|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Kodak May Not Survive 2012
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-06-2012 08:08 AM
quote: Mark Hajducki
I wonder if Kodak (or their successor) will end up as a brand licensing company, selling their name to be used on other companies products.
Sadly, that is largely what has happened with Polaroid. After two bankruptcies, they no longer manufacture anything. It seems as if they are now selling digital cameras with built-in printers which are no doubt manufactured in China. For a while, they were selling Polaroid-brand television sets and other cheaply made consumer electronics items. My office (for my day job) is right down the street from the old Polaroid pack film manufacturing plant, which has been "under renovation" (into retail and/or office space, I believe) for several years and which looks terrible.
Kodak is at least big enough that it can be somewhat broken up into smaller companies. Someone (Fuji?) could buy the motion-picture division, for example, without buying the money-losing divisions.
Something that I still do not understand is why digital photography became so popular with the public in such a short time. Just a decade ago, no one took the concept seriously, and people were largely happy with drug-store minilabs for processing and prints. Now, it is difficult to find a new 35mm still camera available for sale at a reasonable price. What happened? My own photographic work is exclusively film-based, but I seem to be in a very small minority now. As much as anything, I am concerned about the long-term storage issues of digital files, and I also prefer the film look. Are there really so few people who care about such things?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-06-2012 12:10 PM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The camera in my Samsung Infuse is amazing. Point and Shoot cameras were one of the list of 25 things that will completely vanish within the next 5 years... along with the CD and DVD.
There's a lot of point and shoot cameras that shouldn't even exist right now in terms of their limited function (limited zoom, low image quality, slow performance, etc.). I can certainly see smart phone cameras eliminating that segment of the market.
However, the fact remains that smart phone cameras aren't very good either. They're slow, the image quality really isn't very good at all (even the iPhone sucks) and there's little if any real zoom capability. Phone cameras will probably get better, but there's only so much you can cram into a mobile phone slab to improve them. The best point and shoot cameras, particularly the ones with super-zoom capabilities are always going to stay ahead. I don't know how the new market segment of point and shoot sized camera bodies with interchangeable lenses is going to perform over the long haul. DSLR cameras obviously are the king of the hill.
Kodak could have done better in the digital camera segment if they had been more aggressive in improving their camera lines. They did nothing to compete with Canon and Nikon in the DSLR space despite the fact they developed a lot of high resolution digital imagers for use in high end cameras and digital backs. Kodak just played everything way too slow and too conservative. It was as if they were trying to spend as much time as they could milking all the money they could from an old product design before introducing something quite a bit better.
I can't really dog Kodak too much about the printers market, other than dogging them for being in the market without being fully skilled at handling it. It's a very competitive and fast changing market, especially in the higher end areas like large format printing. Epson was ruling the large format market for awhile, then HP took over and now lately Roland has been dominating. I don't think Kodak ever really tried pursuing the large format printing space even though they could have taken advantage of a couple built-in angles of experience to exploit it.
Major parts of the printing market are in deep decline. Offices are trying to "go green" and produce less paper. Consumers have had it with ink costs. And then look at all the space all that printed paper consumes. Whether people are taking pictures using their phones or using big honking DSLRs they're taking a ton of pictures, often way too many to print. It's easier to just look at all that stuff on a computer screen, tablet or cell phone display. When they need a wall sized print of that one special image they can call someone like me.
I hope Kodak is able to survive 2012, at least in terms of being able to provide film stock to movie productions and people using high end film-based still cameras.
quote: Scott Norwood
Something that I still do not understand is why digital photography became so popular with the public in such a short time. Just a decade ago, no one took the concept seriously, and people were largely happy with drug-store minilabs for processing and prints.
I think I can sum it up pretty easily: digital cameras let you erase and then re-take the photo.
Most people take pictures of other people, like their friends or family members. It sucks to burn up a roll of film, take it to the lab, wait and then only after you picked up your prints you see someone had their eyes closed or the focus was off on one shot or some other problem.
The early cameras had pathetically low resolution and terrible image quality. The first digital camera our shop had was a Sony that recorded images onto a 1.44MB floppy disc. It shot only 640 X 480 resolution images and you could fit only so many onto a floppy disc. At least it had a 14X optical zoom lens (with Sony Handicam style optical image stabilization). We also had a Canon Rebel X 35mm film camera fitted with a Tamron zoom lens. It produced much better quality images. Yet convenience won out and we used the hell out of that Sony camera until one of my coworkers lost it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-06-2012 03:56 PM
quote: Sam D. Chavez
Someone very wise said "all business failures are management failures". This as it should be considering what management of US companies are paying themselves these days.
Steve is correct, they failed to adjust. Still, it's very sad, a unique American industry on the rocks.
Maybe it's sometimes the case that a particular brand is so synonymous with a particular technology that when it is superseded, then the general rule (to which there are some, but not many exceptions) is that the brand itself is life-limited.
Other examples I can think of are His Master's Voice (OK, still used as the name of a small chain of high street music stores in Britain, but as a mass brand identity did not survive the analogue phonograph it symbolised), RCA (heyday was in vacuum tube technology, struggled and declined afterwards), IBM (ditto Hollerith's electromechanical data processing technology) etc.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-06-2012 05:58 PM
Yep! Just bought 30 rolls of film for my Rolleiflex.
(10 rolls of Ilford. 10 rolls of Fuji. 10 rolls of Kodak.)
I'm going on vacation next week and I'm taking my cameras with me and none of them are digital. I don't want to be caught in the middle of a trip and run out of film so I'm stocking up.
Even if this was 20 years ago, I would probably still stock up. The Rolleiflex uses 120 format film which is usually only available at a camera store, even back then.
If I roll up 40 frames of 35mm (from the bulk loader) and shoot it in my Pentax with the motor drive, I get virtually the same user experience as you would get with a high end digicam. Just ensure that focus is sharp, press the button and "Ka-Zip!" you can machine gun off a bunch of pictures in just a second or two.
If I was shooting in ful-res camera RAW, I would probably only get 30 to 50 frames on a memory card. Then I would have to download and edit the pictures before printing them out or sharing them. To download, edit and share 50 pictures probably takes me about an hour at the computer. I can develop and contact two rolls of film in the darkroom in about an hour, as well.
So, if I'm trying to shoot good photos, the time, convenience and user experience ends up being just about a wash.
The only time I really shoot digital is when I intend to share pictures via the internet (even though I often scan my film) or when I want to use the digipics as preview shots. (Much the same way pro photographers used to use Polaroids to preview their setups.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic