Kodak
Posted by: Quad 33 on 21 January 2012
Dear Forum.
Is it just me, or are other people sad about the demises of a once great company & household name.
Graham
Even ten or fifteen years ago, when I regularly used two 35 mm cameras - a Mamya, and a Canonette [still got this one from the early sixties, my grandmother's] - I found better results from Fujifilm.
Kodak made some superb camera film in my younger days [when my mother and grandmother were chief photgraphers in my family], but I think they did neither keep up on the popular level with film, or move with the times concerning the move to digital methods, so their fate was sealed. A once great company that did not move with the times. Sad though.
ATB from George
Can't really argue with your point but I do believe Kodachrome 25 was the non plus ultra of film. Properly exposed and properly developed it was superb.
It's not just you Graham.
The irony that they invented the world's first digital camera back in the seventies seems inescapable. Apparently Kodak's engineers were discouraged from developing it, for fear of what its success might do to their major product (ie. film)
Chris
Who knows if they had followed the original Box Brownie model of providing cameras that only they could convert to pictures then their demise may have been postponed, but then probably not.
Technology has a nasty habit of pulling the rug out from under peoples feet.
I did hear the Box Brownie described as the first gadget which was a nice moment.
Like cassettes and polariod I fear photographic film will drift into a nether world of cult users.
Jono (Still have my 30 year old Nikon FE just in case I am wrong)
Tony
Tony
Maybe, but they are so far behind Sony, Samsung and Panasonic.
Chris
In my opinion,one of the problems with Kodak was that they never made a decent upmarket 35mm or 2.4 sq camera on the lines of Nikon, Leica, Hasselblad etc. They just seemed content to cater for the happy snap market. When I worked in a professional dark room in the 70's every chemical, sheet of photographic paper & film was made by Kodak. However all the photographers used German or Japanese cameras. Most of the best camera manufactures developed a digital range of cameras, however Kodak could not because of their perceived market. Not unlike some British HI Fi manufactures who went down market.
Dear George.
With regard to Fuji Film. I think that one of the reasons that some people preferred Fuji film was that it had the same depth and colour saturation as Kodachrome but you got a negative and did not have to send it away to Hemel Hempsted and wait two weeks for your slides. Kodak did do a professionally service but even that took a week.
The sensors in Digital cameras come from IC fabs, including the likes of Toshiba and Samsung though Canon and Sony make them as well, but Nikon for example source their sensors. This means that in principle any company with the necessary engineering skills can have a bespoke version DSLR and in fact Kodak did have a sensor made and introduced a DSLR with what at the time was quite a high pixel count. Of course they also had to persuade someone who knows how to make lenses to supply as well
I think they suffered from being late in the race which Canon and Nikon had by the teeth by then and C & N both do an excellent job of making their own lenses because they have an awful lot of experience and learned skills in that area,
Poor marketing was also a factor and Kodak has not been able to get away from its association with with what is perceived as 'old hat' film based photography which is a shame because there is a lot about film exposure and processing that is rewarding.
At any rate being labelled old fashioned and not investing big to market itself into digital was probably the biggest issue for Kodak.
Incidentally I think personally even in film when they introduced Kodak Royal which was an overly colourful film formula in my opinion they lost ground even more to Fuji who have a more subdued but more natural palette.
regards
Geoff
In the 60s Kodak made and sold a rather desirable 35mm camera, the Retinette, it was a rangefinder fixed lens camera that was in the same market place as the Agfa Silette. The Retinette was made in the Kodak Stuttgart area factory.
I managed to get a tour of the Kodak factory in the Stuttgart area aswell as a trip round the factory in Harrow and Stevenage
We used the Kodak DSLRs on our paper quite successfully. They were available in Canon or NIkon fit.
But when it came to their replacement, Canon had already come out with the Eos 1D (which we went for to fit all our Canon lenses) and Nikon made an equivalent (D5?). AFAIK there was nothing from Kodak. An opportunity lost, never to be regained.
Chris
"Kodak files for Chapter 11: So?
Family and friends keep asking me "wow, Kodak bankrupt? Is the sky falling?"
Few of you guys have asked, because as photographers, we are all our own businesses. There are no "jobs" in photography except those we create for ourselves.
As business owners, we know that filing for reorganization under chapter 11 is merely a trick used by irresponsibly managed parties to weasel out of promises made to others — but to stay in business.
If you're going out of business, you file under a completely different chapter, chapter 7, but you guys know that.
The news media loves to get everyone all riled up, so they report irresponsibly as if chapter 11 is "going out of business." Heck, almost every airline and Ritz has pulled this same "Chapter 11" rich-guy's trick, and they're all still around.
Chapter 11 merely means that you're run irresponsibly and want to skip out on your promises, but to stay in business shining your big ugly teeth back at the people you managed not to pay by playing the chapter 11 legal trick.
All filing under chapter 11 means is that you're a poorly managed and irresponsible operation. It's a badge of shame — but you or your company will still be around, and that you're promising the judge to be better next time.
I'm amazed that Kodak floated along this long. It's been poorly managed for decades. I remember 20 years ago when neither I nor any of my other colleagues could figure out who our Kodak rep was, while we always knew our Fuji guy. We still have no idea who our local Kodak guy is.
Whenever we could find a Kodak rep, all they did was whine about how bad Kodak was doing and how short lived their job might be, and this was told to us as part of their job representing Kodak!
George Eastman invented film, and the ride was easy for the first 100 years. Kodak could do what it wanted, and do well, until Fuji came along with better film that looked better and lasted longer without fading. Old faded color pictures? Kodak film and Kodak paper.
Kodak hasn't been the leading film maker for pro use for 20 years since Fuji replaced them. Kodak floated along on its laurels for decades. For recent decades, Kodak was run it its interest, not in our interests.
After Velvia came out and turned the world on its head, we kept waiting for Kodak to make something better. Ektachrome 100 VS. Lumiere. Every attempt was crummy; and as the years rolled on, Velvia kept making better, bolder and more vivid images than anything Kodak could try to copy, and even if Kodak did or does come out with a film that looks better, it probably would fade much faster than Fuji. If it doesn't last, why shoot it?
With its filing, I expect that Kodak will be around for a long time. I have no worries that I'll be able to get all the TMX100 I can shoot, and if not, Ilford, others and even Fuji make good B&W film, too."
Even ten or fifteen years ago, when I regularly used two 35 mm cameras - a Mamya, and a Canonette [still got this one from the early sixties, my grandmother's] - I found better results from Fujifilm.
Kodak made some superb camera film in my younger days [when my mother and grandmother were chief photgraphers in my family], but I think they did neither keep up on the popular level with film, or move with the times concerning the move to digital methods, so their fate was sealed. A once great company that did not move with the times. Sad though.
ATB from George
Yeah, I found this too. Fujichrome Velvia 50 or Ilford XP1 for me - you could develop XP1 in Ilford Microphen even though it was a C41 film.
I did try Kodachrome 64 and 25 but never got on with either. Kodak Tri-X Pan was the press favourite though.