Kodak's new film scanner...good move?

[jtk]

Which Kennedy book is that?

Apology, but please...which Kennedy book is that?

 

[jtk]

fwiw Photrio should have a Forum that addresses the ways in which books are printed.

My impression is that many would benefit by that.

 

[jtk]

Apology, but please...which Kennedy book is that?

I think virtually all of the "Kennedy books" were either collections of press photos or photos by DHK Kennedy, the President's personal photographer.

In any case, destruction of everything via 9/11 would have had no impact on book publication since the film that produced the plates, or the digital info that produced the plates, was not what was struck by terrorists...remained under control of the photographers.

 

[jtk]

Back to the OT... I think "Kodak", whoever that is, has introduced a potential game-changer in that new device.

With it there's almost no reason to work directly with labs and no reason for "Kodak" to pretend to make prints out of "it's own" lab in the frigid NW.

 

[MattKing]

Back to the OT... I think "Kodak", whoever that is, has introduced a potential game-changer in that new device.

With it there's almost no reason to work directly with labs and no reason for "Kodak" to pretend to make prints out of "it's own" lab in the frigid NW.

I'm afraid that "new" device isn't new at all. It is just the latest version of the sort of device that has been around for years. The quality (and qualities) of the output is/are exceedingly poor/mediocre. And they are fairly slow.
And Kodak hasn't operated any labs for decades - certainly since long before the bankruptcy.

 

[jtk]

Matt, interesting to read your review of Kodak's new device. Surely that was based on your personal esperience or something you read somewhere. "Output" of this sort of device is intended for exactly the kind of folks I mentioned, the people with boxes full of old negs and slides etc. Surely our friends on Photrio don't have boxes of unprinted slides/negs etc...

And surely nobody here imagines the decisionmakers at Kodak really live in Rochester.

Kodak Photo Printer: Best Instant Cameras & Photo Printers

Get your hands on the best instant cameras and photo printers by Kodak. Our high-quality photo printers use 4PASS printing technology to wow you. Shop quality, shop Kodak photo printers! Print and share those best moments with your family and friends. Kodak photo printers offer the lowest photo...

shop.kodakphotoprinter.com

 

[MattKing]

This line from the link describes the only connection between Eastman Kodak and the products listed:
"The Kodak Trademark logo and trade dress are used under license from Kodak".
That "review" is based on my direct and indirect experience with the raft of similar products that are out there - and have been out there for years. They are fine for what they are - a replacement for taking your slides and negatives to a moderate priced local source, and getting the same or similar mediocre results from them.
I'm not saying that the device referenced here doesn't do a job - I'm saying that it is in no way a new sort of device, or provides anything different than the many other mediocre but usable (in a certain narrow set of circumstances) products that have been on the market for years. The only thing "new" is that this is the first such example of these that I've seen that have bothered to incur the expense of buying the license for use of the "Kodak" name.

 

[jtk]

This line from the link describes the only connection between Eastman Kodak and the products listed:
"The Kodak Trademark logo and trade dress are used under license from Kodak".
That "review" is based on my direct and indirect experience with the raft of similar products that are out there - and have been out there for years. They are fine for what they are - a replacement for taking your slides and negatives to a moderate priced local source, and getting the same or similar mediocre results from them.
I'm not saying that the device referenced here doesn't do a job - I'm saying that it is in no way a new sort of device, or provides anything different than the many other mediocre but usable (in a certain narrow set of circumstances) products that have been on the market for years. The only thing "new" is that this is the first such example of these that I've seen that have bothered to incur the expense of buying the license for use of the "Kodak" name.

That's an incredibly wordy way of agreeing with me, while also pretending that your granmother's Kodak still exists, other than NAME ONLY.

Local stores that scan properly are almost non-existent. They went away.

What you're "saying" and "not saying" is that you are incapable of evaluating the product you've tried to condemn, while pretending it doesn't actually exist. That's the zone system from a non-existent galaxy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Should we use this new product or let it slide?

 

[MattKing]

I think jtk must have a really young grandmother - for someone who is 78.

 

[jtk]

Grace Stivers Heiduska was the youngest of her 3 sisters, daughters of California pioneers.

I have photos of them and theirs, originals from several San Francisco bay area studios.



They supported my mother's enthusiasm for photography, bought her the ultimate camera for the era:

 

[jtk]

That was back when "Kodak" meant Eastman Kodak, which actually made photographic stuff.

I have printed some of my mother's negatives, prize winners just before WWII. She did her own processing printing, too much pride and too tight with money to leave that to "camera stores". She read Minicam magazine. Her last camera was plastic junk, a Canon AE.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Grace Stivers Heiduska was the youngest of her 3 sisters, daughters of California pioneers.

I have photos of them and theirs, originals from several San Francisco bay area studios.



They supported my mother's enthusiasm for photography, bought her the ultimate camera for the era: View attachment 321393

That was back when "Kodak" meant Eastman Kodak, which actually made photographic stuff.

I have printed some of my mother's negatives, prize winners just before WWII. She did her own processing printing, too much pride and too tight with money to leave that to "camera stores". She read Minicam magazine. Her last camera was plastic junk, a Canon AE.

Thanks for sharing some of the story about your mother's photography.

I think it would make an interesting thread: "Show your parents most interesting camera and one or two of their most interesting photographs (not of you)." However, many members don't see any value in sharing photos here, so maybe it is not such a good idea after all(?)

 

[jtk]

Thanks for sharing some of the story about your mother's photography.

I think it would make an interesting thread: "Show your parents most interesting camera and one or two of their most interesting photographs (not of you)." However, many members don't see any value in sharing photos here, so maybe it is not such a good idea after all(?.

Sharing photos online can be rewarding, but it's best when done in context of a print exchange.

I have hundreds of fine letter-size B&W prints, each in archival sleeves, complete with their photographer commentaries, and every one appeared online until Yahoo decided to vaporize its B&W Print "group " (along with hundreds of other worthwhile Yahoo Groups) It was wonderful to see a dozen years of those great B&W photographer/printers, read what they had to say, and physically hold each print.

Flickr and other entirely digital entities have a bad influences on photography.

 

[MattKing]

Sharing photos online can be rewarding, but it's best when done in context of a print exchange.

I have hundreds of fine letter-size B&W prints, each in archival sleeves, complete with their photographer commentaries, and every one appeared online until Yahoo decided to vaporize its B&W Print "group " (along with hundreds of other worthwhile Yahoo Groups) It was wonderful to see a dozen years of those great B&W photographer/printers, read what they had to say, and physically hold each print.

Flickr and other entirely digital entities have a bad influences on photography.

I agree with the first two paragraphs.
I'm not in agreement with the third paragraph, but would be comfortable with "Flickr and other entirely digital entities have had both good and bad effects on photography.