Kodak to stop film and paper production?

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Eberhard Funke, Oct 14, 2003.

  1. I heared a rumour that Kodak will give up its silver based photo
    products (film, paper and chemistry) in near future.
    Is there something to it?
     
    Eberhard Funke, Oct 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. No. Digital photography has become a focus of the Great Yellow Father
    but silver photography will remain. They just spent quite a bit of
    money on a new manufacturing plant for silver based materials.

    the variety of silver based materials has gone down quite a bit-
    compare a twenty year old catalog with current offerings and you would
    be surprised at all the things Kodak used to offer. I remember almost
    ten years ago when Super-XX, a very popular, old-time thick emulsion
    sheet film, was discontinued. The gnashing of teeth among many large
    format photographers! But, they adaped to other materials or switched
    to something like Bergger 200, which is supposed to be a very similar
    film.

    On the consumer level, you just can't discount the average person, who
    might just want an occsional photograph of the kids and is willing to
    spend the $10 USD for a throwaway camera and processing. That is a huge
    market and Kodak won't throw that away.

    Jeff
     
    Le Grande Raoul, Oct 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I just heard a rumour that people with their initials in the first half of
    the alphabet are 86.7% more likely to be gullible... Is there something to
    it?
     
    Dennis O'Connor, Oct 14, 2003
    #3
  4. Run! The sky is falling!!!

    Ralf
     
    Ralf R. Radermacher, Oct 14, 2003
    #4
  5. Not as far as I know. Kodak has certainly not announced any such thing.
    Their press releases are at:
    http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases.shtml
    and I think you have heard a much distorted version of the Sept. 25 release,
    which says that they are expecting most of their business to be digital in
    the future.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 14, 2003
    #5
  6. I heard a rumour that the Gestapo is going door to door confiscating
    ever digital camera they can find.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Oct 14, 2003
    #6
  7. But it's not a throwaway camera, it still has to be returned for processing.
    Several places in the U.S. sell similar digital cameras, which produce
    decent pictures at 4x6 inch size, which is what most people want.

    Now they sell for $10 plus processing, but how long will that last. As
    soon as places like K-Mart and Sam's club start realizing the higher
    profit potential of them, disposable film cameras will go the way of the
    L.P.

    They have much higher profit potential, as instead of being recylced
    but putting a $2 roll of film in them, you wipe them off, replace the
    batteries which can be 2 $.10 AA's, and sell it again. The prints can
    go from data to a $.10 CD blank, and directly to the printer.

    No development, handling of film, etc.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Oct 14, 2003
    #7
  8. Eberhard Funke

    Jeff Worsnop Guest

    A cheap and offensive quip.
    What's the point of writing it?
    Surely not an attempt at humour.
    Jeff
     
    Jeff Worsnop, Oct 14, 2003
    #8
  9. I have 'nuked' it. My apologies.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Oct 14, 2003
    #9
  10. Good point. The missing link in digital photography has recently been
    filled in -- it's the ability to carry your camera into a store and get the
    pictures downloaded and printed while you wait. *That* is what casual
    snapshooters were waiting for, and it means that if there is no cost saving,
    they no longer need film.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 15, 2003
    #10
  11. Eberhard Funke

    John Guest

    Afterall, something has to actually pay the bills and digital certainly
    isn't doing it.


    Regards,

    John - Photographer & Webmaster
    Website - http://www.darkroompro.com
    Please delete the "_" if replying by mail.
     
    John, Oct 15, 2003
    #11
  12. Eberhard Funke

    John Guest

    Welcome back Eberhard !


    Regards,

    John - Photographer & Webmaster
    Website - http://www.darkroompro.com
    Please delete the "_" if replying by mail.
     
    John, Oct 15, 2003
    #12
  13. Eberhard Funke

    John Guest

    If you must quote him, please put "Scarpetti" in the subject.

    Regards

    John S. Douglas, Photographer
    http://www.darkroompro.com
    reply to
     
    John, Oct 15, 2003
    #13
  14. The nameless one's name is spelled "Scarpitti".

    I was wrned in an earlier post.

    I know it might seem silly to call a nameless one by his name, but I
    have my reasons. I just can't find them now.

    If this is too confusing right noew, don't post art all.

    Typos at work.


    Robert Vervoordt, MFA
     
    Robert Vervoordt, Oct 15, 2003
    #14
  15. Typos, eh? Strange that he's misspelled it the same way every time.


    --
    The most common hoax promoted the false concept that light bulbs
    emitted light; in actuality, these 'light' bulbs actually absorb DARK
    which is then transported back to the power generation stations via
    wire networks. A more descriptive name has now been coined; the new
    scientific name for the device is DARKSUCKER.

    - Flotsam collected from Usenet (probably alt.alien.visitors)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 15, 2003
    #15
  16. Eberhard Funke

    John Guest

    pitti , petti, pity, petty. Whatever. I'm just wondering what it takes to
    get across to him that his lack of respect is not tolerable.


    Regards,

    John - Photographer & Webmaster
    Website - http://www.darkroompro.com
    Please delete the "_" if replying by mail.
     
    John, Oct 15, 2003
    #16
  17. That's easy--a personality transplant.

    D "I hear they can do those now" N


    --
    The most common hoax promoted the false concept that light bulbs
    emitted light; in actuality, these 'light' bulbs actually absorb DARK
    which is then transported back to the power generation stations via
    wire networks. A more descriptive name has now been coined; the new
    scientific name for the device is DARKSUCKER.

    - Flotsam collected from Usenet (probably alt.alien.visitors)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 15, 2003
    #17
  18. [.............]
    You still remember? That's a great honor, thanks.
    I have been in a slump for about two years, not even touching my
    cameras. As you may see from my question interest is coming back.

    BTW Judging from this thread I think the NG has lost some of its
    previous standard.
     
    Eberhard Funke, Oct 15, 2003
    #18
  19. The word "naive" is not in the dictionary.

     
    Craig Schroeder, Oct 15, 2003
    #19
  20. Actually I seem yo remember you as well/I have gone through slumps
    myself its just part of being creative "I think?"

    In any event this is still one of the best NG's and I hope you remain
    interested in photo and continue to post.

    Gb
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 15, 2003
    #20
    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.