kodak lays off 15000 people

Looks like kodak is preparing to move over to digital in its commercial
imaging department. I would not be surprised if all commercial imaging moves
digital and the only thing left is paper to sell and digital imaging
equipment.

 

Rather myopic viewpoint. As long as there is profit in film, it will be
produced and sold . . . and that should be a very long time to continue.
Technology has nothing to do with this, merely profits. If you choose to be
narrow minded in this regard, then I hope you are happy with your views.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

 

Its not a view its a fact, film will go the way of the buggywhip and Kodak
knows this and is preparing for its eventual demise by planning ahead and
developing its digital lines across the board, film is profitable now but in
20 years who knows. Myopic is being the last one still selling buggywhips.
Ask the typesetters in the 1970s regarding computers, you would have had the
same response you just gave me.

 

So, digital will kill film? The way that photography killed
painting and sculpture? Oh, wait, there is an art supply
store or two right here in my home town. You can even buy
paints and brushes and canvas and watercolor paper and. . .

Film and processing may become more difficult to find and,
certainly, the one-hour places that are staffed with pimply-
faced jerks who ruin one of every three rolls will go away.
However, I suspect (hope, since I can't afford to buy a whole,
new system and don't want to turn my 16mm fisheye into
something that has the field of view of a 24mm wide angle with
terrible barrel distortion) that film will be with us for
quite a while. Color was supposed to cause the demise of
black-and white. 35mm was supposed to cause the demise of
large-format, but neither of these things have happened.

I feel sorry for people who want others' pleasure destroyed in
order to validate their own purchase of the latest
technological gee-gaw.

 

What is film, it's a chemical coating on plastic, as long as the
chemicals to make and process film exist, then film will exist, to some
degree. In 100 years when you have cameras that are 120 years old,
there will still be film.

W

 

No, Digital Photography will replace film just like Computers replaced the
Abacus. You are complaining about todays shortcomings regarding digital
photography which is still in its infancy. Painting,Sculpture,photography
are three different art medias they compliment eachother. Film will serve no
purpose in the future when a digital sensor will allow you to do what you do
which is compose and capture a picture.

What does any of this have to do with validating any purchase of gew-gaws
and toyes?

 

Yes it will still exist in the distant future as a specialty novelty just
like that one guy who still takes pictures using the Daguerre method. You
dont see Kodak selling Daguerre plates do you? Dont expect Kodak,fuji etc..
to continue selling film commercialy though

 

Not everyone has the ability to shell out $1,000 or even $100 for a digital
camera. And then another $500 for a bargain basement computer plus $850 for
Photoshop plus $200 for a printer plus $65 every time you need to replace
ink jets plus $15 for CD blanks, etc., etc.

Digital has no character. Unlike vinyl albums and videotape, which were/are
flawed, film is not flawed.

Film will exist, quite possibly as a much smaller market, but it will
continue to exist.

 

Actually, Kodak should lay off 14,976 people....:^)

 

The world is a much larger place than just North America, Europe, and Japan.
Disposable one-time-use cameras are the highest volume film product, and likely
to remain that way. If you think my view might be narrow, then consider that I
think wireless imaging will largely displace direct digital cameras.

There is a wealth of real information in the form of financial reports, actual
market data, and usage. When less than 12% of direct digital camera users print
anything, it is easy to understand that the main usage pattern is instant
gratification. The ease of use is the least common denominator, making a phone
with a camera built in far too simple to ignore. Same goes for disposable
cameras, especially at such a low cost.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

 

People in the Third World do not have the disposable income to buy luxury
items--and disposable cameras (and film processing) are often luxury items
for families that live in what we would consider poverty conditions.

I don't see any real profit potential from disposable camera sales in third
world countries, and I don't think that Kodak sees them either. People in
those areas are likely to buy the cheapest disposable camera--probably made
in Chine--if they bought one at all.

Kodak is a technology company and their fortunes hang on their natural
industrialized nation base. North America, the EU, and Austrailia/New
Zealand, not Nigeria or Thailand.

 

Actually it will, it's a long term human readable format, if you want to
know how short term digital storage is, I have <10 year old 5.25" floppy
disks that are unreadable simply because no computer has a 5.25" floppy
drive installed. Think in 100 years someone who runs across a CD-ROM,
full of stock photos will have any method to read it? How about a 100
year old box full of negatives..... They may not have a direct method
of reading it, but they will be able to figure it out. Will anyone
remember what JPG or TIF mean?

W

 

Manufacturing is slowly moving into emerging markets. That boosts those "third
world" local economies. There are places that are quite well developed in some
regions, even while having large poverty areas. Take a trip to Brazil, or even
Mexico, and you can see what I mean.

So with Kodak getting involved in film production in China, which is an
emerging economy, would you think that Kodak branded Chinese made disposable
cameras are a possibility?

Read into the market reports for Kodak, Fuji, or even AGFA. All three of them
see potential in emerging markets, and consider many areas as under exploited.
Not everyone outside of US, EU, Japan, AUS/NZ lives in mud houses with grass
roofs. These places do not need to be like the US (was) in order to become
markets for imported products.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

 

Before you keep talking here, lets rather verify how reliable,
i.e. worthy discussion is this particular message subject.
We know about Kodak's strategy for digital, cut of dividend,
usage of it for billions heavy R&D projects in digital imaging.

Where have you seen this number of people to be laid off, dear
Hugo? I just went through Lehman, Standard and Poor, Forbes etc.
I found a vague information that the company is *planing to*
reduce its work force "by 20 percent over the next 3 years."

Do you claim that the 15000 are being laid off in addition to this
announcement? If not, lets call your message "Kodak PLANS to lay
off 15000 over the next 3 years."

Thomas

 

Check out the below url

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...040122/ts_afp/us_film_technology_040122230107



Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng
http://www.colyngoodson.com
http://www.colyngoodson.com/manuals.html

 

The WSJ had an article on this subject. As I recall, they were planning
on reducing headcount by about 15,000 or 20% (or was that 25%) over the
next several years.

I'm sure Kodak is aware of the way the winds are blowing.

Lisa

 

Unless Kodak does something radical to improve its range
of digital cameras, it had better concentrate on film sales.

 

I am not at all shocked that Kodak is laying off a lot of
people. In fact, even if digital had never been invented, I
think that the same thing would be happening. I haven't shot
any film from a yellow box for years. There is too much other
good stuff out there.

 

Ain't _that_ the f'in truth!

 

The only Kodak film I shoot is Tech Pan.

My b&w is Ilford and color is Fuji..


Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng
http://www.colyngoodson.com
http://www.colyngoodson.com/manuals.html