Kodak about to be de-listed from stock exchange

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jan 4, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    They are under $1.00/share.
     
    RichA, Jan 4, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    philo Guest

    On 01/03/2012 10:16 PM, RichA wrote:
    > They are under $1.00/share.



    Kind of a sad day.

    Had they put more emphasis on digital early on...they'd still be doing well.

    My first digital camera was a Kodak (1mp) still works fine.

    It's the only camera I've ever had to simply "bounce" and keep on
    working when dropped on concrete pavement!



    An OT side note regarding the stock market...

    Many years ago, I got so sick of it, I had my broker sell everything and
    just close my account.

    Turned out, they couldn't. I had one stock that had *zero* value yet
    the company remained in business! So I still own 1500 shares of that
    stock, there is just no value. Since was was not able to close the
    account... a few years later I got back in and now that my stomach is
    tougher....don't panic and seem to be doing ok
     
    philo, Jan 4, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. philo <> writes:

    > On 01/03/2012 10:16 PM, RichA wrote:
    >> They are under $1.00/share.

    >
    >
    > Kind of a sad day.
    >
    > Had they put more emphasis on digital early on...they'd still be doing well.


    They tried *really* hard to get going in digital. I don't know that any
    large established company could really have done more. It just didn't
    *work*. They pushed photo CD (and there was supposed to be a home
    player, but that got delayed too long in development), and they made all
    the early DSLRs, and they still make sensors for some high-end cameras,
    and they tried to make digital picture frames go, and they made some
    pretty early and quite decent P&S digital cameras. And lots of smaller
    things. They set up digital integration with their film processing
    lines.

    Even if you see the train coming, sometimes you can't get off the tracks
    in time.

    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 4, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 4, 10:26 am, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > philo <> writes:
    > > On 01/03/2012 10:16 PM, RichA wrote:
    > >> They are under $1.00/share.

    >
    > > Kind of a sad day.

    >
    > > Had they put more emphasis on digital early on...they'd still be doing well.

    >
    > They tried *really* hard to get going in digital.  I don't know that any
    > large established company could really have done more.  It just didn't
    > *work*.


    Producing low-end, commodity junk didn't work. Sitting back while
    Canon clobbered and passed them in DSLRs didn't work. Their last
    bastion are high-end CCD sensors and (I think) high-volume printing
    equipment. I guess they'll end up selling off that part of their
    business.
     
    RichA, Jan 4, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA <> writes:

    > On Jan 4, 10:26 am, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> philo <> writes:
    >> > On 01/03/2012 10:16 PM, RichA wrote:
    >> >> They are under $1.00/share.

    >>
    >> > Kind of a sad day.

    >>
    >> > Had they put more emphasis on digital early on...they'd still be doing well.

    >>
    >> They tried *really* hard to get going in digital.  I don't know that any
    >> large established company could really have done more.  It just didn't
    >> *work*.

    >
    > Producing low-end, commodity junk didn't work.


    That's what they're mostly doing *now*, but that's after already
    losing. Their earlier tries at P&S weren't commodity junk.

    > Sitting back while Canon clobbered and passed them in DSLRs didn't
    > work.


    They didn't sit back; Canon (and more importantly Nikon, with the D1 and
    D100) just passed them. Kodak didn't really know how to engineer
    consumer products -- for cheap volume manufacturing while getting the
    needed quality.

    > Their last bastion are high-end CCD sensors and (I think) high-volume
    > printing equipment. I guess they'll end up selling off that part of
    > their business.


    And lots of industrial chemical stuff, and the film business, which is
    clearly declining but still nono-trivial.
    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 4, 2012
    #5
  6. In article <je1mh4$1lq$>, philo <>
    writes
    >On 01/03/2012 10:16 PM, RichA wrote:
    >> They are under $1.00/share.

    >
    >
    >Kind of a sad day.
    >
    >Had they put more emphasis on digital early on...they'd still be doing well.
    >

    Let's not forget that, apart from Foveon based units, all digital colour
    cameras whether P&S, dSLR or mirrorless are based on a Kodak invention:
    Dr Bryce Bayer's RGB colour filter array. After the CCD, there has
    barely been a more fundamental contribution to digital imaging than
    that!

