Perez

[fotch]

None of the computers that I purchased in the 70's exist, so even if I had the $3000 each disc, they would not be useable. Yet, I have negatives that are much older, still make great prints from. To me, this trumps all arguments of which media is better, its which one will be around for the next generation to enjoy their family photos.

 

[railwayman3]

None of the computers that I purchased in the 70's exist, so even if I had the $3000 each disc, they would not be useable. Yet, I have negatives that are much older, still make great prints from. To me, this trumps all arguments of which media is better, its which one will be around for the next generation to enjoy their family photos.

As it happens, this morning I gave a friend a number of photos from a recent family occasion which he'd asked for (nothing special, just consumer C41 prints from disposable cameras provided for the guests to use)....he was expecting them on disc and was delighted to get a a pile of prints "Wow, real pictures! I'll get a proper book to put them in, must keep them safe!").

 

[semi-ambivalent]

None of the computers that I purchased in the 70's exist, so even if I had the $3000 each disc, they would not be useable. Yet, I have negatives that are much older, still make great prints from. To me, this trumps all arguments of which media is better, its which one will be around for the next generation to enjoy their family photos.

Of course, the digital folks often trot out the usual screed about how you just re-save your images to whatever the new media is, and that's all well and good, but one only needs to look at a 5.25" floppy to realize that Reality often departs from the script.

s-a

 

[Tom1956]

Nobody prints their pictures because they don't want to keep buying expensive toner cartridges. Therefor, unlike our generation, in 50 years nobody will be able to pull open their grandparents drawer at their estate liquidation, and see all those old pictures of them when they were young. Fact is, if you are taking pictures with digital cameras and not printing, then you DON'T HAVE any pictures.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Fact is, if you are taking pictures with digital cameras and not printing, then you DON'T HAVE any pictures.

That's the essence of virtualization in a nutshell. It's more convenient because there's none of those pesky real things to have to deal with...



Ken

 

[semi-ambivalent]

That's the essence of virtualization in a nutshell. It's more convenient because there's none of those pesky real things to have to deal with...



Ken

(Remembers Polaroids of Twister parties I hope never, ever re-surface...)

s-a

 

[Tom1956]

(Remembers Polaroids of Twister parties I hope never, ever re-surface...)

s-a

I still have my Swinger, and it still says YES. Just need to run down to the drugstore and buy some film.

 

[zsas]

Nobody prints their pictures because they don't want to keep buying expensive toner cartridges. Therefor, unlike our generation, in 50 years nobody will be able to pull open their grandparents drawer at their estate liquidation, and see all those old pictures of them when they were young. Fact is, if you are taking pictures with digital cameras and not printing, then you DON'T HAVE any pictures.

I take the dissent opinion here. I've seen many folks creating books using print on demand services ( ie Blurb, Apple, etc.) plus there is a large contingent of scrapbook types who upload their images to a site,
put the background trmplate in place and print- comes in the mail....

Folks print, just not the same way

Kodak missed this opportunity. Like PE says, they shoulda bought up Facebook, Instagram, etc., or better yet, set up a culture that would have created the next Facebook, Flickr, etc.....

That wasn't there "then", way before Perez too folks...

I found an article, will have to find it, but basically the writer said, Kodak should have spun off some segments to take the ball and run - say out in WA or Silicon Valley back in the day (70's/80's).....instead all that intel was kept at NY....and not capitalized on....

 

[Tom1956]

Should they have bought up Facebook at the 38.00 IPO, or the 26.00 it is now, or the 25 cents it will be worth when it finally becomes the new Myspace? Kodak would do better as a tobacco company.

 

[zsas]

If they had a culture that could have say acquired FB in the early 2000's or have created a FB/Instagram like environment....we'd be in a different boat....all this happened way before Perez...

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Kodak was involved in lots of things (maybe too many). See for example an article written last year by my friend Gary Pageau. ( http://theinfocircle.com/kodak-and-apple-the-irony-of-defeat/ )

Carl Gustin was the first person I ever heard mention 'Cloud' storage around 1994.

 

[zsas]

Agree Pix. They couldn't move that ingenuity to market fast enough! The "culture" prevented say spinning off X breakthrough to be its own company....they could have been a majority shareholder but let it live its own....

Kodak "should" have been all over Facebook/Instagram (like pre-Perez days)....but couldn't leverage that ingenuity with the lean-fast-bring-it-to-market culture that existed over the years at say Apple, etc.....I will have to find that post-hoc article that says they needed to divest their break throughs into spinnoffs....interesting article and food for thought....

 

[zsas]

Here's one article about not moving fast enough transform that I belive Perez was handed...


How Kodak's Leaders - And Others - Could Have Sensed Complacency
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2012/05/02/barriers-to-change-the-real-reason-behind-the-kodak-downfall/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/1322-1168-430

Sage advice in the above for all of us who work! Let it be an inspiration and lets hope Perez can capitalize on that spirit and move ahead....

 

[Photo Engineer]

Paper is dead, long live paper!

Analog is dead, long live analog!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/V_gOZDWQj3Q?rel=0

 

[MattKing]

Paper is dead, long live paper!

Analog is dead, long live analog!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/V_gOZDWQj3Q?rel=0

 

[Tom1956]

Loved it! Thanks PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thank a fellow Kodak Photo Engineer from the Ektachrome crew.

PE

 

[RattyMouse]

Paper is dead, long live paper!

Analog is dead, long live analog!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/V_gOZDWQj3Q?rel=0

Outstanding PE! Outstanding!

 

[wblynch]

I am probably the only one here who has met and talked to Perez one on one.

He is a charming, convincing person! ...

PE

Isn't that the definition of a CON MAN?

 

[mike c]

Thats a good one Photo Engineer!!

 

[kuparikettu]

[h=2]Perez sets departure timeline as Kodak CEO[/h]
http://www.rbj.net/article.asp?aID=197570

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

To his friends... His work is done... Why wait?



Ken

 

[omaha]

Coming late to the party here....

How much has the film market contracted over the past 20 years? 90%? 95%? 99%?

I don't see any way for any manager to "manage" that transition and look good doing it. From a business perspective, it was a bloodbath that Kodak didn't create and couldn't control. If there is a future in film manufacturing, its going to be done by much smaller companies. Big companies do not turn into small companies gracefully.

It is my earnest hope that there is a small Kodak waiting to emerge that will profitably produce film into the indefinite future.

I also think there is a marketing strategy that could work to bolster film sales. Lots of people are turned off by the ever-accelerating treadmill that is modern society. I'd like to see film marketed as something that is "Beautiful. Permanent. Real."

I wonder if something like this would resonate with "the kids these days"...

 

[zsas]

^yes Omaha, that does resonate with "kids" today, however, it is called Blurb (ie print on demand) and sadly Kodak missed that boat (from a consumer perspective - though they have b2b print on demand presence...)

 

[omaha]

That's where I have a hard time with the "blame Kodak" camp.

I was an early adopter of Ofoto.com, and stayed with them after Kodak bought them out. You can't say Kodak wasn't making an effort at the online/digital/social/POD world. They just (like 99.9% of companies that tried) didn't make it. Sure, we can look at that in hindsight and point to the various bad moves they made along the way, but pretty much everyone made bad moves.

I was CIO for a well-funded dotcom company in the late 1990's into 2000. I lived that world. It was a ridiculous time. We were ALL scrambling around, not knowing what we were doing, taking every shot we could, knowing that if we somehow got it "right" we would be looking at the brass ring of all brass rings, but knowing that the odds were massively stacked against us.

Its easy to say, today, that all we had to do was what Google (or pick your favorite internet company) did. We were all trying.