Sad news for film-based photography

"Roger Whitehead" wrote in message
How does anyone know? Was Leonardo da Vinci secretly copying his work on
to
microfilm strips, perhaps?


Several independent sources have corroborated this claim. Also, several US
Government agencies require that important documents be stored on microfilm
to ensure long-term accessibility.

To the extent that we can know, we do know that microfilm offers the
least-risky way to store information at today's state of the art.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message news:0Ym4d.11118

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.


I think that Kodak has reached the conclusion that, for the consumer market
in the industrialized world, digital will overtake film just as ballpoint
pens overtook fountain pens, a couple of generations ago.

Kodak made its reputation and name recognition on its consumer end, not its
professional side. For them the question was how to remain relevant in a
digital world. I suspect that they were not happy with the change in the
wind, but that they had to do something to ensure their survival.

They played up on their traditional strength: that of making the complex
part of photography easy to the consumer. Their long-standing slogan of
"You push the button, we do the rest," was applied to digital imaging.
Kodak offers a simple system of cameras, printer docks, EasyShare software
and online printing services--all of which serve to take a lot of the
complexity out of the digital imaging process for consumers that have little
or no interest in the technical end, but who just want to create
well-exposed photos.

My point is that the market would have dictated the outcome, not Kodak.
Kodak merely tried to find a way to cope with those forces.

Scott Elliot wrote:

"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?"

I would suspect that in 100 years from now, even people who are very unfamillar
with film will be able to extract the maximum available content from film with
equipment designed for other purposes.

Celluloid has not been used as film base in many decades.



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.

Please google away as this debate has raged here before. In summary, while not
every image you've taken has value, familly-tree historians love any old photo
with people in it, esp. if there is some accompanying narrative; anthropologists
also glean great information from photographs... etc.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Scott Elliot wrote:

"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?"

I would suspect that in 100 years from now, even people who are very unfamillar
with film will be able to extract the maximum available content from film with
equipment designed for other purposes.

Celluloid has not been used as film base in many decades.



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.

Please google away as this debate has raged here before. In summary, while not
every image you've taken has value, familly-tree historians love any old photo
with people in it, esp. if there is some accompanying narrative; anthropologists
also glean great information from photographs... etc.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Neil Gould wrote:
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?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...eos1dsmkii.asp

it was just announced, so unlikely to be on the shelves yet, but surely in the
coming weeks you can place orders. 16.7 MP full frame.

for images taken by same... definitely encroaching on MF.
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1d..._sample-e.html

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Neil Gould wrote:
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?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...eos1dsmkii.asp

it was just announced, so unlikely to be on the shelves yet, but surely in the
coming weeks you can place orders. 16.7 MP full frame.

for images taken by same... definitely encroaching on MF.
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1d..._sample-e.html

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

In article . net, Jeremy
wrote:
Several independent sources have corroborated this claim

How do you corroborate a forecast, other than by waiting to see if it
comes about?

Roger

In article . net, Jeremy
wrote:
Several independent sources have corroborated this claim

How do you corroborate a forecast, other than by waiting to see if it
comes about?

Roger

Good morning Neil,

Neil Gould wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

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.

Very true, though the headlines often go to changes in stock prices. The
stock market is legalized gambling for many individuals. Long term investors
are often the ones who do better, as long as they stay diversified.



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.

With Apple, it is not the volume, nor the ranking, nor even the placement.
The reality is that they are selling near a 24% to 28% profit level, and
sitting on some cash. They also hold many large investments in other
companies. The only computer maker with a similar profit level is Sony. All
other computer makers are under 20% profit levels. The lesson here is that a
company does not need to be huge to have good profits, and it is more related
to good management and operating efficiency.




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.

The smaller sensors are the bulk of the profits, and the target market. They
are now under great pressure from the camera makers, with camera phones. I
would imagine that within a year or two, we should be seeing some more well
known camera company (or lens manufacturers) names on some camera phones. A 3
MP camera phone was recently released in Japan. While none of us might like
the compact cameras, or P&S cameras, those are the highest volume products.
The greatest volume of those is also 3 MP to 4 MP range, since they are also
quite often the smallest digital cameras. Digital SLRs are barely a blip in
volume.



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

You didn't finish that, but I know what you mean. I have already read some
reports of this situation. There is a balance of shipping costs to production
location to final market location, that needs to be considered. Also, as
those areas become more productive, and the workers there become better paid,
then that will also balance out . . . . . . so at best off shoring is a
short term solution. However, consider that US based companies are usually
judged on quarterly performance, so many people holding stocks are quite
happy to see short term gains. I think the whole system needs a re-work.



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.

On a financial level, that would make sense. Take a look at what AGFA did a
few years ago, selling off digital imaging divisions that were not
profitable. Of course, the difference is that AGFA is much more of a private
company, and is able to make those moves. A more public company with stocks
needs to please the shareholders first, and then consider all other aspects.
Digital imaging pleases shareholders, and silences some critics, even if it
is a tough road to follow.

I suspect that people are
more impressed with "forward looking" than fiscally sound operation.

Regards,

Neil

Kodak has done well with R&D, often putting years of effort into products.
They have been able to accomplish that by being somewhat quiet about
developments, even though they are required to disclose their operations. The
quiet part comes from the patent potentials, and I hope they continue with
longer term R&D.

The public statements from Kodak need to sound like they are "forward
looking" to please the shareholders. While they might have many R&D projects
going at a time, the reality is that few will be placed into their public
statements. Unfortunately, just stating what the public or shareholders may
think they want to hear is not something that will sustain longer term
growth. They are mostly catering to shorter term investors, and speculators,
with many of their statements in the last year.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Good morning Neil,

Neil Gould wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

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.

Very true, though the headlines often go to changes in stock prices. The
stock market is legalized gambling for many individuals. Long term investors
are often the ones who do better, as long as they stay diversified.



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.

With Apple, it is not the volume, nor the ranking, nor even the placement.
The reality is that they are selling near a 24% to 28% profit level, and
sitting on some cash. They also hold many large investments in other
companies. The only computer maker with a similar profit level is Sony. All
other computer makers are under 20% profit levels. The lesson here is that a
company does not need to be huge to have good profits, and it is more related
to good management and operating efficiency.




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.

The smaller sensors are the bulk of the profits, and the target market. They
are now under great pressure from the camera makers, with camera phones. I
would imagine that within a year or two, we should be seeing some more well
known camera company (or lens manufacturers) names on some camera phones. A 3
MP camera phone was recently released in Japan. While none of us might like
the compact cameras, or P&S cameras, those are the highest volume products.
The greatest volume of those is also 3 MP to 4 MP range, since they are also
quite often the smallest digital cameras. Digital SLRs are barely a blip in
volume.



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

You didn't finish that, but I know what you mean. I have already read some
reports of this situation. There is a balance of shipping costs to production
location to final market location, that needs to be considered. Also, as
those areas become more productive, and the workers there become better paid,
then that will also balance out . . . . . . so at best off shoring is a
short term solution. However, consider that US based companies are usually
judged on quarterly performance, so many people holding stocks are quite
happy to see short term gains. I think the whole system needs a re-work.



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.

On a financial level, that would make sense. Take a look at what AGFA did a
few years ago, selling off digital imaging divisions that were not
profitable. Of course, the difference is that AGFA is much more of a private
company, and is able to make those moves. A more public company with stocks
needs to please the shareholders first, and then consider all other aspects.
Digital imaging pleases shareholders, and silences some critics, even if it
is a tough road to follow.

I suspect that people are
more impressed with "forward looking" than fiscally sound operation.

Regards,

Neil

Kodak has done well with R&D, often putting years of effort into products.
They have been able to accomplish that by being somewhat quiet about
developments, even though they are required to disclose their operations. The
quiet part comes from the patent potentials, and I hope they continue with
longer term R&D.

The public statements from Kodak need to sound like they are "forward
looking" to please the shareholders. While they might have many R&D projects
going at a time, the reality is that few will be placed into their public
statements. Unfortunately, just stating what the public or shareholders may
think they want to hear is not something that will sustain longer term
growth. They are mostly catering to shorter term investors, and speculators,
with many of their statements in the last year.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!