Re: Kodak will lay off 6000 employees

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ron Hunter, Jul 24, 2003.

  1. Ron Hunter

    Ron Hunter Guest

    jriegle wrote:
    > After hearing earlier this year that digicam makers are now making big
    > profits on digital cameras, I'm surprised that Kodak is hurting so much
    > considering they sell lots of digicams. The reason cited for Kodak's down
    > turn in film sales was to digital camera sales.
    >
    > I can believe it. Many friends and coworkers I've talked to have recently
    > purchased one.
    >
    > At an air show over the weekend, I saw many digicam users as well as film
    > cameras with the SLR user here or there. I'm a hypocrite. I argue the
    > virtues of film, yet I elected to leave the film SLR at home and shot 168
    > pictures at the airshow. I'm part of their problem.
    >
    > John
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Kodak, like other companies who make film, is in transistion. It is
    likely that making digital cameras is less employee intensive than
    making all that film. Laying off workers is one way they have to
    adjust. You will probably find Fuji doing something similar.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 24, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ron Hunter

    Bob O`Bob Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:

    > Kodak, like other companies who make film, is in transistion. It is
    > likely that making digital cameras is less employee intensive than
    > making all that film. Laying off workers is one way they have to
    > adjust. You will probably find Fuji doing something similar.



    I just hope that Fuji doesn't also take up spamming people by email.

    <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3.0.5.32.20030722113200.009e19b0%40cluestick.org>




    Bob
     
    Bob O`Bob, Jul 24, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ron Hunter

    Tiny Tim Guest

    Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Ron Hunter writes:
    >
    >> It is likely that making digital cameras is less
    >> employee intensive than making all that film.

    >
    > Why do you say that? Making film can be highly automated, like making
    > garbage bags or paper.
    >

    I think comparing the labour costs of producing digital *cameras* vs *film*
    is a bit of a red herring. It's possibly the case that it takes similar
    effort to make a digital camera or a film camera.

    However, digital photography uses far less in the way of consumables,
    including film, chemicals and paper. Let's say the average film photographer
    gets through 12 rolls of film per year and swaps to a digital setup with a
    256MB flash card. That setup may well serve him/her for 5 years or more. So
    that's 60 rolls less film required and considerably less chemicals and
    paper. And by and large it won't be Kodak supplying the memory cards either.
    Multiply that by the millions of photographers worldwide and it soon adds up
    to a lot less demand.

    Leading on from that you need fewer people to order and receive goods, fewer
    to manufacturer goods, less warehouse storage and reduced distribution
    networks.

    So the comparison is that it takes less effort to produce and distribute one
    memory card than, say, 60 rolls of film.
     
    Tiny Tim, Jul 24, 2003
    #3
  4. Ron Hunter

    Bob O`Bob Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    > Bob O`Bob wrote:
    >
    > > Ron Hunter wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Kodak, like other companies who make film, is in transistion. It is
    > >>likely that making digital cameras is less employee intensive than
    > >>making all that film. Laying off workers is one way they have to
    > >>adjust. You will probably find Fuji doing something similar.

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I just hope that Fuji doesn't also take up spamming people by email.
    > >
    > > <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3.0.5.32.20030722113200.009e19b0%40cluestick.org>
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Bob

    >
    > I haven't gotten any spam from Kodak and my camera is registered, as is
    > my printer that uses Kodak's color matching system. Perhaps you didn't
    > watch for those darn 'newsletter' things when you registered....



    I NEVER registered anything.
     
    Bob O`Bob, Jul 24, 2003
    #4
  5. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >Digital cameras produce a tremendous amount of pollution in their
    >fabrication. Semiconductor fabrication facilities produce some of the
    >most toxic pollution in the world, in hundreds of flavors.
    >
    >> So that's 60 rolls less film required and considerably
    >> less chemicals and paper.

    >
    >About a thousandth of the chemicals required to produce the CCD in the
    >camera.


    Did you actually have a source, or was this another one of the facts
    you pulled out of thin air, maniac?

    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Jul 25, 2003
    #5
  6. Ron Hunter

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:16:38 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >Tiny Tim writes:
    >
    >> However, digital photography uses far less in the way
    >> of consumables, including film, chemicals and paper.

    >
    >Digital cameras produce a tremendous amount of pollution in their
    >fabrication. Semiconductor fabrication facilities produce some of the
    >most toxic pollution in the world, in hundreds of flavors.



    True. So we should stop using computers? Scanners too?


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Jul 25, 2003
    #6
  7. Ron Hunter

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:43:37 +0000 (UTC),
    (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:

    >Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >>Digital cameras produce a tremendous amount of pollution in their
    >>fabrication. Semiconductor fabrication facilities produce some of the
    >>most toxic pollution in the world, in hundreds of flavors.
    >>
    >>> So that's 60 rolls less film required and considerably
    >>> less chemicals and paper.

    >>
    >>About a thousandth of the chemicals required to produce the CCD in the
    >>camera.

    >
    >Did you actually have a source, or was this another one of the facts
    >you pulled out of thin air, maniac?



    No, maniac has a point; semiconductor manufacure is
    pretty toxic, although the quantities of toxins aren't very
    huge. (Hint: look at an atomic table and observe which
    elements are in the upper rows in Group III or Group V.)

    But maniac is also a hypocrite; he wants you to feel bad
    about the CCD in your digicam, but not about the one in
    his film scanner.

    Nor does maniac have a problem with computers in
    general, which of course would not exist without those
    same evil semiconductors.



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Jul 25, 2003
    #7
  8. Ron Hunter

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Jason O'Rourke writes:

    > Did you actually have a source, or was this another
    > one of the facts you pulled out of thin air, maniac?


    A typical computer chip requires about 100,000 times its own weight in
    waste material to produce. If the chip weighs three grams, that's 300
    kg of waste.

    For a roll of film, I have to estimate a bit more. If the film itself
    weighs 12 grams ... hmm, let's say, about 100 g of waste to produce it,
    another 100 g to develop it, for perhaps 200 g of waste overall. Sixty
    rolls would then be 12 kg of waste, or about 1/25 of the waste in making
    a CCD.

    I assume that these figures do not include water as a waste product,
    since it can be recycled.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 25, 2003
    #8
  9. Ron Hunter

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Rafe B. writes:

    > So we should stop using computers? Scanners too?


    We don't have any substitutes for them right now.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 25, 2003
    #9
  10. Rafe B. <> wrote:
    >>>About a thousandth of the chemicals required to produce the CCD in the
    >>>camera.

    >>Did you actually have a source, or was this another one of the facts
    >>you pulled out of thin air, maniac?

    >No, maniac has a point; semiconductor manufacure is
    >pretty toxic, although the quantities of toxins aren't very
    >huge. (Hint: look at an atomic table and observe which
    >elements are in the upper rows in Group III or Group V.)


    Oh, I'm quite aware of the toxics created by chip manufacture. But he
    claims it is 1000 times worse - even if we treat this rather round number
    as 3 orders of magnitude, he needs to back it up.

    Instead he makes another claim - chip requires 100,000 times its weight
    in waste material to produce. That I know is BS because we don't have
    the space to deal with, and disposable diapers are way ahead. 300kg
    in waste for a CPU that sells for as little as $50 (or far less)??
    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Jul 25, 2003
    #10
  11. Ron Hunter

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:09:25 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >Jason O'Rourke writes:
    >
    >> Did you actually have a source, or was this another
    >> one of the facts you pulled out of thin air, maniac?

    >
    >A typical computer chip requires about 100,000 times its own weight in
    >waste material to produce. If the chip weighs three grams, that's 300
    >kg of waste.
    >
    >For a roll of film, I have to estimate a bit more. If the film itself
    >weighs 12 grams ... hmm, let's say, about 100 g of waste to produce it,
    >another 100 g to develop it, for perhaps 200 g of waste overall. Sixty
    >rolls would then be 12 kg of waste, or about 1/25 of the waste in making
    >a CCD.
    >
    >I assume that these figures do not include water as a waste product,
    >since it can be recycled.



    Are you aware that Koday has been fouling the
    air of Rochester, NY for many years? Do you
    really imagine that film manufacture is all that
    innocent?


    <http://newyork.sierraclub.org/rochester/kodak's_pollution1.htm>



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Jul 25, 2003
    #11
  12. Ron Hunter

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Rafe B. wrote:

    > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:43:37 +0000 (UTC),
    > (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Digital cameras produce a tremendous amount of pollution in their
    >>>fabrication. Semiconductor fabrication facilities produce some of the
    >>>most toxic pollution in the world, in hundreds of flavors.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>So that's 60 rolls less film required and considerably
    >>>>less chemicals and paper.
    >>>
    >>>About a thousandth of the chemicals required to produce the CCD in the
    >>>camera.

    >>
    >>Did you actually have a source, or was this another one of the facts
    >>you pulled out of thin air, maniac?

    >
    >
    >
    > No, maniac has a point; semiconductor manufacure is
    > pretty toxic, although the quantities of toxins aren't very
    > huge. (Hint: look at an atomic table and observe which
    > elements are in the upper rows in Group III or Group V.)
    >
    > But maniac is also a hypocrite; he wants you to feel bad
    > about the CCD in your digicam, but not about the one in
    > his film scanner.
    >
    > Nor does maniac have a problem with computers in
    > general, which of course would not exist without those
    > same evil semiconductors.
    >
    >
    >
    > rafe b.
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com


    And the chemicals used in making film and developing and printing it
    arean't? Gimme a break. ONE CCD vs thousands of prints?
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 25, 2003
    #12
  13. Ron Hunter

    Xiaoding Guest

    > "However, digital photography uses far less in the way of consumables,
    > including film, chemicals and paper. Let's say the average film photographer
    > gets through 12 rolls of film per year and swaps to a digital setup with a
    > 256MB flash card. That setup may well serve him/her for 5 years or more. So
    > that's 60 rolls less film required and considerably less chemicals and
    > paper. And by and large it won't be Kodak supplying the memory cards either.
    > Multiply that by the millions of photographers worldwide and it soon adds up
    > to a lot less demand.
    >
    > Leading on from that you need fewer people to order and receive goods, fewer
    > to manufacturer goods, less warehouse storage and reduced distribution
    > networks.
    >
    > So the comparison is that it takes less effort to produce and distribute one
    > memory card than, say, 60 rolls of film."


    Exactly. But there's a silver lining for Kodak in this. Sell less
    film? Print more shots! They should be offering digital printing
    services for 10 cents a print at CVS, etc. Instead, the morons charge
    MORE for digital, when the cost is less- no film to develop! They
    should at least give digital users the SAME PRICE as film users. Why
    do film users get double prints, but not digital? They need to
    encourage digital users to print more of their shots, and make money
    that way. Instead, they make it as difficult and expensive as they
    can. Kodak deserves to go down.
     
    Xiaoding, Jul 25, 2003
    #13
  14. Ron Hunter

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Ron Hunter writes:

    > And the chemicals used in making film and developing
    > and printing it arean't? Gimme a break. ONE CCD vs
    > thousands of prints?


    Have you ever looked at the chemicals used in semiconductor manufacture?
    You can practically drink the chemicals used for photo development by
    comparison.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 25, 2003
    #14
  15. Ron Hunter

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Rafe B. writes:

    > Are you aware that Koday has been fouling the
    > air of Rochester, NY for many years?


    Lots of industrial plants foul the air. Semiconductor plants foul the
    water and soil, too.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 25, 2003
    #15
  16. Ron Hunter

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Ron Hunter writes:

    > I wouldn't recommend that.


    Some women spread developer on their skin.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 25, 2003
    #16
  17. Ron Hunter

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Ron Hunter writes:
    >
    > > And the chemicals used in making film and developing
    > > and printing it arean't? Gimme a break. ONE CCD vs
    > > thousands of prints?

    >
    > Have you ever looked at the chemicals used in semiconductor manufacture?
    > You can practically drink the chemicals used for photo development by
    > comparison.


    But all that pollution happens in a few places (semiconductor fabs) and
    can therefore be economically and thoroughly taken care of. Instead the
    pollution related to film happens in zillions of places all over the
    world - which may or may not have acceptable waste processing
    standards.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
    Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.htm
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.htm
     
    Alfred Molon, Jul 25, 2003
    #17
  18. Ron Hunter

    gr Guest

    "Mxsmanic" <> wrote

    [snip]

    Cliff? Cliff Claven? Is that you???
     
    gr, Jul 27, 2003
    #18
    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. Rafe B.

    Re: Kodak will lay off 6000 employees

    Rafe B., Jul 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    422
    Mxsmanic
    Jul 25, 2003
  2. Bud Zielinski

    Which Batteries with Kodak 6000 Dock

    Bud Zielinski, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    398
    Ron Baird
    Aug 21, 2003
  3. Bud Zielinski

    Best Price Source for Photo Paper for Kodak 6000 Printer/Dock

    Bud Zielinski, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    680
    Ron Baird
    Aug 21, 2003
  4. Rene

    Kodak Easyshare Dock 6000

    Rene, Dec 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    842
    Ron Baird
    Dec 16, 2003
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Lay Off The Linux-Netbook Returns Issue

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 14, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    638
    victor
    Aug 15, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page