Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,916   Posts: 1,521,852   Online: 1101
      
Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 59101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 175
  1. #141

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    126
    I had a look at the NBC link that Marvin posted above. I have a keen interest in the history of photography and obviously Kodak is one of the biggest players in that story. I doubt that our networks here in Oz will pick up this story since Kodak is no longer newsworthy here having closed and demolished their factory in Melbourne about 2006 (same deal as Toronto). If anybody has a web link to the televised segment could you please post it?

    I don't pretend to understand either the pension or healthcare systems in the US but I do appreciate that access to both is an important part of salary packages and retirement planning. I feel for those Kodak employees who may have to pay a very high price if everything goes pear-shaped - here's hoping some solution will be found amongst the corporate mess. OzJohn

  2. #142
    Marvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Williamston, NC USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    There was a video at that link yesterday but I don't think it is available now.
    Marvin

  3. #143
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    The ink supply termination is a sign that someone is not getting paid. The means some sort of restructuring, likely overseen by the court, is imminent.
    That's not the only possible explanation. For example, they could be worried that a bankruptcy is upcoming and don't want to be entangled in it. Note that the contract is for commercial printers, not the ones sold to the general public. Without knowing the terms and conditions of the contract I think it unwise to assume an action always means only one thing. Your statement is speculation, not fact.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #144
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,922
    Images
    65
    With no information on the ink company, I can say that local news reported that the ink company was alleged to have breached their contract. The reasons were not given.

    Also, many companies who were buying large Kodak printers for the printing industry have suspended purchases due to doubt of Kodak's sustained presence in that market. This (like the comments here on APUG about going to Ilford or Fuji products) is hurting Kodak badly.

    Kodak has lost a lot of sales across product lines due to this type of thinking whether it is true or not.

    And, no one here has a full grasp of the entire picture, including myself.

    PE

  5. #145

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    14
    I think the use of film sales in 2000 is way off the mark if you are trying to make a statement about the decline of the use of film. People are still buying and using film as they can afford. Lets face it, people are all worse off in the wallet then they were in 2000. You are also a little off in your thinking that everything in public companies is out on the table. There is a big issue of illegal trade practices and trade manipulation that is at play at all times. There is a great deal of money to be made from people thinking a company is going under. Companies like Kodak can win from folding in a sense. If the prices of stocks slide at a regular rate, traders that projected that slide can make a win-fall if they get the numbers right. Also if they have stock prices that have fallen to a place where it would be good for another large photo company to step in an make a buy of the company then it is a win-fall as well. Names are worth a great deal of money, since there are memories that are often tied to names.

    People that love one product and use one product will be drawn to purchasing more of that product if they think it will no longer be around (think polaroid) then when the dust settles and there just happens to be a product being offered from another company that works with the accessories of the dead product and looks a lot like the dead product then there is a surge to buy it up while using the fear that it will be gone (think fuji instant film). So there is money to be made.

    Film companies have come and gone, camera companies as well. Digital did not kill film, it just changed it from being the everyday vehicle for the industry. You must be aware of the large number of people that are turning away from digital and moving backwards to see what was once done. You can see the use of wet plate in main stream magazine articles and the use of pop printing in mainstream as well. So there is not much to fear about.

    When technology got into the automotive market people did not throw away their old cars for fear of getting parts for them. They knew that if they used it like many others did, then someone somewhere would make the parts. So lets not get all bent thinking that we will have to sell our film gear and all go get canon 5d set ups.

    Hell with all the kids using Lomo cameras there is a ton of film being sold right there. Yes we may lose a company or two, but we will still have our film and still be able to shoot what we want when we want. We may have to work harder to find some stuff, but you know what it may be good to actually have to try to find something that is not simply two clicks away on the web.

    Lets not be snobs over what you shoot and how you shoot it, drop the BS view about what camera you use makes you a better photographer. Thats utter crap. The picture is all in the shooters eye and hands and a ton is left to luck and natures hand in it all. Toy cameras shoot film, and so does every other size and shape of camera. New films come along all the time, and kodachrome was left rotting in the store rooms. It needed to be dropped because it was dead. You dont keep bad milk in your fridge for ten years with the hopes it might get used some day. So why do you think kodak should have done that?
    Last edited by old crow; 10-14-2011 at 04:39 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #146
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Ummm, Drew, did you forget the Consent Decree by the US government? With that decree, Kodak could no longer sell Kodachrome with processing included, and they were forced to sell processing chemicals to others.
    PE
    But that only applied to the USA market. Elsewhere, Kodachrome was normaly sold with Processing included, and most independent labs just reshipped it to the local Kodak Lab. In the 1970's Kodak had a pick up service at many Canadian Photo stores just to allow free drop off and pick up of Kodachrome.

    After Kodak spun off their labs as Qualex, the quality faded. Even for C-41, I used to send a lot to Charles Abel in Toronto, and the quality went west when Qualex took over (Abel retired and the family sold the lab)
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville

  7. #147
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,922
    Images
    65
    Charles;

    I've commented on your concerns in a subsequent post. Yes, other companies gave lower quality because customers wanted low prices, not high quality. So, we had photofinishers and quality pro labs split apart. We have 2 kinds right here in Rochester today. And this contributed to all of the problems which are legion!

    Kodak is not blameless. Look at the quality from Verbatim before and after Kodak purchased them and look at the problems that came about with Drivetek after Kodak bought them!

    But in the photofinishing argument, customers wanted local labs and low low prices. That is why you had the development of the minilabs too.

    PE

  8. #148

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by cmacd123 View Post
    But that only applied to the USA market. Elsewhere, Kodachrome was normaly sold with Processing included, and most independent labs just reshipped it to the local Kodak Lab. In the 1970's Kodak had a pick up service at many Canadian Photo stores just to allow free drop off and pick up of Kodachrome.

    After Kodak spun off their labs as Qualex, the quality faded. Even for C-41, I used to send a lot to Charles Abel in Toronto, and the quality went west when Qualex took over (Abel retired and the family sold the lab)
    Kodachrome came with processing mailers included in the price of the film in Canada until a couple of years before the end when processing was finally detached from film purchase. This meant that for most of the time I spent shooting Kodachrome, I had two options: Use the included processing from Kodak or eat the loss of that by paying for processing elsewhere like A&I or Dwaynes, i.e. pay twice for processing. I couldn't afford that so I ended up accepting scratched film as the price of shooting Kodachrome. Kodak's been their own worst enemy at times, that's for sure. I haven't walked away from them but how many people have? You can only kick your customers so many times before they seek alternatives.

  9. #149
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by old crow View Post
    I think the use of film sales in 2000 is way off the mark if you are trying to make a statement about the decline of the use of film. People are still buying and using film as they can afford. Lets face it, people are all worse off in the wallet then they were in 2000. You are also a little off in your thinking that everything in public companies is out on the table. There is a big issue of illegal trade practices and trade manipulation that is at play at all times. There is a great deal of money to be made from people thinking a company is going under. Companies like Kodak can win from folding in a sense. If the prices of stocks slide at a regular rate, traders that projected that slide can make a win-fall if they get the numbers right. Also if they have stock prices that have fallen to a place where it would be good for another large photo company to step in an make a buy of the company then it is a win-fall as well. Names are worth a great deal of money, since there are memories that are often tied to names.

    People that love one product and use one product will be drawn to purchasing more of that product if they think it will no longer be around (think polaroid) then when the dust settles and there just happens to be a product being offered from another company that works with the accessories of the dead product and looks a lot like the dead product then there is a surge to buy it up while using the fear that it will be gone (think fuji instant film). So there is money to be made.

    Film companies have come and gone, camera companies as well. Digital did not kill film, it just changed it from being the everyday vehicle for the industry. You must be aware of the large number of people that are turning away from digital and moving backwards to see what was once done. You can see the use of wet plate in main stream magazine articles and the use of pop printing in mainstream as well. So there is not much to fear about.

    When technology got into the automotive market people did not throw away their old cars for fear of getting parts for them. They knew that if they used it like many others did, then someone somewhere would make the parts. So lets not get all bent thinking that we will have to sell our film gear and all go get canon 5d set ups.

    Hell with all the kids using Lomo cameras there is a ton of film being sold right there. Yes we may lose a company or two, but we will still have our film and still be able to shoot what we want when we want. We may have to work harder to find some stuff, but you know what it may be good to actually have to try to find something that is not simply two clicks away on the web.

    Lets not be snobs over what you shoot and how you shoot it, drop the BS view about what camera you use makes you a better photographer. Thats utter crap. The picture is all in the shooters eye and hands and a ton is left to luck and natures hand in it all. Toy cameras shoot film, and so does every other size and shape of camera. New films come along all the time, and kodachrome was left rotting in the store rooms. It needed to be dropped because it was dead. You dont keep bad milk in your fridge for ten years with the hopes it might get used some day. So why do you think kodak should have done that?
    Film sales went off the cliff after 2000. Film camera sales tanked in the same period. The earth is round. Film isn't being sold widely now in N. America. Cheap c-41 processing has thinned. Where have you been for the past decade?

    http://www.shutterbug.com/content/in...losing-end-era

    http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...f-a-cliff.html

  10. #150
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Kodak is not blameless.
    But in the photofinishing argument, customers wanted local labs and low low prices. That is why you had the development of the minilabs too.
    PE
    All I am saying is that when Charles Abel was independent, I could ship off a roll of C-41 film and get "acceptable snapshots" in a week at a low price. When Abel sold out to Qualux, A Kodak Company, the service was not as good. Abel was one of the larger low price photofnishers. (woolco, later walmart was who I used to send the film out through).

    At that point I turned to a local Minilab as they actually gave better results than Qualux.

    I did find it disturbing as at one time, Kodak in Toronto was the premium choice, at a higher price and much better quality than anyone.
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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