    If anything, Kodak's problem was putting too much emphasis on digital
    too early - spending a fortune resolving problems that Nikon could
    exploit later on their cameras and developing technology that everyone
    now exploits after the patents expired.

    The early bird gets the worm, but its the second mouse that gets the
    cheese!
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Jan 4, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    Mort Guest

    George Kerby wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > On 1/4/12 8:08 AM, in article je1mh4$1lq$, "philo"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 01/03/2012 10:16 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>> They are under $1.00/share.

    >>
    >>
    >> Kind of a sad day.
    >>
    >> Had they put more emphasis on digital early on...they'd still be doing well.
    >>

    >
    > They were the first one, in 1975...
    >
    > <http://www.todayandtomorrow.net/2010/08/24/kodaks-first-digital-camera/>
    >
    > Can't be much earlier than that, but they thought of it as a toy. However in
    > the early 90's they put a digital back on a Nikon SLR.
    >

    Hi,

    IBM did the same thing with its Personal Computer. It thought of it as
    a toy, and farmed out the software and chips to two new companies named
    Microsoft and Intel. You know the rest of the story.

    I still remember Kodachrome 35 mm. film ASA 10 = 1/60th at f 5.6 in
    bright sun. That was a lifetime ago.

    Mort Linder
     
    Mort, Jan 4, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    philo Guest

    On 01/04/2012 05:33 PM, Mort wrote:
    > George Kerby wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 1/4/12 8:08 AM, in article je1mh4$1lq$, "philo"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 01/03/2012 10:16 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>>> They are under $1.00/share.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Kind of a sad day.
    >>>
    >>> Had they put more emphasis on digital early on...they'd still be
    >>> doing well.
    >>>

    >>
    >> They were the first one, in 1975...
    >>
    >> <http://www.todayandtomorrow.net/2010/08/24/kodaks-first-digital-camera/>
    >>
    >> Can't be much earlier than that, but they thought of it as a toy.
    >> However in
    >> the early 90's they put a digital back on a Nikon SLR.
    >>

    > Hi,
    >
    > IBM did the same thing with its Personal Computer. It thought of it as a
    > toy, and farmed out the software and chips to two new companies named
    > Microsoft and Intel. You know the rest of the story.
    >
    > I still remember Kodachrome 35 mm. film ASA 10 = 1/60th at f 5.6 in
    > bright sun. That was a lifetime ago.
    >
    > Mort Linder



    I thought I was an old timer...
    but ASA 10 film...never knew about that
     
    philo, Jan 4, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    philo Guest

    On 01/04/2012 12:21 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > RichA<> writes:
    >
    >> On Jan 4, 10:26 am, David Dyer-Bennet<> wrote:
    >>> philo<> writes:
    >>>> On 01/03/2012 10:16 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>>>> They are under $1.00/share.
    >>>
    >>>> Kind of a sad day.
    >>>
    >>>> Had they put more emphasis on digital early on...they'd still be doing well.
    >>>
    >>> They tried *really* hard to get going in digital. I don't know that any
    >>> large established company could really have done more. It just didn't
    >>> *work*.

    >>
    >> Producing low-end, commodity junk didn't work.

    >
    > That's what they're mostly doing *now*, but that's after already
    > losing. Their earlier tries at P&S weren't commodity junk.
    >



    <snip>

    Correct. As I mentioned my early Kodak camera was built like a tank
    and still works fine.

    Even though it was only 1 mp it produced quality 8 x 10's

    and even if enlarged beyond that...still not too bad
     
    philo, Jan 4, 2012
    #9
  10. philo <> writes:

    > On 01/04/2012 05:33 PM, Mort wrote:
    >> George Kerby wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 1/4/12 8:08 AM, in article je1mh4$1lq$, "philo"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 01/03/2012 10:16 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>>>> They are under $1.00/share.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Kind of a sad day.
    >>>>
    >>>> Had they put more emphasis on digital early on...they'd still be
    >>>> doing well.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> They were the first one, in 1975...
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.todayandtomorrow.net/2010/08/24/kodaks-first-digital-camera/>
    >>>
    >>> Can't be much earlier than that, but they thought of it as a toy.
    >>> However in
    >>> the early 90's they put a digital back on a Nikon SLR.
    >>>

    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> IBM did the same thing with its Personal Computer. It thought of it as a
    >> toy, and farmed out the software and chips to two new companies named
    >> Microsoft and Intel. You know the rest of the story.
    >>
    >> I still remember Kodachrome 35 mm. film ASA 10 = 1/60th at f 5.6 in
    >> bright sun. That was a lifetime ago.

    >
    > I thought I was an old timer...
    > but ASA 10 film...never knew about that


    He's right, though; the original Kodachrome was ISO 10 (and the slightly
    later sheet film daylight balanced version was ASA 8).

    I didn't use it before the ASA 25 version (but I started with Kodachrome
    II, the K-12 process ASA 25 version, and then transitioned to Kodachrome
    25, the K-14 process version, when that became available).
    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 5, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > He's right, though; the original Kodachrome was ISO 10 (and the

    slightly
    > later sheet film daylight balanced version was ASA 8).



    > I didn't use it before the ASA 25 version (but I started with

    Kodachrome
    > II, the K-12 process ASA 25 version, and then transitioned to

    Kodachrome
    > 25, the K-14 process version, when that became available).




    That was my experience too. We must be around the same age.

    I still have some unexposed Kodachrome 25 film in the freezer. I
    didn't get the chance to shoot with it because I was too busy trying
    to earn a living.

    Now I have some spare time, I am hoping that one lab somewhere in the
    world will offer a processing service so I can enjoy Kodachrome once
    again. I know there are plugins that ape its rendition but that's
    not what I am looking for.
     
    Bruce, Jan 5, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    > In the 1980's, Kodak(?) sold (in bulk) an ultra-high resolution

    colour
    > film, ASA 6. It apparently resolved like TechPan.



    For many years, Kodachrome 25 was the finest resolution colour film
    on general sale. It was only in the 1990s that it was finally beaten
    by a Fuji product.
     
    Bruce, Jan 5, 2012
    #12
  13. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Allen <> wrote:
    > A note about that slow but great film--a few years ago I scanned

    several
    > thousand slides. The old original Kodachromes were the ones that

    had
    > suffered the least change over the years.



    Kodachrome slides last decades if they are stored carefully and
    aren't projected. E6 emulsions are much more resistant to projection
    but their longevity in storage is not as good as Kodachrome.
     
    Bruce, Jan 5, 2012
    #13
  14. Bruce <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> He's right, though; the original Kodachrome was ISO 10 (and the

    > slightly
    >> later sheet film daylight balanced version was ASA 8).

    >
    >
    >> I didn't use it before the ASA 25 version (but I started with

    > Kodachrome
    >> II, the K-12 process ASA 25 version, and then transitioned to

    > Kodachrome
    >> 25, the K-14 process version, when that became available).

    >
    >
    >
    > That was my experience too. We must be around the same age.


    I'm a 1954 product (my M3, when I had it, was just about my age based on
    its serial number).

    > I still have some unexposed Kodachrome 25 film in the freezer. I
    > didn't get the chance to shoot with it because I was too busy trying
    > to earn a living.


    I manage to pass all mine on to somebody else (I cleaned out the freezer
    a few years back). Dunno if they got to use it.

    > Now I have some spare time, I am hoping that one lab somewhere in the
    > world will offer a processing service so I can enjoy Kodachrome once
    > again. I know there are plugins that ape its rendition but that's not
    > what I am looking for.


    I very much doubt that Kodachrome Process K-14 will ever be run again.
    The last processing line in the world shut down a year ago (I've got the
    t-shirt), and given how hard it is to keep a Kodachrome line running, I
    don't think anybody else will set up one up when the film suppply was
    shut off a year before that.

    You can develop it as B&W, though.

