Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Kodak's bankruptcy imminent?  (Read 6129 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2012, 03:58:59 AM »
ReplyReply



So, for all of you proponents of "screw workers" theories, the moral of the story is: you can make workers work for next to nothing (or not work), but they will ultimately die (metaphorically speaking). And by 'workers' I mean blue-collar and white-collar ones, a.k.a. middle class. For one thing you proponents of "screw workers" theories are forgetting, is the double role they play in this world: they are not just workers, making things for you and helping you get wealthy, they are, simultaneously, your consumers, buying your stuff, and again helping you get rich.




Slobodan, I think you are being gripped by trace memories. I can't read here anywhere where anyone advocates 'workers' be forced to work for slave-rates (though to be accurate, I always thought slaves worked for feed and lodging alone). From my perspective on the subject, everyone should be paid what they are worth - that's the difficult calculation, of course - but their worth depends on how much they are needed and, in the sense of workers as employees, includes the possibility/viability of their continued employment by any organization. That's why I advocate the impossible-to-apply, but desirable universal subjection to the self-employed experience: it rapidy teaches one the perspectives of reality: you are usually not indispesable and there are queues waiting not so patiently behind you for every job or sale you might be fortunate enough to secure. The union boss neither knows nor cares, and if he is enlightened enough to know, he certainly doesn't push it around to his followers.

Trouble is, the entire matter becomes embroiled with 'rights' and politics and reality is forgotten in the resulting conversation between people who are then driven into opposite corners which usually demand total blindness to the other point of view.

Basically, Life's reality is this: nobody owes you a thing. That's the bottom line, the platform from which you have to begin your crawl or march or sprint through life.

Rob C
Logged

tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 874


WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 09, 2012, 04:35:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey, it's pretty simple, when was the last time that you bought a Kodak product? For me it was about 10 years ago. If you are not producing things that people want to buy then you will go broke.

Cheers,

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6295


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 09, 2012, 05:00:37 PM »
ReplyReply

... If you are not producing things that people want to buy then you will go broke...

Tom, that makes as much sense as saying that people are poor because they do not have enough money Wink A tautology, in other words.

The real question is why. Why has Kodak ended up on the brink of bankruptcy? Yes, the technology changed, dooming film, but two things to take into account: one, Kodak was among pioneers of digital, and to this day some of the best sensors are Kodak, so why did not they turned that into a business success? And two, there's the film archrival still doing fine, e.g. Fujifilm, by adapting to the new era.

Kodak was slow to adopt to digital business-wise, and even slow to respond to Fuji's aggressive entry into its own film territory. It took Kodak ten years to respond to Velvia. Kodak kept repeating that the world can not possibly fall for an over-the-top saturated and contrasty film, far from realistic. And if you are publishing botanical textbooks, you would tend to agree: for realistic reproduction of flowers, Kodachrome 25 (not even 64) was the king. But hey, we all know how that game ended: 90% of professionals switched to Velvia.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8026


WWW
« Reply #43 on: January 09, 2012, 05:48:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

A personal reflection. I was a Kodachrome fan until Kodak made life hard for Kodakchrome users. After that I desperately searched for an alternative and found it in Fujichrome. Then Velvia came around.

Best regards
Erik

Tom, that makes as much sense as saying that people are poor because they do not have enough money Wink A tautology, in other words.

The real question is why. Why has Kodak ended up on the brink of bankruptcy? Yes, the technology changed, dooming film, but two things to take into account: one, Kodak was among pioneers of digital, and to this day some of the best sensors are Kodak, so why did not they turned that into a business success? And two, there's the film archrival still doing fine, e.g. Fujifilm, by adapting to the new era.

Kodak was slow to adopt to digital business-wise, and even slow to respond to Fuji's aggressive entry into its own film territory. It took Kodak ten years to respond to Velvia. Kodak kept repeating that the world can not possibly fall for an over-the-top saturated and contrasty film, far from realistic. And if you are publishing botanical textbooks, you would tend to agree: for realistic reproduction of flowers, Kodachrome 25 (not even 64) was the king. But hey, we all know how that game ended: 90% of professionals switched to Velvia.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #44 on: January 10, 2012, 04:11:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

A personal reflection. I was a Kodachrome fan until Kodak made life hard for Kodakchrome users. After that I desperately searched for an alternative and found it in Fujichrome. Then Velvia came around.

Best regards
Erik




Yes, but Velvia was no damned good for people shots; they were all blushing. Or were red herrings.

The trouble with Kodachrome 25 for people shots, as per my beaches, was that I found it uncontrollably contrasty and did not suit my one-man-and-his-wife sort of working. I hated flash - never a brilliant idea (oh dear) with Nikons. Reflectors on a beach - aren't they always windy? - was not something too clever either; the solution was that we usually worked hardest early morning or evening, when Kodachrome 64 gave just enough speed to do the job without losing crispness... The technique, on most location days, also allowed for an excellent gentleman's luncheon, unrushed and untroubled with thoughts of passing time.

Kodak's failure - part of it, at least - was the woeful lack of quality control in some processing stations. I found Lausanne to be the most reliable, but that's probably more to do with the national temperament than Kodak.

Rob C
Logged

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2012, 04:28:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Chapter 11, I presume, but overseas companies miss out.

For a company which invented the digital camera over 35 years ago, truly ironic.

Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
ScottWylie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


WWW
« Reply #46 on: January 30, 2012, 11:51:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Tom, that makes as much sense as saying that people are poor because they do not have enough money Wink A tautology, in other words.

The real question is why. Why has Kodak ended up on the brink of bankruptcy?

With respect, it makes perfect sense and is the reason for their problems. They were reluctant to push digital products because it would impact their profitable film business, other digital manufacturers filled the gap and it happened anyway but without any significant porttion of the revenue going to Kodak.

People wanted digital and Kodak were not producing it so everyone just went elsewhere instead.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8026


WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 30, 2012, 11:23:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I'd say lack of competence and focus. Kodak was never really good at the camera stuff. Kodak tried to invent a lot of formats that failed in the long run, 126, 110, photo disc.

Regarding Kodachrome vs. Velvia, in my view Kodak pulled the curtain on Kodakchrome when they removed most processing capabilities. Turnaround time got very long. I also hated the cardboard mounts. Once I ordered Kodachrome development without framing. Kodak sent the film back as roll (hard rolled). That film was practically destroyed. So I started looking for alternatives, Agfa, Gaf until I found Fujichrome, well before Velvia came around. I left Kodak because I was pissed off (to cite "MR") with their processing.

Best regards
Erik


The real question is why. Why has Kodak ended up on the brink of bankruptcy? Yes, the technology changed, dooming film, but two things to take into account: one, Kodak was among pioneers of digital, and to this day some of the best sensors are Kodak, so why did not they turned that into a business success? And two, there's the film archrival still doing fine, e.g. Fujifilm, by adapting to the new era.

Kodak was slow to adopt to digital business-wise, and even slow to respond to Fuji's aggressive entry into its own film territory. It took Kodak ten years to respond to Velvia. Kodak kept repeating that the world can not possibly fall for an over-the-top saturated and contrasty film, far from realistic. And if you are publishing botanical textbooks, you would tend to agree: for realistic reproduction of flowers, Kodachrome 25 (not even 64) was the king. But hey, we all know how that game ended: 90% of professionals switched to Velvia.
Logged

Rocco Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 484



« Reply #48 on: January 31, 2012, 08:47:28 AM »
ReplyReply

...
...the solution was that we usually worked hardest early morning or evening, when Kodachrome 64 gave just enough speed to do the job without losing crispness... The technique, on most location days, also allowed for an excellent gentleman's luncheon, unrushed and untroubled with thoughts of passing time.
...

Rob C

I once asked other wildlife photographers this same question; ie
what do you do through the harsh light of the middle of the day?
BTW it correlates to when shallow water fish typically don't bite.
Sometimes I get lucky with a certain mood and CRI due to infamous weather of SF
So, what does one do at a gentleman's luncheon?

Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad