• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

It's official, Kodak is selling its film business.

Steve Smith said:
My dentist uses X ray film and has no intention of changing to digital. There's no point when what you have already works fine.


Steve.
Click to expand...

That's great for cheap dentists like yours, but for patients, that's bad news. Digital X-ray images are manipulated in all kinds of ways by software that dramatically increase the diagnostic value that they provide. Overlays, expansions, rotations, image adjustments, the sky is the limit with today's computer hardware.

I would not step foot in any doctor or dentist office that didnt use the most modern technology to care for their patients. Hell, we pay enough for it.
 
Our local hospital has been retrofitted with digital x-ray, why do you think other locations aren't doing the same?
 
RattyMouse said:
That's great for cheap dentists like yours, but for patients, that's bad news.
Click to expand...

If it shows the dentist all he or she needs to see then it's not a problem.


Steve.
 
bwfans said:
When APUGgers unite and buy up all the Kodak film and put it in the freezers, do they become the biggest hoarder group on the planet for the Kodak film?

We are not beating hoarders, instead we are becoming hoarders ourselves .
Click to expand...

darn right! I just bought another 100 feet of arista 400 from freestyle -- that's tri-x, you know. Now have about 500 feet of that plus an equal amount of 100.

And everyone SHOULD buy an extra 100 feet of some Ilford film right now to give that company a boost.

then throw that roll away so you have to buy more immediately as well. Maybe we should all just send $20 to Harmon and be done with it?
 
Steve Smith said:
If it shows the dentist all he or she needs to see then it's not a problem.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

It is simply about reaching the needed threshold for the job at hand.

One of the biggest problems of many systems for me, is that there is too many ways to manipulate data and more detail than necessary becomes required input. I'm not being specific to photography but the logic applies there too.
 

Exactly. Watched the documentary "Side by Side", by Keanu Reeves, last night. Highly recommended for anyone to understand where film really stands. If Kodak will start bailing out on cine and/or deliver questionable product, or supply becomes an issue because of their current ordeal, the demise will accelerate beyond recovery.
 
The only way I can see good coming out of Kodak's attempted sale is if some sort of angel investor or group buys it up, and also hires all the current film/paper group staff, to keep continuity. Then funds it with plenty of $ for R&D and marketeering/advertising, to bring the image of Kodak films back in the public eye. Something along the lines of the Impossible Project (only with much better actual products to sell, e.g. current-quality Kodak stuff. And with way more funding.) I doubt any of the current players (Ilford, Fuji) would be interested, for reasons already mentioned.

The value of the film/paper business is in the existing coating lines, and the people who run them. Despite what people may think, the 'brand', and the names of products (tri-x, et. al) are worth a whole lot less than the ability to actually continue producing the product. I could give a rat's ass what it's called, but as long as the quality of the product is the same, that's what matters. There's plenty of examples of empty-shell "brands" that were once great: RCA, polaroid, etc. - having the name doesn't mean squat really, when the products are crap.

So here's hoping that if it sells, it sells to someone who knows what they are doing enough to not screw it up, hire the right people, and keep the existing products in place at the same level of quality. That's a lot to ask, esp. considering the asshats currently running Kodak (perez, etc), but hopefully it comes to pass. In the meantime, I've already started stocking up. I figure sheet film will be the first to go if supplies get interrupted or cut. There's nothing like Ektar or Portra out there, and it would be a crying shame if those disappear.
 
Steve Smith said:
If it shows the dentist all he or she needs to see then it's not a problem.


Steve.
Click to expand...

And if it doesnt? Then what? Run out and buy a digital X ray machine? There's a reason why X Ray film is dying and it is because the alternative offers vastly more powerful diagnostic ability.
 
What is the sale price and how does that compare to the liabilities as a result of past activity (e.g. pensions, environmental, buildings dilapidations etc) and potential future liabilities if production continues as is, at the same locations - that is going to be an important question for any buyer in addition to what future film demand holds.

Putting emotions aside I wouldn't go near it unless you could buy without the existing liabilities, which is difficult as many of the environmental liabilities for example are tied in with the current factories and ongoing production. With cinema duplication decreasing each year, in five to ten years time you run the risk of being a much smaller company unable to sustain the current overheads or honour the liabilities unless you can buy it without those at the start.

From what I can see as a mere observer, the Ilford Management buyout appears to have been a success, but it must be remembered that compared to Kodak's film side it is/was a much leaner company with a cost base now well matching its current c£24m (2011) annual turnover. I can't see that sort of success being emulated easily by the buyers of Kodak's film business unless there is some dramatic downsizing or cherry picking of lines/production resource by a buyer to better match costs with realistic long run demand and turnover.
 

In medicine you dont know what the threshold is. That's the problem and why it is utterly foolish to rely on film X-rays. Disease is not predictable in many cases and new technology is needed to succeed in many cases. A former coworker of mine is alive today because of a single drug that came on the market just 6 months before she contracted a fatal form of cancer. There are people alive today because X-ray imaging is vastly better than it was during the film era.
 
Last year I switched dentist. My former dentist - a very good one but not near where I live - used a traditional X-Ray machine. He developed the tiny film in a machine which he had in the studio itself. He inserted his hands in some sort of light-tight bellow and made the "baths" in there. In less than 5 minutes, IIRC, the X-ray was ready for the light board. He didn't have an orthopanoramic X-Ray machine, just the normal one which can take pictures of 1, or 2, maybe 3 teeth. The entire process was I'd say very fast and practical.

My present dentist - near where I live, I walk to its practice - is a technology geek. He's got a digital X-Ray and he's got a laser drill as well (that's impressive. Star Wars on your molar). When I asked him why did he install a digital X-Ray machine IIRC he answered digital was faster and more practical and maybe he added digital requires a lesser dose of X-ray.

In hospital practice I suppose digital X-ray is practical because the patient file is now mainly digital. A digital X-ray "matches" with a digital TAC or a digital echography and all the other information. Saves cabinet space and makes all patient file more transmissible. I presume they can also be faked easily in case of judiciary enquiry
 
That's another good point. Lower doses of radiation. That alone is enough for me to avoid traditional X-rays.
 
A friend of mine is studying radiology; they're taught the analogue way and do everything with traditional x-ray film. We don't live in a developing country either.
 

My dentist converted to digital Xray... and he diagnosed a cracked tooth that he wouldn't have been able to with film due to the cool software manipulations. What's more, he could email the digital images (xray and intraoral digital pictures) to the insurance compnay for approval... making it possible to fix the problem before it got to a bigger problem. So what is the "needed threshold"? I totally agree, though, that sometimes the obvious threshold is exceeded just because it can be done. This is not the case with digital dentistry in my opinion, though. Digital dentistry seems to increase the quality of health care.
 
Diapositivo said:
In hospital practice I suppose digital X-ray is practical because the patient file is now mainly digital.
Click to expand...

When I have my teeth photographed by traditional X-ray, the dental nurse processes the film and has it scanned in a matter of minutes. I get to see it on the computer screen whilst still sitting in the chair. And they get to save it in a digital file with all of my other data.

BrianShaw said:
What's more, he could email the digital images (xray and intraoral digital pictures) to the insurance compnay for approval.
Click to expand...

Luckilly, we don't have to bother with that nonsense!

And I must post a link to this from The Simpsons before someone else does: http://deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/thebigbookofbritishsmiles_thumb.png?w=582


Steve.
 
... so can they do software "enhancements" to that scanned image?
 

There are people alive because of the advances in X-rays due to it going digital. You can be against progress all you want, but the time may come when you will quickly backpedal and demand a digital image so that your doctor has the best information available.
 
The digital X-ray, MRI and CT's are often printed onto traditional X-ray etc films for archival reasons. The workflow is often digital pictures > view on screen and enhancement > optical printer onto analogue film. A small dentist can't always afford this workflow big Hospitals, aircraft manufacturers etc... can and do.

Dominik
 

My experience is the digital 'enhancements' produce more artifact and false-positive findings.
Conclusion from the following paper: "Observer enhanced Sidexis [digital dental] images exhibited a statistically significant lower diagnostic accuracy than the film images."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16296430
 

2005??? Why not find something more recent? Or has digital gotten better?
 

My dentist, who likes and embraces new technology, complains that the new digital X-ray pictures are more difficult to read.
There is no question, however, that once the initial investment in equipment is done, running costs are lower, and profit is higher.
 
amsp said:
So why is Kodak Professional on Facebook saying the opposite?

"Kodak Professional: Yes, the full still film line, including PORTRA, EKTAR and TRI-X falls within the Personal Imaging Business."

https://www.facebook.com/kodakprofessional
Click to expand...

I tried to post last night and hopefully it gets cleared - so I'm sorry for the lag. I'm Colleen Krenzer and I work with the PR agency for Kodak's film and paper business and will try to answer questions people have as this process moves forward. All the still photography films are part of the sale. When Kodak says commercial films, it means films that are used in things like aerial, industrial and printed circuit boards.

That said, manufacturing on all products continues, including those ones included in the proposed sale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register