    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 5, 2012
    #14
  15. In article <>, Allen
    <> writes
    >
    >A note about that slow but great film--a few years ago I scanned
    >several thousand slides. The old original Kodachromes were the ones
    >that had suffered the least change over the years. I wonder how many
    >people today realize that old film contained no dyes; color was added
    >during processing.
    >

    Certainly Kodachrome contained no dyes, but plenty of other old colour
    film did. Anyone scanning old film with an "ICE" equipped scanner would
    certainly tell the difference - Kodachrome still contains silver oxide
    in the emulsion after development, whilst in others it is bleached out.
    Silver oxide doesn't transmit infrared, so ICE doesn't work properly
    with Kodachrome.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Jan 5, 2012
    #15
  16. Kennedy McEwen <> writes:

    > In article <>, Allen
    > <> writes
    >>
    >> A note about that slow but great film--a few years ago I scanned
    >> several thousand slides. The old original Kodachromes were the ones
    >> that had suffered the least change over the years. I wonder how many
    >> people today realize that old film contained no dyes; color was
    >> added during processing.
    >>

    > Certainly Kodachrome contained no dyes, but plenty of other old colour
    > film did.


    Dyes were added in processing in Kodachrome, whereas E4 and E6 slide
    film contained them in the film to begin with.

    > Anyone scanning old film with an "ICE" equipped scanner
    > would certainly tell the difference - Kodachrome still contains silver
    > oxide in the emulsion after development, whilst in others it is
    > bleached out. Silver oxide doesn't transmit infrared, so ICE doesn't
    > work properly with Kodachrome.


    I don't think it's that; what I've read, confirmed by my experience, is
    that some generations of the cyan dye in processed Kodachrome is not
    fully transparent in the infrared. This is more with older Kodachrome
    than newer. I've verified that new Kodachrome mostly works with ICE,
    and that the ones that don't tend towards having higher cyan density. I
    have NOT made any attempt to actually measure the infrared transmission
    of the actual dyes.
    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 5, 2012
    #16
  17. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > Bruce <> writes:
    > > That was my experience too. We must be around the same age.

    >
    >
    > I'm a 1954 product (my M3, when I had it, was just about my age

    based on
    > its serial number).



    Yes, 1954 here too. My first M3 was also from 1954, but my current
    one is much later as it is the single wind version. It gets a lot of
    use.


    > > I still have some unexposed Kodachrome 25 film in the freezer. I
    > > didn't get the chance to shoot with it because I was too busy

    trying
    > > to earn a living.

    >
    > I manage to pass all mine on to somebody else (I cleaned out the

    freezer
    > a few years back). Dunno if they got to use it.
    >
    >
    > > Now I have some spare time, I am hoping that one lab somewhere in

    the
    > > world will offer a processing service so I can enjoy Kodachrome

    once
    > > again. I know there are plugins that ape its rendition but

    that's not
    > > what I am looking for.

    >
    >
    > I very much doubt that Kodachrome Process K-14 will ever be run

    again.
    > The last processing line in the world shut down a year ago (I've

    got the
    > t-shirt), and given how hard it is to keep a Kodachrome line

    running, I
    > don't think anybody else will set up one up when the film suppply

    was
    > shut off a year before that.



    There is a specialist lab in the UK which is run by a former manager
    of the Kodak lab in London SW19. He probably knows more about the
    K-14 process than anyone else in the UK and can easily find most of
    the equipment needed to establish a low volume operation. He has
    plans to offer K-14 processing and I wish him a lot of luck.


    > You can develop it as B&W, though.



    A waste of a uniquely good colour film. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jan 6, 2012
    #17
  18. Bruce <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> Bruce <> writes:
    >> > That was my experience too. We must be around the same age.

    >>
    >>
    >> I'm a 1954 product (my M3, when I had it, was just about my age

    > based on
    >> its serial number).

    >
    >
    > Yes, 1954 here too. My first M3 was also from 1954, but my current
    > one is much later as it is the single wind version. It gets a lot of
    > use.


    It was a great year :).

    >> > I still have some unexposed Kodachrome 25 film in the freezer. I
    >> > didn't get the chance to shoot with it because I was too busy

    > trying
    >> > to earn a living.

    >>
    >> I manage to pass all mine on to somebody else (I cleaned out the

    > freezer
    >> a few years back). Dunno if they got to use it.
    >>
    >>
    >> > Now I have some spare time, I am hoping that one lab somewhere in

    > the
    >> > world will offer a processing service so I can enjoy Kodachrome

    > once
    >> > again. I know there are plugins that ape its rendition but

    > that's not
    >> > what I am looking for.

    >>
    >>
    >> I very much doubt that Kodachrome Process K-14 will ever be run

    > again.
    >> The last processing line in the world shut down a year ago (I've

    > got the
    >> t-shirt), and given how hard it is to keep a Kodachrome line

    > running, I
    >> don't think anybody else will set up one up when the film suppply

    > was
    >> shut off a year before that.

    >
    >
    > There is a specialist lab in the UK which is run by a former manager
    > of the Kodak lab in London SW19. He probably knows more about the
    > K-14 process than anyone else in the UK and can easily find most of
    > the equipment needed to establish a low volume operation. He has
    > plans to offer K-14 processing and I wish him a lot of luck.


    Well, lots of people made an effort to use up their cache of film, and
    no more film is being manufactured. I think it's a fairly limited
    market niche. It'll be expensive to get started, too.

    >> You can develop it as B&W, though.

    >
    >
    > A waste of a uniquely good colour film. ;-)


    Yes. The only reason it's at all interesting is that one might still at
    this late date find an exposed unprocessed roll. (But now I've heard
    of the guy in London, I might freeze it in a shielded bag for a while
    first against the chance that I might some day be able to get it
    processed in color.)
    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 6, 2012
    #18
  19. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > > There is a specialist lab in the UK which is run by a former

    manager
    > > of the Kodak lab in London SW19. He probably knows more about the
    > > K-14 process than anyone else in the UK and can easily find most

    of
    > > the equipment needed to establish a low volume operation. He has
    > > plans to offer K-14 processing and I wish him a lot of luck.

    >
    >
    > Well, lots of people made an effort to use up their cache of film,

    and
    > no more film is being manufactured. I think it's a fairly limited
    > market niche. It'll be expensive to get started, too.



    <snip>


    > (But now I've heard
    > of the guy in London, I might freeze it in a shielded bag for a

    while
    > first against the chance that I might some day be able to get it
    > processed in color.)



    A few years ago he set up his own lab and offered C-22 and E-4
    processing alongside C-41 and E-6. He charges around $30 a film for
    C-22 and has managed to stay in business while hundreds of film
    processing labs have closed. So I think there is at least a
    reasonable chance of him offering a service for K-14.
     
    Bruce, Jan 6, 2012
    #19
  20. Bruce <> writes:

    > A few years ago he set up his own lab and offered C-22 and E-4
    > processing alongside C-41 and E-6. He charges around $30 a film for
    > C-22 and has managed to stay in business while hundreds of film
    > processing labs have closed. So I think there is at least a
    > reasonable chance of him offering a service for K-14.


    Wow. Yes, those films would seem to be in somewhat similar
    situations -- and for a longer time period. My theories for why that
    shouldn't be possible seem to be about equally strong as for K-14. So
    if he makes that work, maybe he can make the other work.
    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 6, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jose Luis

    Exchange 5.5 with Exchange 2000 Cluster problem

    Jose Luis, Feb 13, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    732
    Jose Luis
    Feb 13, 2004
  2. Au79
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    553
    Fuzzy Logic
    Nov 13, 2007
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    London Stock Exchange--Microsoft's ex-Poster Child

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 2, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    453
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jul 4, 2009
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    London Stock Exchange Close To Switching Off Windows

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 14, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    616
    Gordon
    Oct 25, 2010
  5. Boris Badenough

    London Stock Exchange Suspends Migration To Linux.

    Boris Badenough, Nov 8, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    465
    Meat Plow
    Nov 8, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page