Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,294   Posts: 1,535,547   Online: 1086
      
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 96
  1. #11
    Kevin Kehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regina Canada (sounds more fun than it is)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    605
    I also think we need to remember that Kodak didn't think digital would take off till 2020 or so, and probably thought they had a lot more time to make changes. Recent article on Facebook said that if a billion can join in 24 months, a billion can leave in 24 months; the speed of which a product is discarded or rendered obsolete can be amazing.

    There really is a lot of other threads and posts on this topic; generally when researching, you gather data then conclusions. Your search seems to be looking for conclusions (coming from a life-long student, you won't learn as much without doing the actual research since secondary sources are never as useful as primary sources).
    Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.

    Andreas Feininger

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Kehler View Post
    I also think we need to remember that Kodak didn't think digital would take off till 2020 or so, and probably thought they had a lot more time to make changes..
    I'm not sure where the 2020 date comes from; it certainly isn't something we talked about in the '90s.

    I think the one bit of disruptive technology that really changed things was the rapid development and acceptance of smart phones that replaced consumer still and video cameras.

  3. #13
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Fred, a Kodak Technological Forecasting group (capital letters internally ) decided in the late 80s that digital would not become an important imaging method until about 2020. I disagreed with that and went to CPD management with my opinion only to be rebuffed. Message me for details.

    PE

  4. #14
    Kevin Kehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regina Canada (sounds more fun than it is)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    605
    Thanks PE - I had that date in my head fairly firmly but could not recall the source of my information. I also recall one of your "Inside Analogue Photography" podcasts where you discuss how asking analogue film technicians what digital is going to do is like asking engineers what film technicians are going to do - it's not their area of expertise and as such, their opinions are not valid in the long term.
    Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.

    Andreas Feininger

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,019
    Ron,

    Those of us in PPD (late '80s/early '90s) who were working on digital projects weren't looking for it to take that long to happen.

    Everything considered, it took about 20 years to have a really major effect on the Company (1990- 2010)

  6. #16
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Fred, the company policy was made based on that Technological Forecasting group even though most everyone disagreed, as you say. They believed that it would take over 40 years! (1988 - 2020 or thereabouts). The problem was that top management agreed with the forecast and "sat" on any dissenting opinion.

    PE

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    The problem was that top management agreed with the forecast and "sat" on any dissenting opinion.

    That is certainly true. My PPD boss understood; things MIGHT have been different if they didn't get rid of him.

  8. #18
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    725
    Kodak should have legally defended the concept of "photography" against "digital picture-making".

    By winning a court case against "digital" claimants asserting their product is "photography" Kodak would create two separate markets and be able to sell in both. And the case would only have to be run (and won) once in the United States to establish an enduring and persuasive precedent.

    There is a stunning present day example of the power of such litigation. For more than a hundred years any wine producer in the world turning out dry white bubbly wine could label it Champagne. And the grand Champagne houses in Europe were hurting all the way. Now with the power of the EU behind them these original Champagne producers will relentlessly sue any misappropriation of the name Champagne. The result of litigation or threatened litigation is that nobody anywhere labels non-authentic bubbly as Champage. Ok, there may be a few Californian hold-outs still bottling "champagne" but they run the risk of being thought of as being of lesser repute.

    Imagine a world in which re-labelling "digital" as "photography" would be considered dodgy and deceitful. For a few million bucks Kodak might have secured such a world. It may still be possible.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,142
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    1
    kodak got to where they are for alot of different reasons.
    one that i am kind of peeved about is they didn't sell master rolls
    to other people so they could cut them and package+resell them
    for people who shoot sheet film and who don't want to wait around
    for a "special order" to get a box of 7x11 or 2.5x3.5" sheet film,
    or something crazy big for a pinhole /camera obscura.

    there are lots of reasons why they are in the place they are in today ..
    and hindsight is always 20/20 ...

    vive la difference !
    john
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    Kodak should have legally defended the concept of "photography" against "digital picture-making".

    LOL. Electronic imaging was around long before Kodak - just think of the space program images and video cameras. Digital was a logical extension.

    Kodak could no more have stopped the "digital picture-making' tide than King Canute could stop the tide.

    (Canute (or Cnut or Knut), a Dane who ruled England from 1015 to 1035, as well as Denmark, Norway, Parts of sweden, Pomerania and Schleswig, was a down-to-earth man anoyed by flattering courtiers who tried to tell him that he was all-powerful. To demonstrate that he was not, he had a throne placed on the seashore, sat in it, ordered the tide to go back, and duly got his feet wet.)

    When technology develops to a certain point, there is no putting it back in the bottle.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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