Kodak-- No further longterm investment in film

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Gordon Moat, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. Gordon Moat

    Alan Browne Guest

    No. Even "if" they are successful, they will be one among a dozen. Not
    quite the same conditions as 1900 when they were already well ahead of
    the pack in a slower paced world.
    It is also steering toward better. Witness the evolution of the D10
    from the 60 and 30...
    At the level that most people print most images, digital today is there.
    And there is no recurring cost for dud shots and even back of the
    closet keepers will take a small bit of $0.69 CD-ROM space...

    Again, I never claimed the end; just the end for many people. They will
    switch and never, never look back. I am a prime candidate and likely
    you will be too.
    Fine, you will be in an ever decreasing minority finding it more
    difficult, time consuming and expensive to do so.
    Worry. If not 2006, then 2008 or 2010...
    I thought that's what I had written. ah yes, it's below...
    Kodak shares have avoided "returning" for the last 5 years. Really
    think it's going to turn around???

    The only way for EK to go up is to put some serious earnings on the
    board. In excess of $1B would be nice.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 1, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gordon Moat

    Alan Browne Guest

    Very nice, but could you have courtesy of backing up your statements
    with your facts, reasoning or crystal ball images?
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 1, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Gordon Moat

    Rafe B. Guest


    Yes, I expect digital to make significant strides.

    Where will it end? The market will determine that.

    In some regards, digital is already good enough for
    the vast majority of consumers, so the market will
    be driven by price, new features, convenience, etc.

    But you seem to assume that quality is the main
    driving factor. It may be a big deal for you, but for
    the majority of consumers, it simply needs to be
    "good enough" and "cheap enough."


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Oct 1, 2003
  4. Remember the Kodak DCS 560? Based on the Canon 1n, 6.3 mp, 1.3x sensor,
    $25,000? Look at what we can buy now for approx 1/3 of the price, 5 years
    later...
    Maybe not a 1Ds for $1000, but we can buy a Rebel D with 6.3 mp and a 1.6x
    sensor for $899...
     
    Skip Middleton, Oct 1, 2003
  5. The problem with (digital) electronics is that you need high volumes
    to produce cheap/affordable products. If, for example, current 6 Mpixel
    sensors are good enough for most of the market then full-frame 10 Mpixel
    sensors may remain very expensive.

    The effect may be that current medium format users will not switch to
    digital and dedicated 35mm amateurs may decide that slow slide film
    combined with a high-end scanner produces better results that affordable
    DSLRs.

    The end result could be a stable situation where the low-end is digital
    and high-end is film.
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 1, 2003
  6. I think it will be relatively slow process. People who are happy
    with film may stay with film until either their camera stop working, or
    film and processing are no longer available in a convenient way.

    In my experience, if you are used to showing prints, digital is (at the
    moment, in .nl) not an improvement. That may change in the future.
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 1, 2003
  7. And then, why would I want a Rebel D? You have to spend $899, you have to
    change your workflow. You may or may not get a small improvement in
    quality. Hmm.

    One advantage is that you can take more pictures at no additional cost.
    That certainly doesn't work for me, but it may work for someone else (do
    you want to spend $899 for that feature?)

    The big advantage is that photos are immediately available in digital
    form. For some people, that is very important, for others it isn't.
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 1, 2003
  8. They sell for $10 now. The refill cost of a camera is about $.25.
    Two cheap AA batteries or the equivalent and a quick wipe with a
    cleaning cloth. The memory is purged when the files are offloaded.

    They've bought it. They can keep it forever.
    Actually I was thinking of the rest of the world. Here in Israel, many
    people don't have a computer or internet for relegious regions. The ones
    that do generaly have relatively new computers.

    Like most places outside ofthe U.S. film is expensive here. A roll of
    25mm 36 exposure color film is usually about $8. Occaasionaly it's on
    sale for half that, but only at places like Office Depot and it's never
    Kodak, it's Agfa or Konica. Processing is about $12-$13 a roll.

    This is due to the 18% VAT (sales tax) and a 42% luxury tax on photograpjic
    supplies and equipment. Computers are only taxed VAT.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Oct 1, 2003
  9. Gordon Moat

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Look at what we could buy for 1/100 the price, twenty years ago. It
    sitll beats digital for image quality.
     
    Mxsmanic, Oct 1, 2003
  10. Gordon Moat

    Mxsmanic Guest

    No. We'll all find out, in time.
     
    Mxsmanic, Oct 1, 2003
  11. Gordon Moat

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Very true. Fuji has made a very big move into the film market, and taken some market
    share from Kodak. One of the biggest moves they made was in processing, with several
    key deals made in the last two years to install Frontier machines in more locations.

    Between Kodak and Fuji, in North America, little room has been left for the other
    players. AGFA and Ilford are fast becoming niche market films, which is a shame
    considering some of those companies better choices.

    Polaroid has been hit the hardest of all. Fuji licenses Instant Films technology
    from Polaroid. Just yesterday, the Fuji reps at the pro lab I use gave me some of
    their peel apart instant films to try out. These use to be sold mainly in Japan, but
    according to the reps, these will be widely available in North America from now
    forward. With this move by Fuji, despite licensing fees, Polaroid may have more
    trouble ahead.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
     
    Gordon Moat, Oct 1, 2003
  12. Gordon Moat

    Loren Coe Guest

    the cd is 'free' for now, w/kodak finishing. the camera i saw took
    an odd number of frames, under 30, maybe 25(?). --Loren
     
    Loren Coe, Oct 1, 2003
  13. Gordon Moat

    Mxsmanic Guest

    So once they've found a way to download pictures from the camera, they
    don't need to buy a more expensive digicam. Hmm.
    What religious reasons prevent those? I know that there a lot of things
    that Jews cannot do on the Sabbath, but what about the rest of the week?
    Since when is photography a luxury?
     
    Mxsmanic, Oct 1, 2003
  14. Gordon Moat

    Rafe B. Guest


    That works for me, though the differentiation by "quality" is
    debatable, IMHO.

    What I mean is -- it all depends on the final print or image size.

    At print sizes of 8x10" or even 11x14", I'll put my 10D images up
    against the very sharpest 35 mm images I've ever taken.

    When cameras in the 1Ds class move into the current price
    range of the 10D (a couple years from now?) it will be all over
    for 35 mm film.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Oct 1, 2003
  15. Both of you rather willfully missed the point, which was one merely of what
    is available at what price. Not quality, not workflow.
     
    Skip Middleton, Oct 1, 2003
  16. So we expect that 35mm film diehards start printing at larger sizes to
    show the superiority of film :)
    There are two issues, the sensor and the body. I don't like the F80 based
    D100 (S2, 14n, etc.). So even with a good sensor, I'm probabily going wait
    until 2nd hand professional bodies become affordable.

    I guess that even with 1Ds, you can probably find some low-contrast
    (color or b/w) negative film that allows you to capture a larger contrast
    range than the 1Ds.
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 1, 2003
  17. Gordon Moat

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I worry about quality, not workflow.
     
    Mxsmanic, Oct 1, 2003
  18. Gordon Moat

    Gordon Moat Guest

    I have not seen their cameras. Other than medium format Polaroid back, which is cropped,
    I use an old Polaroid 250 Automatic. That one has been modified to use a CR123A 3 volt
    battery.

    The films Fuji gave me on Monday are the peel apart. They only had one colour, and one
    B/W film, since I think those are the only ones they will be selling in the US. I will
    try them for some emulsion transfer, or emulsion lift, but they might not work that well.
    These are supposed to be proofing only films, and the B/W variety does not produce a
    separate negative, unlike Polaroid 665 P/N.
    I was sort of hoping my late post would make it prior to my commenting, but it does not
    appear to be there . . . Oh well, I guess I should start a couple threads soon.
    Also, I am trying to look through the extra images that some have posted. Part of the
    assignment I gave involved editing skills, so that is an important aspect. The other part
    of editing is cropping for effect, and that will be another portion of my comments.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
     
    Gordon Moat, Oct 1, 2003
  19. Gordon Moat

    Alan Browne Guest

    There are Jews that have religious/lifestyle beliefs similar to the
    Amish in the US.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 1, 2003
  20. Gordon Moat

    Alan Browne Guest

    One does not exclude the other.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 1, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.