loss of customer excitement as the factors. An increased tendency towards ennui in the digital age...wow, who could have predicted that?:rolleyes:

    A "Second Coming of Film" may be too much to ask for, but perhaps it may yet survive as a commerically-supported entity. We will just have to wait and see I guess and keep shooting in the meantime.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    244
    Images
    4
    Adelvo that is a pretty cool post.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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