Sad news for film-based photography

Who's Steve?

In article ,
"Bandicoot" wrote:

"Atomic Sub Committee" wrote in message
...
Or someone gets PO'd and kill files you. & Why is the original thread
crossposted.


Feel free to killfile me anytime, Steve.

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Hi,

Recently, Tom posted:
(largely snipped)

But then this from today's news would seem to support somewhat, the
original poster's point....
[...]
Digital Driving Kodak, Shares Up
[...]
Kodak, whose shares were up 3.5 percent, said
digital products will account for more than half of its total sales
next year. The forecast comes one year after the company disclosed a
controversial plan to slash investment in film products by selling
units and cutting up to 15,000 jobs by 2006.

Now, *there's* a clever plan! Increase the percentage of digital
product sales by selling off those film products that make up the
majority of their current sales. So, their overall sales volume will
be *lower*, and they'll be selling more of the marginally profitable
products. And, this makes investors happy? Go figure.

Neil

Hey Neil, you know what they all say about WallStreet, "buy on the
rumour, sell on the news". People rarely read those financial reports
to understand where the profits originate, or even the percentages.
All Kodak digital products are low margin, with the exception of
photo finishing products (mostly intended to compete with Fuji
Frontier and AGFA dLab products). The bad realities are that the
general public feeling influences the stock prices, the large
financial institutions that drive the market, and mutual funds
managers.

Reality seems to be setting in for those mutual funds managers, if today's
nose dive in the market is any indication. I'd be happy with a company
whose stock prices remain constant, but that delivers a dividend. Too much
"churn and burn" is going on for stock prices to mean anything.

In order to get into a consumer based digital imaging mainstay, they
need to follow the models adopted in the computer hardware industry.
So far, only Apple has done well on profits, with much consolidation
amongst other players. Dell has been a roller coaster on NASDAQ, and
some minor players have even disappeared. To be really big in the
consumer digital market, Kodak needs to take on Sony.

I hear so many incongruous messages that it's hard to know where any of
these companies stand. The last I heard (a couple of months ago), Apple
wasn't even in the top 10 computer makers any more. I guess they're still
big enough to bleed for some time to come.

Given that Kodak is manufacturing the highest resolution sensor for 35 mm
format digital, I'd say that they already have their sights set on Sony.
Sony just has a 15 year head start on them. I also find it interesting
that the trend is toward *smaller* than 35 mm sensors with higher
resolution, as the newest Nikon is sporting. That's at least worthy of a
raised eyebrow w/r/t MF sized sensors.

I think moving film production off shore to China, India, or even
parts of South America is one way to cut costs. It would not surprise
me if manufacturing by Kodak in the US ceases entirely in a couple
years, though that would not be very unique, considering that many US
based companies have already made that move.

Well, that is at best a temporary solution. Eventually, the cost of labor
goes up as the skill level rises, and then you have all those additional
costs for management and marketing. Beyond the sheer numbers of employees
that make film for Kodak, I

Okay, important thing here, Reuters reported "Digital Driving Kodak,
Shares Up". This looks too similar to the dotCOM era, with so many
companies jumping on the latest phrase, though this time it is
"digital". Sun Microsystems really did well with that move, their
stock price jumped for about four months, then reality set in, and
the shares dropped. Unless Kodak can show direct higher profits from
digital imaging sales by their next quarterly report, the short stock
share gain will disappear. Share price does not predict the future of
any company.

If profits were all-important, they'd do better by dumping all the digital
product and boosting their marketing of film. I suspect that people are
more impressed with "forward looking" than fiscally sound operation.

Regards,

Neil

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Hi,

Recently, Tom posted:
(largely snipped)

But then this from today's news would seem to support somewhat, the
original poster's point....
[...]
Digital Driving Kodak, Shares Up
[...]
Kodak, whose shares were up 3.5 percent, said
digital products will account for more than half of its total sales
next year. The forecast comes one year after the company disclosed a
controversial plan to slash investment in film products by selling
units and cutting up to 15,000 jobs by 2006.

Now, *there's* a clever plan! Increase the percentage of digital
product sales by selling off those film products that make up the
majority of their current sales. So, their overall sales volume will
be *lower*, and they'll be selling more of the marginally profitable
products. And, this makes investors happy? Go figure.

Neil

Hey Neil, you know what they all say about WallStreet, "buy on the
rumour, sell on the news". People rarely read those financial reports
to understand where the profits originate, or even the percentages.
All Kodak digital products are low margin, with the exception of
photo finishing products (mostly intended to compete with Fuji
Frontier and AGFA dLab products). The bad realities are that the
general public feeling influences the stock prices, the large
financial institutions that drive the market, and mutual funds
managers.

Reality seems to be setting in for those mutual funds managers, if today's
nose dive in the market is any indication. I'd be happy with a company
whose stock prices remain constant, but that delivers a dividend. Too much
"churn and burn" is going on for stock prices to mean anything.

In order to get into a consumer based digital imaging mainstay, they
need to follow the models adopted in the computer hardware industry.
So far, only Apple has done well on profits, with much consolidation
amongst other players. Dell has been a roller coaster on NASDAQ, and
some minor players have even disappeared. To be really big in the
consumer digital market, Kodak needs to take on Sony.

