Disturbing news?

DBP · Jan 12, 2007

uraniumnitrate said:
The fact is that Kodak did it right! Sell out untill they can get money for it! In this country there is isn't any institution still uses X-ray units based on the traditional film method as all is digital! Well maybe some 65 years old dentists still may use those but, they not gonna be around for long do they?

One of the things that struck me last time I had an MRI (2-3 years ago) was that the image was stored on film. Given that MRIs have always been a digital capture technique, the choice of recording medium would imply that this portion of the market has a significant future. The last CAT scan I had was also recorded on film, but that was some years earlier. As for the 65 year old dentist, mine is only in his late 40s, and still uses film. Frankly, I dread the day someone tries to replace the bite wings with a digital sensor, because I can't imagine how one could fit more easily into my mouth than the film version, which is uncomfortable enough.

gr82bart · Jan 12, 2007

DBP said:
Frankly, I dread the day someone tries to replace the bite wings with a digital sensor, because I can't imagine how one could fit more easily into my mouth than the film version, which is uncomfortable enough.

My dentist uses digital and it's just as uncomfortable.

Regards, Art.

gr82bart · Jan 12, 2007

copake_ham said:
It's not "doom and gloom" to be aware and concerned about disturbing trends.

George,

It is when you've interpreted and communicated the trend as "disturbing" when, maybe it isn't?

Regards, Art.

uraniumnitrate · Jan 12, 2007

DBP said:
One of the things that struck me last time I had an MRI (2-3 years ago) was that the image was stored on film. Given that MRIs have always been a digital capture technique, the choice of recording medium would imply that this portion of the market has a significant future. The last CAT scan I had was also recorded on film, but that was some years earlier. As for the 65 year old dentist, mine is only in his late 40s, and still uses film. Frankly, I dread the day someone tries to replace the bite wings with a digital sensor, because I can't imagine how one could fit more easily into my mouth than the film version, which is uncomfortable enough.

I were talking about my dentist he is an old guy and still uses the old one but the next year he going to get retired and than he’s closing down or sell his practice. I don’t know much about how other dentists have! I don’t even know a lot about their equipment! What I do know is more like heavy duty industrial X-rays and medical X-rays used in hospitals with a very thin sensors! They are all digital in this country! You know this country is very high tech and a change goes rapidly! I can think of some places they might still using analogue but not many that’s for sure. Mostly in vetriner (animal)hospitals.
I know so much that the sensor is not that large in size at all! So probably you are going to get it in your mouth!

uraniumnitrate · Jan 12, 2007

gr82bart said:
My dentist uses digital and it's just as uncomfortable.

Regards, Art.

Jut a thought of getting to the dentist is uncomfortable! isn't that right?

Scott Peters · Jan 12, 2007

The buyer can probably run the business better anyway. All the debt should 'force' the issue.

Kobin · Jan 12, 2007

Digital Radiography and image archiving systems are a major advance in healthcare. But it is a kick in the groin when the server goes down. Still, it always comes back up, and no idiot resident can cart off important and irreplaceable films in his trunk anymore.

Kodak makes one horrifically expsensive digital radiographic room that I care for not at all; far too complex and prone to crashing at the worst of times. It used to make the finest screen-film combinations I'd ever used, and the finest process chemistry to go with them.

A new age it is, but I don't mourn the passing of analog radiography. If only Kodak, Siemens, Toshiba, Shimadzu, Philips, GE, et al could make decent systems to replace the ones that worked so well (and reliably) back in the day!

My thoughts.

K.

HerrBremerhaven · Jan 13, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
How does this affect us. Not at all.

But, see my post in the doom and gloom forum about the layoffs and sale of buildings that was announced the day before this sale.

PE

Good afternoon,

I read through that one, though somehow missed which films those layoffs will cause to be discontinued. Quite simply, when I cannot get something I use now, then I will find a replacement . . . no big deal.

Somewhat surprisingly, I have been discussing an upcoming shoot idea and using B/W was mentioned in the negotiations. My preference in people shots has always been AGFA APX100, which I thought would be unavailable. I did have some sample shots from it, and if the shoot goes through, this is what the client wants me to use. So I mentioned Rollei Retro 100, which is basically the same film. However, without a US distributer at the moment, that makes it hard to find. So I searched through my usual supply place, B&H Photo, and to my surprise found they have a stock of AGFA APX100 . . . dead film from a dead company, and no worries.

Kodak still have over ten years cooperative agreement with Lucky Film in China. If no Kodak films are produced in the US at some future date, and only Lucky Film is available, I would be okay with using it as long as the substitute produced similar results, or at the very least produced results that I could use to express my creative vision.

On a related note, I use Winsor & Newton oil paints for my paintings. I also have a preference for certain brushes, and these do need to be replaced often. If I were to loose supply of either my preferred brushes, or oil paints, I would not quit painting; quite simply I would find a replacement for either.

We can circle like vultures over every announcement or news item, or we can simply continue using what is available until it is no longer available, then move to a replacement. I understand the anxiety of some who are fixated on one film, or one paper, but I am not that type of photographer.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

r-s · Jan 17, 2007

Bob F. said:
I have no intention of giving the NY Times my email address

Are you familiar with the bugmenot.com service?

r-s · Jan 17, 2007

gr82bart said:
Ummm ... they're just selling their Health Imaging Business. Sure, it's one fifth of their total business, right now, but I don't see what the issue is. Seriously, how many of you guys are using x-ray film?

I wonder what if any implications there are for "economes of scale" issues.

Seems like that product line might account for an awful lot of volume purchases for things like silver, gelatin, various support materials, packaging raw materials, and numerous chems used in film manufacture and processing chemistry.

Does the sudden loss of that apparent purchasing power mean that the cost of other "unrelated" traditional photographic materials will rise, due to the cost of production rising, itself in turn due to the raw materials being purchased in smaller quantities?

This is total "question material", but I'd like to know the answers!

r-s · Jan 17, 2007

DBP said:
One of the things that struck me last time I had an MRI (2-3 years ago) was that the image was stored on film. Given that MRIs have always been a digital capture technique, the choice of recording medium would imply that this portion of the market has a significant future. The last CAT scan I had was also recorded on film, but that was some years earlier.

I've noticed the same thing, on quite a few occasions.

Film may be "old" technology, but that doesn't mean it's not a very "sexy" technology. (Sex is even older than film, after all.)

Film is a very elegant solution for countless problems. Digital, for all its hype, is still a force-fit for may things. ("Look, see? I told you we could make this work with digital! Quick, get that new kid in here, have him write up a press release and get it on the wire ASAP! This is progress, man, progress! It's INNOVATIVE!")

DBP said:
As for the 65 year old dentist, mine is only in his late 40s, and still uses film. Frankly, I dread the day someone tries to replace the bite wings with a digital sensor, because I can't imagine how one could fit more easily into my mouth than the film version, which is uncomfortable enough.

Oh, no problem there, Kimosabe. You won't have to put that digital sensor in your mouth. It'll go outside, where it won't even be an issue. (They'll simply put the X-ray tube inside your mouth, and then everything will work like a charm!

Bob F. · Jan 17, 2007

r-s said:
Are you familiar with the bugmenot.com service?

Thanks for the thought: I use spamgormet when I need to ( ) but why bother... They only want your email address so they can spam you and most people will enter a real email address rather than a fake one. No point bothering with them when I can get a selection of reports by using google news.

Cheers, Bob.

r-s · Jan 17, 2007

Bob F. said:
Thanks for the thought: I use spamgormet when I need to ( ) but why bother... They only want your email address so they can spam you and most people will enter a real email address rather than a fake one. No point bothering with them when I can get a selection of reports by using google news.

Cheers, Bob.

Well, not everything is readily available via Google's news aggregator, and, increasingly, those that are linked will demand registration anyway.

So, I use BugMeNot. In particular, I dragged their "Bookmarklet" to my Links bar, so that when I find myself on a site that nags for me to hand over the goods before it'll let me read the article, I click the BugMeNot button, and up pops a box with several ID/PW sets to try on that particular site (whichever one I'm on when I click the BugMeNot button).

More times than not -- by a wide margin -- BugMeNot's offering works just fine.

I cannot recommend it highly enough. It's a fantastic service in an increasinly "bugged" Internet. (And Google's no saint either, tracking, logging, and storing forever our every step! I had to go through hell and a half finding, re-installing, and locking down their "old" Ver. 3 toolbar to prevent it from "upgrading" to a monstrosity of a Ver. 4 nightmare, which was not only irritatingly invasive, but, had the worst UI that I've ever seen.)

But, we digress. At the very least, take a look at BugMeNot, and see if it's something you'll like. (You will, of course but you won't realize that until you see exactly what it is, and how it works)

PS: They don't want your email address so much to spam you, as to profile you. I detest spam, but I find profiling to be even more insidious.

If you care at all about your privacy, you will do whatever you can to avoid being profiled, "e-pended", and otherwise "owned" by third parties, and, with the laws being passed these days -- and the "rules" made of whole cloth in the absence of laws -- your "profiles" will end up in govermnent databases. It's happening as we speak.

And for the "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" crowd, um, may I look up your skirt? Or better yet, at your credit card statement?

I'm not doing anything wrong -- yet, for some odd reason, I dislike the idea of ANYONE following me around with his nose planted up my tailpipe, taking notes as he follows me around. Go figure.

(It used to be that privacy meant something -- and, the desire to maintain one's privacy was considered a normal trait, not "suspicion of subversive intent"!)

Roger Hicks · Jan 17, 2007

r-s said:
If you care at all about your privacy, you will do whatever you can to avoid being profiled, "e-pended", and otherwise "owned" by third parties, and, with the laws being passed these days -- and the "rules" made of whole cloth in the absence of laws -- your "profiles" will end up in govermnent databases. It's happening as we speak.

And for the "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" crowd, um, may I look up your skirt? Or better yet, at your credit card statement?

I'm not doing anything wrong -- yet, for some odd reason, I dislike the idea of ANYONE following me around with his nose planted up my tailpipe, taking notes as he follows me around. Go figure.

