mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
KODAK
Jan 19, 2012 8:08:30 GMT -5
Post by mickeyobe on Jan 19, 2012 8:08:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
KODAK
Jan 19, 2012 10:38:21 GMT -5
Post by herron on Jan 19, 2012 10:38:21 GMT -5
|
|
photax
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,915
|
KODAK
Jan 19, 2012 11:11:54 GMT -5
Post by photax on Jan 19, 2012 11:11:54 GMT -5
I read this in the todays online-newspapers. As Gorbachov once said: Life punishes latecomers. A sad story.
MIK
|
|
|
KODAK
Jan 19, 2012 15:15:33 GMT -5
Post by nikonbob on Jan 19, 2012 15:15:33 GMT -5
From what I gather it is a Chapter 11 filing so they won't disappear anytime soon. OTH considering what past management has done it does not look hopeful for yet another restructuring. You begin to wonder if management has got two clues and if they do then one must be lost and the other is out looking for it. Seems like they can't manage a one man rush to a 10 man outhouse. Sad indeed.
Bob
|
|
|
KODAK
Jan 19, 2012 18:59:55 GMT -5
Post by grenouille on Jan 19, 2012 18:59:55 GMT -5
A household name, hope that they will manage to keep their head above water, and perhaps come out of this downturn.
Hye
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
KODAK
Jan 21, 2012 6:22:54 GMT -5
Post by Berndt on Jan 21, 2012 6:22:54 GMT -5
It is probably not a popular opinion and I actually don't like it myself ... but I seriously think, that cameras as "stand alone operating devices" will be gone soon anyway. If I see, how many pictures, shared by friends on Facebook are still taken with a camera as we know it ... none. The difference in quality between a "real camera" and a cellphone became so small, that it already satisfies the needs of most of the people.
Sad, but a camera might be just a part of another multimedia device in the future. That's the tendency and I am afraid, that it will not only be Kodak, who will kiss the dust, Nikon and Canon will follow soon. The other camera makers, Panasonic, Sony and Fujifilm might survive, but just because cameras are just a small section of their business.
|
|
|
KODAK
Jan 21, 2012 7:23:02 GMT -5
Post by nikonbob on Jan 21, 2012 7:23:02 GMT -5
berndt
You bring up a very good point and may very well be correct on the future of "stand alone operating devices". Pretty amazing the changes that have happened and are about to happen whether we like them or not.
Bob
|
|
|
KODAK
Jan 21, 2012 11:42:06 GMT -5
Post by herron on Jan 21, 2012 11:42:06 GMT -5
It is probably not a popular opinion and I actually don't like it myself ... but I seriously think, that cameras as "stand alone operating devices" will be gone soon anyway. If I see, how many pictures, shared by friends on Facebook are still taken with a camera as we know it ... none. The difference in quality between a "real camera" and a cellphone became so small, that it already satisfies the needs of most of the people. Sad, but a camera might be just a part of another multimedia device in the future. That's the tendency and I am afraid, that it will not only be Kodak, who will kiss the dust, Nikon and Canon will follow soon. The other camera makers, Panasonic, Sony and Fujifilm might survive, but just because cameras are just a small section of their business. I think you make a valid point. Most people shoot snapshots. It's why for decades they were content with Kodak Brownies and such, and even now use the little "stick-it-in-your-pocket-or-purse" digitals. Cameras-in-phones was just a logical extension of that digital technology (and they do take decent photos). I still see the high-end camera makers sticking around, if only for the professional (and the wannabe pro) market. But who knows anymore what tomorrow is going to bring.
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
KODAK
Jan 21, 2012 13:39:45 GMT -5
Post by SidW on Jan 21, 2012 13:39:45 GMT -5
It does at least seem that the distinction between still and movie cameras is becoming blurred
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
KODAK
Jan 21, 2012 21:34:39 GMT -5
Post by Berndt on Jan 21, 2012 21:34:39 GMT -5
Yes ... but this market got under pressure as well. I think, it has been the Lumix GH1/GH2 series, which made people notice, that the super high end cameras are actually artificially overpriced. When the firmware hacks came out, many people thought: "Hey, wait ... there is already everything inside such a camera, the makers just don't want to give it to us." Sony will attack with a cheaper Full Frame camera this year and Fuji will follow, I guess. Then, the times of the super expensive "Pro-DSLRs" are gone.
Canon and Nikon are still waiting ... because they don't want to cannibalize themselves. I read two interesting quotes in an article about Kodak recently:
“We developed the world’s first consumer digital camera. Kodak could have launched it in 1992. We could not get approval to launch it because of fear of the cannibalisation of film.” Former Kodak VP Don Strickland
“If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will.” Steve Jobs
The unfortunate thing about cannibalization is just, that there is no good end for anyone.
Definitely.
What I personally fear as a consumer is, that globalization always kills diversification ... and many creative possiblities with that. Most digital cameras of today ( at least the cheaper ones ) are already lacking manual settings. You can choose between a hundred of useless modes and have to leave everything up to the "intelligent" camera automatic. Shutter time and aperture just exist virtually but not mechanically anymore and the upcoming "global shutter" will cause exactly, what SidW said ... taking a picture is just "capturing a frame from a movie stream".
The workflow on a digital camera is already "shoot RAW and do postproduction later" ... and it will get worse. Recently invented cameras are just tiny boxes, which capture light from all directions and let you choose even the focus and DOF later.
All these things let me personally already return to film ... because I don't have the time and interest in an excessive postproduction and I like the idea of creative choices BEFORE taking the picture and not afterwards. Photography is more than just "recording the reality as perfect as possible" for me ... it is creating a reality the way, I want to show or express something in a picture.
|
|
jayd
Contributing Member
Posts: 43
|
KODAK
Jan 29, 2012 13:23:31 GMT -5
Post by jayd on Jan 29, 2012 13:23:31 GMT -5
I have to agree that all in one or at least casual picture taking with phones will continue to increase in popularity as improvements continue. Kodaks problem has been chasing the wrong technologies those with shrinking profits like the push in printers and ink where market share and profit margins have been shrinking for 20 years What were they thinking another case of overpaid idiot CEO and leadership i call it the "GM syndrome" great research and all, but can't make good decisions at the top. Mark my words GM will ultimately fail because they have not changed their basic way of thinking, just thrown people out of the boat and taken welfare, if you think they paid any money back check with Glen Beck ( and no I am not a Glen Beck true believer) Kodak can blame everyone and everything but if they don't change they won't succeed. enough ranting Jay
|
|
jayd
Contributing Member
Posts: 43
|
KODAK
Jan 29, 2012 13:29:44 GMT -5
Post by jayd on Jan 29, 2012 13:29:44 GMT -5
And I so agree that a computer in a box is not my ideal of a camera, let me visualize the picture and do the editing pre exposure not all post. I did not take years studying photography to let a computer make the decisions for me and I hate menu driven cameras ! just give me the basic controls shutter speeds and F stops my computer ( brain) will do the rest. Wish there was a "basic" digital just the controls and a high pixel image collector no on board computer, i don't even need metering.
Jay
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
KODAK
Jan 29, 2012 19:37:54 GMT -5
Post by daveh on Jan 29, 2012 19:37:54 GMT -5
Jay, you can do that with digital cameras - switch to manual and turn off auto focus. The trouble is you are then paying a lot for features you don't need. However, I would suspect that if manufacturers made such a model they wouldn't sell too many.
As regards Kodak itself, Kodak printers are still being advertised on TV here.
Dave.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
KODAK
Jan 29, 2012 20:41:28 GMT -5
Post by mickeyobe on Jan 29, 2012 20:41:28 GMT -5
I purchased a Kodak ESP C310 printer several weeks ago. It was on sale at Future Shop for $39.95. That included ink and a small packet of 4" x 6" paper. The entire outfit cost me about 1/2 of the cost of a packet of coloured ink for the printer I had been using.
It took me about 1/2 hour to set up and get it running. My previous one took more than a day.
It prints 4 times faster than previous printer, is quiet, does not shake my desk, does everything the old one did and produces excellent colour and black and white prints and is much simpler to use. The paper is much cheaper than other makes. The ink is waterproof and has, according to tests I have read, a very long life expectancy.
It occupies the same desk space but is about 1/2 the depth of the old one so I can keep it on a slide out shelf instead of on top of my desk.
On very rare occasions I do get a bargain. This was one of those happy happenings.
Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
KODAK
Jan 30, 2012 23:29:46 GMT -5
Post by daveh on Jan 30, 2012 23:29:46 GMT -5
It's good to hear that the product (printer from Kodak) is as good as the advertisements say it is. Perhaps with products like that someone will yet effect a a rescue package.
Ink for most printers is way overpriced - well it is if you buy the 'proper' ink. I use a Canon 9000. There are eight inks which if bought at full price (RRP) a complete set would be over £100. Fortunately much cheaper options are available, and you can get two complete sets for the cost of just one pukka cartridge. I think the paper actually has more say in the permanence than does the ink itself. Bright sunlight is the killer.
|
|