Kodak bankruptcy (again)

nospam writes:

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).

I guess I'm not really surprised, though I haven't seen them yet.

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.

Sure, many people embrace the power of 'and' :-) .

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.

Yeah, maybe 20% or even 30%.

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.

My light jackets definitely do not have tablet-size pockets. My serious
winter jackets sometimes do, and the dress jackets do.
--
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

Martin Brown writes:

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.

Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file formats.
--
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

On 2012-04-27 10:30:52 -0700, Savageduck said:

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/

....and there is this;

http://fstoppers.com/how-to-tether-y...t-jailbreaking


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 27/04/2012 18:58, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Martin writes:

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, store40C, 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.

Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file formats.

Older versions do and at a pinch IrfanView will read almost anything.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in
message ...
On 27/04/2012 18:58, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Martin writes:

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, store40C, 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.

Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file
formats.

Older versions do and at a pinch IrfanView will read
almost anything.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I wonder if Gimp does. Its a freeware image editor
similar in function to Photoshop.


--

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL

I have the GIMRichard Knoppow wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in
message ...
On 27/04/2012 18:58, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Martin writes:

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, store40C, 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.
Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file
formats.
Older versions do and at a pinch IrfanView will read
almost anything.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I wonder if Gimp does. Its a freeware image editor
similar in function to Photoshop.


I have the GIMP on my machine. It is not practical to print out the file
types it accepts. What format is it? If I knew, I could look it up in
the list.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 13:35:01 up 26 days, 7:12, 3 users, load average: 4.69, 4.87, 4.75

On 2012-05-16 10:41:28 -0700, Jean-David Beyer said:

I have the GIMRichard Knoppow wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in
message ...
On 27/04/2012 18:58, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Martin writes:

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, store40C, 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.
Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file
formats.
Older versions do and at a pinch IrfanView will read
almost anything.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I wonder if Gimp does. Its a freeware image editor
similar in function to Photoshop.


I have the GIMP on my machine. It is not practical to print out the file
types it accepts. What format is it? If I knew, I could look it up in
the list.

For Macs, Lemkesoft's "GraphicConverter" has always been a reliable
image file editor capable of importing 200+ file types.
http://www.lemkesoft.com/content/143...t-formats.html
http://www.lemkesoft.com/


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 16/05/2012 18:41, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
I have the GIMRichard Knoppow wrote:

"Martin wrote in
message ...
On 27/04/2012 18:58, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Martin writes:

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

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.
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, store40C, 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.
Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file
formats.
Older versions do and at a pinch IrfanView will read
almost anything.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I wonder if Gimp does. Its a freeware image editor
similar in function to Photoshop.


I have the GIMP on my machine. It is not practical to print out the file
types it accepts. What format is it? If I knew, I could look it up in
the list.

..PCD

Hence Kodak's infallible foot shooting exercise of creating a vastly
inferior new "PictureCD" product that screwed its customers over one
time too many. Most got their own Nikon scanners and never returned.

If they had called the second product ImageCD the problem would never
have arisen in the first place, but having two products with
abbreviation PCD was a recipe for disaster.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown