Switch to English Language Passer en langue franÁaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,958   Posts: 1,522,983   Online: 1169
      
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 96
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,426
    We are in it now
    - Bill Lynch

  2. #32
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,929
    Images
    65
    Agfa, Ilford and a few other companies survived economic turmoil. Now we have assault on 2 fronts. This is worse than ever before and so I would have to agree with the statement that the economy has hurt EK. See the thread on EFKE.

    PE

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,308
    Images
    58
    The economy has hurt, but to call this a depression is utter nonsense and shows a complete lack of historic perspective and knowledge.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,785
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by pbromaghin View Post
    The economy has hurt, but to call this a depression is utter nonsense and shows a complete lack of historic perspective and knowledge.
    Totally agree.

  5. #35
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,929
    Images
    65
    I was alive and kicking during the great depression. Since a war was joined with it, it is hard to make comparisons with it. Only a historical analysis will be able to tell us how they compare.

    PE

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,308
    Images
    58
    Well, according to the US Dept of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, the US GDP shrank (or "receded", hence we had a "recession") in Q2 and Q3 of FY 2008. It has grown (however slowly) every quarter since then. That doesn't fit any definition of a depression I've ever heard, and to declare it as such is to insult people like PE who were actually there. Hell, even the late '70s and early '80s (when I was trying to get a start as a breadwinner), while not comparable to the 1930's, were far worse worldwide economic conditions than we have now.

  7. #37
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,929
    Images
    65
    Well, if you look at the middle class, home reposesions, the number unemployed, the stagnation of the stock market, the condition of the Euro in Greece, Spain, Italy and etc... Something is going on!

    Lets call it a global economic meltdown.

    And calling it a depression is not taken as an insult. Things are bad right now any way you look at it.

    PE

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,426
    Doesn't have to be the "Great Depression" to be a depression.

    If you've lost your home, your job, your life savings and had your pension stripped away right in front of you, you would consider it a depression.

    A great many people find themselves in that position.

    Face it, the US has stripped the working class of most of it's wealth and income.

    Has to affect frivolous purchases -- like film.
    - Bill Lynch

  9. #39
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,929
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    Doesn't have to be the "Great Depression" to be a depression.

    If you've lost your home, your job, your life savings and had your pension stripped away right in front of you, you would consider it a depression.

    A great many people find themselves in that position.

    Face it, the US has stripped the working class of most of it's wealth and income.

    Has to affect frivolous purchases -- like film.
    That was my point with efforts to leave out all of the pain!

    PE

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by pgtips View Post
    Kodak invented the digital camera. Though it is understandable that they were afraid of developing it at the time due to the threat it would pose to their film business, what was the thinking at the company that caused them to remain film centric after both their competitors and previously non photographic companies had begun to gain ground in the digital market?
    Kodak made multiple efforts to avoid becoming "film centric," but there were a lot of failures along the road. Remember the KODAVISION 8mm video system? KEEPS? Kodak IMAGELINK Copiers? OPTISTAR printers? ULTRALIFE and SUPRALIFE batteries? Me neither. How about their "catch and release" of Sterling Drug?

    When a company has a "cash cow" as Kodak did with film, all too often they forget how to innovate. Look at Kodak's own Milestones for the 1990's. How much real innovation do you see?

    Quote Originally Posted by pgtips View Post
    Why did they not streamline their film business in order meet the new, smaller demand for film?
    Streamlining of that type is extremely difficult. Everything, from manufacturing to the distribution and even corporate organization is designed for large scale. Your mid-level managers are often ill-suited to running a more streamlined operation, and since many of them will end up losing their jobs a turf war is inevitable. Kodak tried shrinking its way to profitablity, but it didn't work.

    Quote Originally Posted by pgtips View Post
    Also, why have they cut back on transparency film and kept lower end consumer film, which is surely a faster shrinking market?
    Transparency use among commercial photographers shrank extremely quickly, and it was a smaller market to begin with. My local lab stopped processing E6 film about 2 years ago because the chemicals were going stale.

    Quote Originally Posted by pgtips View Post
    At what point did Fuji really gain the upper hand over Kodak when it came to digital?
    Fuji was also a "me too" player in digital. But since they were a more diversified company than Kodak, they were able to survive the shift a bit better.

    Quote Originally Posted by pgtips View Post
    Why did Kodak move away from the professional end of digital photography and concentrate on the lower profit consumer end when they had less experience in the latter?
    Because they knew once Canon got serious about dSLR's they couldn't win. Kodak wasn't a chip maker and hadn't made professional grade still photography gear for decades. For example, take a look at the Kodak DCS 14n. It was built around Nikon's N/F80 instead of the F100 or even F5, and everything about it shouted cost cutting in all the wrong places. Nikon was in a similar fight for survival. It won, but even with some big advantages over Kodak it was a very near thing. Had a couple of critical products not been as good as they were, Nikon would where Pentax is today.

    Kodak thought it understood consumer photography and that expertise would transfer over to digital. In reality, they had been playing catch-up in consumer photography rather than leading. When consumers were buying cameras like the Canon AE-1, Olympus XA or even the Canonet QL, Nikon literally had nothing to offer. It took them until 1986 to make a 35mm point-and-shoot. They let other companies take the lead in everything from minilabs to disposable cameras. APS wasn't a bad system, but at the end of the day, the convenience features didn't make up for offering lower quality at higher processing costs. With enthusiasts staying with 35mm and more casual users opting for disposables, APS never really found a niche.

    Quote Originally Posted by pgtips View Post
    If digital had not arrived, where would Kodak be today? Would they have stagnated anyway in terms of creativity (APS didnít exactly take of as the company had hoped) and been overtaken by more modern and creative companies regardless of the invention of digital?
    They'd still be sharing a cash cow with Fuji on film, which, as it did from 1980-2000, serve to mask the fact that Kodak had forgotten how to innovate and compete. So while Kodak wouldn't be a healthy, growing company, it would probably hold on for an extra decade.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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