Roger, My statement was a bit too broad (Everyone who followed after Kodak were just using or stealing Kodak's existing technology). There were many other companies that contributed to the research and advancement of photography, but Fuji is a company who benefited from Kodak's years of research. I think we can all agree Kodak was the main event in it's time. It's sad to see the mind set of someone like Mr. Perez, it's clear he doesn't have clear direction for this corporation. "But I still dance with the one that brought me".
Quote from the Rochester D&C
-
A
- Thread starter Photo Engineer
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikkor 5cm f2 ltm
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L 184 LACON Condensor set
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L 184 Lamphouse and Bulb Adjustment Mechanism
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L184 accessories; VADAP tilting Baseplate
- Started by jbrianfoto
Forum statistics
Roger, My statement was a bit too broad (Everyone who followed after Kodak were just using or stealing Kodak's existing technology). There were many other companies that contributed to the research and advancement of photography, but Fuji is a company who benefited from Kodak's years of research. I think we can all agree Kodak was the main event in it's time. It's sad to see the mind set of someone like Mr. Perez, it's clear he doesn't have clear direction for this corporation. "But I still dance with the one that brought me".
OP
OP
People complain about the cost of Kodak color chemistry compared to that of others, even Fuji chemistry, but consider this.
No one has ever invested a penny in color chemistry R&D since 1960 except Eastman Kodak. Everyone else has benefited from this as a freebie, and so all R&D costs have been borne by Kodak. All of the modern color processes are dependant on that R&D, and even the Kodachrome process was donated to the public domain by Kodak about 20 years ago.
So, Fuji and all other manufacturers of color chemistry get profits from the sale of the chemistry but Kodak has to pay off the R&D investment first before they take a profit.
Kodak was even sued for this development work and the plaintiffs won and Kodak lost adding another cost. (Ansco and Pavell among others)
Interesting? I think so.
PE
No one has ever invested a penny in color chemistry R&D since 1960 except Eastman Kodak. Everyone else has benefited from this as a freebie, and so all R&D costs have been borne by Kodak. All of the modern color processes are dependant on that R&D, and even the Kodachrome process was donated to the public domain by Kodak about 20 years ago.
So, Fuji and all other manufacturers of color chemistry get profits from the sale of the chemistry but Kodak has to pay off the R&D investment first before they take a profit.
Kodak was even sued for this development work and the plaintiffs won and Kodak lost adding another cost. (Ansco and Pavell among others)
Interesting? I think so.
PE
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 476
- Format
- 4x5 Format
If EK stock is any indication, back in 1997 stock over 90 per share, today trading at 24.60. The stock chart shows a strong downward trend. If it breaks 20, well, not good.
Kodak definitly does not have an edge on digital anything, let alone digital photography. What digital technology they have, they bought through aquisitions and is not the best.
The best digital cameras, both consumer and pro are not Kodak.
Kodak definitly does not have an edge on digital anything, let alone digital photography. What digital technology they have, they bought through aquisitions and is not the best.
The best digital cameras, both consumer and pro are not Kodak.
I don't doubt your statement but at least looking at these numbers, it seems difficult for them to have pulled this off.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=EK
Granted, this was for the quarter ending 9/30. Even so, they would have to put the entire balance of 2.35 bil USD sale to debt reduction in addition to another 990 mil USD to be debt-free. Don't forget that Onex has to hit certain numbers with the devision for EK to get that last 200 mil...
Plus, the last article I read suggested that only 1.15 bil from the sale would be put to debt reduction.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070110/kodak_divestiture.html?.v=22
If you look at the Financial Statements, there are two big issues that, frankly, scare most analysts away from ever looking at the stock (not that having analysts looking over your shoulder constantly is a good thing...perhaps some of the chemists at EK can invent a spray for that?)
1) They claim immense depreciation quarter to quarter in Cash Flow. Much of this is from the film operations. But the controversy is that nobody much has faith in what that stuff is really worth as far as residual value. So nobody knows (or has reason to suspect) that the numbers are valid.
#1 is, actually, a business case that is used as an example at Suffolk Law School in Boston.
2) Discontiuing operations is, generally, categorized as a non-recurring cost. Therefore, it does not show up as expenses in calculating gross or operating profit numbers. If I recall correctly, EK had about $202 million in restructuring costs attributable to the film unit in Q3 against an operating profit of about $140 million.
I won't challenge the last statement - but then I'm not a digital photographer. Are you?
You are absolutely 100% wrong, however, about Kodak merely "buying" digital technology. Their sensor technology - by the way - seems to be good enough for Sinar, Cambo, Olympus, and Leica who all use Kodak CCDs in one form or another...
Also, EK may have something to say in commercial digital photo finishing. Every analyst I've ever read strongly believes that the "hobbyist" inkjet printer market will simply go straight in the dustbin.
I have no idea whether EK will succeed. But let's at least give them their due.
__________________________________________________
Art for Arts sake, too bad you feel that way, why not just put this thread on ignore?
__________________________________________________
I agree Ron, I came to that conclusion a while back and when I mentioned it here, having said my Mamiya will break down sometime and there won't be any knowledgeable repair persons, someone said just buy another body. I felt that I needed to step above that kind of simpleton answer and think the process through. With sheet film all I need is a box with bellows to focus, a film holder and a lens. No electronics, through I have nothing against electronics, even a shutter is optional.
Another note; I have some roll film holders for 120 and if my Mamiya goes out I can still use the films that I can't get in sheet such as Ilford Pan 50 and Rollei Pan 25, in my Busch 2X3 and 4X5. Until these films aren't available anymore that is. If I need a hand held camera my Busch can be used with sheet and roll. With Grafmatic sheet holders, I have a half dozen new ones collected over the last two years, I can have added flexibility even if I had to start cutting down film to fit. It's interesting how easy it was to get new in box cut sheet film holders for 2X3. Considering that Edward Weston made portraits contact printed from 4X5 I think I could enlarge a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 a bit to make a fine photograph if that is what it comes to later on. By then the smaller camera might be all that I would want to carry around.
Michel Hardy-Vallée
Membership Council
Whoa! Public domain? As in no trade secrets anymore? Or just as "principles only, technological details under lock."
OP
OP
Michael;
Appended to the original copy of the US Patent on Kodachrome which I hold as co inventor with Dick Bent, is a note that this patent is abandoned by Eastman Kodak.
That means it is public domain.
This is for the most recent Kodachrome process.
Yep, no restrictions.
Aldevo;
Kodak's credit rating is in the process of being considered for being revised upwards due to the removal of nearly $2B of debt. Your figures are probably correct, but that was what was reported locally. However, the costs they are taking for the layoffs of 20,000 people were not considered at that time.
That adds additional burden. But then, other sales are pending. This is mainly property.
PE
Appended to the original copy of the US Patent on Kodachrome which I hold as co inventor with Dick Bent, is a note that this patent is abandoned by Eastman Kodak.
That means it is public domain.
This is for the most recent Kodachrome process.
Yep, no restrictions.
Aldevo;
Kodak's credit rating is in the process of being considered for being revised upwards due to the removal of nearly $2B of debt. Your figures are probably correct, but that was what was reported locally. However, the costs they are taking for the layoffs of 20,000 people were not considered at that time.
That adds additional burden. But then, other sales are pending. This is mainly property.
PE
You are almost certainly right about the latter but I remain to be convinced of the former. Unfortunately I cannot reveal the source which leads to my lack of conviction, but with respect, it was someone whose expertise and knowledge were probably even greater than yours -- and I do not say that to deprecate your expertise and knowledge for a moment, as both seem to be very considerable, and far greater than mine.
Cheers,
R.
Kodak is dead!
Cheers
André
Cheers
André
OP
OP
I won't challenge the last statement - but then I'm not a digital photographer. Are you?
You are absolutely 100% wrong, however, about Kodak merely "buying" digital technology. Their sensor technology - by the way - seems to be good enough for Sinar, Cambo, Olympus, and Leica who all use Kodak CCDs in one form or another...
Also, EK may have something to say in commercial digital photo finishing. Every analyst I've ever read strongly believes that the "hobbyist" inkjet printer market will simply go straight in the dustbin.
I have no idea whether EK will succeed. But let's at least give them their due.
The last time I looked, EK had the first true 35mm format digital sensor, and also the first near MF sensor on the market in the 90s. Right now, they have the highest density digital sensor on the market.
In addition, their color analysis software is being used by quite a few companies.
They have more in-house color technology and know-how than almost all other digital companies combined. Some of this has been leased from Kodak for use by these companies.
In addition, Kodak leads in OLED display technology for large screen display and 'foldable' displays.
PE
I put things on ignore that irritate me (though nothiong on APUG irritates me to that point), not entertain me (threads like this one that contain pretty funny posts). Look, I'm just some schmuck who performs drive by posts. Best thing is to put me on ignore.
Regards, Art.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 476
- Format
- 4x5 Format
If you say so. I do not have the time to post articles about Kodak's aquisitions, Google for it, they are there. Here's some;
Kodak completes Creo acquisition Printer Magazines June, 17 2005
Scitex Corporation is to sell its Scitex Digital Printing (SDP) Operation to Eastman Kodak.
As for the hobbiest carrying either digital or analog, I agree. Digital equipment, especially high end, is just too expensive. It would cost me over 100k to replace my 4x5 cameras and darkroom with highest quality digital equipment, from cameras to printers, servers, etc. There is also way too much competition in the digital arena. If there is now way for analog users to make money from their prints, analog will also fade.
Sounds like control of the media has gone digital and to those who can afford it.
As for the stock, I would not buy it right now, and if I could afford the risk, maybe even go short.
Kodak completes Creo acquisition Printer Magazines June, 17 2005
Scitex Corporation is to sell its Scitex Digital Printing (SDP) Operation to Eastman Kodak.
As for the hobbiest carrying either digital or analog, I agree. Digital equipment, especially high end, is just too expensive. It would cost me over 100k to replace my 4x5 cameras and darkroom with highest quality digital equipment, from cameras to printers, servers, etc. There is also way too much competition in the digital arena. If there is now way for analog users to make money from their prints, analog will also fade.
Sounds like control of the media has gone digital and to those who can afford it.
As for the stock, I would not buy it right now, and if I could afford the risk, maybe even go short.
I won't challenge the last statement - but then I'm not a digital photographer. Are you?
You are absolutely 100% wrong, however, about Kodak merely "buying" digital technology. Their sensor technology - by the way - seems to be good enough for Sinar, Cambo, Olympus, and Leica who all use Kodak CCDs in one form or another...
Also, EK may have something to say in commercial digital photo finishing. Every analyst I've ever read strongly believes that the "hobbyist" inkjet printer market will simply go straight in the dustbin.
I have no idea whether EK will succeed. But let's at least give them their due.
I am interested in this as I had researched the history of colour films for a paper at our local community college. my understanding at the time was that Agfa's chromogenic coupling of large molecules to prevent dye migration was the underlyeing principle of all current colour negative films. And that the seizing of that for war reparations allowed the production of many competing colour films Anscocolor, Ferracolor, Gevcolor, Telcolor, Pakcolor, and Sakuracolor.
Kodak modified that to use water insoluble molecules as opposed to large molecules to prevent migration of dye, and developed the orange colour masks.
Was this the paradigm you were referring to. To further my understanding of the history, I would greatly appreciate your expanding your statement.
I sometimes wonder if the history of photography is not unduly influenced by Newhall and his connection to Kodak and American Photography.to the diminishment of the rest of the world's contribution.
Kodak modified that to use water insoluble molecules as opposed to large molecules to prevent migration of dye, and developed the orange colour masks.
Was this the paradigm you were referring to. To further my understanding of the history, I would greatly appreciate your expanding your statement.
I sometimes wonder if the history of photography is not unduly influenced by Newhall and his connection to Kodak and American Photography.to the diminishment of the rest of the world's contribution.
OP
OP
Indeed, Fisher developed the first coupler with a ballasted side chain containing a sulfonic acid. It was essentially a surfactant that changed the viscocity of gelatin. This technology was known and patented.
Due to the patents, the viscocity problems, and the difficulty of protecting these couplers, Kodak engineers recognized the need for protecting them from air, moisture and from the coating process and therefore the oil soluable coupler was born. This technology was so superior to that of Fisher, and that of Agfa that the entire color photo industry converted to the Kodak method in the 60s and 70s when the patents expired.
During the war, the Axis countries had many photo companies in Germany, eastern Europe and Japan which all used the Agfa paradigm, as did Ansco in the US. Kodak used their own method and added color couplers.
As a result, it was not until the 80s or 90s that other companies began to catch up in coating speed, dye stability and color purity, but by then Kodak had patented DIR couplers and DIAR couplers to further enhance color quality and image structure.
I have coated Fisher dyes and Fisher couplers. I can attest as to the difficulty of getting good coatings with them. They are hard to work with and an error is costly and messy.
PE
Thanks for the new info
Get out much?
I think not with that statement. I buy and use Kodak products, they are hardly dead.
Lookey here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...arch&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=kodak+&image.x=0&image.y=0
And:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_search.php?q=kodak&catsel=all&
OP
OP
Well, I don't think I mentioned which Fischer it was, as there were many by that name involved in the field of photogrphy, nor did I mention that he worked for Agfa, merely that Agfa used the method he developed.
He developed the idea (pun here too) of attaching a sulfonic or carboxylic acid group to a coupler so it could be incorporated into films for production of chromogenic images. An octadecyl group was used to ballast the resultant coupler in place. This is from Mees and James, page 393 and the example is figure 32.
Agfacolor films up to the pre C41 days were fine films but were not masked and they were coated at slow speeds without the benefit of a slide hopper. This made production speeds slow.
I feel that the Fischer type couplers might yield better sharpness and resolution than oil-based couplers, but have never seen a test that would prove this. I have coated Fischer type couplers myself.
I feel that the best coupler might be one attached to a polymeric bakbone, either synthetic or natural (gelatin). I have worked with the latter quite a bit.
PE
He developed the idea (pun here too) of attaching a sulfonic or carboxylic acid group to a coupler so it could be incorporated into films for production of chromogenic images. An octadecyl group was used to ballast the resultant coupler in place. This is from Mees and James, page 393 and the example is figure 32.
Agfacolor films up to the pre C41 days were fine films but were not masked and they were coated at slow speeds without the benefit of a slide hopper. This made production speeds slow.
I feel that the Fischer type couplers might yield better sharpness and resolution than oil-based couplers, but have never seen a test that would prove this. I have coated Fischer type couplers myself.
I feel that the best coupler might be one attached to a polymeric bakbone, either synthetic or natural (gelatin). I have worked with the latter quite a bit.
PE
Dear PE
You seem to cling to the term `Fischer type couplers´, so this man gets his well deserved merits, even by mistake. (I shall dive into my private library and have a look at the Mees & Jones...).
And, more important, it is interesting that, on your expertise, it seems that there is still some room for new concepts even within chromogenic processes!
Back to history. In your initial posting with reference to those couplers you referred to clones of Agfacolor which came up due to the enforced release of Agfa techniques in 1945. There seem to have been independent approaches before:
-) in 1942 Ferrania marketed a substantial chromogenic film without any assistence of Agfa's R&D and no report of patents infringement. (Though, as processing in Agfacolor chemistry resulted in some result, it seems close to Agfa)
-) There is a hint at a third company also going the Agfa way before '45. I shall do some archive research on that.
bye
You seem to cling to the term `Fischer type couplers´, so this man gets his well deserved merits, even by mistake. (I shall dive into my private library and have a look at the Mees & Jones...).
And, more important, it is interesting that, on your expertise, it seems that there is still some room for new concepts even within chromogenic processes!
Back to history. In your initial posting with reference to those couplers you referred to clones of Agfacolor which came up due to the enforced release of Agfa techniques in 1945. There seem to have been independent approaches before:
-) in 1942 Ferrania marketed a substantial chromogenic film without any assistence of Agfa's R&D and no report of patents infringement. (Though, as processing in Agfacolor chemistry resulted in some result, it seems close to Agfa)
-) There is a hint at a third company also going the Agfa way before '45. I shall do some archive research on that.
bye
OP
OP
It was Mees and James.
Also, the 'clones' arose during and before the war due to transfer of Agfa technology to Konishiroku and to Fuji. The original 'clone' was made by Konica during the war, but they were bombed into rubble being next to the Hachioji steel mills, and so production was transferred to Fuji.
After the war, both companies made a Kodachrome like film, and Agfacolor and Agfachrome type films. I have samples of all of them including processing instructions and kits for the Konica films.
I have discussed this extensively with Agfa, Konica and Fuji people.
Within the industry and at all conferences I attended and in all communications, the Agfa type sulfonic acid or carboxylic acid couplers were referred to as "Fischer type couplers" or "Fisher couplers". The oil soluable couplers were known as Kodacolor couplers.
Kodak replicated most Agfa products, and I have tested the Agfa color paper counterpart made in the Kodak labs. I have also tested the Agfa color developing agent that they used which had a sulfonic acid group on it as well. It was used in (IIRC) their Type VI and Type VII papers in the mid 60s. After that they converted to the oil soluable couplers as the Kodak patents were expiring. Fuji and Konica converted in the mid 80s, although they did have a paper with oil soluable couplers in the mid 70s.
BTW, regarding the question of sharpness and grain with Fischer couplers, it may or may not be better, but one thing is sure.... The image stability of all Fischer type couplers that I ever tested were far inferior to that of similar couplers dissolved in oil droplets.
PE
Also, the 'clones' arose during and before the war due to transfer of Agfa technology to Konishiroku and to Fuji. The original 'clone' was made by Konica during the war, but they were bombed into rubble being next to the Hachioji steel mills, and so production was transferred to Fuji.
After the war, both companies made a Kodachrome like film, and Agfacolor and Agfachrome type films. I have samples of all of them including processing instructions and kits for the Konica films.
I have discussed this extensively with Agfa, Konica and Fuji people.
Within the industry and at all conferences I attended and in all communications, the Agfa type sulfonic acid or carboxylic acid couplers were referred to as "Fischer type couplers" or "Fisher couplers". The oil soluable couplers were known as Kodacolor couplers.
Kodak replicated most Agfa products, and I have tested the Agfa color paper counterpart made in the Kodak labs. I have also tested the Agfa color developing agent that they used which had a sulfonic acid group on it as well. It was used in (IIRC) their Type VI and Type VII papers in the mid 60s. After that they converted to the oil soluable couplers as the Kodak patents were expiring. Fuji and Konica converted in the mid 80s, although they did have a paper with oil soluable couplers in the mid 70s.
BTW, regarding the question of sharpness and grain with Fischer couplers, it may or may not be better, but one thing is sure.... The image stability of all Fischer type couplers that I ever tested were far inferior to that of similar couplers dissolved in oil droplets.
PE
OP
OP
A further thought on grain and sharpness of films using Fisher type couplers.
Since they tend to form micellular structures in gelatin, the dyes that form do so in small 'blobs' which look similar to dyes formed from Kodacolor couplers when viewed in photomicrographs. The major difference is that the micelles are somewhat irregular and can be polydisperse, but the dyes in oil drops are regular and monodisperse (all just about the same size).
In the long run, I think it would be a draw between the two.
Polymeric couplers form dye deposits on the molecular level. They therefore have no visible structure in photomicrographs.
PE
Since they tend to form micellular structures in gelatin, the dyes that form do so in small 'blobs' which look similar to dyes formed from Kodacolor couplers when viewed in photomicrographs. The major difference is that the micelles are somewhat irregular and can be polydisperse, but the dyes in oil drops are regular and monodisperse (all just about the same size).
In the long run, I think it would be a draw between the two.
Polymeric couplers form dye deposits on the molecular level. They therefore have no visible structure in photomicrographs.
PE
Many Thanks !
Your detailed information is most appreciated!
In one glance I’ve got information about dye clouds structures, I don’t know how much reading papers it would have taken to get those, if all.
`Mees and James´… I have been intensively reading my copy just last month. But somehow I’ve got problems with the second author’s name… Realized it but this tricky system did not allow me correcting my error.
Konica/Fuji copying Agfacolor before 1945… I only knew about the “Sakura Natural Color Film” which is reported to be the Kodachrome copy. Very interesting.
(In the literature originating from Wolfen and looking back into time only the “Oriental Color” from 1952 is stated.)
I shall inform about those couplers with polymeric backbone.
bye from Old Europe
Your detailed information is most appreciated!
In one glance I’ve got information about dye clouds structures, I don’t know how much reading papers it would have taken to get those, if all.
`Mees and James´… I have been intensively reading my copy just last month. But somehow I’ve got problems with the second author’s name… Realized it but this tricky system did not allow me correcting my error.
Konica/Fuji copying Agfacolor before 1945… I only knew about the “Sakura Natural Color Film” which is reported to be the Kodachrome copy. Very interesting.
(In the literature originating from Wolfen and looking back into time only the “Oriental Color” from 1952 is stated.)
I shall inform about those couplers with polymeric backbone.
bye from Old Europe
One source I have read offered the titbit that the Agfa colour film was unique in that it served in both the Pacific and European Theatres of war on both sides through Agfa proper(German),Ansco(American) and Sakura(Japanese).
Bill
Bill
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |