Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,696   Posts: 1,482,507   Online: 966
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    correct, but as I read it it has nothing to do DIRECTLY with kodak film
    I never said so. A lot of of postings here about the Eastman Company are not film related.



    Wherever you go in the world—no matter how remote the
    location—you are apt to see the Kodak trademark. It is one of the
    world’s most famous and trusted brands, and is Kodak’s most
    valuable asset.
    Kodak 2007


    As far as I know the Kodak tradename has not been licenced so far (aside of products that were not photography related but served Kodak as advertising tool) so that would be at least interesting news for the industry minded.
    Last edited by AgX; 01-08-2013 at 04:26 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    USA, Pac/NW
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    368
    There is nothing new here.
    Basically, just rehashing old news...announced 09 FEB last year.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/bu...eras.html?_r=0

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,791
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    I never said so. A lot of of postings here about the Eastman Company are not film related.
    That's correct. You never said so. Nor did anyone else say so. What's more... the comment I made was about something someone else said in response to a question about the impact on Kodak film. I was completing a thought that was made by MattKing... making specific something that was implied (perhaps even so clearly implied that my addendum was unnecessary). Why are you being so defensive? I'm confused.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc B. View Post
    There is nothing new here.
    Basically, just rehashing old news...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/bu...eras.html?_r=0


    Not true, The actual licensing agreement mentioned by AgX was only announced in the Rochester paper yesterday. So it IS current news.
    Last edited by SuzanneR; 01-09-2013 at 08:51 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: included the whole block quote

  5. #15
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,411
    Images
    104
    I wish the best luck to Kodak , I have 9 rolls waiting for the lab but lab quality and prices really upset the home finance and me. Whatever photographers publish red skies with Fuji , at normal photographs , Fuji never reached to Kodak quality.

  6. #16
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,415
    This is just what's called in the trade "label engineering".
    Ben

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,084
    Images
    4
    At best, licensing your valuable brand is a last ditch effort to stave off the wolves. More likely, it's just a landing on a spiral staircase that is "down only". Worst case, it's a recognition that nothing of value is left except the memories of what once was (i.e. "Polaroid").

    It's the ultimate triumph of marketing and image over engineering and innovation. I think for Kodak, it's a necessary evil. But not a good sign.
    "Far more critical than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know." - Eric Hoffer

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,337
    Does this mean I will be able to buy Kodak Christmas Lights once again?

    JK (just kidding) Imaging, indeed!
    - Bill Lynch

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,432
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by mgb74 View Post
    At best, licensing your valuable brand is a last ditch effort to stave off the wolves. More likely, it's just a landing on a spiral staircase that is "down only". Worst case, it's a recognition that nothing of value is left except the memories of what once was (i.e. "Polaroid").

    It's the ultimate triumph of marketing and image over engineering and innovation. I think for Kodak, it's a necessary evil. But not a good sign.
    Very very true.

  10. #20
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    991
    I thought this 2006 Kodak ads fit the topic quiet well "just when you thought it was dead. Funny advertisement unfortunately for Kodak batteries but still funny. http://www.frederiksamuel.com/blog/2006/10/kodak.html

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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