Kodak Filing for Bankruptcy Protection

[Kimbers]

Crikey! Another company I didn't expect to suffer!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725

[Bibs]

You've heard of digital cameras?

[gt111]

Digital cameras be the work of the devil I say...... I am staying well clear until its a proven technology.

[Bibs]

[jonwat]

Kodak is credited with building the first digital camera in 1975

[tinywillyuk]

That's a seriously impressive list of accomplishments!

[MPx]

A great shame but its another thats been coming for a long time now. I grew up with them - my Dad worked for them (well Kodak Ltd anyway) for over 30years and was Chairman of UK sunsidiaries when he retired in '86. My days as a toddler were captured on endless boxes full of instamatic and super8 film for both testing and educational purposes, and my sister and I even featured on a series of cinema adverts for them from 1961 to 1963. I blame them entirely for my loathing of being photographed now! At least the old man's no longer around to see it....but I hope Mum's pension is properly funded and ring fenced!

Of course its right that they were too slow to push their digital business, but I honestly doubt there would have been a different outcome had they moved earlier on that. Their problem was not in developing (pun intended) the new digital business but in how to replace the income stream and get out from from the old paper/chemical companies. New style digital is a low cost, low manpower, low markup, business. A very different model from what they were into with Medical (xray); Graphic arts; Chemicals; Paper; Print; Microfiche; and all sorts photographic offshoots and machinary as well as the unbiquitous camera film. Most of that was highly specialised, high cost, high markup, and they paid well over 100000 employees people to do it for them. So it was more that their whole raison d'etre ceased through the 90's, than that they didn't migrate to new technology soon enough......

I think its a bit like needing to recognise now that the hydrogen cell will be the only personal transport fuel in 20 years time so best start to ditch your traditional car business now before it becomes a SAAB around your neck and impossible to realise any value from in 10 years time once everyone else can see which way its going.

[77 esprit]

Being a lifetime resident of Rochester, NY, losing Kodak is no surprise. At least two decades of mismanagement doomed the company. Although Kodak may have developed the technology for digital cameras, one of their better hires as CEO ended the digital research in favor of concentrating on core (film) products. Kodak gave him millions as a parting "gift". Another overpayed CEO began the process of calling people into their department managers office to inform them of their termination. While learning of their job loss, security people cleaned out the employees desk and proptly escorted them out of the building they may have worked in for thirty plus years. Did a lot for employee relations. Really sad situation. Glad I didn't take the job I was offered in 1967.

Lyn

[red vtec]

Not a big suprise they are fileing for Protection, another Polaroid setup. It's been known in the trade for ages. They are big in medical imaging and are also trying to break into digital presses to rival the HP Indigo series, but probably too late.

Film is dead, Buried, six foot under. I get the odd old boy still using film claiming its better then digital. Same with Wet Labs claiming better colours etc, its rubbish, Digital is superior in all aspects. The world has moved on.

[Mark Blanchard]

I read this evening in the Standard that the previous Chairman Perez thought is was a good idea to focus the company on the heritage of Kodak and film making, rather than embrace the future and move forward with digital photography. I hear it's a text book example of how not to run a company.

[comem47]

I worked for them and the division I worked for was sold off in 2007. Turned out to be a good thing. If you research the history of the company you will see essentially every sold off division is thriving today under new ownership/management. I liken them to a gambler who keeps going back to a pawnbroker and selling off their most valuable assets to get more cash in order to pay the rent and also run down to the casino and place another lousy bet. How the present CEO since 2005 is still around (claiming the turnaround is always "next year" every year since then) is beyond me until you understand the CEO is also the chairman of the board (fox watching the hen house). He will leave with a huge golden parachute, but not so fortunate are the current and former employees whose benefits are under constant trimming to cut costs. Sure glad I'm not there, but feel bad for my friends who are.

If founder and philanthropist George Eastman wasn't cremated in 1932 his bones would surely rise up and puke at the current greed that pervades modern companies like Kodak (decisions made primarily to benefit top management). When I stared working for them in the early '90s stock was near the high at over $92/share. As of this morning the stock is no longer listed on the NYSE but the last NYSE pricing today was something like 36 cents and got there with a steady decline. Rochester NY employees were once over 60,000, and now very close to 1/10th that at around 6000. How NOT to run a company indeed!!!

Edited January 19, 2012 by comem47

[Beady]

Bugger, just bought a Kodak printer for home !

[comem47]

Not a big suprise they are fileing for Protection, another Polaroid setup. It's been known in the trade for ages. They are big in medical imaging and are also trying to break into digital presses to rival the HP Indigo series, but probably too late.

The medical imaging part was sold off in 2007, and the new owner obtained the rights to use the Kodak name on some of the legacy products. (and they currently own the medical X-ray film rights) The current name for that company is Carestream Health. Since 2007 Kodak cannot claim to be a player there. See the bottom of this URL: http://carestream.co...=1033&id=449350

Edited January 19, 2012 by comem47

[giorgio67]

Not a big suprise they are fileing for Protection, another Polaroid setup. It's been known in the trade for ages. They are big in medical imaging and are also trying to break into digital presses to rival the HP Indigo series, but probably too late.

Film is dead, Buried, six foot under. I get the odd old boy still using film claiming its better then digital. Same with Wet Labs claiming better colours etc, its rubbish, Digital is superior in all aspects. The world has moved on.

Hi Chris,

sorry, I dont want to be offensive but this is the most stupid and wrong thing I ever read about film VS digital...

The film is not dead and sadly for all of Digital users the film is still superior in every aspect.

The only point is that digital is very "easy" that's all...and a lot of superficial.

The world has moved on is true, but sadly in the worst way...

Ciao

Giorgio

[red vtec]

Giorgio,

You may disagree. But I deal with thousands of images a week, 10's of thousands a year. How many do I see on Film.... ZERO

Analysis it further and even the Cameras are either Canon or Nixon, very little of other makes. Even the Highend camera makers such as Hasselblad use digital backs these days.

You may get the odd very high end print which is hand developed, but even the virtue of that is debatable these days, and is widely disscussed. Digital has advanced over the last few years so much, that it matches and exceeds, in Gaumet, lifespan etc etc.

Chris

Edited January 19, 2012 by red vtec

[giorgio67]

The quantity has nothing to do with the quality Chris this is a simple concept...the world is full of Fiat and Daewoo cars but this not means that these are better than Lamborghini or Aston Martin..

The major USA magazine are starting to refuse digital fashion and still-ife images if shooted with digital cameras for enlargment quality problems...

If you give a sentence about film quality I think you have compared a contact printing froma 5x4 negative to a digital pic of the same size..?

Did you see some big enlargements print made with the most advanced digital cameras?

There is no digital sensor that are able to match the quality of a simple 120 Film (6x6 size). the best they can do is to compete, for color pics only, with the small 24x36 negative film...

Giorgio

I

[red vtec]

Giorgio,

Film as Commercial product is dead. The fact is Digital has taken over

Kodak is the prime example of it! along with its bad mangement

And yes I have seen large scale prints made from both Film and digital.

Edited January 19, 2012 by red vtec

[giorgio67]

Chris,

first of all I don't want to be rude with you or any other member here but it's not easy to write excatly what I mean in english sorry for that.

Regarding your post, I think your thoughs are more about a commercial point of view, I would not comment about that beacuse you are right, but that does not mean that what you say in your first post about quality is true because this is not "negotialble"

I was speaking strictly about digital VS film quality, in this sense the film is today and I think for a long time superior in every aspect, just that.

Ciao

Giorgio

[oneshot]

Analysis it further and even the Cameras are either Canon or Nixon, very little of other makes.

Is that a new make?

[77 esprit]

Film is dead, Buried, six foot under. I get the odd old boy still using film claiming its better then digital. Same with Wet Labs claiming better colours etc, its rubbish, Digital is superior in all aspects. The world has moved on.

After spending thirty eight years in the consumer electronics business, I can tell you one thing. Digital is simple, not better. Any one of the three thousand vinyl albums I have has many times more information than the CD version. The MP3 format has even less information. Any new digital format to replace the MP3 will have even less. People today put on their I-Pod and mini headphones and think they are hearing all the music. Photography is no different. Digital is just simpler. Whether amateur or professional!

Lyn

[Bibs]

I thought the idea behind digital RAW files is that they capture more information that is required for the image. Wouldn't that be the other direction? You can recover blown highlights and get detail from shadow as it records up and down the exposure range.

[red vtec]

Giorgio, your English is far better than my Italian, and no malice is ever meant on the forum.

Bibs, You are indeed correct RAW takes so much information, Biggest issue is the amount of storage needed.

I'm not slating Film, I'm just saying it is old technology it has been suparsed by Digital. A few years ago it was a case of the blacks not being black enough, not enough infomation etc. These days Digital has overcome that on both the camera and Printer side. As I say I deal in thousands of images a week from Professional Photographers (we do not serve the public) and in 5 years I have not seen a single image on Film. One of my clients is an ex Kodax UK Director, he has said to me film is dead.

A lot of pro labs that dealt in Film have also gone bust due to the lack of business.

Is that a new make?

Yep they are a clandanstine maker

Regarding MP3 yes it is more compressed than vinyl but there are other Digital formats that hold more information than MP3.

The world has gone digital from the internet, TV, Radio to the IPad, Iphone, mobiles etc etc..

We could go back to Glass plate and wax cylinders, but it's not going to happen.

[rocket63]

Most people dont care a toot about the quality at high end. They couldnt even tell the difference. Its no different for high end stereos of old. Betamax v VHS. Blah blah etc etc.

Every one has a view, but the majority rules. The real world rules, so its pretty much a moot point in my view.

Shame for those that do care, but welcome to the minority factions

[Bibs]

http://mashable.com/2012/01/20/kodak-digital-missteps/

[VisualEchos]

Chris,

Film will never be dead for those that want the best photographic experience, and is reserved for real photographer's (as opposed to today's "digital artists").

Lastly, don't kid yourself into thinking that that digital can do what film can, it can't. Can it match the resolution for web? Of course. But the DoF of an 8 x 10 can't be matched by anything digital, even the top 'Blad's.

Film will never die, people worship the past too much for that to happen.