Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

70 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Or Tumblr (5, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#42161731)

Can someone instagram some photos of hese old cameras and a "gold box" of film so I can see what the hell they're talking about?

Re:Or Tumblr (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42161893)

Some photos are on the way. There's a one hour turn around time at the film lab.

Re:Or Tumblr (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42161921)

Here [imgur.com]

Re:Or Tumblr (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42161951)

I truly appreciate the irony of a classic troll applied to a discussion about classic technology.

Re:Or Tumblr (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42162253)

That isn't an example of irony, it's coincidence. [youtube.com]

Re:Or Tumblr (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162299)

Not if it was done intentionally.

Re:Or Tumblr (-1, Flamebait)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162069)

Here [imgur.com]

Asshole.

Re:Or Tumblr (1)

xkpe (1842034) | about a year and a half ago | (#42286071)

Flamebait? Should be rated as informative.

Re:Or Tumblr (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162075)

that's a red box, not a gold box.

Re:Or Tumblr (1)

ti-85 (2706779) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162123)

Shame on you.

I opened that link, while eating a classic breakfast at the Bob Evans counter.

On a Sunday.

Re:Or Tumblr (1)

cvtan (752695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162293)

Should be "yellow box" for Kodak stuff.

Poor management (3, Interesting)

graphius (907855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42161765)

Polaroid was always a bit of a niche company. They happened to be in a fairly big niche, but they were very unique in what they did. Their monopoly kept them going until the market changed.

Kodak was killed by shortsighted managers who could not understand the implications when they invented digital photography.

[car analogy] Both companies were buggy whip producers. Kodak invented the internal combustion engine, but never thought it would catch on.[/car analogy]

Re:Poor management (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42161841)

Polaroid was always a bit of a niche company. They happened to be in a fairly big niche, but they were very unique in what they did. Their monopoly kept them going until the market changed.

Kodak was killed by shortsighted managers who could not understand the implications when they invented digital photography.

[car analogy] Both companies were buggy whip producers. Kodak invented the internal combustion engine, but never thought it would catch on.[/car analogy]

The 'buggy whip' analogy isn't quite fair to Kodak. The techniques required to produce their particular buggy whips involved a fair amount of chemical expertise. That spun off as Eastman Chemical [eastman.com] in 1994. They may or may not be setting the world on fire; but nobody is preparing their funeral. This doesn't change the fact that Kodak is still totally fucked, or that they managed to almost entirely fail to capture the future that they invented; but if we had to horribly overload the buggy-whip analogy, it'd be fair to say that Kodak is still trying to sell buggy whips to the consumer transport market, while the market has moved on to BDSM fetishists and the production of diversified specialty leather goods.

Re:Poor management (2)

graphius (907855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162027)

Yes the analogy was a bit harsh, yours is definitely more..... picturesque. but no, I don't really have a lot of hope for Kodak now. The vultures are circling.

Polaroid is now just a name on third party junk. I do hope Kodak doesn't suffer the same fate...

Re:Poor management (4, Informative)

mbkennel (97636) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162035)

Somewhat true. Why did Fujifilm survive? Because they correctly saw themselves as an industrial coatings company, and not a photography company.
Kodak also had great experience in *optics* (they may have made optics for some generations of surveillance satellites, very high-tech and expensive)---optics are necessary for photography but it isn't the same area exactly.

They had great expertise in two critical industrial areas, but the managers were apparently stuck on consumer photography, and did not appreciate how inexpert they were in semiconductors and consumer electronics.

Re:Poor management (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162353)

Kodak still has a large medical imaging business. However, they have lots of competition and it's a fairly niche industry at that. Their stuff is OK, but nothing terribly special.

They do run Linux, if that's any consolation.

Re:Poor management (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162479)

Kodak also had a brief foray into the field of dental office management software (I had to support an office using their software a while back). The whole medical branch of the company was spun off a while ago into Carestream Health.

Re:Poor management (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162339)

I initially read that as "BSD fetishists" and got a bit confused. BSD isn't all that hard to use these days.

Re:Poor management (3, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162487)

There was little Kodak or Polaroid could do. Technology just made the mass market of what they where selling irrelevant. Expensive instant photography is meaningless with camera phones and instant [s][t]exting. Kodaks mass product, easy snaps that produce high quality are not going to compete when software can create superior images with inferior hardware and no consumables.

This was not competing with free or irrelevance due to a a change in power source. This was a complete hange in relationship to a product. Even if cameras were still not in phones, and cost $200, Kodak would still be toast. It is not economical to buy film and pay for prints that last a life time when one can print the stuff you want on demand for an equal cost, if you want.

The reason Kodak and Polaroid failed is the reason that firms should fail. They get too big and sales can't support the inefficiencies. The products are still in demand, ,just not at the same volumes. If we would allow and encourage such companies to fail, things might be much better.

Re:Poor management (4, Informative)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162529)

There was little Kodak or Polaroid could do.

This is certainly true of Polaroid, but Kodak, for all intents and purposes, invented digital photography and still failed to capitalize on the technology that made their primary product obsolete.

Re:Poor management (3, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163093)

I'm sure the argument was that if they promoted the new technology it would "cannibalize" their traditional revenue base. There is a lesson here.

Re:Poor management (1)

Kyusaku Natsume (1098) | about a year and a half ago | (#42164345)

As an example of successful transition among products, we can point out to the iPod Mini that was replaced by the iPod Nano even when it was the best selling product from Apple, and then the iPod line replaced by the iPhone. I like the old Polaroid camera, it was really fun to use when going out with my friends, but for 100% casual shoots the digital cameras win.

Re:Poor management (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42166259)

For certain photo opportunities, "not digital" is an advantage.

Re:Poor management (1)

crispin_bollocks (1144567) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172229)

They were pioneers in shitty plastic lenses and selling less film for more money. And obsolescence - Instamatic, Pocket Instamatic, Disc etc.

Re:Poor management (1)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163165)

Kodak was the first to use a CCD to capture an image. They were not the first to manufacture a digital camera, and they were certainly not the one's who created the software to make a quality image using relatively low quality optics, as the did with film cameras.

And where is the profit in manufacturing cheap cameras? Kodak had to limit personal CEO jet travel to 100k a year [reuters.com] . These are the things that one is talking about when keeping a company like Kodak afloat. It was a big old style US corporation. It was there to make globs of money that it could then flush down the toilet.

When I say there is nothing Kodak could have done, I don't mean they could not have come out a with a product. What I mean is the model was based on selling consumables at a huge profit, then pissing that profit away. There was no way for them to make those profits on the cheap cameras they sold. They have not, for a long time,like Nikon or Canon with a tradition or selling $10,000 cameras. Kodaks innovation was the Advantix.

Re:Poor management (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#42166933)

When I say there is nothing Kodak could have done, I don't mean they could not have come out a with a product. What I mean is the model was based on selling consumables at a huge profit, then pissing that profit away. There was no way for them to make those profits on the cheap cameras they sold. They have not, for a long time,like Nikon or Canon with a tradition or selling $10,000 cameras. Kodaks innovation was the Advantix.

In other words, there was plenty that Kodak could have done to survive and even expand its business. But not while preserving a broken business model that never really worked well.

Re:Poor management (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year and a half ago | (#42167481)

> Kodak was the first to use a CCD to capture an image.

One has to ask what Fairchild (and others) were creating the sensors - two dimensional detectors of visible light - for, if not for capturing images.

Re:Poor management (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163023)

"There was little Kodak or Polaroid could do. Technology just made the mass market of what they where selling irrelevant."

I think that the discussion above implies that Kodak especially, was selling the wrong things. They forgot their technology, and got caught up in the bling that the technology was capable of producing. Research, engineering, and the advancement of technology will always sell. Bling resulting from all of that is ephemeral.

Polaroid? You may well be right about them. I'm not aware of anything that Polaroid ever did that several other companies couldn't have done.

Re:Poor management (2)

Teun (17872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162503)

Strange enough the first digital camera I used around 1994 was the Kodak DC-10.
The 333,000 pixels pictures could in my view easily compete with Polaroids.
I remember they (Kodak) made the first camera to match the resolution of a typical 35mm picture and it was an incredible 16 Mega pixel!
Now I have a 36 MP camera (Nikon D800) using that same 35mm frame :)
Later Kodak sold re-branded Minolta digital camera's, they probably had Kodak IP in them but the brand eventually went to Sony, Kodak lost their chance.

Polaroid-compatible film is again manufactured in their old factory by old and new staff:
http://www.the-impossible-project.com/?nointro=1 [the-imposs...roject.com]

Re:Poor management (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year and a half ago | (#42164931)

Their monopoly

According to wikipedia they lost their monoploy on instant photography in the USA in the mid 1990s as their patents expired and with them their ability to restrict where instax was sold.

dunno how much impact that had in the grand scheme of things though.

Re:Poor management (1)

graphius (907855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42165293)

I am not sure of the dates, but until that time Polaroid did have a monopoly. In fact they sued Kodak and won based on their patents on instant photography.
I know because my dad won a Kodak instant camera which was subsequently recalled.

By the mid '90's the writing was already on the wall for analogue film. A lot of people, myself included, predicted that film would not last. The change did come quite a bit faster than I thought it would though...

Wrong Example (3, Interesting)

samuisan (142967) | about a year and a half ago | (#42161809)

The article is wrong, both companies were doomed by hopelessly incompetant managers who either failed to see the coming end of film, or else saw it but failed to act (exercise for the student to decide which is worse.)

It didn't have to be like this, look at Fuji to see how a company could switch its main product and survive.

Pity, so many people lost jobs because of a few retarded managers at the top of their companies.

Re:Wrong Example (4, Insightful)

geoskd (321194) | about a year and a half ago | (#42161869)

Pity, so many people lost jobs because of a few retarded managers at the top of their companies.

There are two classes of people at Polaroid and Kodak who got the axe. The first are the technicians, engineers and related staff. Those people were going to lose their jobs regardless, as the products they made were no longer wanted. The other class of people at Kodak and Polaroid were the managers, supervisors and non-technical staff. Those people can get jobs elsewhere (and most of them have). Very few people lost their jobs who wouldn't have been let go when these companies transitioned to new technologies, except managers, who can hardly be said to be innocent victims.

-=Geoskd

Re:Wrong Example (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162513)

What doomed them is that they couldn't shake the 'industrial giant' mentality. As TFA points out, there;'s millions a year in business available out there in supplying artistic photography. Some of those markets are actually growing. However, they'll never support a company the size of Kodak in it's heyday. Combine that with other markets they still have and they could make a go of it for some time.

At one time, they had the opportunity to bring in the expertise needed to do consumer digital cameras. They made a decent initial entry to that but since they never brought in that expertise they failed to keep up and soon found themselves selling products that were all at once overpriced, clunky, and outdated.

Incidentally... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42161909)

Given how frequently(and often painfully, toward the end) companies seem to founder in the face of structural changes that they can't do much about(short of essentially re-founding as something else, just carrying over the campus and the capital), I have to wonder if there has been any work done outside of the barbaric corporate raider sector on building companies with clean exit strategies...

After all, there isn't any reason why a company needs to struggle to perpetuate its existence forever(any more than a company would struggle to perpetuate the existence of a given product line forever). Sure, the process that companies who do fight and then die go through is pretty grim; but that is, at least in part, because they keep struggling even after the situation is hopeless, and just bleed and bleed and bleed.

Is there a process where you just quit before you are behind, wind down neatly, rather than the corporate equivalent of spending a few years stuck full of tubes and unresponsive in the ICU?

Re:Incidentally... (1)

GNious (953874) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162023)

Am thinking there must be a funny comment around here refering to the above, Sony and corporate suicide.

Re:Incidentally... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42162385)

It's a shame, since they put out the only worthwhile current gen console.

Re:Incidentally... (1)

cbeaudry (706335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162081)

I think the problem would be, once shareholders start realising the corporation is winding down, they would start dumping the stock.

Re:Incidentally... (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162177)

Why is that a problem?

Re:Incidentally... (1)

cbeaudry (706335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162237)

Its a problem to the wind down neatly strategy.

Re:Incidentally... (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162399)

**WHY** is that a problem?

Re:Incidentally... (1)

cbeaudry (706335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162589)

Because the stock would be worthless faster than they can wind down operations.

Re:Incidentally... (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163043)

And......what? They won't be taking out any loans against it anyway.

Re:Incidentally... (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#42166889)

I agree with sjames. Everyone already knows the stock price is going to zero. And as long as the business hasn't completely divested of everything (or permanently obtained more liabilities than it has assets), there will continue to be future income and hence, reason to value the stock at a small positive value.

Re:Incidentally... (1)

mounthood (993037) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162233)

After all, there isn't any reason why a company needs to struggle to perpetuate its existence forever...

Almost all market value is derived from future earnings; it's the potential that drives stock price.

Is there a process where you just quit before you are behind, wind down neatly, rather than the corporate equivalent of spending a few years stuck full of tubes and unresponsive in the ICU?

Yes and they're quite common. Companies call them 'projects'.

Re:Incidentally... (3, Insightful)

gopla (597381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162255)

After all, there isn't any reason why a company needs to struggle to perpetuate its existence forever(any more than a company would struggle to perpetuate the existence of a given product line forever).

That would be equivalent to euthanasia for companies. But there are real reason why it is not universally accepted. For all companies that have died there are enough examples that have struggeld and come out stronger. Nokia and Apple comes to mind immediatly. They diversified and successed beyond immagination.

The message is: don't quit too easily.

Re:Incidentally... (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year and a half ago | (#42163973)

This phenomenon gets coupled with human nature. For every Nokia or Apple who struggled and successfully reinvented themselves, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, who struggled and died. So while the odds of a successful reinvention are maybe not as bad as a lottery, they're still pretty bad, and humans are both optimistic and extremely bad at gut-level statistics. This is why lotteries continue to exist, and why companies don't go gently into that good night.

Re:Incidentally... (1)

mug funky (910186) | about a year and a half ago | (#42164013)

but apple and nokia were both on the better side of a disruptive technology. kodak and polaroid are very much on the wrong side of one.

the only thing i've been able to gather from companies that have stayed for over a century is to either work in a field that's not likely to be disrupted, or have strong enough R&D to be the one disrupting.

we don't hear much about sheet-music manufacturers these days.

Re:Incidentally... (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year and a half ago | (#42167511)

Upthread ( http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3288637&cid=42161809 ) is the wonderful quote "Pity, so many people lost jobs because of a few retarded managers at the top of their companies."

I find it odd that you consider Nokia to be an example of strength. I'd consider it to be the exact opposite, and an embodyment of the same retardedness.

> The message is: don't quit too easily.

Agreed. But there are different ways of not quiting, with different likelyhoods of success.

Re:Incidentally... (2)

dbc (135354) | about a year and a half ago | (#42164433)

Read anything by Clayton Christensen. He has been writing about the phenomenon and outlining solutions that work, for years. Many. Years. Kodak was an obvious slow motion train wreck to anybody that had read his books. Digital photography is the modern poster child for how a cheaper, crummier, technology eventually eats the lunch of the old guard as it improves. CC obseved the same thing happen years before with steel mini-mills.

He has a book titled "Disrupting Class" about how modern developments (Khan Academy, et al) are up-ending education. If his predictions hold true, the current education system will go the way of Kodak within 5 to 10 years.

But back to companies like Kodak... the short answer is that you have to be willing to kill off your own cash cows, because if you don't someone else will. That takes a very directed effort on the part of upper management, because the entire corporate system works against that.

Not that obvious kodak was doomed (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42165779)

Digital photography is the modern poster child for how a cheaper, crummier, technology eventually eats the lunch of the old guard as it improves.

Two things make it totally NOT obvious at the time that Kodak was doomed.

The first of course is, that Kodak invented the modern camera sensor. It was Kodak that developed the Bayer sensor to begin with.

The second was that Kodak came up, in conjunction with a few other film companies, with a really good film/digital hybrid. It was called Advantix.

The reason this was a great idea was that it combined some of the best aspects of digital cameras - lots of information about your image recorded to a magnetic layer on the back - with the huge benefit that film retained for some time - resolution and low ISO performance. It even allowed you to switch rolls of film and switch back in a partially shot roll at any time unlike normal film.

The thing thing that made it really compelling was the physical design that enabled easy re-use of the film cartridge made dead-simple scanners a snap. Kodak sold a film scanner that you would simply insert a roll of film, then you could review the images and select the ones you wanted high-res scans from.

The problem with Kodak though, was they never fully committed to that format, and abandoned things like the film scanner after some time. It could have had a really good run and kept both Fuji and Kodak doing quite well with film for much longer, allowing a more natural progression into digital that Kodak might have been able to manage.

It was Kodak's lack of ability to commit to their own ideas that doomed them, but that was not obvious all along.

Re:Not that obvious kodak was doomed (2)

dbc (135354) | about a year and a half ago | (#42166249)

No, it WAS totally obvious, and you said the key phrase yourself: "they never toally committed" -- the handwriting was on the wall for the film business, but they just couldn't bring themselves to shift enough resources over to digital. They were always afraid of cannibalizing the film business. It was that fear that doomed them, and it was totally dead obvious to anybody with Silicon Valley management experience. They never went after consumer digital cameras in any serious way. It was like watching a dinosaur die of thirst at a rapidly drying water hole because it wouldn't cross the plain to another water hole that it already knew about.

Also, keeping "both Fuji and Kodak doing quite well with film for much longer" is exactly the kind of thinking that got them in trouble. *You* didn't see it coming because you think like their managers. You are thinking like an old Ma Bell, days-of-the-regulated-monopoly, manager. Trying to keep the film business alive longer is what killed them. Being the first to make film pointless would have saved them, instead, they let someone else do it. When you understand that lesson well enough to fire people that think like you do now, you have the potential to snag a corner office.

It really *was* obvious, because this scenario has played out over and over. Sili Valley is littered with the bones of companies that died that way. Read Christensen's "Innovator's Dilema". You will rethink Kodak's demise.

You don't understand the prior advantages of film (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42171795)

No, it WAS totally obvious, and you said the key phrase yourself: "they never toally committed"

The reason it was not obvious is because at a number of points it was possible to change course - they just never did. It's all too easy to claim in hindsight it was obvious; but anyone that thinks so did not properly consider possibilities at the time.

*You* didn't see it coming because you think like their managers

No. The problem is that you fail to understand that film had very real and huge advantages in quality over digital, really until just a few years ago. By making a hybrid-digital product and treating film as a near-digitial entity, they could have given themselves, and the industry, more runway in switching to digital while giving photographers almost all of the advantages we are used to with digital cameras today. It would have been better for not just Kodak but also the market.

Re:Incidentally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42165693)

Is that you gnome?

clean exit strategy (1)

John_Sauter (595980) | about a year and a half ago | (#42167989)

Given how frequently (and often painfully, toward the end) companies seem to founder in the face of structural changes that they can't do much about (short of essentially re-founding as something else, just carrying over the campus and the capital), I have to wonder if there has been any work done outside of the barbaric corporate raider sector on building companies with clean exit strategies...

After all, there isn't any reason why a company needs to struggle to perpetuate its existence forever (any more than a company would struggle to perpetuate the existence of a given product line forever). Sure, the process that companies who do fight and then die go through is pretty grim; but that is, at least in part, because they keep struggling even after the situation is hopeless, and just bleed and bleed and bleed.

Is there a process where you just quit before you are behind, wind down neatly, rather than the corporate equivalent of spending a few years stuck full of tubes and unresponsive in the ICU?

It is possible for a company to cease operations without lots of pain. All it requires is a management willing to face facts. Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, used to tell the story of a corner barbershop that knew its finances very well. When their landlord increased the lease on their parking lot, they immediately closed: they knew that with the increased cost they could not survive.

Some years ago, I owned and operated a store which sold and serviced the Commodore Amiga. When Commodore folded, I had two choices: convert to an IBM PC store, or close. There were already several IBM PC stores in town, better established than I would have been, so I decided to close.

I decided that December 31 would be my last day. I told my technician to go home, but I would continue his health benefits through the end of the year. I paid my rent and hired kids off the street to help me clean out the store. Most of the stuff in the store was trashed, but I took a few items home. I kept the store name for my personal consulting business.

No pain, no tears, just the orderly end of a retail business that had lost its manufacturer.

the Real Problem... (4, Interesting)

lemur3 (997863) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162119)

Part of the problem that Kodak had was less to do with the Digital Revolution and somewhat more to do with the complex formulations of their photographic emulsions.

As I understand it some of these emulsions are so sensitive to variables that one merely couldn't take the "recipe" and scale it down to a smaller run which would work wherever a coating machine existed.. The Kodak Photo Engineers had to tweak and develop the emulsion formulations for the various films they produced to suit each vessel which they were mixed in/stored in/expelled from during production...

With many of the engineers aging and few young people coming in to the work force having the hands on access to emulsions and coating machines to learn the very specialized techniques of the Photographic Emulsion Engineering guys it put kodak in a situation where scaling down and suiting the changing market would become more and more difficult.

The end result seems to be they were producing far more film than they could sell, and were having to store it instead of making profit off of it... running operations that they knew were too large... and stuck in a spot where loyal customers might not accept the changes in emulsions that may come from downsizing the operation...

Digital imaging certainly hurt.. but the extremely complex emulsions and coating really didnt help.

The biggest loss from Kodak and as we are finding with the people trying to replicate Polaroids instant films.. is the stuff you dont learn in chemistry class, or from a masters degree in Photography.. its knowing how to troubleshoot problems with emulsions and make consistent high quality coating machines..

While a lot of the processes in the history of the medium of photography can be done without much trouble as a DIY thing.. modern high speed emulsion films and developing papers are one of the few things that are, even with the right tools and ingredients.. likely out of the realm of possibility for the most hardcore of us. (with only a few people i know of even attempting this)

This is not a "good riddance" type thing.. high speed modern film isnt replaced by digital..

With the death of many of these former emulsion engineers we stand to lose a photographic process that has been with us for over 100 years.. and that sucks.

 

Re:the Real Problem... (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162383)

OTOH, the technology that comes from creating high quality coatings [kodak.com] on an industrial scale has applications far beyond photography.

I guess it's not lucrative enough to support the entire company, but they have tried to capitalize on what they know.

Re:the Real Problem... (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162809)

As I understand it some of these emulsions are so sensitive to variables that one merely couldn't take the "recipe" and scale it down to a smaller run

Standard chemical engineering problem. Scaling from lab to plant (and, apparently, back again) is not easy. They earn their salaries...

the stuff you dont learn in chemistry class, or from a masters degree in Photography

Again, above, you want a ChemEng not a chemist or a artist. Probably your best best is the organic coating aka "paint" chem engineers. Note that they spend their time making pigments that DONT alter with exposure to light so you're asking a lot (kinda like the difference between black hat and white hat hackers)

And in other good news (3, Interesting)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162173)

Kodak's CEO, Antonio Perez, was named to Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

http://pmanewsline.com/2011/02/24/antonio-perez-appointed-to-the-president%E2%80%99s-council-on-jobs-and-competitiveness/#.ULudQOS1Uzk [pmanewsline.com]

As we used to say... (1)

cvtan (752695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162317)

When puzzling over some strategic move by Kodak upper management, my colleague would say, "People much smarter than us have this all figured out."

Film for Polaroid cameras available again (3, Interesting)

Teun (17872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162437)

At the original factory for Polaroid media in The Netherlands some guys are again producing the 'film' you need to continue using your late model Polaroid cameras:
http://www.the-impossible-project.com/?nointro=1 [the-imposs...roject.com]

What about Ilford? (1)

tipo159 (1151047) | about a year and a half ago | (#42162551)

What do they mean there is nothing like Tri-X? What about HP5 Plus?

The article mentions Tri-X's hard-core following, the demise of Pan-X and how Fujifilm has done better, but it completely neglects to mention Ilford. Ilford sells films that compete against Tri-X (HP5 Plus) and Pan-X (HP4).

I believe that Ilford went through a bankruptcy, but is doing OK now. I think it would be interesting to learn how they are doing compared to Kodak's analog film division.

Re:What about Ilford? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42165759)

Ilford makes wonderful films and papers. I think it's pretty healthy. The FA missed a lot, like the "essentially zero cost" of digital photography remark. Yea, that hamster wheel of obsolete plastic SLRs and, in their turn, mirrorless 4/3s that you can pick up at the Salvation Army or the ARC for twenty bucks. Hell, just land fill them, nobody will notice, or send them to Africa so some kid can burn them for the copper. Zero cost. This is Slashdot, where folks are comfortable with this sort of wasteful manipulation; they live within it. Might not even see it or care if they did.

Time to put Cory's plan into place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42162579)

In the book Makers [craphound.com] the company Duracell buys Kodak, guts the company and uses Kodak's spoils to fund hundreds of makers to invent the imaginable while making use of Kodak's supply chain network to bring those inventions to market. 3d printing and re-purposing discarded products for parts plays a big role for low-cost of production and fast prototyping inventions. One of the inventions is smart bins with RF chips, where you tell you computer "where is my ?" and the bin with that item will make sounds and rattle so that you can find it.

Capitalism: being stupid is expensive (1)

boddhisatva (774894) | about a year and a half ago | (#42164395)

If these two companies didn't see digital photography coming at them like a bus they were stupid. It was get on board in a big way or be roadkill. I'm a darwinian capitalist. No business gets bailed out. When the banks tanked the government should have bailed out the bad mortgage holders, not the banks. Like the FDIC - insure the citizens, screw the businesses. They want to make money? Don't screw up.

Re:Capitalism: being stupid is expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42166213)

luckily for you the tarp funds have been paid back in full for some time now.

I just shot a roll of Kodak Gold 100 today (1)

tadas (34825) | about a year and a half ago | (#42164627)

.. and I bet there are plenty of Slashdot users who still shoot film instead of, or in addition to (me) digital. Actually, I was going "mass market" -- I normally shoot E6 transparencies ("slide film"). Now *that* is a business that's fast disappearing.

True black and white film, however, will be around forever, as an art medium. It is much, much easier to make (some can actually do it at home), and there are several small-scale manufacturers in Eastern Europe, England, India and China, as well as Fuji, the Japanese giant. It has qualities that are difficult or impossible to produce digitally.

Re:I just shot a roll of Kodak Gold 100 today (1)

ninjagin (631183) | about a year and a half ago | (#42169799)

Thank you for making this point. I still shoot on film from time to time (at least a few rolls a year, so not much, admittedly). The truth is that the resolution of film is at a molecular level, which makes it a little tougher to work with, but especially gratifying when you get the result you want. Until we have sensors that can detect at molecular resolutions, there won't be true equivalence. That said, with digital pictures, it's positively amazing how easy it is to repair poor exposures and make enhancements that used to take me hours to do under the enlarger, monkeying around with papers and chemistry. That pregnant period of creation, or just the delay in processing, isn't so bad. The results, because you have to wait, are more exciting to me in a kind of christmas morning kind of way. I've also been enjoying my polaroid cameras a lot more than I did when polaroid was making the film. The impossible project has furnished some really interesting small-batch boutique films that polaroid would not have accepted, but which have wonderful character. I never used to be able to find black & white polaroid films back in the day, anyway, and it's been a real pleasure to take those pictures. Film isn't dead, thankfully. I'm not ready to give it up, regardless.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>