If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 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. 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. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com Updated! |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | 35mm Photo Equipment | 200 | October 6th 04 12:07 AM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |
Books on Composition, developing an "Eye"? | William J. Slater | General Photography Techniques | 9 | April 7th 04 04:22 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | Photographing People | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |