Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,986   Posts: 1,523,978   Online: 854
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 62
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by holmburgers View Post
    Ken, thanks for that concise and telling post.

    The best thing Kodak could do for it's film business is chop it off and sell it to some smaller party who is dedicated to analog. The quicker Kodak film is no longer controlled by Kodak, the better.

    Despite what happens in the business, the writing is on the wall. That's why the best thing we can do as lovers of analog is do our most to learn how to make things from scratch. The emulsion makers have shown that b&w is doable for the hobbyist, and if that's true than color isn't out of the realm of possibility. Silver-dye bleach systems (like Ilfo/Cibachrome) are fairly straightforward in the chemistry they require, and the materials are obtainable. Slide films could be created off this basis, as well as paper.

    We must retain our freedom to purchase chemicals, which is something that anyone who laments the passing of film should also take on as a cause. Film is only the product of certain materials and chemicals, and there are many people in the world; big businesses and our government alike, who aim to make it very difficult to get these things. Due either to basic misunderstandings, environmental concerns, or threats of terrorism and the like.

    There can be no experimentation without a broad range of things to experiment with; I fear that the work done over the last 150+ years in photography might not be achievable if we were forced to invent anew today. Regulations, restrictions, fear... it's just a different world now and things could be lost, potentially forever.

    But in the meantime...
    And that party would be stricken with:

    a) MASSIVE potential environmental tort liability
    b) A massively oversized production infrastructure

    Kodak took aggressive steps to downize its film production capacity in 2003-4 but the market has simply continued its decline.

    I'd love to see a buyout happen, but I don't think it can for the above.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    Ken,

    You've completely mis-understood what the poster was trying to say.

    ...

    So, yes, they would love nothing better to wave a magic wand and make it 1986 again because their shareholders would love them for it.
    Thanks for getting my original point

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Horsham, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by holmburgers View Post
    8?

    But we all now that today's large is bigger than yesteryear's large; now it's more like an Extra Large.
    Not necessarily. Have you tried to buy shrimp lately? "Large" shrimp are now 31-40 per pound. They were sold as small as little as 5 years ago.


    Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
    "Panic not my child, the Great Yellow Father has your hand"--Larry Dressler

  4. #44
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,094
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    You've completely mis-understood what the poster was trying to say.

    Up until the advent of digital photography, Kodak realized much better profit margins on the sale of film than any digital photo equipment manufacturer realizes today.

    So, yes, they would love nothing better to wave a magic wand and make it 1986 again because their shareholders would love them for it.

    Worry less about what Mr. Perez's PR blather...

    [...snipped reference to rare earth metals supply...]
    So, umm, let's summerize then...

    I've "completely mis-understood" that Mr. Perez's public comments regarding his mandate from Kodak's Board of Directors to remake Kodak into a digital technology company are truthful. They are, in fact, nothing more than "PR blather." Even though as leader of a publicly-held corporation, should he be caught willfully lying to that public, he could be criminally charged with fraud.

    And the crucial point I'm missing by not correctly seeing beyond Mr. Perez's so-called "blather" is his - and by extension Kodak's Board of Director's - real wish to simply "wave a magic wand and make it 1986 again because their shareholders would love them for it."

    Hmm...

    Well, over the years my luck with the application of "magic wands" to the resolution of my own problems has been decidedly poor. Perfectly poor, to be honest. Perhaps your, and Mr. Perez's, past luck using them has been better? I suppose, as they say, YMMV...

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  5. #45
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,587
    Here ya go!



    4 sale cheap.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  6. #46
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,094
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Here ya go!



    4 sale cheap.
    Ha!

    So you're the one who forgot to wave it over Kodachrome...

    I knew it was you.



    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    So, umm, let's summerize then...

    I've "completely mis-understood" that Mr. Perez's public comments regarding his mandate from Kodak's Board of Directors to remake Kodak into a digital technology company are truthful. They are, in fact, nothing more than "PR blather." Even though as leader of a publicly-held corporation, should he be caught willfully lying to that public, he could be criminally charged with fraud.

    And the crucial point I'm missing by not correctly seeing beyond Mr. Perez's so-called "blather" is his - and by extension Kodak's Board of Director's - real wish to simply "wave a magic wand and make it 1986 again because their shareholders would love them for it."

    Hmm...

    Well, over the years my luck with the application of "magic wands" to the resolution of my own problems has been decidedly poor. Perfectly poor, to be honest. Perhaps your, and Mr. Perez's, past luck using them has been better? I suppose, as they say, YMMV...

    Ken
    Ken,

    CEOs serve at the discretion of the board of directors. They are often not voting members of the board. There is no law that "de facto" associates the actions of a corporate officer (such as the CEO) with the board members.

    You do not have an accurate understanding regarding a CEOs obligations for disclosure. They have an obligation not to deceive about the performance of a company or anything that may materially affect the value of the company's equity (e.g. they cannot start a rumor that the company is about to be acquired) but they are under no obligation to offer a full & fair disclosure of corporate strategy.

    None.

    That is not to say that leadership at EK is committed to film. I do not believe that they are, but that is simply because it is no longer possible to manufacture it profitably at a large scale. It has little to do with so-called "digital transformation" which, in my opinion, amounts to nothing more than the hope that they can trouble an HP or Lexmark sufficiently to prompt a buyout.
    Last edited by aldevo; 01-19-2011 at 11:04 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    373
    Did anyone else notice that Kodak USA now lists E200 as discontinued?

    Announcement: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...?pq-path=13373

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Yeah I noticed that today.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    965
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by holmburgers View Post
    Ken, thanks for that concise and telling post.

    The best thing Kodak could do for it's film business is chop it off and sell it to some smaller party who is dedicated to analog. The quicker Kodak film is no longer controlled by Kodak, the better.
    Which would be who, exactly? It couldn't be someone _very_ small; the Film & Entertainment group still generates a fair bit of revenue, Kodak won't let it go too cheap. If someone came along who had enough money and could deal with the legacy issues, I'd bet Kodak would seriously consider it. But the number of potential buyers with both the needed resources and the willingness to invest in film is probably quite close to zero. And if they did, they would be immediately faced with the same problem--the need to cut products to what can be sustained.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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