digbyhp Posted January 12, 2012 Share #1 Posted January 12, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Nice summary of Kodak's and Fujifilm's different strategies in response to the decline in film market; Technological change: The last Kodak moment? | The Economist Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Hi digbyhp, Take a look here Kodak article from The Economist. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted January 13, 2012 Share #2 Posted January 13, 2012 It is an overly verbose, innuendo filled article with 10% of relevance. The Economist needs a new editor. The article contributes nothing whatsoever of the logistics of separations, mergers of departments, quite possibly because they cannot be rationalized, which is typical of the Economist's evasion of responsibility to either scholarship, or economics. It is a wretched article, for better or worse - left to the impressionistic idiocy of the readership. It's the kind of thing one would expect of a fading old writer in his original style or a brand-new intern. Same thing. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim123 Posted January 13, 2012 Share #3 Posted January 13, 2012 I dont care about the inner workings of Kodak at all, however, my question is will the continue to make slide and B&W film? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleeson Posted January 13, 2012 Share #4 Posted January 13, 2012 A comprehensive essay on the death of an American icon. Sad, but totally expected. To think that they are pinning future hopes on printing is almost hard to believe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 13, 2012 Share #5 Posted January 13, 2012 It is an overly verbose, innuendo filled article with 10% of relevance. The Economist needs a new editor. The article contributes nothing whatsoever of the logistics of separations, mergers of departments, quite possibly because they cannot be rationalized, which is typical of the Economist's evasion of responsibility to either scholarship, or economics. It is a wretched article, for better or worse - left to the impressionistic idiocy of the readership. It's the kind of thing one would expect of a fading old writer in his original style or a brand-new intern. Same thing. Come on, tell it like it really is! What's the real story? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 13, 2012 Share #6 Posted January 13, 2012 Interesting piece. What specifically do you have issues with Pico? Pretty much sums up the mess that Kodak are in IMHO. It seems to me that they are adopting their old strategy, to digital printing - sell cheap printers to consumers and make money on on the inks. The trouble is there are lots of options for cheap printers and ink on the market already. They are certainly targeting this market in the UK with regular TV ads for their home printers, being used for fun by kids..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted January 13, 2012 Share #7 Posted January 13, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is an overly verbose, innuendo filled article with 10% of relevance. The Economist needs a new editor. The article contributes nothing whatsoever of the logistics of separations, mergers of departments, quite possibly because they cannot be rationalized, which is typical of the Economist's evasion of responsibility to either scholarship, or economics. It is a wretched article, for better or worse - left to the impressionistic idiocy of the readership. It's the kind of thing one would expect of a fading old writer in his original style or a brand-new intern. Same thing. . Sort of like your wonderful writing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted January 13, 2012 Share #8 Posted January 13, 2012 It is an overly verbose, innuendo filled article with 10% of relevance. The Economist needs a new editor. The article contributes nothing whatsoever of the logistics of separations, mergers of departments, quite possibly because they cannot be rationalized, which is typical of the Economist's evasion of responsibility to either scholarship, or economics. It is a wretched article, for better or worse - left to the impressionistic idiocy of the readership. It's the kind of thing one would expect of a fading old writer in his original style or a brand-new intern. Same thing. . seriously could you share what you mean in simpler terms...I genuinely did not understand what you wrote....am genuinely curious as the article read ok to me. andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted January 13, 2012 Share #9 Posted January 13, 2012 Did Kodak even use their own sensors in their cheap digital cameras? The first digital I ever used was a massive brick-sized Kodak point and shoot purchased by the newspaper where I was working in 2000. It seemed like you had two to three minutes of wait time between pressing down the shutter button before it took the photo. It was more or less impossible to use for reporting, so it was soon relegated to the sales staff for taking advertising photos of storefronts, car lots, etc. I know Kodak digitals got better, but that killed the brand for me. Meanwhile, I bought a Fuji 4700zoom in 2001. It was such an amazing little camera that I've bought nothing but Fuji point and shoots since then. I was actually a bit sad when they gave up on the vertical form factor. Of course, I did make the mistake of buying one of Fuji's photo printers that actually came with development paper and attempted to develop 4x6 photos. It was an interesting novelty, but the resolution was terrible and the paper was expensive. Then the printer quit working just after the warranty was up. As for printers, I've owned Epson, HP and Canon. I hadn't even considered Kodak until reading all these articles about their impending bankruptcy. It worries me that they're banking on that to save them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalpowershot Posted January 13, 2012 Share #10 Posted January 13, 2012 Probably OT, but do we need to worry, having the M9-Kodak sensor in mind? What if the sensor will crack 5 years from now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted January 13, 2012 Share #11 Posted January 13, 2012 The Kodak sensor division, which was profitable, has already been sold off. I don't know if they'll still support the M9 sensor in 5 years, but that sensor company and the patents it holds should be around -- although not as Kodak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted January 13, 2012 Share #12 Posted January 13, 2012 ............. As for printers, I've owned Epson, HP and Canon. I hadn't even considered Kodak until reading all these articles about their impending bankruptcy. It worries me that they're banking on that to save them. I thought Kodak was into the printing for _real_ printing business like magazines, and, in that area, what was once typesetting and plate making. (I know very little about this, so I may be using the wrong terms.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted January 13, 2012 Share #13 Posted January 13, 2012 Yes. Publishing - Kodak Graphic Communications Group The printing company I've been using for brochures and collateral has been pushing their digital printing, which is usually more affordable for printing runs under 250 copies. I'll have to see if they're using a Kodak system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.