 grendalMmm DonutsPremium
join:2001-10-10
Fremont, CA | possible kodak bankrutpcy »finance.yahoo.com/news/Kodak-pre···html?x=0
This saddens me. I worked for Kodak subsidiary and working there got me into photography. While I was there, I won an internal photo contest, bought my first house, bought my first dslr, and watched the birth of my 2 kids. Longest time I worked at a single company (7 years). The family jewels of Kodak were it's patents and even that could not save it. |
|
 StacyFotoDoguePremium
join:2001-11-02
New York, NY | Ironic since Kodak promoted digital photography years before most photographers were ready to embrace it. Now it may well be their demise. |
|
krazyboiPremium
join:2008-06-27
Mckinney, TX
kudos:1 | said by Stacy:Ironic since Kodak promoted digital photography years before most photographers were ready to embrace it. Now it may well be their demise.
I remb reading that Kodak didn't think digital would catch on, so they didn't pursue it. Reminded me of Blockbuster not thinking online streaming would catch on... change is good...
"Kodak invented the digital camera in 1975 when one of its engineers developed a prototype that was as big as a toaster and captured black and white images. But it failed to capitalize on that innovation, and it was only when Kodak's film business began to decline a decade ago that it tried to catch up with rivals by launching a mass-market line of digital cameras."
»finance.yahoo.com/news/kodak-pre···368.html |
|
 WarzauPremium
join:2000-10-26
Naperville, IL
kudos:1 | reply to Stacy
Actually I believe it's the opposite. I can't recall how many times I've heard they were late to digital, I side to late to digital for mass market, I remember the DCS models, piggy backed on Nikon Bodies. They could have capitalized on the Kodak name in the early 90's but they were unwilling to change with the times, still pushing film when EVERYTHING was going digital, Even the D1 which I drooled over, when I had and still have my Nikon 8008, wasn't enough. By the early 2000 I remember Kodak digital cameras everywhere, but guess what you don't need film anymore, or processing or photo paper. I gave up on a dark room in my house because of this. Now it's RAW, light room and Epson printers and ink ( another racket). Of course this is all my opinions, so take it with a grain of salt. I am sad it is going away. I still remembering with my 8008 I would choose Ektachrome or Tmax 400. Then be excited when processing it. I remember how there would be a myriad choice of film from them for 35mm now on their site there are two, two choices for professional film. Maybe I'll pickup a roll and shoot it for memories. |
|
 jaykaykay4 Ever YoungPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
Scottsdale, AZ
kudos:19
 ·Speakeasy
| »www.quora.com/Digital-Cameras/Wh···l-camera It was Steve Sasson at Kodak who did it but it wasn't taken seriously. Alas! The beginning of the end.  |
|
|
|
jaykaykay4 Ever YoungPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
Scottsdale, AZ
kudos:19 | Definitely not a pocket sized unit though! |
|
WarzauPremium
join:2000-10-26
Naperville, IL
kudos:1 | But imagine what a great conversation piece it would be. |
|
StacyFotoDoguePremium
join:2001-11-02
New York, NY | reply to krazyboi
said by krazyboi:I remb reading that Kodak didn't think digital would catch on, so they didn't pursue it. Reminded me of Blockbuster not thinking online streaming would catch on... change is good...
"Kodak invented the digital camera in 1975 when one of its engineers developed a prototype that was as big as a toaster and captured black and white images. But it failed to capitalize on that innovation, and it was only when Kodak's film business began to decline a decade ago that it tried to catch up with rivals by launching a mass-market line of digital cameras."
»finance.yahoo.com/news/kodak-pre···368.html
I don't remember the exact year but I do remember Kodak promoting Kodak CDs. You could have your roll of processed film scanned to CD for viewing on your TV as an alternative to their Carousel projectors. They even had a Kodak CD player back when everyone had VHS. This may have been great for wedding photographers but many of us just scratched out heads.
According to Wikipedia the Kodak CD was introduced in 1990.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_CD
I owned one of the earlier Kodak/Nikon hybrids, briefly. Not the one that went to the moon  but it had a hard drive attached to the bottom, via the tripod socket and replaced the back. I think it was built around the Nikon N8000. It produced raw files and you had to adjust color in post processing.
I think Kodak's real problem was that they never fully anticipated digital would eventually replace film, when it did, and most people would no longer rely on their processing services or supplies. |
|
WarzauPremium
join:2000-10-26
Naperville, IL
kudos:1 | reply to grendal
I remember the Kodak CD, I still have them lying around. The problem it was so, "closed". My Dad Couldn't just view the images. *PCD. I remember racking my head to figure out which SW to properly view them and not lose nfo. |
|
StacyFotoDoguePremium
join:2001-11-02
New York, NY | reply to grendal
Kodak's demise also parallels the demise of American made cameras and even American manufacturing in general. Honeywell Pentax became Asahi Pentax. Who knows what happened to the others? More and more photographers began using Ilford, Fuji and even Agfa supplies. People preferred sexy Japanese cameras over Instamatics or Easyshares.
It's sad. I still remember waking up Christmas morning and finding a yellow box marked "Open Me First." Kodak has always been a real cornerstone of American photography. |
|
 SueSPremium
join:2007-05-16
Macon, MO
kudos:2 | reply to grendal
The end of Kodak moments |
|
 drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6
 ·wavebroadband
| reply to grendal
I guess I should've posted my thread here rather than DI Tech 
Anyway, it's a real sad story. Another business who didn't quite "get it" in time to save themselves. What's interesting, though, is that no one has swooped in and bought them up. The Kodak brand is VERY valuable in the consumer market. Just look at this thread for examples...
--
flickr | Of faith, power and glory |
|
 Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | reply to Stacy
said by Stacy:Kodak's demise also parallels the demise of American made cameras and even American manufacturing in general. Honeywell Pentax became Asahi Pentax. Who knows what happened to the others?
Actually, Honeywell just imported them. Technically they were always Asahi Pentax, but just labeled with the Honeywell name, just like the various Sears and J.C. Penny cameras. |
|
StacyFotoDoguePremium
join:2001-11-02
New York, NY | Wow. My first 35mm was a Pentax Spotmatic. I realized the Takumar lens was made in Japan but somehow I presumed the body was made in Littleton, Colorado. I guess back in those days the belief that it was Made in USA was still a selling point. |
|
| reply to grendal
in its time, the photo-cd format was amazing: the scans were at high resolution, with thumbnails provided, and an index print for the cd case. you could send slides or negs or prints, and get a 4000 x 6000 pixel scan, exceeding the resolution of kodachrome iso 25 film, at 4000 grains by 5000 grains.
some labs offered the scans as low as $0.50 each, and you could bring your own blank cds to save more.
--
unrelated, another kodak division (florida?) at the time had the biggest and highest resolution sensors, 8" diameter??, big enough to be used as sensors in 4" x 5" cameras, but not big enough for the old 9" x 9" aerial cameras. way too expensive for consumer use, they were mostly for military and satellites. |
|