I hear so many incongruous messages that it's hard to know where any of
these companies stand. The last I heard (a couple of months ago), Apple
wasn't even in the top 10 computer makers any more. I guess they're still
big enough to bleed for some time to come.

Given that Kodak is manufacturing the highest resolution sensor for 35 mm
format digital, I'd say that they already have their sights set on Sony.
Sony just has a 15 year head start on them. I also find it interesting
that the trend is toward *smaller* than 35 mm sensors with higher
resolution, as the newest Nikon is sporting. That's at least worthy of a
raised eyebrow w/r/t MF sized sensors.

I think moving film production off shore to China, India, or even
parts of South America is one way to cut costs. It would not surprise
me if manufacturing by Kodak in the US ceases entirely in a couple
years, though that would not be very unique, considering that many US
based companies have already made that move.

Well, that is at best a temporary solution. Eventually, the cost of labor
goes up as the skill level rises, and then you have all those additional
costs for management and marketing. Beyond the sheer numbers of employees
that make film for Kodak, I

Okay, important thing here, Reuters reported "Digital Driving Kodak,
Shares Up". This looks too similar to the dotCOM era, with so many
companies jumping on the latest phrase, though this time it is
"digital". Sun Microsystems really did well with that move, their
stock price jumped for about four months, then reality set in, and
the shares dropped. Unless Kodak can show direct higher profits from
digital imaging sales by their next quarterly report, the short stock
share gain will disappear. Share price does not predict the future of
any company.

If profits were all-important, they'd do better by dumping all the digital
product and boosting their marketing of film. I suspect that people are
more impressed with "forward looking" than fiscally sound operation.

Regards,

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
link.net...
Recently, jjs posted:

You don't even have to go that far to outlast current digital media.

Archiving of any physical object is a challenge, as entropy is a constant.
But, beyond the physical degradation that will affect digital media as
well as film, you have many other factors. Obsolescence of the media,
obsolescence of the media's format (8" floppies are less than 30 years
old), and obsolescence of the data format also work against reliable
archiving with digital media.

Neil

We are also assuming that the facilities to print film will not become
obsolete with time. It is quite possible that 100 years from now film will
no longer be used and there will be no facilities to get prints made from
slides or negatives. "What are those little flammable pieces of celluloid
and what good are those grainy shadows on them?"

Digital or film, 100 year from now who is going to care one way or another
about most of the images that any of us are producing today? Any that are
good enough to be important will be reproduced so often that they will
always be in the current format, regardless of what it is.

Scott

Scott Elliot wrote:

We are also assuming that the facilities to print film will not become
obsolete with time.

Also digital images get printed. My current "darkroom" is a bag, where I
put the film into tank. After development the film gets scanned, and
everything from there on is digital.

It is quite possible that 100 years from now film will
no longer be used and there will be no facilities to get prints made from
slides or negatives. "What are those little flammable pieces of celluloid
and what good are those grainy shadows on them?"

By that time youu can use your digicam as a scanner.

-- Lassi

In article .net,
Neil Gould wrote:

Given that Kodak is manufacturing the highest resolution sensor for 35 mm
format digital,

....only they're not, unless there's a new one I haven't heard about. Canon
have leapfrogged them again.

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
Neil Gould wrote:

Given that Kodak is manufacturing the highest resolution sensor for 35 mm
format digital,

...only they're not, unless there's a new one I haven't heard about. Canon
have leapfrogged them again.

And it's manufactured not by Kodak, but by FillFactory.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Recently, Lassi Hippeläinen posted:

Scott Elliot wrote:

It is quite possible that 100 years from now film will
no longer be used and there will be no facilities to get prints made
from slides or negatives. "What are those little flammable pieces
of celluloid and what good are those grainy shadows on them?"

By that time youu can use your digicam as a scanner.

Or, if BobM is correct, you can use your cell phone. ;-)

Neil

Recently, Scott Elliot posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
link.net...
Recently, jjs posted:

You don't even have to go that far to outlast current digital media.

Archiving of any physical object is a challenge, as entropy is a
constant. But, beyond the physical degradation that will affect
digital media as well as film, you have many other factors.
Obsolescence of the media, obsolescence of the media's format (8"
floppies are less than 30 years old), and obsolescence of the data
format also work against reliable archiving with digital media.

Neil

We are also assuming that the facilities to print film will not become
obsolete with time. It is quite possible that 100 years from now
film will no longer be used and there will be no facilities to get
prints made from slides or negatives. "What are those little
flammable pieces of celluloid and what good are those grainy shadows
on them?"

Quality issues aside, you'll still be able to discern the *content*, which
is the important part of the message. With MF film, you won't even need a
magnifying glass to "get the picture". Conversely, the content in digital
media is completely lost once any of the above factors sets in.

Digital or film, 100 year from now who is going to care one way or
another about most of the images that any of us are producing today?
Any that are good enough to be important will be reproduced so often
that they will always be in the current format, regardless of what it
is.

I don't agree with this. The importance of images can't always be
determined at the time of their taking.

Neil

Recently, Chris Brown posted:

In article .net,
Neil Gould wrote:

Given that Kodak is manufacturing the highest resolution sensor for
35 mm format digital,

...only they're not, unless there's a new one I haven't heard about.
Canon have leapfrogged them again.

I couldn't find any reference to a 14 MP camera on Canon's website. Is
this a real product that I can go out and purchase today?

Neil