Kodak Files for Bankruptcy Protection 1/18/2012

GraemeMitchell · Feb 11, 2012

Rudeofus said:
Graeme, Kodak went into the digital field and failed miserably. There is a big difference between expertise in chemistry and optics vs. experience in electronics and software (just watch a bunch of software engineers goof around with photo chemistry in the b&w forum here), and Kodak completely and utterly failed in this transition. PE has already elaborated somewhere in this thread on the difficulties Kodak encountered in the software field.

I actually thought the argument against my thought would be the cost in the raw talent in the people to overlook it, since to be done well it'd have to be a balance of tech (the scan and then asset management), in film and chem (easy), and in what's on trend. That last part is the trick I'd figure, keeping it relevant w/ the look.

But I figured maybe today it'd be easier to get a good automated scanner to make more of a color and black and white neg - especially if you knew you were scanning only your emulsions. Something you need a person w/ some skill to run, but still fast and something buffer than your average machine scan from the local mart. There are pro labs that have worked in that direction. Millers is one I think, no? To me it'd a matter of vision and execution then, not the actual resources in tech + hardware. But, I admit that I could be deep left field on this stuff - I've never run a lab - but I use them.

Anyway, it's crazy what a $300 point and shoot can do but how poor scans generally look from film $20000 machines...and yes, I guess that's mostly software, but I thought by now this stuff isn't black magic...getting it so highlights don't clip. Anyway, I just sold a nikon 9000 film scanner for a great deal more than they ever retailed for, Imacons cost %25 more used now than they did 4 years ago, and somehow that tells me there's a need out there for something to do w/ this stuff and people are spending money.

So, back to the idea of the problem that film is really good at an incredible end product, but that chain to the end product broke and a lot of people have almost no idea anymore how good it is. To do it well, as most know here, it has to be controlled from start to finish.

I'd set up free overnight shipping (if shoe retailers can do it, then it can be done w/ a roll of film), have a c-41 dip and dunk line running, have two black and white lines running, one w/ xtol for something clean w/ your tmax, one w/ dektol or something gritty for the Helmut Newton look w/ your tri-x, a cross processing machine. Set up the scanners. Upload and/or print within 48hrs.

Probably not anything scalable to a size that a company of this size would be interested in. But just ideas.

Doesn't Ilford do this in the UK w/ BW?

michaelbsc · Feb 11, 2012

MDR said:
......This thread shows pretty well why Kodak failed in the digi market lack of customers trust in the companies, superior, to a lot of other companies products....

Reminds me of an interview with Lee Iacoca after Chrysler started getting back on its feet while he was at the helm.

They were in partnership with Mitsubishi for a particular model and he commented that Chrysler no longer had a quality problem. It now had an image problem. The same vehicles rolling off the same assembly line in the same plant made from the same parts were identical except for the badge on the grill. The Mitsubishi outsold the Chrysler 5 to 1. That wasn't a quality problem. That was a customer perception difference.

Kodak's got a lot of that same problem.

semi-ambivalent · Feb 11, 2012

michaelbsc said:
Reminds me of an interview with Lee Iacoca after Chrysler started getting back on its feet while he was at the helm.

They were in partnership with Mitsubishi for a particular model and he commented that Chrysler no longer had a quality problem. It now had an image problem. The same vehicles rolling off the same assembly line in the same plant made from the same parts were identical except for the badge on the grill. The Mitsubishi outsold the Chrysler 5 to 1. That wasn't a quality problem. That was a customer perception difference.

Kodak's got a lot of that same problem.

Can it be said Kodak has high cred in technologies (film) nobody cares about and low cred in technologies people think Kodak needs to survive? What if Kodak got out of the electronic manufacturing business and concentrated on producing patents, like IBM? Could they become a Xerox-PARC or a Skunkworks? I imagine they have an enormous amount of intellectual horsepower there, unless it's retired or has moved on or been terminated.

There's bills to pay certainly, but a lot of this is managing the Public's perceptions about just what it is they do up there in snowy Rochester these days. I recently watched a video ("Does Leica still make MP and M7?") about the assembly of Leicas. At about 1:06 one of the employees mentions how he starts with the (seemingly substantial) sub-assembly from Portugal. Wait. Portugal? Leica sells Heritage, and German precision, and German performance. It does not sell Portugal.

Manage those perceptions, like my son's laptop: "Designed by Apple in California. Made in China"

s-a

Rudeofus · Feb 11, 2012

To all these suggesting that Kodak should have taken all their smart folks and ventured into a new field: there was a Dilbert strip about this a few days ago which fits the Kodak situation quite well.

Brian C. Miller · Feb 13, 2012

semi-ambivalent said:
What if Kodak got out of the electronic manufacturing business and concentrated on producing patents, like IBM? Could they become a Xerox-PARC or a Skunkworks?