(It used to be that privacy meant something -- and, the desire to maintain one's privacy was considered a normal trait, not "suspicion of subversive intent"!)

Elegantly phrased!

Cheers,

R.

Antje · Jan 17, 2007

gr82bart said:
My dentist uses digital and it's just as uncomfortable.

Regards, Art.

Agreed. Although, when it's done right, the dose should be far less (ie the radiation you acquire). That is a benefit.

Antje

haris · Jan 17, 2007

r-s said:
If you care at all about your privacy, you will do whatever you can to avoid being profiled, "e-pended", and otherwise "owned" by third parties, and, with the laws being passed these days -- and the "rules" made of whole cloth in the absence of laws -- your "profiles" will end up in govermnent databases. It's happening as we speak.

And for the "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" crowd, um, may I look up your skirt? Or better yet, at your credit card statement?

I'm not doing anything wrong -- yet, for some odd reason, I dislike the idea of ANYONE following me around with his nose planted up my tailpipe, taking notes as he follows me around. Go figure.

(It used to be that privacy meant something -- and, the desire to maintain one's privacy was considered a normal trait, not "suspicion of subversive intent"!)

That is why companies are so aggresive in promoting digital in first place. Bigger options to control and invading privacy that is. I mean digital in general, not only in photography.

User Removed · Jan 17, 2007

Somewhat related story...

While I was at the dentist a few weeks ago, I had to get some Xrays done of my teeth. The dentist office was using new digital Xrays to take the images so they would appear on a computer screen right in front of me when taken.

I actually though this was a pretty great idea and was interested in the process.

However, right after taking the last Xray, the dentist went over to the computer, only to find the mouse was frozen and he could not do anything on the computer! He had to hit the POWER button the on computer, causing all my Xrays that were just taken to be lost, so they had to be redone.

Lesson learned-

Film never freezes up, crashes and randomly desides to erase itself!

Antje · Jan 17, 2007

Ryan McIntosh said:
Somewhat related story...
However, right after taking the last Xray, the dentist went over to the computer, only to find the mouse was frozen and he could not do anything on the computer! He had to hit the POWER button the on computer, causing all my Xrays that were just taken to be lost, so they had to be redone.

Lesson learned-

Film never freezes up, crashes and randomly desides to erase itself!

Woah, what a screw-up... Working in the medical industry, I'd say this is a major case of incredibly bad workflow. He should have learned to save the images to a special archiving system before doing anything with it. This is done automatically, usually.

That said, I'd rather have another low-dose x-ray because someone lost my digital images than get another three high dose x-rays because the first two were underexposed and the third was underdeveloped. Happened to me, back in the dark ages... For one film x-ray back then, I could now have over 100 digital ones and acquire the same amount of radiation.

From a radiation point of view, digital is a breakthrough in medical imaging. As much as I like film, this is a matter of health, and here, digital imaging simply enables things that have not been there before. Like high-resolution heart exams during in a cath lab. Or x-raying pregnant women. Or like reducing the radiation exposure of medical personnel significantly. Or having the patient's scans in the exam room immediately, even if his last x-ray was two years ago, without having to send someone down into the cellar to retrieve the film out of a box with a barely legible hand-written label on it.

I still know people who were involved in the development of sheet film changers for angiography. When doing an exam in a catheter lab (like imaging the heart coronary arteries), sheet film was used and dozens of sheets had to be changed quickly to produce something like a movie afterwards. Now you can see the arteries during the treatment live... and the physician knows exactly what he pokes that catheter into.

Let's enjoy film for art, but let medical go digital... I won't shed a tear.

Antje

Curt · Jan 17, 2007

Long live the Schonander!

Antje · Jan 17, 2007

Curt said:
Long live the Schonander!

Ah, I see you are a connoisseur!

Antje

Daniel_OB · Jan 17, 2007

Kodak became very funny company. They just do not know what they are doing. I hope soon they will stop to fly wings up-side-down.

www.Leica-R.com

Curt · Jan 17, 2007

Digital Radiography and image archiving systems are a major advance in healthcare. But it is a kick in the groin when the server goes down. Still, it always comes back up, and no idiot resident can cart off important and irreplaceable films in his trunk anymore.

I was once treating a patient in Radiation Therapy when everything came to a stop because the beam films were missing. Later we learned that one of the residents had the films in the trunk of his car. The joys of working in teaching hospitals.

Kobin · Jan 17, 2007

Gees, Curt, losing port films! Now that's scary. I bet the dosimetrist was going nuts.

K.

Curt · Jan 17, 2007

Not as mad as the Attending who reamed the resident a new a** hole for causing the patient a delay in treatment.

One of my saddest experiences with a resident was one who was cursing about a patient who was late for treatment. He finally ordered a call to the floor to find out why the patient was late. The secretary came out and said the patient has just died. Or the five year old girl who died from a brain tumor. I have a careers worth of these experiences. It makes disturbing news from Kodak a lot less important in the scheme of things.

Disturbing news?

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency