Kodak bankruptcy (again)

If I may attempt a clever conclusion to that endless discussion.
Kodak's tombstone will bear the words:

"We failed where Fuji strives"

--
PiLS

On 26/04/2012 10:18 PM, PiLS wrote:
If I may attempt a clever conclusion to that endless discussion.
Kodak's tombstone will bear the words:

"We failed where Fuji strives"

Or echoing Eastman's "My work is done, why wait."

--
Mike

Miles Bader writes:

nospam writes:
My cellphone has a great camera (truly amazing considering the size it
fits into), but using an external lcd instead of a viewfinder is
complete misery in many situations...

who said anything about an external lcd?

I mean what every cellphone / pad / ... has: an LCD on the outside of
the unit (as opposed to a viewfinder which you put up to your eye).

Well -- the movie pros have been moving to video assist for years,
apparently preferring video monitors placed wherever they're convenient
to a dim eyepiece where, if you get your eye in exactly the right place,
you can see what the camera is seeing. (35mm motion picture gear should
have better optical viewfinders than 16mm did, but I hear even those
weren't very good.)

Despite 30 years using viewfinders for still photography before I got to
digital, I'm quite happy with the external LCD most of the time. Very
occasionally it's a bit hard to see in the sun -- but, if that were a
big problem, I could get a hood or something to shade it. Hasn't been
a big enough problem to consider spending $30 on yet. When I use a view
camera I have to carry a big black cloth to put over me so I can see the
image on the ground glass, digital is much better than that!

I often wish I had a real
camera, not for the increased quality, but just so I can take pictures
in the sunlight without needing 3 hands and yoga training.

you must have one of the most unusual cellphones ever made.

Hmm, no it's pretty normal (for Japan), although it has an unusually
good quality camera.

What I mean is this: When it's sunny, it's quite common that the LCD
display on a cellphone is completely obscured by glare _and/or_ the
sun causes glare/artifacts through the camera lens.

Three hands are useful, certainly :-).

So what I end up doing is, holding the phone with one hand, while
trying to shield the display enough to see something with another,
_and_ trying to use another hand to shade the lens to avoid the worst
glare effects in the image. As you can see, that's three hands... :]

Since I don't have three hands, what I actually end up doing usually
involves quite a bit of contortion, trying to use one hand for both,
or stand in the shade of a pole or something or ...... anyway, it's a
big pain.

For an actual camera, you could buy a screen hood, but I don't think
that's available for the cell phone size screens (and there's no place
to mount it, anyway).

A camera viewfinder avoids the problems with the display, at least,
and generally makes everything more manageable. This is why I'd like
one.

Yep, they do that. I shoot outside so little, and can work around the
sun most of the time anyway, it's a non-issue for me, but I know lots of
people shoot outside most of the time.

[and a pad, is _worse_, because you basically need two hands to hold
it up (the ipad, at least is quite heavy [and the 3rd gen even heavier,
from all reports]).]

[And tablets?! A big fad right now,

tablets are unquestionably *not* a fad. their popularity is growing
like crazy and you're in denial if you think otherwise.

... which doesn't mean they're not a fad of course.

Fad implies popularityh at the time, but also implies it won't last. We
don't know if it will last; I expect it will, myself.

Anyway, I'm sure they have a good solid niche, but they certainly
aren't perfect, or some sort of universal replacement for all other
devices. The "faddishness" is people who suddenly think they _are_
the latter.

For lots of people they're a better fit than a laptop. Not for me,
though.

but also a _really_ horrible
form-factor for a camera, even for a very uncritical audience

tablets may not be the ideal form factor if their sole function was a
camera but if you happen to have a tablet with you, why not its camera?

That was my point: Tablets are cumbersome enough that people _don't_
usually bring them along wherever they go. Most probably _do_ always
carry their cellphone, however, so cellphones are much better bet as
the future of casual photography than pads are.

More people will carry a tablet than a laptop, though. And I've been in
rooms at parties with 5 people using their laptops sometimes.

having a 10" or even 7" viewfinder is extremely nice and with a tripod
mount, you essentially have a view camera, one that is vastly more
portable than a real view camera.

Er, well, except for whole image quality thing which is really the
only reason people put up with view cameras in the first place...

And the movements, and the really really smooth tonality from the big
negative.

Most pictures, even by
casual photographers aren't taken in the living room, but in places
where it's very unlikely people will have dragged a tablet along.]

yet they drag a bulky slr with a bag full of lenses wherever they go.

also, what makes you think they won't drag a tablet along?

[Some] people put up with the cumbersomeness of SLRs because they want
the advantages of an SLR: good quality images[*], speed, etc. Tablets
provide mediocre quality images, no better than a cell phone or P&S.
People that demand such features can't get them from a tablet, and
people that don't demand them are likely to prefer to avoid dragging
anything along (as their phone or P&S can likely provide the same
quality with greater convenience).

[*] Many aspects of which are very hard to provide without large
lenses (high quality zooms, popular effects like shallow DOF and bokeh
which are impractical to provide with very small sensors and small
apertures), making it unlikely that the sort of very small embedded
cameras in phones / pads will ever completely really take over the
DSLR market.

On the other hand, the P&S market is mostly *NOT* interested in anything
beyond snapshots. That's being decimated by phones already.

unlike an slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.

That's a bit of a stretch .... :]

And who wears dress jackets these days anyway?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

In article
,
aruzinsky wrote:

I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on
the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the
back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came
off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe,
Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such
possibilities in the instructions? I don't.

why did you remove the label? all cds work that way, not just photo cd,
and i remember lots of warnings about stick-on cd labels that could jam
the drives or peel off the data layer.

In article , Miles Bader
wrote:

My cellphone has a great camera (truly amazing considering the size it
fits into), but using an external lcd instead of a viewfinder is
complete misery in many situations...

who said anything about an external lcd?

I mean what every cellphone / pad / ... has: an LCD on the outside of
the unit (as opposed to a viewfinder which you put up to your eye).

to me, that's a built-in lcd. and external lcd is one which is tethered
to the camera and usually much bigger than what the camera has.

I often wish I had a real
camera, not for the increased quality, but just so I can take pictures
in the sunlight without needing 3 hands and yoga training.

you must have one of the most unusual cellphones ever made.

Hmm, no it's pretty normal (for Japan), although it has an unusually
good quality camera.

What I mean is this: When it's sunny, it's quite common that the LCD
display on a cellphone is completely obscured by glare _and/or_ the
sun causes glare/artifacts through the camera lens.

So what I end up doing is, holding the phone with one hand, while
trying to shield the display enough to see something with another,
_and_ trying to use another hand to shade the lens to avoid the worst
glare effects in the image. As you can see, that's three hands... :]

Since I don't have three hands, what I actually end up doing usually
involves quite a bit of contortion, trying to use one hand for both,
or stand in the shade of a pole or something or ...... anyway, it's a
big pain.

no different than any other camera that has an lcd and a lot of them no
longer have optical viewfinders at all.

A camera viewfinder avoids the problems with the display, at least,
and generally makes everything more manageable. This is why I'd like
one.

then buy a camera with one. most people don't find it to be a big deal,
or they shade the camera with their other hand.

[and a pad, is _worse_, because you basically need two hands to hold
it up (the ipad, at least is quite heavy [and the 3rd gen even heavier,
from all reports]).]

or you don't shoot in bright sunlight with it glaring on the display.

[And tablets?! A big fad right now,

tablets are unquestionably *not* a fad. their popularity is growing
like crazy and you're in denial if you think otherwise.

... which doesn't mean they're not a fad of course.

it's not a guarantee but it's very obvious they're not.

Anyway, I'm sure they have a good solid niche, but they certainly
aren't perfect, or some sort of universal replacement for all other
devices. The "faddishness" is people who suddenly think they _are_
the latter.

nothing is perfect and it's not supposed to be a replacement for
anything.

but also a _really_ horrible
form-factor for a camera, even for a very uncritical audience

tablets may not be the ideal form factor if their sole function was a
camera but if you happen to have a tablet with you, why not its camera?

That was my point: Tablets are cumbersome enough that people _don't_
usually bring them along wherever they go.

they're starting to bring them instead of laptops

Most probably _do_ always
carry their cellphone, however, so cellphones are much better bet as
the future of casual photography than pads are.

sure, but that doesn't mean tablets won't be used. not that many people
use dslrs as compared to p&s and cell cameras.

having a 10" or even 7" viewfinder is extremely nice and with a tripod
mount, you essentially have a view camera, one that is vastly more
portable than a real view camera.

Er, well, except for whole image quality thing which is really the
only reason people put up with view cameras in the first place...

and now they can get 1080p with a full size 1080p display, not some
dinky 1" evf or 3" lcd.

Most pictures, even by
casual photographers aren't taken in the living room, but in places
where it's very unlikely people will have dragged a tablet along.]

yet they drag a bulky slr with a bag full of lenses wherever they go.

also, what makes you think they won't drag a tablet along?

[Some] people put up with the cumbersomeness of SLRs because they want
the advantages of an SLR: good quality images[*], speed, etc. Tablets
provide mediocre quality images, no better than a cell phone or P&S.
People that demand such features can't get them from a tablet, and
people that don't demand them are likely to prefer to avoid dragging
anything along (as their phone or P&S can likely provide the same
quality with greater convenience).

different tools for different jobs.

[*] Many aspects of which are very hard to provide without large
lenses (high quality zooms, popular effects like shallow DOF and bokeh
which are impractical to provide with very small sensors and small
apertures), making it unlikely that the sort of very small embedded
cameras in phones / pads will ever completely really take over the
DSLR market.

nobody expects that cellphones will take over the slr market. however,
they *are* impacting the p&s market.

unlike an slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.

That's a bit of a stretch .... :]

not really. 7" tablets easily fit in nearly any jacket and 10" tablets
fit in some.

In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

So what I end up doing is, holding the phone with one hand, while
trying to shield the display enough to see something with another,
_and_ trying to use another hand to shade the lens to avoid the worst
glare effects in the image. As you can see, that's three hands... :]

Since I don't have three hands, what I actually end up doing usually
involves quite a bit of contortion, trying to use one hand for both,
or stand in the shade of a pole or something or ...... anyway, it's a
big pain.

For an actual camera, you could buy a screen hood, but I don't think
that's available for the cell phone size screens (and there's no place
to mount it, anyway).

there are cases that can be used as hoods, including for tablets. i saw
one that had 3 side coverage for the ipad (top, left & right).

Anyway, I'm sure they have a good solid niche, but they certainly
aren't perfect, or some sort of universal replacement for all other
devices. The "faddishness" is people who suddenly think they _are_
the latter.

For lots of people they're a better fit than a laptop. Not for me,
though.

it's not an either or. they serve different, but overlapping needs.
some people own both.

On the other hand, the P&S market is mostly *NOT* interested in anything
beyond snapshots. That's being decimated by phones already.

very decimated.

unlike an slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.

That's a bit of a stretch .... :]

And who wears dress jackets these days anyway?

who said anything about a dress jacket? i'm talking an ordinary jacket
to keep you warm when it's chilly outside. most people have more than
one, depending on how cold it is outside.

Mike wrote:
On 26/04/2012 10:18 PM, PiLS wrote:
If I may attempt a clever conclusion to that endless discussion.
Kodak's tombstone will bear the words:

"We failed where Fuji strives"

Or echoing Eastman's "My work is done, why wait."

Does everyone know where he wrote that?

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 12:35:01 up 7 days, 6:12, 3 users, load average: 3.25, 3.36, 3.33

On 27/04/2012 16:06, aruzinsky wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:34 am, Martin
wrote:

True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they
muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to
their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them.
Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels pro,
6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at
1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide
scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back.

- Show quoted text -

I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on
the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the
back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came
off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe,
Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such
possibilities in the instructions? I don't.

I think you were just out of luck.

I had a look inside one of mine and whilst it doesn't say don't stick a
label on it does have pictograms for handle by the edges, don't bend,
store 40C, out of direct sunlight, don't get wet, write on or use
solvent cleaners. They still read OK 15 years later - I had cause to use
one last week which is why it is still hanging around on my desk.

It would never have occurred to me to stick a label on one. They were
laser etched on the central clear spindle area with their serial no. By
the time they had 80+ scanned images on they were quite an investment.

Even today I have known people come seriously unstuck with CD labels
curling up and wrecking a CD drive.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 2012-04-27 09:13:45 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Miles Bader
wrote:

My cellphone has a great camera (truly amazing considering the size it
fits into), but using an external lcd instead of a viewfinder is
complete misery in many situations...

who said anything about an external lcd?

I mean what every cellphone / pad / ... has: an LCD on the outside of
the unit (as opposed to a viewfinder which you put up to your eye).

to me, that's a built-in lcd. and external lcd is one which is tethered
to the camera and usually much bigger than what the camera has.


The iPad as a camera accessory tethered remote (wireless or usb) has
great potential. For the photographer who wants to carry a digital
portfolio without lugging a laptop around, the iPad is very useful.
http://jesserosten.com/2010/wireless-tethering-to-ipad

Then the ability to move both JPEGS and/or RAW files from camera to
iPhone or iPad via Eye-Fi "Mobile X2" or "Pro X2" SDHC cards when used
with their free iOS or Android App.
http://www.eye.fi/products/prox2

OnOne Software has a free version of its "DSLR Camera Remote" available
via the Apple App Store along with its full featured "DSLR Camera
Remote HD" for the iPhone @ $19.99 or iPad @49.99
http://www.ononesoftware.com/product...camera-remote/



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-04-27 09:39:45 -0700, Jean-David Beyer said:

Mike wrote:
On 26/04/2012 10:18 PM, PiLS wrote:
If I may attempt a clever conclusion to that endless discussion.
Kodak's tombstone will bear the words:

"We failed where Fuji strives"

Or echoing Eastman's "My work is done, why wait."

Does everyone know where he wrote that?

Moments before he shot himself.

--
Regards,

Savageduck