IBM produces hardware. As in, manufactures. When Apple went with Intel processors, it was because they wanted something different from IBM, and IBM told them, "You are less than 1% of our sales. Get stuffed." So Apple switched, and instantly became the #1 consumer of Intel chips. Now, what does that say about the volume of IBM's sales, where they can tell off Apple?

The problem with patents is that they have to be enforced. And the courts don't always agree with the plaintiff. The court may simply rule that the patent hasn't been infringed.

Why isn't Kodak known for film scanners? From what I see, they just never bothered. Their record with anything but manufacturing film as been spotty. Good in one place, bad in another, and very often good products with poor supporting software. At least film's decline is slowing.

kb3lms · Feb 13, 2012

Why isn't Kodak known for film scanners? From what I see, they just never bothered.

100% correct. They have or had the technical expertise. Much of the imaging technology was invented or at least developed at Kodak. Their failures in bringing their technology to market is 100% mis-management and mis-marketing. The people at Kodak could accomplish incredible things but the management, well, you all see where that's gotten them.

Photo Engineer · Feb 13, 2012

We never ever made a scanner. Internally, we used KS Paul drum scanners. I can't even find a reference to them today. We scanned negatives for a wile with an internally developed scanner which was very very slow.

However, the laser printer is a high end scanner when you think about it.

PE

kb3lms · Feb 13, 2012

I thought film scanners were made by Kodak, but if they weren't they certainly could have been. But, really, I wasn't thinking about scanners specifically, I was more thinking about the "never bothered" part in general. Personally, I worked in digital imaging technologies for diagnostic imaging and I know quite in depth about the scanner and printer technology that we developed and designed. But our high-level managment always got stuck on the "doesn't sell more film" thing. Eventually, EK just bought out a company that had a so-so product that did what many people at EK had already long before figured out how to do, and do very well, when they were way too late to market because the marketing types could not decide what to sell because of the "it's not film" issue. It was a real shame because the technology had been 100% invented at KRL and was quite successfully commercialized by our largest competitor.

GraemeMitchell · Feb 13, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
We never ever made a scanner. Internally, we used KS Paul drum scanners. I can't even find a reference to them today. We scanned negatives for a wile with an internally developed scanner which was very very slow.

However, the laser printer is a high end scanner when you think about it.

PE

Not to disagree, but didn't they do the Kodak HR-500? It was sort of a precursor to the durst sigma 67 a lot of pro labs use now..

lonepeak · Feb 13, 2012

At the Sundance Film Festival, Kodak still sponsored a party a week after filing the bankruptcy. One could assume that they will continue to manufacturer motion picture film and hopefully others as well.

Photo Engineer · Feb 13, 2012

GraemeMitchell said:
Not to disagree, but didn't they do the Kodak HR-500? It was sort of a precursor to the durst sigma 67 a lot of pro labs use now..

Well, as an addendum to my post above, Kodak did make a small print scanner that took standard color or B&W prints and scanned them. It was a closed unit with a roller transport and was about 4 x 5 x 3 inches in size. It connected to a parallel port. I guess it sold for about a year due to its rather specific target and inflexibility. I have one, and it did a good job for its intended limited target.

I don't remember the number on this product, as it is tucked away somewhere.

PE

MattKing · Feb 13, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
We never ever made a scanner.

PE

Sorry PE - the Kodak HR 500 Scanner:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/professional/products/ekn026230.jhtml?pq-path=13744

Although, strictly speaking, I don't know whether or not this might be a re-badged product manufactured by someone else.

There apparently were a number of other models as well: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/professional/nav/scanners.jhtml?pq-path=13700/13702

Photo Engineer · Feb 13, 2012

Thanks Matt. I got that wrong, as the scanners that I searched for were not professional grade. These things are old in terms of hardware and software.

Sorry I missed these.

PE

GraemeMitchell · Feb 13, 2012

An updated prosumer HR-500 placed around $5k would very interesting for a lot of people I think.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 13, 2012

How about a scanner that makes a digital file of a negative or chrome, with enough resolution and dynamic range to make decent sized work?

I loathe scanning frames with my Epson to proof. It sucks donkey balls, but if I had something really fast, it would be completely different.

Photo Engineer · Feb 13, 2012

I have scanned 35mm negatives with my Epson and enlarged them to 13x19 with my Canon printer.

PE

ME Super · Feb 13, 2012

I've also scanned 35mm with my Epson and got decent 8x10. Not as big as PE's print, but good enough for what I wanted it for. Then uploaded to the lab for lightjet printing.

ME Super

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 13, 2012

It's not the size, it's the speed I'm looking for.
My Epson V700 takes at least Two minutes to scan something good enough for an 8.5"x11". I would like something with a glass carrier that holds the film flat, and makes a scan good enough for 5x7 proofs in seconds. How about three seconds, to raise the bar a little? Now that would be sweet!

Photo Engineer · Feb 13, 2012

My Epsone 4870 will scan a 4x5 at 1200 dpi in under 1 minute. It creates a file of about 24 mb. The fidelity and detail are incredible. A 35mm at the same resolution can take less than 30 seconds. It takes longer to warm up than it does to scan.

