Is Kodak the 'Biggest Loser'

[Bennymiata]

Don't forget that Fuji also make a lot of lenses for pro video and movie filmmakers.
You can check them out on the B&H site under pro video lenses.
The range they have is ENORMOUS, with lenses ranging from $10K or so and then to over $50K each.
They also make the new Hasselblad lenses.
Fuji were clever in that they saw themselves as an imaging company, rather than just film makers and have a very broad base to operate in, whereas Kodak only made some cheap cameras, some sensors and film, rather than spreading their talents into other areas like Fuji did.
Kodak should have gone into the more professional areas of photography not only in film but the hardware too, and perhaps they should have also gone into printers and copiers in a much bigger way.

I'm sorry to see them go, as they were really the originators of comsumer photography, but I guess they just got fat and lazy and time has passed them by.

[arthurking83]

In Kodak's early digital history they made some of the best pro level cameras at the time, as they had the sensor technology to maintain a competitive edge.
Their early cameras were based on pro Canon and Nikon bodies .. but ultimately the competition caught up with better sensors in their cameras.

Kodak pulled out due to the losses they sustained in that sector and the rest is history .....

Think of a professional level printer from a manufacturer to cater to the pro and semi pro market, and you see what I mean.
This is where Epson comes into the equation. Ask anyone that offers advice on a high quality printer that caters to a pro/enthusiast market and Epson seems to be the only manufacturer that exists!
This is where Kodak fell short in not offering competitive products in a market they once dominated.

[arthurking83]

A great video of a 2006 Kodak presentation:

[Tom J McDonald]

Here's another nugget from the past.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...-fortune-1983/

[Kym]

http://www.kodaktransforms.com/

On January 19, 2012, Eastman Kodak Company and its U.S. subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for Chapter 11 business reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The business reorganization will enable Kodak to bolster liquidity in the U.S. and abroad, monetize non-strategic intellectual property, fairly resolve legacy liabilities, and enable the Company to focus on its most valuable business lines.

Non-U.S. subsidiaries are not part of the filings, are not subject to the Court proceedings, and are operating as usual.

Kodak and its U.S. subsidiaries intend to continue normal business operations during the reorganization, and throughout the process:

• Continue customer programs;
• Provide employees with their usual wages and benefits; and
• Honor all post-petition obligations to suppliers in the ordinary course.

A U.S. Chapter 11 proceeding is a legal mechanism that generally focuses on the preservation and reorganization of ongoing operating companies. The process will allow Kodak to continue normal business operations while we accomplish our objectives and emerge a profitable and sustainable enterprise.

Kodak aims to build company that will be successful in the marketplace – and a positive force in the communities we call home.

Additional information can be accessed from the links along the left side throughout this site.

[Analog6]

A very interesting article in today's Sydney Morning Herald

Sad how a big photography industry founder and leader has gone downhill to this

[Xenedis]

It's an absolute tragedy that this has happened.

It's a real "Kodak moment", and not in a good way.

Kodak is a name that everyone knows -- even non-photographers know that Kodak is (was) a company that represented photography in a massive way.

I wonder if people from the younger generations, who only knows digital cameras and may have never even handled a roll of film, will know what Kodak was.

[I @ M]

I wonder if people from the younger generations, who only knows digital cameras and may have never even handled a roll of film, will know what Kodak was.

Probably in the same vein that people who are under 30 and drive a commodore will never know what a Holden was.

[terry.langham]

Probably in the same vein that people who are under 30 and drive a commodore will never know what a Holden was.

Not this under 30 person. Still remember Grandad's FJ and Dad's 48-215 project. Also pined after several variants since. Maybe the under 25's driving commonbores will big ignorant to what a Holden was.

Seems sad that the past seems to be getting less important as the new generations come through. No doubt Kodak and a lot of photographic history will be lost to all but a few in the younger generations.

[Tom J McDonald]

Not this under 30 person. Still remember Grandad's FJ and Dad's 48-215 project. Also pined after several variants since. Maybe the under 25's driving commonbores will big ignorant to what a Holden was.

Seems sad that the past seems to be getting less important as the new generations come through. No doubt Kodak and a lot of photographic history will be lost to all but a few in the younger generations.

Go out and buy a load of Kodak film then.

[Tom J McDonald]

Another development towards purity!
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/...k.html?_r=1&hp

[ricktas]

Not this under 30 person. Still remember Grandad's FJ and Dad's 48-215 project. Also pined after several variants since. Maybe the under 25's driving commonbores will big ignorant to what a Holden was.

Seems sad that the past seems to be getting less important as the new generations come through. No doubt Kodak and a lot of photographic history will be lost to all but a few in the younger generations.

it is just life. For those that lament the past, forget holden's, why are you not still riding around on a horse?
Progress happens!

[I @ M]

Another development towards purity!

Hmmm, so "purity" involves sacking 400 employees and dismantling the section of the business that generates 75% of the company revenue.

Tom, it is fairly obvious that you have a high regard for the celluloid based photo medium but I rather feel that by your wording of the quoted post, you are implying that digital imaging is impure.
There is plenty of room on the earth for both mediums and whilst I certainly don't hold any form of disregard for film and the cameras that use them I reckon that your statement runs right alongside those that still cling to the belief that the earth is flat.

[Kym]

Film at its basic level is digital, i.e. the molecules of silver halide react to photons or not.

A digital camera is analogue, in that the sensor provides an analogue voltage depending on the number of photons detected,
it only becomes digital after the voltage is converted in via an analogue/digital converter that puts out a number in binary that is then processed.

So any argument about purity has to concede that a digital camera is more 'pure'.



Seriously, people who are bigots about any technology don't help anything.

The real issue is the final image as printed or displayed... does it ring your bells? If it does its a good image!

[Bennymiata]

I always thought that the Apollo astronauts used Hasselblad cameras, and not Kodaks, although these cameras probably used Kodak film.
There are around a dozen modified Haselblad 500E's sitting on the moon right now!
If you can get there, you can have them for free!

[Tom J McDonald]

I always thought that the Apollo astronauts used Hasselblad cameras, and not Kodaks, although these cameras probably used Kodak film.
There are around a dozen modified Haselblad 500E's sitting on the moon right now!
If you can get there, you can have them for free!

Hassies were always far superior to any camera Kodak offered, though their view cameras were top-notch.

[Tom J McDonald]

Hmmm, so "purity" involves sacking 400 employees and dismantling the section of the business that generates 75% of the company revenue.

Tom, it is fairly obvious that you have a high regard for the celluloid based photo medium but I rather feel that by your wording of the quoted post, you are implying that digital imaging is impure.
There is plenty of room on the earth for both mediums and whilst I certainly don't hold any form of disregard for film and the cameras that use them I reckon that your statement runs right alongside those that still cling to the belief that the earth is flat.

Agree with everything you say, except that celluloid has generally been replaced by polyester

[Tom J McDonald]

Film at its basic level is digital, i.e. the molecules of silver halide react to photons or not.

A digital camera is analogue, in that the sensor provides an analogue voltage depending on the number of photons detected,
it only becomes digital after the voltage is converted in via an analogue/digital converter that puts out a number in binary that is then processed.

So any argument about purity has to concede that a digital camera is more 'pure'.



Seriously, people who are bigots about any technology don't help anything.

The real issue is the final image as printed or displayed... does it ring your bells? If it does its a good image!

I'm not a bigot; I use a DSLR to take pictures of film cameras when I want to sell them :0

[wideangle]

it is just life. For those that lament the past, forget holden's, why are you not still riding around on a horse?
Progress happens!

It is life, but it's also history, and that history is often deep and complex - would you say the same of historic buildings, knock them all down because progress happens. It's not one thing or the other I reckon, just an appreciation of what has come before our time and from the history and lessons of our past we can look forward to the moment and the future.

[ricktas]

It is life, but it's also history, and that history is often deep and complex - would you say the same of historic buildings, knock them all down because progress happens. It's not one thing or the other I reckon, just an appreciation of what has come before our time and from the history and lessons of our past we can look forward to the moment and the future.

Not at all, there is a big difference between keeping an old building in a good state of repair compared to letting it fall into dis-repair and needing to be demolished. Some things just end up needing to be pulled apart, knocked down, removed. No matter what, progress is going to happen, otherwise that digital camera you use, would never have been invented. Sometimes people just have to accept the world has moved forward, and they can choose to go with it, or not.