earleygallery Posted August 29, 2012 Share #101 Posted August 29, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) If the internet is so powerful, how come all the noise about Kodachrome couldn't stop Kodak killing that off?! I agree, Kodak's directors are to blame here, not the photographers. Bad business decisions and a failure to compete in the digital market are to blame for their predicament, not the drop in film sales. We can't save Kodak now, but hopefully someone might buy their film business. If they don't, as I've said, it might actually be a good thing in a way (can't quite beleive I'm saying this!) but it will create a much larger market for Fuji, Ilford etc. Efke might be bailing a bit too soon, they should hang in there for a while, or at least seek a buyer themselves. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 29, 2012 Posted August 29, 2012 Hi earleygallery, Take a look here Kodak to sell its Film and Paper business [merged]. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
KM-25 Posted August 29, 2012 Author Share #102 Posted August 29, 2012 To Stunsworth and anyone else who was irked at my last response, I sincerely apologize... I got up this morning, filled my Al Kaplan "Silver is Better" mug full of coffee and really thought about if I can do this crusade anymore, at least on internet forums.... Last night after I popped a Vicodin for my tooth, I went to photograph a gathering of our town's present and past 7 mayors for a super long term project I am working on, it was told to me that this would be the only time this will ever happen. I shot Tri-X in my Xpan and M3. One photo enthusiast who was curious about my cameras asked me why I am shooting film and where did I even get it. I told him B&H, Freestyle, all the places I have been buying film for the past few decades if it is in any sizable amount. He replied, oh, well I heard you could not get it anymore. I asked him where did you hear that? He said he frequents a few forums like dpreview and the like and that is just what he has read. I can't fight this anymore, I don't have the stomach for it, the negativity that seems to permeate every corner of even a sub forum like this about a medium we know we can still buy, use and get the word out in a positive way. So I will leave you with this. "We" are Kodak film, not the management. Garrett, Audrey, Colleen and the people who want to be able to keep making TMX, TMY, Ektar, Portra...they are Kodak film, not the management. "We" are an opportunity at the moment...seize it before it is too late. For those of you who will continue to bring positive things to threads like these, to the 24 year old student who just bought his first M6TTL and a 50 1.4 Asph, just ignore the negativity...if you have the stomach for it. Obviously I do not and I have made a decision that is best for me in regards to that. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 29, 2012 Share #103 Posted August 29, 2012 I think that you have it all wrong and, frankly, you should ignore what other people say. Everyone that I know who uses film is positive about the experience, even those of us who use digital as well. If you enjoy using film, as I do, just carry on buying it and using it. If Kodak can't be bothered to make it any more, then that's too bad. Move on to a company that DOES care, like Ilford. You cannot change Kodak on your own. You will soon come across as Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. Kodak are a basket case and have been for years and you should enjoy using their film products while you can, because they probably won't be around indefinitely. This is not "negativity", this is "reality". 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 29, 2012 Share #104 Posted August 29, 2012 I'm a film user first and foremost. Digital has its uses for sure, but I just prefer the look and feel of film. I also enjoy using my film cameras, I prefer using them to they way a digital camera operates. I used Kodachrome almost exclusively for many years. I tended to use Ilford for B&W film and have tried many other brands over the years. I'm the last one to be negative about film (punny not intended) and I don't like to see Kodak in the position they're in, but at the same time we do need to be a little bit realistic. We have no influence now over what happens to Kodak film. They are in Chapter 11. They have been allowed to put the film divisions up for sale. Who will buy them? What will they do with them? I'd love to think we can influence that but not at this stage we can't, it's out of our hands. The courts will have to decide if any sale goes through, if it's in the interests of the creditors etc. I don't beleive how someone who is genuinely interested in photography and reads internet forums can think that film isn't available any more. That's the type of comment I hear from the type of person who only uses a phone to take photos with now. I actually notice more and more (especially younger) photographers using film. Lomography has played a part in that I guess, as well as art/photography students. I'm not afraid for the future of film, it's just that the market, distribution and choices are changing. I can change with them and still enjoy my photography. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted August 29, 2012 Share #105 Posted August 29, 2012 I think that you have it all wrong and, frankly, you should ignore what other people say. I agree. Do what works best for you, educate people where you can and when you feel up to it. It's profit and loss that influences a company's decisions, not ignorant chatter on dpreview. I hear a lot of ignorant comments too, re: manual focus. It's aggravating how profit & loss drove the market to AF but OTOH I LOVE showing people the Leicaflex SL viewfinder and watching as their eyes bug out and their jaw drops to the ground. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted August 29, 2012 Share #106 Posted August 29, 2012 the biggest mistake you can make is to believe "we" are kodak any more than "we" are leica (ask the R users about that) or "we" are the brooklyn dodgers. we support by buying and if firms cannot be nimble enough to adjust to changing markets and unable to build on their own inventions then these firms go out of business or come close. how many british auto manufacturers are left? triumph? mg? it has nothing to do with forums and all to do with management. kodak has been a dumb company for years and produced substandard products save for their film -- for years! i stopped using slides years ago because my wife liked carrying photos of our kids to show people, i never liked fuji colors, really like portra 160 now that i have rediscovered film with the m4, but i will find other film if portra disappears. as someone above noted, if kodak goes it only makes ilford and fuji that much more viable. btw, i prefer the ilford to kodak for bw. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 29, 2012 Share #107 Posted August 29, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) how many british auto manufacturers are left? triumph? mg?. Triumph still make motorbikes (at least someone still makes motorbikes with the Triumph name) MG are owned by a Chinese firm and have just released a truly ugly small saloon onto the UK market. Triumph and MG in name only... Morgan still fly the flag and I believe that Aston Martin have been bought back by British venture capitalists. That's about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted August 29, 2012 Share #108 Posted August 29, 2012 and at one time there were many .... vauxhall, etc..... in the US there were any number of European radios/stereos/TVs you could buy (Grundig, Tannenberg, etc) and american tv's like sylvannia, rca, magnaox, motorola, dupont, ge, and on and on and on. can't buy a studebaker anymore either. and i know we can all think of the firms that made cameras that no longer do -- and leica was almost one of them. point is "WE" never owned any of these firms, markets and economics shifted, and new firms are here instead. kodak will simply join the parade of what was, sadly. they continued to make vacuum tubes after the market moved to solid state design Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 29, 2012 Share #109 Posted August 29, 2012 and at one time there were many .... vauxhall, etc..... in the US there were any number of European radios/stereos/TVs you could buy (Grundig, Tannenberg, etc) and american tv's like sylvannia, rca, magnaox, motorola, dupont, ge, and on and on and on. can't buy a studebaker anymore either. and i know we can all think of the firms that made cameras that no longer do -- and leica was almost one of them. point is "WE" never owned any of these firms, markets and economics shifted, and new firms are here instead. kodak will simply join the parade of what was, sadly. they continued to make vacuum tubes after the market moved to solid state design analogy all wrong. Kodak's problems not what u think Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted August 29, 2012 Share #110 Posted August 29, 2012 no? they invented digital, ignored it, and continued to make film. as the late peter drucker would've said -- they believed they were in the film business when in fact they were in the image reproduction business. when the technology changed they should have as well. the rest, as they say, is details. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 29, 2012 Share #111 Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) no? they invented digital, ignored it, and continued to make film. as the late peter drucker would've said -- they believed they were in the film business when in fact they were in the image reproduction business. when the technology changed they should have as well. the rest, as they say, is details. Kodak does not have camera manufacturing capabilities like canon nikon sony etc. dont forget there was no market for digital cameras until the internet and cheap fast computers and other devices made them usable (around 1999). what would you have done with a digital camera in 1985? this was not a 'digital camera' problem. it was a Kodak ineptitude problems also not possible to 'turn off' huge film factories overnight and make canon-type digital cameras. Edited August 29, 2012 by Larcomb Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted August 29, 2012 Share #112 Posted August 29, 2012 Film and cameras. Razors blades and razors. Sensors and cameras. You have something you build a market around it. Read about those box cameras Kodak built and sold 100 odd years ago. They could've become the global supplier of sensors. But yes we agree. Ineptitude Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 29, 2012 Share #113 Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) Film and cameras. Razors blades and razors. Sensors and cameras. You have something you build a market around it. Read about those box cameras Kodak built and sold 100 odd years ago. They could've become the global supplier of sensors. But yes we agree. Ineptitude yes, there was no market for these cameras before about 1999. its hard to remember, but most people did not own computers until recently, 21st century. they were too expensive before that, and too slow, to use for photographs. Kodak did make the early slr cameras for pros. Edited August 29, 2012 by Larcomb Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 30, 2012 Share #114 Posted August 30, 2012 no? they invented digital, ignored it, and continued to make film. as the late peter drucker would've said -- they believed they were in the film business when in fact they were in the image reproduction business. when the technology changed they should have as well. the rest, as they say, is details. They really didn't ignore digital. They developed and marketed a lot of products and tried lots of strategies in digital photography. Back around 1994 I had lunch with 2 Kodak execs and they told me that the US military was only interested in digital photography. And they also said in particular the military wanted to get rid of labs due to the chemical waste issue. These execs knew digital was the future for Kodak and they said, "Kodak is determined not to be the Pullman Sleeping Car company of the 21st. century." So what happened? Well Kodak was a big company with a lot of people having a stake in film sales, which were highly profitable. But even if a lot of people at Kodak took digital seriously and applied significant resources, that doesn't mean that they knew how to chart a successful course for it. I think most of the things they tried to do in digital did not make a profit. But keep in mind that Kodak had various problems and several restructurings and diversification attempts long before digital was a factor. They were very fortunate that their traditional photo products were so profitable for them over many decades. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted August 30, 2012 Share #115 Posted August 30, 2012 Alan -- Back around 1994 I had lunch with 2 Kodak execs and they told me that the US military was only interested in digital photography. And they also said in particular the military wanted to get rid of labs due to the chemical waste issue. These execs knew digital was the future for Kodak and they said, "Kodak is determined not to be the Pullman Sleeping Car company of the 21st. century. Taking this at face value and as truth, no reason not to, then Kodak's failure is all the more stunning considering how so many Japanese firms were able to adjust to cash in on digital. I still believe there is money to be made in film, nowhere near what was made, but if purchased at the right price it is possible. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 30, 2012 Share #116 Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) Alan -- Back around 1994 I had lunch with 2 Kodak execs and they told me that the US military was only interested in digital photography. And they also said in particular the military wanted to get rid of labs due to the chemical waste issue. These execs knew digital was the future for Kodak and they said, "Kodak is determined not to be the Pullman Sleeping Car company of the 21st. century. Taking this at face value and as truth, no reason not to, then Kodak's failure is all the more stunning considering how so many Japanese firms were able to adjust to cash in on digital. I still believe there is money to be made in film, nowhere near what was made, but if purchased at the right price it is possible. Steve But again, Kodak was no position to make integrated cameras with sensors. Kodak failed to see that teh Japanese woulkd make digital a commidty Kodak make very expensive early dslrs Edited August 30, 2012 by Larcomb Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 30, 2012 Share #117 Posted August 30, 2012 Alan -- Back around 1994 I had lunch with 2 Kodak execs and they told me that the US military was only interested in digital photography. And they also said in particular the military wanted to get rid of labs due to the chemical waste issue. These execs knew digital was the future for Kodak and they said, "Kodak is determined not to be the Pullman Sleeping Car company of the 21st. century. He could have been referring to Pullman's community, a well appointed, highly structured company town which eventually became controversial. He might have been referring to Kodak's influence and interdependence within the Rochester community. Pullman was also named a monopoly and had to be split up and sold to a consortium. There are so many possible inferences possible of the Pullman company - all American (no off-shoring), structured community, interdependence, monopolistic.) Just a thought. -- Pico who once lived near Pullman Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 30, 2012 Share #118 Posted August 30, 2012 He could have been referring to Pullman's community, a well appointed, highly structured company town which eventually became controversial. He might have been referring to Kodak's influence and interdependence within the Rochester community The again he could have been simply referring to the fact that Pullman was left behind by the development of short haul air routes. There are so many possible inferences possible of the Pullman company - all American (no off-shoring), structured community, interdependence, monopolistic.) Pullman trains used to run between Manchester and London in 1960s - or rather there were Pullman carriages on British Rail trains. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 30, 2012 Share #119 Posted August 30, 2012 But again, Kodak was no position to make integrated cameras with sensors.... Kodak make very expensive early dslrs My first digital camera was a Kodak DC4800 in 2000 or so. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 30, 2012 Share #120 Posted August 30, 2012 My first digital camera was a Kodak DC4800 in 2000 or so. Yes, so the problem was not 'digital' it was 'commodity mass production', whick kodak cannot have done Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.