Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,197   Posts: 1,531,417   Online: 839
      
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 117
  1. #71
    lns
    lns is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Up in our end of the woods, there are a fair number of places where you can download one or more digital files over the internet, and then later the same day or possibly the next day go and pick up your prints. The prints are RA-4 or the Fuji equivalent.....
    Oh, sure, we have that here in the US too. Costco, Walgreens and real photo stores all have some variety of that service. You can bring in your digital card or a hard drive or CD containing photos, or you can upload your photos over the internet. The problem is, unless you're a photo enthusiast who post-processes and sharpens and color-profiles and all, the results tend to be underwhelming.

    With film, someone else did all the processing adjustments for you, making it easy to get an acceptable print. With digital, which is supposedly so convenient, the shooter is responsible for post-processing. But folks don't really know that. My friends who aren't photo people just bring in the jpeg. They are then disappointed that it doesn't look very good printed. Color film is really so much easier.


    -Laura

  2. #72
    lns
    lns is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    If we know that we could get rich either by buying Kodak stock or short selling Kodak stock. We only need to know whether to buy or short sell....
    Well, that's easy. The short interest in Kodak's stock is huge. According to dailyfinance.com, almost 27 percent of the company's float is sold short.

    In contrast, about 1.2 percent of Microsoft's stock is sold short. About 1.5 percent of Kraft Food Inc.'s stock. About 4.3 percent of stock in Motorola, which is struggling.

    -Laura

  3. #73
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,165
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Hence, why are you bothering Ron with your question?
    I wasn't "bothering Ron" with a question. I was replying to his question regarding how TIP's current products "look" since at one point I had posted an extensive series of test exposures using their earlier materials.

    Then later replying to his observation to me that perhaps we should wait to see where TIP is in another year or two before judging their success.

    Why are you policing member exchanges? Are you a new moderator, Steve?

    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

  4. #74
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    Ron,

    At rate and direction events are currently trending, where is Kodak going to be at the end of next year, or the year after?

    In the current worldwide economic environment, a case could reasonably be made that the working definition of "savvy" is "survival."

    Ken
    Ken;

    Considering my OP, IDK where Perez is going to be in a years time and that might make all the difference in the world wrt where Kodak will be.

    But then we don't know where the Impossible Project is going to be either and that is even in the face of their "campaign". After all, the product was pretty bad and unless they offer something better, discerning photographers will finally "catch on".

    PE

  5. #75
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac View Post
    May be Kodak could invest in impossible project , create a better product and collect thee money.
    Perhaps Kodak could buy the patents that Polaroid sued them with in the '80s? Then they could perhaps sue Fuji...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac View Post
    Who buys Polaroid now ? Old followers or young fellows ?
    I think new Polaroids are romantic , like Palladium tones. If you study the material well , it creates excellent nudes , naturmonts. Yes my 350 is hungry and its lithium battery still active after 15 years.
    I think I will invest in it for my sisters visit.
    Both young and old, Polaroids are ironically seeing a real resurgence now that Polaroid itself just sells silly Zink Lady Gaga stuff. Very popular for nudes as you say and the artistic value of TIP really is being embraced widely.

    Your 350 can't use TIP film however. Impossible did NOT buy Polaroid's pack film machines sadly so you'll have to buy Fujifilm Instant to satisfy your 350.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  6. #76
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    The decree against Kodak enjoined them to refrain from all forms of Instant Analog Photography. I don't know if that is still in effect or how far it went or what! I do know that the RAMs, FAMs and COMAMs (machines to make the packs and assemble them) were destroyed as scrap. They are hugely expensive to build and it takes miles of film to fine tune them. In fact, TIP films right now may be what they are using to tune up the machines and process. They are just making the customer pay. IDK at all of course, this is pure speculation and kind of tongue in cheek, but you see my point, I hope.

    PE

  7. #77
    Ian David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,079
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    Are you a new moderator, Steve?
    Actually, I've been wondering that too...
    I think Steve may be the new Hasselblad-sponsored moderator.
    Or maybe he is just keeping his post count up...

    Ian

  8. #78
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,790
    Images
    108
    Harry , Thank you ,

    It is sad to learn that. I think I must fit a 120 back to my polaroid and tone the positives with palladium. Or buy Fuji and use its cassette for paper negatives but I dont know how to match lowest 75 ASA selection to paper. Any advise is welcome.

    Umut

  9. #79
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,790
    Images
    108
    Statistically , If I write 50 years more , I will hit the PEs record By the way Ian , you are only 12 post for copper jubilee.

  10. #80
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,165
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Considering my OP, IDK where Perez is going to be in a years time and that might make all the difference in the world wrt where Kodak will be.

    But then we don't know where the Impossible Project is going to be either and that is even in the face of their "campaign". After all, the product was pretty bad and unless they offer something better, discerning photographers will finally "catch on".
    All true. But it obfuscates the original premise.

    TIP is making money - albeit on a much different scale than Kodak - because they are willing to market their film products in a predominantly digital photographic world, thus creating new demand for an analog product category that was previously extinct.

    Without their marketing there would be no demand. With their marketing they have been able to not only create demand, but successfully fill that demand with admittedly (even by TIP) inferior products. They are doing this because their goal is to be in the film business. And selling film services that goal.

    The quality of their products, while arguably a concern for those here who might consider using them, is apparently not a concern for TIP's target demographic. Hence a projected quadrupling of their sales volume. There's a reason TIP is not an APUG sponsor.

    But the quality of those products is not the real issue. Their method of successfully marketing and selling those products is the issue. And I believe the lesson to be drawn is the same one we've heard over and over here before in these discussions.

    TIP has shown, in that Jurassic Park sense, just how effective marketing film can be in today's digitally photographic world. And Kodak's films - the ones that remain - are of astoundingly high quality compared to TIP's current offerings.

    So if Kodak is truly serious about continuing their film business in the long-term, why won't they market their film products? And if they won't market their film products, what does that, by inference, say about their long-term intentions for film? And, by extension, their desire to be in the film business at all?

    [Note to Steve: The above are offered as rhetorical questions only, intended solely to provide some food for thought for those reading along. No APUG members were injured in the posing of those questions.]

    Ken
    Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 03-05-2011 at 12:45 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Minor addition to clarity...
    "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



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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