Could traditional photography products go the way of the micro-brewery?

A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 0
  • 0
  • 52
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 0
  • 0
  • 45
img746.jpg

img746.jpg

  • 3
  • 0
  • 52
No Hall

No Hall

  • 1
  • 2
  • 56
Brentwood Kebab!

A
Brentwood Kebab!

  • 1
  • 1
  • 115

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,789
Messages
2,780,862
Members
99,704
Latest member
Harry f3
Recent bookmarks
0
OP
OP
Sean

Sean

Admin
Admin
Joined
Aug 29, 2002
Messages
13,121
Location
New Zealand
Format
Multi Format
Ok i think this could be onto something, new Gel based printers by Ricoh:

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6555/52/

“Unlike traditional dye and pigment-based inkjet printers, the GelSprinter uses a viscous liquid gel that gelatinises and dries almost instantly upon contact with paper."

So who wants to start coating tests with one of these? Could emulsion be considered gel like? It may be very close to what this unit is designed for.. :smile:
 

Curt

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
4,618
Location
Pacific Nort
Format
Multi Format
This has to be done in the clean clear air of New Zealand. :D
 
OP
OP
Sean

Sean

Admin
Admin
Joined
Aug 29, 2002
Messages
13,121
Location
New Zealand
Format
Multi Format
I also see it uses a larger toner type cartridge, maybe it even heats the gel to an optimum temp that would suit photographic emulsions as well?
 

Alex Hawley

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
2,892
Location
Kansas, USA
Format
Large Format
well, found one for 156 US: http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=988185&cm_re=HP-_-PZ-_-MF3+Ricoh+GelSprinter

seems reasonable. I guess the first tests could be done with a bottle of liquid light then move on to custom emulsions..

From the above link: "Technology: Piezo Inkjet System".

Hmmm. I dunno Sean. I'm no expert in printing technology, but I beleive the fundamental mechanism involved with any "dry" printing process is using a small electric charge difference between the medium and the paper to deposit the medium. "Piezo" to me implies this because typically this means "piezo-electric". At least it has in the past. The process works because there is a pigment of some sort in the printing medium. The pigment particles carry the elecrostatic charge that enables the transfer to the paper.

I don't know if the silver halogen particles in the emulsion would make the transfer. There is no pigment in the emulsion. I could be totally out to lunch with this line of thinking, so someone more knowledgeable needs to step in here with their expertise.

Also, the inkjet medium is not photosensitive. A method needs to be devised to keep the sensitised paper in the dark. It may be relatively simple but requires some hardware. Take a look at an 8x10 Polaroid processor. It has a light-tight developer tray where the paper rests while developing.
 

aldevo

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
949
Location
Cambridge, M
Format
Multi Format
From the above link: "Technology: Piezo Inkjet System".

Hmmm. I dunno Sean. I'm no expert in printing technology, but I beleive the fundamental mechanism involved with any "dry" printing process is using a small electric charge difference between the medium and the paper to deposit the medium. "Piezo" to me implies this because typically this means "piezo-electric". At least it has in the past. The process works because there is a pigment of some sort in the printing medium. The pigment particles carry the elecrostatic charge that enables the transfer to the paper.

I don't know if the silver halogen particles in the emulsion would make the transfer. There is no pigment in the emulsion. I could be totally out to lunch with this line of thinking, so someone more knowledgeable needs to step in here with their expertise.

Also, the inkjet medium is not photosensitive. A method needs to be devised to keep the sensitised paper in the dark. It may be relatively simple but requires some hardware. Take a look at an 8x10 Polaroid processor. It has a light-tight developer tray where the paper rests while developing.

"Piezo Inkjet" means that you are using piezoelectric transducer to provide mechanical waves in a microjet of the ink. These waves have the effect of breaking the jet up into uniform size droplets.

Substitute molten metal for ink and you have the basis for my master's thesis in graduate school...

The frequency of the waves you use to break up the jet has a special name (prefaced by a proper noun), but I can't recall it and the nearest copy of my master's thesis is miles away.
 

aldevo

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
949
Location
Cambridge, M
Format
Multi Format
I forgot to note that you typically will pass the droplet stream through a charge ring or plates to provide it with an electric (coulombic) charge.

I don't know if this is true for printing, but in the case of molten metal the objective here is that you don't want droplets to merge with one another (like-charge particles repel) and this would happen if the distance the droplets must travel to their substrate is more than a couple centimeters.

Simple in concept, but it takes doing because the droplets will spread in planes other than that parallel to the stream.
 

r-s

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
113
Location
People's Rep
Format
Multi Format
Catching up with old traffic...

Maybe, maybe not. The US military had mobile processing labs that could be deployed to remote locations well before the 1-Hour labs came on the scene. Also, if you see my threads on the SR-71 camera systems, it is quite evident that many thousand feet of film had to be processed rapidly following one of those surveillance missions (I suspect the same need existed for the U2 flights also). Those processing systems were certainly tied to Kodak in a direct or indirect manner. In fact, the film was flown directly to Rochester for processing in the early days of the program. I suspect that the security requirements prohibited Kodak from placing the technology on the consumer market. This type of arrangement is very typical. The Japanese were free to develop and market the technology on their own without such a restriction.

Back in the 1960s there was at least one "minilab" orbiting the moon! It was Russian, I think, but I'd be surprised if both superpowers didn't have something similar in operation. There are pictures showing how it operated, I don't have the URL handy but a web search would probably turn it up if anyone cared.

The machine used a long roll of film, which was exposed, processed, scanned, and then spooled. The scanned image (a continuous "fax-scan" type system) was transmitted back to earth.


As another example in a different field, we now have earphones, radios, CD players, ect. that cancel out the ambient noise from the surroundings. This noise cancellation technology came out of US/UK submarine sonar systems. Twenty to thirty years ago, it was highly classified.

Noice cancelling mikes are old hat -- they just let the ambient noise hit the diaphragm from both sides, and it cancels itself out. The voice only hits from one side, so it gets picked up. I suspect you're referring to "active noise cancellation", or whatever term they gave it, in which the noise created by a machine (a submarine, for example) was "cancelled" by having what amounted to a big amplifier/speaker system pumping out the same noise, but out of phase.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Back in the 1960s there was at least one "minilab" orbiting the moon! It was Russian, I think, but I'd be surprised if both superpowers didn't have something similar in operation. There are pictures showing how it operated, I don't have the URL handy but a web search would probably turn it up if anyone cared.

The machine used a long roll of film, which was exposed, processed, scanned, and then spooled. The scanned image (a continuous "fax-scan" type system) was transmitted back to earth.

I have posted this before, but it has apparently been overlooked.

Kodak developed a BIMAT system for the military and NASA in the 50s and 60s that was a 2 part film. The film was exposed and then laminated and developed in the sattelite. The film could then be returned to earth or be scanned in space and the data returned to earth.

It used what was essentially a monobath process originally developed from work by Grant Haist. He describes some of these formulas in his "Monobath Manual".

One of the cameras and processing units is on display at George Eastman House.

PE
 

r-s

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
113
Location
People's Rep
Format
Multi Format
Ben, I said that the machine coating would make 4x5, 120, and 35mm. Sorry if that was unclear but implied in it was the fact that it made a maximum of 5" wide coating for 4x5. Thier is no image.

That machine will coat at about 100 feet / min max and is about a 2 car garage in size not including the air conditioners. It probably costs close to $1M and can be run by two people.

PE

Did some very rough back of envelope calcs, and came up with something around a half billion dollars gross per year (running 24/7), turning out something in the neighborhood of 180 million rolls of film per year.

If those figures are even close to real world, I'd think a project like that would be viable, presuming there were buyers at the end of the pipeline. We're talking a ROI of five hundred times original investment. (that's a lot more than five hundred "percent"!)

This is "before parts and labor", but even so, I'd be real surprised if the materials would bite into the cost of production by anything approaching a deal-breaker figure. Labor? Figure a few hundred thousand per year (2 people, 3 shifts, $50K/yr each, comes to $300 grand).
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
You have forgotten building the plant, doing the development work and the fact that there are other people involved such as emulsion makers, chemists, packaging people, and ETC.

The hot and cold water, air conditioning, conditioned storage, packaging materials and other things must be put into this. Your calculations are WAY out of line.

The whole thing, from scratch would run about $2 M and take about 2 years to finish before it began running good product. During that time you are paying for staff, chemcials, facilities, utilities, and reclamation of waste among other things. That is another $100,000 / person in salaries alone (average) and you will need more than the 2 to run the machine.

Lets assume 10 people for 2 years. Lets assume $100,000 taxes for 2 years and about $1 M for chemcial supplies and waste disposal - all of this up front to get started.

Now, how does this look amortized considering the loans and the interest?

You oversimplify!

PE
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Oh, I forgot, you said 24/7. Add in the "B" and "C" shifts to this as well as extra utilities, extra pay on sundays, and other things I've fogotten. That will add in at least 4 - 8 people as support staff for that type of operation. Remember, I said 2 people could run the machine.

Who makes the emulsion, tests it, finishes it, sensitzes it and preps it for these coaters. That is support staff to keep the machine fed.

PE
 

Alex Hawley

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
2,892
Location
Kansas, USA
Format
Large Format
You have forgotten building the plant, doing the development work and the fact that there are other people involved such as emulsion makers, chemists, packaging people, and ETC.

Now, how does this look amortized considering the loans and the interest?

You oversimplify!

PE
Include the purchase or lease of the land, and a tangled web of permits and licenses. These of course vary with each State and locale, but you have all the EPA permits for chemicals, some sort of certification/permit/license for all of your effluent waste (solid and liquid), fire protection certification, probably some kind of chemical facility operating permit/license, all of the various forms of insurance, construction permits for the facility and certification of it when complete; OSHA compliance program for industrial safety (especially chemical hazards but it even gets down to the storage shelves and ladders).

And then there is all the consulting fees that you will pay people to guide you through all of the above. Its a necessary evil because all that massive amount of regulations is beyond what one person can learn in an entire career. Far gone are the days of simply throwing up a building and starting to work.

Is it any wonder that business moves overseas?
 

r-s

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
113
Location
People's Rep
Format
Multi Format
Roger;

I cannot disagree with anything you said. What I was pointing out was in response to another post who said that there were many Kodak managers from outside the company, but there were not. I didn't say Fisher (or whatever way it is spelled) was great, or good. He was good at Motorola and he did bring in good ideas to Kodak. But then Carp, from inside Kodak was not very good.

He was a marketing person selected over Carl Kohrt who came up through Research and many thought that this selection was very bad for Kodak, as they needed technical guidance and an overhaul of marketing. Instead they got an overhaul of research and marketing forged ahead to become what we see today. The company, in the eyes of many, was weakened by this choice.

OTOH, others disagree with that position and think Carp was a fine person for the time and that he fixed marketing and research both. Myself, I'm middle of the road.

A few years ago, there was a spate of Usenet postings, all obviously made by the same person, under a variety of monickers - many of them posted under Carp's name.

The poster was obviously (IMO) a "disgruntled worker" (or more likely, "ex-worker"), with what also seemed to obviously be a lot of inside knowledge regarding emulsion engineering at Kodak.

His posts seethed with anger, mostly at how the company was managed, but he also railed about various emulsion engineering topics, most of which went right over my head.

I kept wondering how it was that he was able to keep posting his stuff, given that based on the content he posted, it must have been a trivial matter for Kodak to figure out who he was, and put a stop to his activities.

Then one day, he no longer existed.

Does anyone else remember this guy? I'll bet some of the ex-Kodakers here must have worked with him (perhaps not knowing that he went on to that moment of infamy :smile:

If anyone does recall his postings, and knows the lowdown on the matters he was flipping out over, what is the consensus on his points? Did he make sense (his foaming at the mouth aside)? Were his points valid? He seemed to be a classic "prophet of doom", and given the timeframe in which he was venting his spleen (before "digital" started clobbering film), he must be -- whether rightly or wrongly -- beating his chest with some sense of (again, rightly or wrongly) vindication. (Presuming he's not in prison for his activities!)
 

r-s

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
113
Location
People's Rep
Format
Multi Format
You have forgotten building the plant, doing the development work and the fact that there are other people involved such as emulsion makers, chemists, packaging people, and ETC.

The hot and cold water, air conditioning, conditioned storage, packaging materials and other things must be put into this. Your calculations are WAY out of line.

The whole thing, from scratch would run about $2 M and take about 2 years to finish before it began running good product. During that time you are paying for staff, chemcials, facilities, utilities, and reclamation of waste among other things. That is another $100,000 / person in salaries alone (average) and you will need more than the 2 to run the machine.

Lets assume 10 people for 2 years. Lets assume $100,000 taxes for 2 years and about $1 M for chemcial supplies and waste disposal - all of this up front to get started.

Now, how does this look amortized considering the loans and the interest?

You oversimplify!

PE

Still looks like small potatoes compared to a half-billion per annum revenue.

Come up with solid MR showing a ready market for the product, and I'd bet you could find a VC willing and able to start the wheels turning. FAR crazier things have happened in the software world. Far, far, crazier, with much bigger stakes being played.
 

r-s

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
113
Location
People's Rep
Format
Multi Format
Oh, I forgot, you said 24/7. Add in the "B" and "C" shifts to this as well as extra utilities, extra pay on sundays, and other things I've fogotten. That will add in at least 4 - 8 people as support staff for that type of operation. Remember, I said 2 people could run the machine.

Who makes the emulsion, tests it, finishes it, sensitzes it and preps it for these coaters. That is support staff to keep the machine fed.

PE

Still small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Don't go all wonkie on me now, Ronnie! Hey, this was your idea, wasn't it? :smile:

It's almost as if you'd come up with plans for a flying saucer, and upon cursory review, I say hey, this stuff will work -- and then you start turning white, knees start knocking, and all of a sudden you gotta run for the bathroom! LOL!

If "Man and God" were so easily shook up when confronted with the viability of their invention, we'd never have had Kodachrome!
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
It was not my idea though.

I merely pointed out what had to be done, not that it was feasible or desirable. I know nothing about any business plan or marketing scheme that would support your model.

I am actually able to take both sides of the argument, and the more information I have the more I am able to predict which one is more viable. At present, I think that any plan to build a plant is very risky but doable given time and money.

I do not believe that it will be anywhere near as profitable as you seem to think. That is based on my previous experience and what I do know. Given trends in the market, it may not be profitable at all in the short term, or it may be, and then it may decline in profit and go bankrupt at some time. After all, it has Ilford, Kodak and Fuji to compete with.

Remember this. Kodak's film and paper unit is still larger than Ilford and Fuji, probably both of them combined.

BTW, I have never heard of this other 'engineer' you speak of. I've never run across his/her posts either. I have run across some people who think they know photographic engineering but do not, and I know some who are photo engineers who post here and on PN regularly. I know many of the engineers personally or am in touch with them via e-mail or PMs.

PE
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Regarding another matter, it was often said at Kodak that if Mannes and Godowsky proposed Kodachrome to Kodak in the 60s or 70s, they would have been turned down. It was just too cumbersome to work with in the light of technical advances at the time. E6 essentially killed Kodachrome in the 80s and it was on its way in development in the 70s.

PE
 

PHOTOTONE

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
2,412
Location
Van Buren, A
Format
Large Format
Well, now let me throw another wrinkle into this speculation about the costing of starting a film factory.

What about the existing Ferrania plant in Oklahoma? I assume they are still making color neg film there for disposable cameras, but...I'll bet one could purchase that facility, and it just might be cheaper than starting from scratch. Isn't Ferrania operating in Bankruptcy? If it will coat color film, it will surely coat b/w film.
 

Alex Hawley

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
2,892
Location
Kansas, USA
Format
Large Format
Well, now let me throw another wrinkle into this speculation about the costing of starting a film factory.

What about the existing Ferrania plant in Oklahoma? I assume they are still making color neg film there for disposable cameras, but...I'll bet one could purchase that facility, and it just might be cheaper than starting from scratch. Isn't Ferrania operating in Bankruptcy? If it will coat color film, it will surely coat b/w film.

From a physical plant point-of-view, yes, it could be easier. All of the permits/licenses are in place. They just have to be transferred to the new owner. The physical facility is already established too.
 

r-s

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
113
Location
People's Rep
Format
Multi Format
Include the purchase or lease of the land, and a tangled web of permits and licenses. These of course vary with each State and locale, but you have all the EPA permits for chemicals, some sort of certification/permit/license for all of your effluent waste (solid and liquid), fire protection certification, probably some kind of chemical facility operating permit/license, all of the various forms of insurance, construction permits for the facility and certification of it when complete; OSHA compliance program for industrial safety (especially chemical hazards but it even gets down to the storage shelves and ladders).

It's an awful big "land of the free"; I'd bet that within a week of working the telephone, I could come up with one (or two, or three) venues that would be more than glad to have such a venture in their area, and would be of great assistance in greasing the skids, cutting through red tape, etc. (And these would be areas that were already at the "low overhead" end of the regulatory spectrum, with a readily available supply of low-cost labor.)

And then there is all the consulting fees that you will pay people to guide you through all of the above. Its a necessary evil because all that massive amount of regulations is beyond what one person can learn in an entire career. Far gone are the days of simply throwing up a building and starting to work.

Another couple of days on the phone, and I can put together the right "consultation team", and I doubt the cost would be prohibitive.

Is it any wonder that business moves overseas?

And there's another option!

If we begin with a "we are defeated" baseline, then it is hopeless.

But this stuff isn't rocket science. It's 1930s science!

The fact that 21st century technology can so easily dovetail with "1930s science" only makes it easier!

Right now I'm thinking about how Xerox shooed S. Wozniak out of the office when he offered them his plans for an inexpensive home computer. Too much bother, too little market, etc. They couldn't waste their resources on it.

So, he built them by hand in his garage, and the rest is history.

Stuff that is inherenly "unthinkable" to BigCorpThink is not necessarily nonviable in the real world.

From what little I know of the bits and pieces I've picked up from reading these and other threads, my "second hand" knowledge of "machinist stuff", and my former career in the software world, I am of the belief that a usable coating system could be built and debugged "on the cheap" for far less than a functionally similar system would cost "big business" to produce.

Entrepreneurs think and work a whole different way than "corporate" people.

"Corporate America" has increasingly seemed to model itself on the federal government. Now there's a paragon of efficiency, LOL! Instead of just doing something, they bury themselves in "procedure". Mountains of paperwork, endless "meetings", a hierarchy of "committee" assignments, etc., etc., etc.

It's a great formula for full-employment for people with no real skills (other than pushing paper and driving desks), and when those are the sort of folks empowered to engineer the systems (the management "systems"), well, that's what you get.

Look at NASA, and then, look at the "small" operations that have recently attained suborbital flight (and could just as easily accomplish orbital insertion).

Then, look at the budgets.

There's the government way, and then there's the real-world way.

Big business has embraced "the government way", and therefore, everything is "difficult" to get off the ground.

It doesn't have to be this way -- and iIt wasn't always this way, but this is one reason the rest of the world is eating our lunch.

You can design and build an airplane like Boeing (or any other contemporary airframe house), or, you can design and build an airplane like "Flight of the Phoenix."

Somewhere in-between those two extremes is a highly optimal scenario.

Sure, bureaucrats can come up with endless justifications for their procedures, insisting that all the hip-deep red tape must be part of the process. But that's far from an unbiased source.

There needs to be a bit of the "cowboy spirit" if something is to be done in a market dominated by corporate-think wonks. Otherwise it's an endless parade of "proofs" that it can't be done.

Well, I guess it really can't be done, when the artifices of the bureaucracy are imposed upon the process from the getgo. But, should someone with a genuine entrepreneurial spirit decide to get into the game, kick the jams out of the way, and get something accomplished (rather than play the paper game), then lookout world! (Isn't that basically what Kodak is trying to do, in a roundabout way, with their "ink revolution"? Shake up the way things are done, yank the rug out from under the competition, cut through the layers of nonsense, cut to the bone, etc?)
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
If you want 1930s science then why are there so many coating defects in EFKE products being reported here? If it is so easy, why is Ferrania in recievership rather than being offered bail out money, if it is so easy, why did Forte go kaput last month?

It can be done with enough time and money. Whether a business case can be established for long term operation is another matter. Not knowing the full picture, as I said, I can take both sides of this argument, being neither pessimistic nor optimistic.

Being a realist is sometimes labeled one or the other in the mistaken idea that one is an expert on a subject. Unfortunately, this subject has a huge backstory that will never be told on APUG or probably anywhere.

Suffice it to say that there are people working to make it happen and others that have given up, and others that you never even heard of (yet) and maybe never will.

As for getting consultants in photo engineering. Good luck! As stated before, there are only about 200 world-wide, and they don't come cheap. Many are not interested at all in this type of thing. We probably had most of them still actively working in one room at the ICIS conference last May here in Rochester. I could probably name them all and count them on my fingers and toes. The rest are retired.

If I buy a photo product, I want to be able to trust the quality of that product. See the thread where the subject of trust was brought up. I don't want to have to worry that I'm going to lose important shots.

PE
 

r-s

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
113
Location
People's Rep
Format
Multi Format
BTW, I have never heard of this other 'engineer' you speak of. I've never run across his/her posts either. I have run across some people who think they know photographic engineering but do not, and I know some who are photo engineers who post here and on PN regularly. I know many of the engineers personally or am in touch with them via e-mail or PMs.

I just did a quickie google usenet search, here (below) are some starting points. Unfortunately, he used an anon posting service, so it's impossible to use the "profile" link to find his other posts that way. Plus, he used a variety of other fake names, all of which I've forgotten (it's been several years since he was active).

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I am not endorsing this guy. I just find his posts intriguing (like a car wreck, I guess). To me, it seems that he's got the earmarks of a classic "disgruntled former employee", and when he suddenly ceased posting, I figured that they'd nailed him.

Here are some typical posts. I'd suggest reading at least the first two linked posts below to get the gist of what he's saying:

In this first thread, he "names names" -- a bunch of people he claimes to be R&D people at Kodak. Does any of this ring true? It sounds like he's an "insider", but then again, he might be making this up of whole cloth. I just don't know, and have no way of knowing, unless someone who does know confirms (or denies) it.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....t&q=author:"dan+carp"&rnum=1#d59ae50008e59263


In this (one-post) thread, he seems to detail a bunch of "insider" technical (and administrative) information:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt....an/msg/3c2ea4d6c9cfb857?&q="dan+carp"+coupler

(BTW, this is The Mother of All Posts from this guy, and in it, he covers everything from soup to nuts -- financial stuff, code names for internal projects/programs, chemistry details, "insider" corporate strategy, names and phone numbers (and sometimes building number too) of Kodak people... You name it, he's talking about it. Also, check out his reference to "114BR cyan coupler" and "136MD coupler", and "having problems with leuco". The word "coupler" should be highlighted -- I did a search for "his" name and the word "coupler", because I remembered him railing about couplers (among everything else under the sun)

Note: that (above) post is so big that the New! google interface won't allow you to read the whole thing online. You have to click the link at the bottom of the post to download the entire thing (as a .txt file) if you want to read the last few paragraphs of it.

But, even without those last couple of paragraphs it's an entertaining read. You'll get plenty out of it from reading the part they show you at the link above.

(BTW, I just, in quick-parsing that post, see he mentioned "Jim Mulch", which I think I recall being another name he posted under. So you might want to do some queries for that, too.)


And another thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....t&q=author:"dan+carp"&rnum=2#ab34dc280e4ffeda

More from that thread (only a few of them, he was a very prolific poster):

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.film+labs/msg/d5f99d4328039d42

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.film+labs/msg/7b903170916cfeec

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.film+labs/msg/5cb8dc1ae98913c4


And another thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....t&q=author:"dan+carp"&rnum=9#61f0f9fb536c8d80


And another thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....&q=author:"dan+carp"&rnum=18#06fbfa20f689e1f6


And yet another thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....?lnk=st&q=carp+kodak&rnum=64#f080fc82923e5c8c


Finally, here's an "author search" on "his" name (rather than email address). I don't think they're all from him:

http://groups.google.com/groups/sea...=100&q=author:"dan+carp"&safe=off&qt_s=Search
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Thanks.

His list of buildings to be demolished is both right and wrong. Kodak is eliminating the oldest buildings and certainly 69 is not one of them. Building 59 still stands, but 2 is gone. It was one of the oldest.

Just FYI, he had a lot of things wrong there in the coupler post. I looked there first. Firstoff, it was 236MD not 136MD, but the 114BR was a correct number.

He had some names wrong and some right. BTW, I had a window in my office and didn't win any political office or run in any election and my boss had 2 windows in a corner office, but that is beside the point. One of my temps also had a window. It is what is vacant at the time.

I recognized some of the posters and some of the names very well, and know most of those people personally. They are not as described. They certainly don't deserve the comments made of them and are quite respected engineers.

That was a lot of vitriol there.

There is good and bad in every company. I found Kodak to be ethical and concerned with the environment, starting their programs years before anyone else. I find that the information seems biased by anger.

Too bad.

PE
 

r-s

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
113
Location
People's Rep
Format
Multi Format
Thanks.

His list of buildings to be demolished is both right and wrong. Kodak is eliminating the oldest buildings and certainly 69 is not one of them. Building 59 still stands, but 2 is gone. It was one of the oldest.

Just FYI, he had a lot of things wrong there in the coupler post. I looked there first. Firstoff, it was 236MD not 136MD, but the 114BR was a correct number.

He had some names wrong and some right. BTW, I had a window in my office and didn't win any political office or run in any election and my boss had 2 windows in a corner office, but that is beside the point. One of my temps also had a window. It is what is vacant at the time.

I recognized some of the posters and some of the names very well, and know most of those people personally. They are not as described. They certainly don't deserve the comments made of them and are quite respected engineers.

That was a lot of vitriol there.

There is good and bad in every company. I found Kodak to be ethical and concerned with the environment, starting their programs years before anyone else. I find that the information seems biased by anger.

Too bad.

PE


* His list of buildings to be demolished is both right and wrong.

Remember, that post is four years old. Perhaps the plans changed over time. Also, remember that:

* That was a lot of vitriol there.

(No kidding!)

It's IMO quite likely that his anger caused some errors (building numbers being wrong, a typo in a coupler number, etc., stuff like that. The main thing that I am asking is if he is putting out enough material "not available to the general public" to indicate that he is (or was) an insider, rather than one of the various posers you complained about earlier in the thread.

The reason I am curious (apart from the usual "rubbernecking at a car wreck" syndrome) is because I get the impression that one of your fundamental positions is that anyone "in the know" will be automatically supportive of Kodak's actions, and, the flip side, anyone not supportive of Kodak's actions is automatically "outted" as someone who could not possibly be an "insider" (because insiders are supportive of Kodak's actions). In short, a bit of a tautology.

Personally, I think the guy is an insider. (or, "was" an insider) And his vitriol alone disproves the "to know them is to support them" theory.

So, what's the verdict? Is he is, or is he ain't?

And, if he ain't, then where does he get his information? What is the public source for that stuff? I've never seen any of that material anywhere, other than in that guy's postings.

That, for me, is the bottom line: The info that he's posted, if true (accepting for slips of the lip/keyboard due to foamy mouthed vitriol while typing), would seem to be his bona fides.

Given the sheer volume of information he's been firehosing into the net, I think you might have some idea of who he is in RL. (How many people are there who had access to that information -- the projects, code words, agendas, strategies, etc. -- knew those people -- and knew their names, knew who those people were -- the chemistry, and so forth -- AND, was booted out on his vitriolic keester some time on or about 2002?)

I'd think the pool of likely suspects must be mighty small.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom