Quote from the Rochester D&C

[Roger Hicks]

Everyone who followed after Kodak were just using or stealing Kodak's existing technology.

Something of an exaggeration; examples that spring immediately to mind are workable colour negatives and gold salt sensitization (Agfa patents) and VC papers (Ilford patents).

Going further back, Kodak (eventually) lost the lawsuit against the Rev. Hannibal Goodwin, whose patents on flexible film antedated Kodak's own efforts.

I would not decry Kodak's contributions for an instant, but they were as happy to steal others' ideas as others were to steal theirs.

What is really astonishing about Perez's quote is that his remarks can easily be interpreted as, "Film and medical imaging accounted for over half our revenues last year. By January 2008 I want to have destroyed all that."

Cheers,

R.

 

[kjsphoto]

Not at all. Kodak trashed us, so as far as I am concerned screw em. Why would anyone support a company that is destroying our art medium trying to convert everyone to digital. They don't care about me or my photography so I could care less about them.

Yes I feel sorry for the pawns at Kodak but the corporate upper management as far as I am concerned should not be rewarded with our money period.

Kodak could be gone tomorrow and do you think they give one ounce of care if it affect you or I? Please...

If Kodak didn't do it, none of us would have enjoyed the films and products

Not true at all as someone else would have done it. It is business, if their is a buck someone does it.

As far as I see it I care about ILFORD, FUJI, FOMA, KENTMERE and the others that back traditional photography. So I want to give to those CEOs and corporate executives my money to help them realize they are doing the right thing by keeping film and papers alive.

And personally I am grateful to them, more than you could ever realize.

Thank again to the companies that care and put their necks on the line to restructure and keep what we love alive.

 

[Chuck_P]

Whatever support I can give that will keep Tri-X and Plus-X in my camera and dektol and selectol soft in my trays, then I will do it and do it gladly. I'm supporting Ilford for my paper. It does me no good to take it so personally----I'm going to continue using the products that I know and know well until I have to use something else.

CP

 

[sjperry]

I think Perez' statement is aimed at perception as a mainly digital company. I doubt if they have any intent of getting rid of film production when its paying the freight. It will continue to decline as a percentage of their business, but if enought people keep using film (from all manufacturers), that usage will probably plateau at some level, perhaps within the nest couple of years. I say that because possibly by this point most people that are going to switch from film to digital already have. If that level is enough to remain profitable for Kodak and Fuji they will possibly continue in that business. If they don't, it's more business for the other manufacturers.

However, I repeat my concern for color film production. Black & white is manufactured by many manufacturers, but not color. I don't really think Fuji is any more committed to film production than Kodak is - they will both look at the bottom line. We need a smaller manufacturer such as Adox (who by the way did make color film, or at least market it with their name on it, years ago) to start color film production. Maybe if one of the big players gets out, someone smaller will get in. You know, I have been buying 35mm color film from Kroger/ Ralphs of all places, at $5 for 4 boxes. This film is made in Italy and is not bad stuff. I wonder who actually makes it?

Steve Perry

 

[Photo Engineer]

Something of an exaggeration; examples that spring immediately to mind are workable colour negatives and gold salt sensitization (Agfa patents) and VC papers (Ilford patents).

Going further back, Kodak (eventually) lost the lawsuit against the Rev. Hannibal Goodwin, whose patents on flexible film antedated Kodak's own efforts.

I would not decry Kodak's contributions for an instant, but they were as happy to steal others' ideas as others were to steal theirs.

What is really astonishing about Perez's quote is that his remarks can easily be interpreted as, "Film and medical imaging accounted for over half our revenues last year. By January 2008 I want to have destroyed all that."

Cheers,

R.

Roger;

There are a lot of other inventions that were not Kodak inventions either, but a lot that were.

DIR couplers, colored couplers, muli component color films with 14 or more layers, a host of color developers, antioxidant stabilzers, Kodachrome, and some of the items are just improvements on others, such as t-grains and selenium sensitization (never used due to toxicity). Along with that goes 2 electron sensitization and a host of other things that make todays films more stable and with better reciprocity including Iridium stabilzation.

Color negative was developed at about the same time by both Kodak and Agfa. The Kodak film paradigm still lasts and the Agfa one died as everyone making color products converted to the Kodak method due to superior quality and coatability.

So, whatever their management was like, R&D was about 20 years ahead of the rest of the pack except for a few notable exceptions. In the 20s to the 50s there were Agfa, Dupont, Haloid, Dynachrome and a few smaller companies. All of them fell by the wayside due to Kodak's superior quality and leading technology.

Later, 3M and others went on to try (And BTW, Ferrania in Italy makes color film and was once part of 3M. AFAIK, it is in bankruptcy but is still operational due to outside support.). The old 3M plant in the midwest was finally 'bought by Kodak'.

And, IIRC, Dupont invented the variable contrast paper and it was called Varigam. At least it was the first on the market here that I remember.

So, there was and is good and bad at Kodak, but the people tried hard and a lot of my friends are now out looking for a job. They went from about 80,000 here in Rochester to about 20,000 (approximate round numbers) since the 90s. Thats a lot of unemployment in one small city.

PE

 

[Paul Howell]

I expect Kodak to spin off the rest of it's analog lines just has they did with both the B&W chemistry and medical imaging lines. Once the analog is spun off we will have a better picture of the product line. Who knows, new managment may even be tempted to bring back it B&W paper line.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Another issue of concern in regards film, is that most (not all) manufacturers have all but abandoned the production of new film cameras. Certainly the field in medium-format is very limited now, also 35mm, even though there is a mini-surge in rangefinder type 35mm cameras. Pentax, Minolta, Yashica/Contax, etc....all out of the game of film cameras. Hasselblad is almost out. Is Mamiya still making medium format bodies? I really don't know. The point being here, is that stores don't have much in the way of new cameras using film to attract first time buyers, just digital., so even if they still stock film, they don't stock film cameras. It is a puzzle how to move forward with public awareness. The large-format world is in much better shape, but this is not beginner territory.

 

[Curt]

Actually Per at Kodak is doing us a huge favor. They are preconditioning us for their withdrawal from the market place. Imagine if they just announced that they were going to move their company and would be out of business for 3 to 6 months and didn't respond to any emails or phone calls leaving everyone out to dry?

It's a funky business that doesn't resemble anything like the models I was taught in college. What's needed is for Walmart to start supplying black and white film and paper. Always low prices Always. We need the pull of some company that is aggressive in the procurement department. Imagine if you could go to a Walmart and get film, paper, chemicals and accessories? World wide supply, any country, any time.

For years I used Panatomic-X, last year ago I started using Ilford Pan 50 in 120 and now I really like it. I wish it was available in 5x7 then I wouldn't have to sit at the computer wasting my time instead of out photographing.

 

[gr82bart]

Sorry you guys, but reading some of this stuff is pretty funny. Keep it coming.

Regards, Art.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Cameras are a sore point for me.

It is another reason why I feel that LF cameras will probably be the Analog wave of the future. They can be maintained more easily due to their ruggedness and relative simplicity. And, the film does not have to be really fine grained and really sharp for good results.

As the more complex 35mm cameras fail, then repair parts vanish and repair eventually may become impossible. IDK.

Art;

I really don't see this as being that funny. It is serious stuff to me. Sorry.

PE

 

[DougGrosjean]

Cameras are a sore point for me.

It is another reason why I feel that LF cameras will probably be the Analog wave of the future. They can be maintained more easily due to their ruggedness and relative simplicity. And, the film does not have to be really fine grained and really sharp for good results.

As the more complex 35mm cameras fail, then repair parts vanish and repair eventually may become impossible. IDK.

Art;

I really don't see this as being that funny. It is serious stuff to me. Sorry.

PE

I agree.

It's part of why I just bought a 4x5 press camera, JIC. If smaller formats begin to die, I'll move to bigger formats (8x10) as chemical photography moves back to its pre-film roots / era.

 

[gr82bart]

Art;

I really don't see this as being that funny. It is serious stuff to me. Sorry.

PE

You are misunderstanding me Ron. Too long to explain and I don't have time right now. I will PM you later.

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

It's part of why I just bought a 4x5 press camera, JIC. If smaller formats begin to die, I'll move to bigger formats (8x10) as chemical photography moves back to its pre-film roots / era.

I'll start building 'survival shelter' too. I think the end of the world is more probable myself.

Regards, Art.

 

[DougGrosjean]

I'll start building 'survival shelter' too. I think the end of the world is more probable myself.

Regards, Art.

Have you tried to buy a slide-rule lately?

 

[gr82bart]

Have you tried to buy a slide-rule lately?

I have my dad's. And I know how to use it too. Scary and sad.

Regards, Art.

 

[kjsphoto]

Cameras are a sore point for me.

It is another reason why I feel that LF cameras will probably be the Analog wave of the future. They can be maintained more easily due to their ruggedness and relative simplicity. And, the film does not have to be really fine grained and really sharp for good results.

As the more complex 35mm cameras fail, then repair parts vanish and repair eventually may become impossible. IDK.

Art;

I really don't see this as being that funny. It is serious stuff to me. Sorry.

PE

Ron as I hate to admit it I have to agree with you on this. Alot of older cameras 35mm and MF parts are no longer being made and once those parts vanish that are still in the hands of camera repair person the camera will be scraped. Which to me is a sad reality.

And being funny I do not see it that way either as to me it is nothing but a plain tragedy.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger;

There are a lot of other inventions that were not Kodak inventions either, but a lot that were.

DIR couplers, colored couplers, muli component color films with 14 or more layers, a host of color developers, antioxidant stabilzers, Kodachrome, and some of the items are just improvements on others, such as t-grains and selenium sensitization (never used due to toxicity). Along with that goes 2 electron sensitization and a host of other things that make todays films more stable and with better reciprocity including Iridium stabilzation.

Color negative was developed at about the same time by both Kodak and Agfa. The Kodak film paradigm still lasts and the Agfa one died as everyone making color products converted to the Kodak method due to superior quality and coatability.

So, whatever their management was like, R&D was about 20 years ahead of the rest of the pack except for a few notable exceptions. In the 20s to the 50s there were Agfa, Dupont, Haloid, Dynachrome and a few smaller companies. All of them fell by the wayside due to Kodak's superior quality and leading technology.

Later, 3M and others went on to try (And BTW, Ferrania in Italy makes color film and was once part of 3M. AFAIK, it is in bankruptcy but is still operational due to outside support.). The old 3M plant in the midwest was finally 'bought by Kodak'.

And, IIRC, Dupont invented the variable contrast paper and it was called Varigam. At least it was the first on the market here that I remember.

So, there was and is good and bad at Kodak, but the people tried hard and a lot of my friends are now out looking for a job. They went from about 80,000 here in Rochester to about 20,000 (approximate round numbers) since the 90s. Thats a lot of unemployment in one small city.

PE

Dear PE,

You will never find me attacking ANYONE on the R+D side at Kodak, nor production (management is another matter), and I fully take all your points about Kodak's contributions to photographic research. As I said, I would never belittle Kodak's contributions; my sole point was that the post I quoted about everyone else stealing Kodak's ideas was an exaggeration, and a fairly severe one at that.

You do not recall correctly about VC, but it is a common (and understandable) misconception in the United States, as Ilford's release of Multigrade was somewhat delayed because of Britain's recognizing the Nazi menace slightly faster than the USA. At that time Ilford did not export to the US, but there was a personal and professional friendship between lead chemists that led to Ilford's supplying the MG dyes; to Defender, before Du Pont took over, IIRC, though I cannot remember.

I am told by insiders at Ilford that they were surprised at Kodak's bothering with tabular grains, which (in Mike Gristword's words) 'are not an inferior technology [to their epitaxial technology], but are not as well behaved'. Like colour neg, it was 'waiting to be invented' and came from at least two sources at the same time.

Finally, Frances was born in Rochester; her uncle Herbie was a pilot at Kodak; her father worked there for a while; there are still one or two relatives there, though most moved -- in her father's case, partly because of the way he was treated by Kodak, being fired because he had three hernias in fairly quick succession, and they didn't like paying his medical bills. For obvious reasons we are more aware than most of what is going on at Kodak and in Rochester, though of course nothing like as aware as yourself.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gr82bart]

And being funny I do not see it that way either as to me it is nothing but a plain tragedy.

I understand that some people view change as a tragedy, but this change is definitely not Kodak's fault, but our fellow photographers who are quick and quickly going digital.

At the recent Photo LA, I can't tell you the number of digital and digitally manipulated fine art prints there were. Let's just say, there will be much more next year, and the year after, ...

Look, traditional photography will not die, so threads like this serve as entertainment to me, for the most part.

Regards, Art.

 

[aldevo]

Dear PE,

Why am I not surprised by this, even though I am horrified? Any other CEO who took such a cavalier attitude to the source of OVER HALF of the revenues of the company he was hired to run would be the subject of a Mafia contract, never mind dismissal.

Given the man's talent for ruining Kodak, he may well succeed in his ambition. But I wonder if Kodak will still be in business on January 2nd?

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

I think the mistake many people make here, is that - quite understandably - they do not know how to interpret financial statements.

Kodak absoutely, 100%, loses money hand-over-fist with film.

Film is operatinally profitable, yes, but that does not take into account the costs of idling 1000's of workers who are no longer needed. How does that all get financed? - debt, debt, debt.

Operational profitability is not bottom-line profitability. OK, in theory, depreciation can help cash flow. But in a world where film isn't really commercially viable - Kodak's large-scale manufacturing infrastructure isn't worth much.

Kodak is:
1) Too big to exist as a niche manufacturer of film (too much debt)
2) No brand to speak of in consumer electronics
3) Aside from CCD sensors, does not have its own supply chain (take lenses as an example - "Retinars" are outsourced to one OEM, while the upmarket lens offerings are outsourced to Schnedier).

So, given the above, what exactly SHOULD Perez do?

 

[Uncle Bill]

Open letter to Mr. Perez,

Suggestion, fire your communications department and hire me instead. You are either being given crap advice or not following good advice. As mentioned on this forum. Kodak will not survive as a "digital" company. I would rebrand the firm as a company of "Photoimaging Experts."

That way you can have your cake and eat it too. Of course the obvious is stated that film that catagory you loath is keeping big Yellow afloat and the consumer digital camera catagory is losing money because of non existant margins. Ignoring reality this long means you will be facing an interesting meetings with the board and shareholders explaining why your best laid plans are not coming together.

I am 3/4 the way through the PR certificate at Ryerson and I can work out of the Toronto office on Eglington if its still open.

Bill

 

[aldevo]

Cameras are a sore point for me.

It is another reason why I feel that LF cameras will probably be the Analog wave of the future. They can be maintained more easily due to their ruggedness and relative simplicity. And, the film does not have to be really fine grained and really sharp for good results.

As the more complex 35mm cameras fail, then repair parts vanish and repair eventually may become impossible. IDK.

Art;

I really don't see this as being that funny. It is serious stuff to me. Sorry.

PE

Regarding LF cameras being the survivors...

Yes, and no. Ultimately, in the electronic age that started with, say, the Canon AE-1, much of the complexity of 35mm cameras was reduced and they became composed of several subassemblies produced using automated manufacture.

If you've seen repair diagrams for, say, a Canon EOS-5 - there's a lot fewer parts (actually, assemblies) per se vs a Canon FTn. Naturally, you generally don't replace individual parts with an EOS-5 - you have to replace whatever assmebly failed. That won't help us much in the future, as these assemblies aren't being produced.

But it does allude to a problem with the manufacture of LF cameras.

LF Cameras are, obviously, composed of many fewer parts (perhaps less than 0.5%) than your typical 35mm camera (especially a mechanical one)LF Cameras - even wooden field cameras - have to be produced to a very high degree of precision. The problem is that both that degree of precision, the materials used, and the form factors of the parts, prevent any real use of automated manufacture. There's been some effort by Toyo (and a couple smaller outfits) to use ABS or CFC plastic in cameras - but this is done for weight and not ease of manufacture.

As any optical designer will tell you - the real reason why a Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 lens has 16 elements isn't because it's a superb design with highly-corrected optics - it's because it must be produced at a certain cost using idiot robots that are sloppy. Those last 6 elements are how you get around that...

Manual labor isn't going to get any cheaper - not even in China. If you thought LF cameras were expensive before (no particular reason that you should) - you'll be in for a shock in another few years.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Lots of good comments here.

I agree with all of them.

Roger, I was not targeting you, sorry, I was trying to make a similar distinction between research, sales and general management. I was aware that you knew a lot about EK due to your wife having lived here.

Yes, LF cameras are going to increase in importance as 35mm parts vanish and the simplicity and longevity of LF cameras become apparent. As film quality decreases, which it will, the usefullness of LF cameras will become even more apparent.

Epitaxial emulsions were essentially a great advance. I worked with the 'inventor' in the same department as they were gradually evolving. I also worked closely with the Kodak scientist who developed the thin t-grain and some of the new processes to make them. In their hands, the t-grain became the norm and quite predictable. That was primarily the big 'secret' in Kodak emulsion making and began in Wey and Whitely and continued in very closely guarded trade secrets.

PE

 

[eddym]

Have you tried to buy a slide-rule lately?

Don't need to. Already have one. It's like my M3; it should last longer than I will.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Aldevo;

BTW, Kodak is officially out of debt and has a small surplus. This is due to the sale of the "Health Imgaging Division" reported elsewhere on APUG.

In additiion, film sales are profitable and that is what is currently keeping Kodak's head above water and was paying off the debt. So, if the sale of that division balanced the debt and then some, it was a benefit. Now Kodak can realize more of the profit on the remaining film sales which are color film and the associated print paper. Motion Picture films are also profitable.

What is unprofitable? Kodachrome, E6 films and chemicals.

PE

 

[bherg]

There isnt an extremly wealthy member here at Apug? that can buy so much stock to get stock majority and replace that Perez ?

or chop it up to two companies kodak film and kodak di****l.

Cheers Johannes