If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Kodak slated to sell off their film business. Once gone, their entire asset portfolio will consist of a half-empty box of paper clips, a few stray lens caps, and a logo   (money.cnn.com) divider line 21
    More: Fail, Kodak, fine chemicals, SNE, Morningstar, Chief Executive Officer Antonio Perez  
•       •       •

839 clicks; posted to Business » on 24 Aug 2012 at 7:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



21 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-24 07:44:06 PM
SAD tag, where is it, where?
 
2012-08-24 07:51:18 PM
I don't see a problem here. The few people I know that shoot on film don't use Kodak. And there are more profitable areas for them to reinvent themselves, like when IBM got out of the pc business.
 
2012-08-24 08:03:19 PM
So Kodak's business model now consists of licensing its brand name to Chinese manufacturers?
 
2012-08-24 08:09:30 PM
More on this as it develops....
 
2012-08-24 08:13:23 PM
Doesn't Kodak have those photo kiosks all over the place for printing from digital sources? They also make digital cameras and docking printers. As long as they don't have a huge debt-load to finance, they should be okay. Not a Fortune 500 company, but still a company that should be around for a while yet.
 
2012-08-24 08:13:29 PM
Kodak could focus on image sensors and lenses. The KAF 39000 is one of the better sensors in the professional market, but you don't see much presence from them [by name] in the 35mm/full-frame or APS markets. I'd also be nice to see another name in the optics department. Carl Zeiss is nice, but very expensive.
 
2012-08-24 08:18:05 PM

bangmaid: I don't see a problem here. The few people I know that shoot on film don't use Kodak. And there are more profitable areas for them to reinvent themselves, like when IBM got out of the pc business.


That's because they discontinued Kodachrome a few years back, which was arguably the one unique, high quality, well loved product that they had left.

/Still bitter
//The old Nikon F2 hasn't seen use since
 
2012-08-24 08:34:33 PM

Dinjiin: Kodak could focus on image sensors and lenses. The KAF 39000 is one of the better sensors in the professional market, but you don't see much presence from them [by name] in the 35mm/full-frame or APS markets. I'd also be nice to see another name in the optics department. Carl Zeiss is nice, but very expensive.


I worked for the image sensor division (and helped out with the 39000), but it was sold to a private equity firm about 2 years ago.
 
2012-08-24 09:04:18 PM

Dinjiin: Kodak could focus on image sensors and lenses. The KAF 39000 is one of the better sensors in the professional market, but you don't see much presence from them [by name] in the 35mm/full-frame or APS markets. I'd also be nice to see another name in the optics department. Carl Zeiss is nice, but very expensive.


Did Kodak ever make high-end lenses? I seem to recall they usually went to Schneider for top shelf camera optics.

/ditched film circa 2000
//still miss Kodachrome, but I guess I have no room to whine
 
2012-08-24 09:12:38 PM
Kodak was never known for high quality optics. Or high quality cameras. It was all film and film processing.
Now they plan on building their future on cheap inkjet printers. Because it worked out so well for HP.
 
2012-08-24 10:27:58 PM
It's spelled "kodka" you morons.
 
2012-08-24 11:24:29 PM

Dinjiin: I'd also be nice to see another name in the optics department. Carl Zeiss is nice, but very expensive.


There isn't a lot of wiggle room in there but.. you'd have to put out some amazing stuff to beat out Sigma, Tamron and Tokina plus the main manufacturer + the crazy stuff like Zeiss. Honestly I'm not sure what niche in there they could have filled.
 
2012-08-24 11:29:58 PM

Hagbardr: So Kodak's business model now consists of licensing its brand name to Chinese manufacturers?


That'd be my guess. And one of those companies makes really shiatty scanners now that they bought out Bell and Howell
 
2012-08-24 11:51:45 PM

buzzcut73: bangmaid: I don't see a problem here. The few people I know that shoot on film don't use Kodak. And there are more profitable areas for them to reinvent themselves, like when IBM got out of the pc business.

That's because they discontinued Kodachrome a few years back, which was arguably the one unique, high quality, well loved product that they had left.

/Still bitter
//The old Nikon F2 hasn't seen use since


Kodachrome was freaking toxic to develop.

Still, there is just something that feels wrong about loading up a Brownie with Fuji film. And developing with something other than d-76. Guess I'll just have to get used to it.
 
2012-08-24 11:57:23 PM
On second though, if they don't get many bids . . . how much could us fark photogs pool together to try to buy the film making machines?
 
2012-08-24 11:57:25 PM
i70.photobucket.com

/Props to the original creator, whoever you are
//Thread
 
2012-08-25 03:15:15 AM
Serious question: is there actually any advantage to using film vs. digital these days? I've been doing amateur photography using nothing but digital for nearly ten years, and I don't miss film at all anymore.

When I started using digital, I was annoyed for a while at the slow response time of your average point-and-shoot digital camera, but the fact that I didn't have to constantly swap out film or have the pictures developed made it more than worth it, and over time I learned to compensate for the slow response time pretty well. And since I upgraded to a DSLR (specifically a Nikon D3100) last year, response time has completely ceased to be an issue.
 
2012-08-25 08:58:21 AM

ykarie: On second though, if they don't get many bids . . . how much could us fark photogs pool together to try to buy the film making machines?


I've wondered about something like that too. I'm sure there's much more to it that just dumping the right powdered chemicals into the right hoppers, but still.... It would be nice to crank out 1200' rolls of Vision 50D.

Film is such a beautiful medium and I hate to see it withering away, but I was spec'ing out a shoot in Napa Valley for a client that was interested in shooting on 35mm. I was pulling every favor and deal I had, it was still in the base cost of $5500 just to get an Arri 35 3 with three lenses to the location for a week, just to shoot, process, and transfer only 20 minutes of film. And that still with a 70% discount from PC&E.
 
2012-08-25 09:07:19 AM

anfrind: Serious question: is there actually any advantage to using film vs. digital these days? I've been doing amateur photography using nothing but digital for nearly ten years, and I don't miss film at all anymore.

When I started using digital, I was annoyed for a while at the slow response time of your average point-and-shoot digital camera, but the fact that I didn't have to constantly swap out film or have the pictures developed made it more than worth it, and over time I learned to compensate for the slow response time pretty well. And since I upgraded to a DSLR (specifically a Nikon D3100) last year, response time has completely ceased to be an issue.


I'd most likely never shoot 35mm color negative stills again, but I'd absolutely shoot 35mm B&W and reversal film. And just yesterday I bought about 30 rolls of 220 medium format film to take on a shoot tomorrow.

There's a different attitude toward photographs these days. I've noticed that people want thousands of photos taken at their wedding or other event, rather than maybe a dozen really nice shots, and digital totally makes that possible, but it my opinion it's at the expense of a manageable amount of images, and it requires an intrusive presence of the photographer.
 
2012-08-25 03:32:33 PM

anfrind: Serious question: is there actually any advantage to using film vs. digital these days? I've been doing amateur photography using nothing but digital for nearly ten years, and I don't miss film at all anymore.

When I started using digital, I was annoyed for a while at the slow response time of your average point-and-shoot digital camera, but the fact that I didn't have to constantly swap out film or have the pictures developed made it more than worth it, and over time I learned to compensate for the slow response time pretty well. And since I upgraded to a DSLR (specifically a Nikon D3100) last year, response time has completely ceased to be an issue.



Digital sucks ass compared to film for night photography IMO. If you are going to hang the shutter open for more than a second, film is superior to ccd
 
2012-08-26 03:49:13 AM
I thought this happened a couple of years ago ... maybe I'm thinking about the Kodak paper, or the 35mm film.

Whatever. It's sad and sobering. I wonder what business/corporation we patronize incessantly now will have run its course in 20-40-80 years?

"Apple today manufactured its last external computer, most everyone having years ago made the switch to cerebral implants ..."
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report