Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,206   Posts: 1,531,882   Online: 1013
      
Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 151920212223242526 LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 257
  1. #241
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Skip;

    Kodak has done that already!!!!!!!!!!!

    We have discussed that ad nauseum on APUG.

    PE

  2. #242

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    604
    PE,

    Sorry, but I apparently missed it. Or it could be that it is not what I'm talking about. If Kodak had done what I am referring to, it would have kept core businesses related to its strengths in analog photography, including the chemical and health care businesses. And now Kodak wants to sell off the personal imaging division? Why? So it can waste more money on technology it largely pioneered, but can't seem to capitalize on in the market? How will that help Kodak photographic film from going the way of the Dodo bird? I don't care about Kodak-branded batteries, Christmas tree lights, consumer ink jet printers, commercial printers and book publishing presses, or digital sensors, digital cameras, or digital print services. I care about Ektar, Portra, Tri-X, Plus-X, Double XX, E100 films, 64T, TP, HIE, EIR, and Kodachrome, not to mention cine films, especially the reversal films. Look how many of Kodak's great films are gone!

    I have not made a study of Kodak, but from what I've read in this forum and elsewhere, Kodak has continued to make and sell film products, supporting the bottom line at a continually decreasing rate, while at the same time it squandered capital on ill-conceived, or at least poorly executed, ventures. While it treated film like a cash cow, it also stopped marketing film to the public generally, and did little to promote it against the onslaught of digital imaging.

    I'm talking about turning Kodak into a much smaller company focused on its roots, analog photography (ok, maybe inkjet paper and inks too, if they'll do it right). I'm not talking about sitting on its laurels and coasting on past greatness, but actively pursuing what market remains, and working to expand it. The recent introduction of the 2332 Color Asset Protection film was a good move.

  3. #243
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,589
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by SkipA View Post
    I'm talking about turning Kodak into a much smaller company focused on its roots, analog photography (ok, maybe inkjet paper and inks too, if they'll do it right).
    This business model works for Ilford.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  4. #244
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Well, we have talked about Kodak selling off divisions to become leaner and meaner. We have talked about Kodak scaling back on manufacturing schedules and demolishing unused buildings. We have then discussed how the divestments and closures were the wrong divisions. For example, Kodak spun off Eastman Chemicals which is doing fine, and Kodak is a chemical business at its core.

    I could go on, but there are several threads and even posts here that discuss the need for Kodak to become smaller.

    The fact is that they have become almost as small as they can, and they have kept spinning off the wrong divisions! They seem to be adept at spinning off the profit makers. (I guess you should use the name Perez in place of they)

    PE

  5. #245

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    604
    I was redundant, I suppose, but I was wishing from my heart. I'm probably just getting maudlin as I age. As Steve mentioned (and what was in my mind too) is that it worked for Ilford. So why not for Kodak? You pointed out some of the reasons ... selling the wrong parts of the company is a big one. It would have to be a dramatic downsizing and refocusing, the kind that would alienate most of the current shareholders and investors.

    Why do I care? Because I really like Kodak products, and I've always regarded Kodak as the finest innovator and promoter of the science, art, and pleasure of photography in the world.

    I started my personal pursuit of photography with an inexpensive Kodak camera that shot 126 film. Later I bought books from Kodak to teach me how to improve my photography when I bought my first 35mm camera. Years later when I set up my first makeshift darkroom, I was inspired and informed by books from Kodak that explained how to set up a darkroom, process film, enlarge, and make prints. I used Kodak films, papers, and chemicals exclusively. This was just before the dawn of the internet and the WWW, so I got nearly all of my instruction from books, or from the owners and staff of the camera stores I frequented. This was at a time when they knew something about film, and were enthusiasts themselves. Kodak was everywhere. In all stores of any kind that sold film, Kodak was always the primary featured stock, and often the only one. When I bought my first LF camera (in an actual brick and mortar camera store, not over the net), what film did I shoot exclusively? Right! Tri-X! What else?

    Anyway, I'm just sorry to see Kodak struggling and perhaps foundering for good. I continue to wish for some happy ending that keeps the finest photographic films the world has ever seen still in production.

    My film budget for this month will be applied toward purchase of some more Portra 160 in 220 rolls.

    Hey, I'm going to buy your book too, but it may take me a while to duplicate Portra and Tri-X. :-) lol

  6. #246
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Skip;

    Kodak could do it, but they keep plowing all "profits" from film into digital! If the film division could stand alone, it could make money just like Ilford. THAT is the real sad part of this.

    PE

  7. #247
    Hatchetman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    586
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Skip;

    Kodak could do it, but they keep plowing all "profits" from film into digital! If the film division could stand alone, it could make money just like Ilford. THAT is the real sad part of this.

    PE
    Imagine if some of those profits were put into marketing film and building the right size manufacturing and distribution systems for it. Ugh.

  8. #248

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    109
    Losing the work product of the Kodak labs is like burning the library at Alexandria. It would be an incalculable loss of human knowledge--and not just for film! Dr. Hanson mentioned that Kodak had synthesized thirty to forty thousand different dye couplers. Will these processes be put into the public domain, or simply lost? Again, this material is all undervalued.

  9. #249
    ambaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    528

    Kodak Concedes Difficulty in Drawing Lead Bidder for Patents

    The patents will not be lost. Somebody will own them. Even if Kodak were to be dissolved and liquidated, somebody will wind up with them. The next question is will they utilize them? Or at least use them in a way that has relevance to film photographers?

  10. #250

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    998
    Quote Originally Posted by ambaker View Post
    The patents will not be lost. Somebody will own them. ... Or at least use them in a way that has relevance to film photographers?
    The patents they were trying to sell all relate to digital photography and NOT film photography.

    Given the way patents have been written and the legal cases pending, I'm not sure how much more the patents are worth. (I suspect al the 'good' ones are already being licensed.)



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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