This is actually one valid way to keep Kodak's name, not necessary to maintain the size of Kodak.
If all money Kodak used to spent on digital, is instead spent on keeping and extending their analog product line, Kodak may still have a chance to maintain a 7,500 employee company.
Another way to look at this: Kodak decided to spent all profit from film products on its remote inkjet business. The inkjet business, IMHO, will never be Kodak's cup of tea. Can you imagine that Kodak will beat Epson and Canon, or even HP? (If Kodak can , I guess IBM won't get rid of its PC and laptop business.) You guys probably know what kind of cameras Kodak has been marketing to American during past 50 years? Other than a few exceptions, Kodak cameras are mostly at the low end of the market, just one notch above what we currently called toy cameras . I believe Kodak will do better in chemical and film industry, but not in equipment manufacturing.
Inkjet printing does not have a great future because publishing (books, magazines, and newspapers) business is a fast shrinking business. Home printing is not expanding fast enough. Instead most images will be stored in social network websites and home computers, and displayed in digital frames and digital readers with high quality screens.
Kodak or Perez is interested in packaging material printing business - but how viable that business to Kodak is? Epson is also working on get into this field and it seems it is not easy to be established there.
Anyway I believe Kodak should not totally give up its dominant market position at analog photographic product. A full switch over to just inkjet printing will kill Kodak instead.
You forgot Voigtlander - I like the RF lenses and viewfinders produced by Cosina and use a 21mm regularly for recording the 10x8" NP work, but always refer to it as Cosina - I feel it is sad they used the name Voigtlander - (I have 4 real Voigtlander lenses and love the images they produce)
Originally Posted by benveniste
I find the initial daydreaming a waste of time, unless IC can raise the funds to get the Kodak BW plants running again, in which case I will drink to his health and happiness
Actually the article in the OP is copied word for word directly from an article on Gibson with some clever "search and replace." I missed that one.
Originally Posted by David Brown
And, again to complete the analogy. Digital music has had a significant impact on the electric guitar. The electric guitar is NOT the instrument of the new century. It is actually rare to hear an instrument that makes any noise by vibration played by a human on any current popular music. If the New Years shows I saw are any indication, no one even knows how to play an instrument. The music is all made in ProTools or Logic in the 'piano roll' window.
And how many bottles of PF 130 do they sell in a week? It's a great way to sell products that can be made small scale and sold at the appropriate price. If you have a name like Gibson or Harley, you might even get enough people to pay that price. That's just not going to work for a product like Portra.
Originally Posted by zsas
"People get bumped off." -- Weegee
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
What does scale have to do with the marketing and grass roots engagement I am suggesting the new owners do for film based still photography marketing? Trader Joe has that old time grocery feel slant in their marketing and they look to be doing pretty good, scale is different than message. I'm more talking about connecting their base with the past and memories and emotion, classic, tis all I mean
Trader Joe doesn't have Kodak's pension liability to cover, if it did they'd be broke too. Maybe as a group we're suggesting screw Kodak's retirees, their pensions, and their health insurance?
To cover those folks Kodak is going to have to be a big company and generate a "lot" of income.
^is film commercially viable? That is for the suitors/creditors to decide, don't think any of us have the ability to see if there is profitability w/o going thru the books (although the quarterly results dont look too promising for film or any Kodak group), my comments presume someone/or group were to buy the Film arm and make a go at it...
Isn't kodak manufacturing digital sensors for the likes of the leica S2 etc? Im sure thats profitable if thats the case. I realise not many hideously expensive cameras like that are sold in comparison to others though.
My random ponderings suggest a number of things. One is that film has major archive/long term stability benefit. I wonder if in the next few years people will understand how unstable their million pictures of their kids on their computer is (possibly after they lose them in a crash). It will probably take a lot more than that to convert people back to accepting film though. It would be a nice world if film and digital shared 50% each of the market, more opportunity and availability of resources for all. Even my dad has suggested film is dead, thats just infuriating.
All that really matters in the end is the image, not what your using to create it.
I think one issue however is that society no longer holds photographs with the same level of value - hence loss of them is not considered as much of a loss as it would have been before.
Originally Posted by Danielle
Why? Because effort to attain is now less than it was before.
Result: Less attached and perceived value because of lower original cost/effort.
The discussion itself may not entirely even be about film, really, but more about the Photograph itself.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.