If I turn on Digital Ice, it can take 5 - 10 mins, so since I can generally spot a negative faster, I have DI off.

PE

Aristophanes · Feb 13, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
It's not the size, it's the speed I'm looking for.
My Epson V700 takes at least Two minutes to scan something good enough for an 8.5"x11". I would like something with a glass carrier that holds the film flat, and makes a scan good enough for 5x7 proofs in seconds. How about three seconds, to raise the bar a little? Now that would be sweet!

Using the newer CMOS sensors with the Bayer filter removed (like the D800E) a digital photo of the negative in an automated process is entirely possible provided the optics and the lighting are consistent.

You'll get a RAW file of the negative, and pretty high resolution and DMAX as well (not as good with B&W, but pretty much there for colour negs). This is pretty close to or better than what a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier can do, and may, in fact be faster and require less human operator oversight. If you're scanning into RAW in PS or Aperture or Lightroom, who cares? It's not for print (not yet). It's for still photo digital intermediation, while still preserving the analog flow to print if desiredjust a branch on the tree of possibilities.

This what dedicated film scanners should be/could be. This would reposition film as a medium nearer to the sharing prospects of digital and give the print and negative itself both archival presence and a more special place in the photographic process and context, especially if handcrafted in the darkroom.

Why Kodak has not gone down this path is a mystery. Kodak develops these branching tree technologies, then gets busy sawing them off to preserve print and film stock sales. It was Fuji with their scanner modules attached to their mini-labs that integrated the process for the consumer. Kodak actually saw that as a threat, but they were nevertheless busy designing MP film for digital intermediate and doing the reverse with their film recorders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_recorder

And their film scanners:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_picture_film_scanner

I mean, some of these systems are scanning at 8 frames/second with Director's Cut fidelity once the colour is matched; considering the film is shot at 24fps and colour matching for still photos can be done later on the home computer.

It really is a tragedy. The more I read about Kodak's missed opportunities and vision problem, the more Scotch I want to drink.

michaelbsc · Feb 13, 2012

Aristophanes said:
...The more I read about Kodak's missed opportunities and vision problem, the more Scotch I want to drink.

It won't help. You'll wake up tomorrow and it will all be the same. Save your money and your aching head. Just have one or two and let it go.

I made a statement about Kodak in some thread around here some time ago that got dredged up many months later. This is America; there's nothing illegal about being stupid.

MB

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 13, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
My Epsone 4870 will scan a 4x5 at 1200 dpi in under 1 minute. It creates a file of about 24 mb. The fidelity and detail are incredible. A 35mm at the same resolution can take less than 30 seconds. It takes longer to warm up than it does to scan.

If I turn on Digital Ice, it can take 5 - 10 mins, so since I can generally spot a negative faster, I have DI off.

PE

Ok. So now turn this into a project where you want to proof 20 rolls of 36exp film from vacation. Assuming I take no breaks, I'd spend 3-4 days in front of the screen just proofing (35mm is a lot slower to obtain a decent file).
If I had a scanner that does a frame in three seconds, I'd spend a few minutes per roll. The difference is astronomical.

I try so hard to find time for photography. Working full time, being a full time student, etc I just don't have time after all 80 hours of my week are accounted for. So, why not raise the bar? 3 seconds for a quality scan. That even makes it viable to shoot a lot of film.

keithwms · Feb 13, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I try so hard to find time for photography. Working full time, being a full time student, etc I just don't have time after all 80 hours of my week are accounted for. So, why not raise the bar? 3 seconds for a quality scan. That even makes it viable to shoot a lot of film.

At risk of sounding like a and old pedantic grandfather, I think the thing to do is to become more selective at the outset. You're a great photographer; believe in that. Know that you don't need more than one or two shots to generate a great image. You will easily be able to cut back on quantity without sacrificing quality. Some people can't do that. You can, for sure.

Photo Engineer · Feb 13, 2012

Thomas;

This is not the venue for this, but maybe we can continue via PM. Basically, my scanner has the provision to scan an entire roll of 35mm film in one pass of about 1 minute at high resolution. I scan that roll and then use the "proof" software that came with my Canon i9900 printer and I can make full sheet proofs or multi sheet proofs. The printer is the slowest step and only under some conditions.

OMG, maybe I should be teaching a hybrid workflow course instead of an Azo paper or Kodabromide paper course!

PE

cmacd123 · Feb 13, 2012

Of course Business Imaging or whatever they call it this week has/had Document Scanners also
http://graphics.kodak.com/DocImaging/US/en/Products/Document_Scanners/index.htm

So Kodak would have been well aware of the technology reequired.

Did not some of the Kodak Minilabs not use the Scan and print method like the fuji fronter, or Noristsu, (or maybe they were Brand engineered Noritsu units.

Kodak Files for Bankruptcy Protection 1/18/2012

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency