Sad little documentary on Kodak's demise and future

[Dan Deary]

<p>From the NY Times just over 5 min.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/business/at-kodak-clinging-to-a-future-beyond-film.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/business/at-kodak-clinging-to-a-future-beyond-film.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0</a></p>

[Greg M]

<p>A product of their own (lack of) forward thinking. Being someone coming back to film after nearly 12 years of not having bought one roll, I miss the options once out there and, more, lack of labs to get timely, good quality color film processing, but as a 53 year-old, I have no real worries about not having access to film as long as I want to shoot it. I wish I could say I felt bad for Kodak, but I just can't.</p>

[jj_golden]

<p>at one time Kodak made some of the finest large format lenses available, the ektar and commercial ektar line, also some fine 35mm and medium format cameras that still fetch a nice price.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

At one time "Kodak" was synonymous with "camera". When Jesse's brother, Frank James, turned the James' farm into a tourist site there were two signs outside - "Admission 50 cents" and "No Kodaks Allowed".

[Thomas J.]

<p>God, that was depressing. The implosion of a company, community, city, like dozens of other places across the US after the geniuses in Congress shipped millions of job overseas for their corporate masters' profit increases, but I digress.</p>

<p>Didn't some dude at Kodak invent the digital sensor? If so, they kinda dug their own grave, IMO. They also didn't position themselves into the digital camera market early enough to compensate for the inevitable decrease in demand for their films. Honestly, I had a Kodak printer years ago and it was crap, I'm sorry to say. Don't know why they even tried to get into that market in the first place. Anyway, if they wanted to perhaps keep film alive and maybe thrive, I don't see why don't they do film processing? It's not like they don't have the space up there for a processing lab.<br /> <br />I grew up with Kodak, I'm now almost 50 years old, I loved shooting film for all those years. I cherish all those prints and memories and still pull them out at family get togethers sometimes, but digital cameras are so good now, so easy, produce amazing images, that I really have no more gumption to shoot film much anymore. Like someone else said above, the lack of labs nowadays to get quality processing within a couple of days kinda put the nail in the coffin for my film shooting endeavors.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>Just could not change the paradigm. Just like Swiss watchmakers who turned down opportunity for electronic watches and Casio cashed in.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>People always forget that Kodak was a pioneer in digital/electronic photography. By any rational prediction at the time, they would have dominated the market with cameras like the first of all : http://petapixel.com/2010/08/05/the-worlds-first-digital-camera-by-kodak-and-steve-sasson/<br /> and the early Nikons and then Canons turned into digital (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_DCS_3 )<br /> . It wasn't that they weren't trying or somehow overlooked "digital".<br /> They tried and they failed, but it wasn't for not trying.</p>

[ken_jeanette1]

<p>As inventive as Kodak may have been in some ways, they were also a very greedy company. Inventing film formats, just so folks would invest in cameras, companies would invest in making equipment to produce cameras, and then pulling the rug out from under everyone's feet. How many of us have Instamatic reflexes, or Pentax and Minolta 110 SLRs, or even the venerable Bantam special. So, someone finally said "well Big Yellow Father, now no one wants your film or cameras".</p>

[michael_josefsson]

<p>"I cherish all those prints and memories and still pull them out at family get togethers sometimes...". There in lies the rub: Longevity. <br>

"I cherish all those CDs and memories and still pull them out at family get togethers sometimes...".<br>

"I cherish all those DVDs and memories and still pull them out at family get togethers sometimes...".<br>

"I cherish all those USBs and memories and still pull them out at family get togethers sometimes...".<br>

"I cherish all those BluRays and memories and still pull them out at family get togethers sometimes...".<br>

"I cherish all those IDE-drives and memories and still pull them out at family get togethers sometimes...".<br>

"I cherish all those SCSI-drives and memories and still pull them out at family get togethers sometimes...".<br>

"I cherish all those ATA-drives and memories and still pull them out at family get togethers sometimes...".<br>

Negatives last! Pity about Kodak though.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Negatives last!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anyone who believes that badly needs to read Henry Carol Wilhelm's works on on persistence of color dyes in negatives at http://www.wilhelm-research.com/about_us.html and get their free book download at <br /> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I was mainly disappointed to read in that article that Kodak's foray into consumer printing was also considered a failure. That's an area where they could, and should, excel.</p>

<p>Kodak's minilab grade dye sub printers are very good. Far better than the popular DNP brand that are common in local minilabs.</p>

<p>The only dye sub printer that is readily available (at physical stores) is the Canon Selphy. While it has a good reputation there are some common complaints:</p>

<ul>

<li>4x6 Selphy prints are physically smaller than the nominal specs, which causes problems for some scrapbookers and folks using preset photo inserts;</li>

<li>sharpness and color saturation are a bit low (some folks like that, given the current trend in faux-retro faded looks).</li>

</ul>

<p>There are serious - and seriously priced - dye sub printers for pros and serious amateurs, but those are never seen in Best Buy or other big box stores.</p>

<p>With their still recognizable marque, Kodak could compete with Canon at the roughly $100-$200 price point for consumer grade dye sub printers. That would appeal to me because dye subs are less fussy than comparably priced inkjet photo printers. I did a lot of printing last year with my various consumer grade inkjet photo printers and overall the convenience was outweighed by the high cost, waste and hassles.</p>

<p>Another area where Kodak might compete is with online printing fulfillment. There's a lot of competition - mpix, Shutterfly, others. But, again, Kodak still enjoys name recognition that could give them an edge in a competitive market. I'm satisfied with mpix print quality, prices and quick delivery, but I can see room for improvement where Kodak could compete. In particular, an online printing service could take the lead if it melds quality printing (mpix is very good at that), good value (ditto, mpix), affordable long-term cloud based storage (mpix deletes photos from inactive accounts after 90 days), and seamless interface with Lightroom (there's no interface between Lightroom and mpix, which is very inconvenient when trying to meet deadlines for their frequent discounted prices).</p>

<p>Regarding the new CEO, he seems primarily interested in wringing out profit, not in long term strategy. Kodak has already been stripped of most IP assets that can be readily monetized. And they've already done the rounds of ruthlessly stripping the physical assets, including employees. He's paying lip service to exploiting IP and innovations that haven't been fully monetized, but without a long term strategy for Kodak's future, and a resident CEO rather than a fly-in absentee landlord, the ship still appears to be rudderless.</p>

[dr._karl_hoppe]

<p>Depressing, and even more so as my wife's family lost most of their retirement assets in Kodak's collapse. They were heavily into "old technology" blue chips: Kodak, Xerox, IBM, Polaroid, etc. -- they were devastated.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>Kodak wasn't any more greedy than any other company. "Greed" is what drives any commercial enterprise and in this sense it is a good thing. Kodak defined its market and its target was not the top shelf buyers but the snapshot crowd. Digital cameras completely changed the dynamics in a way that Kodak misjudged. The technology advanced so quickly and was affordable. Any well known Japanese manufacturer could slap there name on a competent camera at a price that was competitive.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>Always liked the effect I got here. Embarrassed to say but not being able to afford many filters I purchase a couple of children's sunglasses at the dollar store and shaped the lenses to fit. Again taken taken with Signet 50.</p>

[chuck -]

<p>After many years (and many cameras) of film photography, I bought my first digital camera in July of 1999. It was one of those "goose bump" experiences where you know things will never ever be the same again. Sort of like the first time you printed a word processor document on a computer - "goodbye, typewriter".<br>

Of course, I have had numerous digicams come and go since that first one... But, that first one changed my hobby forever. And, most ironically, what was that first digital camera? A Kodak DC240. Yes, Kodak. <br>

How Kodak let the marketplace crush them will be a case study in business schools for the next 100 years. As for my old DC240 - still have it, still works. Not quite as good as my Canon 5DII...</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Kodak was greedy, there were a monopolist, and they had 40% profit margins on film for ages, up until quite recently. They were difficult to deal with as a consumer, because it was them or nobody. They killed off other projects in recent decades because they couldn't muster 40% profit margins -- because they weren't monoplies.<br>

They also completely missed the one-hour photo lab wave. You see, for processing, the consumer getting film processed and printed was not viewed as their customer. The big central labs were who they viewed as their customers. The one-hour labs were competing with their customers, and they didn't go into that business to avoid competing with their customers. They thus handed the one-hour lab business to Fuji on a silver platter, because they had misidentified their customers.<br>

Also, for their fine patent portfolio, they missed patenting some important things. Like the molded plastic aspherical lenses in disposable cameras, how such a cheap camera could take a good picture. They could have patented it, but didn't, since it wasn't a film or chemistry patent. (Remember, they made money on <em>film</em>, not cameras.) Well, there was one of those lenses in every cell phone for years -- making a buck on every one would have been a fantastic revenue stream.<br>

Note that they spun off Eastman Organic Chemical years ago, it shook off the bad Kodak management (it doesn't take good management to run a monopoly), and is doing splendidly these days.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Dyes in negatives might not last as long as we wish, but see how long bits on CDs or Flash drives last. </p>

<p>And even when they last, you have to find a system to read them on.</p>

[MathewDH]

<p>Having been reading old published materials on photography I have found some errors that people are presenting here.</p>

<p>1. Kodak controlled 90% or more of the photography market at the turn 1900-1912. They were a monopolist like a lot of the industries of the period. They were not a photographers friend nor nice to the wholesalers or retailers of the period. And the Federal Government went after them. The decree from that suit was enforced on Kodak until the early 90's.</p>

<p>2. Kodak controlled most of the processing market after WW2 and tied together both film sales and processing in industry agreements. The government brought a second antitrust lawsuit against them and it was enforced into the early 90's.</p>

<p>3. In the early 90's Kodak got relieved from the judgements after showing they no longer dominated the photography market. </p>

<p>4. Keep in mind that a lot of their consumer products for quick shots and printing were pretty cheap low level products. Their goal always was make the money on film processing and printing. The photography world had a lot better alternates to Kodak cameras too. Once they released digital sensors on the world it all changed quickly. Other than the Kodak trademark, like Agfa and Rolleiflex, they are now a part of history.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Thank you, Daniel. Although sad, it was worth a look. It reminds me how much I love old school industry. If you can't give me the smoke, soot and chemicals, at least give me red brick factory buildings. :-)</p>

<p>It goes to show that companies definitely have a culture, and that culture goes way, way back. If you didn't know that already (and everyone here I assume already understands that). This principle is why medicine is so backward - the culture of today's medical practitioners goes back hundreds of years.</p>

<p>It doesn't take a genius to realise that you should cannibalize yourself. Apple understands that very well, but their whole business category is based upon relentless progress. That business category does encourage you to keep moving forward. In theory.</p>

<p>I do believe that film will keep going. If you're making movies, you'll want to shoot film if your budget allows for it. It just looks that good. But most productions will shoot digitally anyway.</p>

<p>So, Kodak, where is the scanner? It's nice to make film, but you need scanners to go with it. I still have not found a scanner I like that is quick, easy to use and high quality. Still waiting.</p>

<p>Kodak now has a program for independent film productions where the film, processing and scanning is a package deal. Not relevant for most of us but it shows that they are in some ways pushing back instead of standing still and doing nothing.</p>

<p>Oh, and I predict the return of Kodachrome.</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>"A Kodak moment" has really changed it's meaning in business, these days it means a company that fails to anticipate the speed of technological and market changes. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Regarding the anti-trust suit against Kodak, particularly the 1954 case, in retrospect that may have been a mistake. I'm not sure it was simple greed so much as an understandable control freak mentality by a quality conscious group of engineers and innovators who wanted the public to see only the best possible representation of what the Kodak marque could offer. Creative folks are often control freaks and jealously guard their artistic and intellectual property. That doesn't necessarily make them greedy. The greed may have infiltrated the company much later as the 1980s introduced a more rapacious attitude toward corporation profit.</p>

<p>Recently I've been examining my large collection of family photos, dating back to the late 1800s. Coming from a typical working class American family which evolved over the generations from migrants, to farmers, to middle class worker bees to professionals, these family photos also reflect the changes in casual, candid and snapshot photography over the 20th century.</p>

<p>Kodak's peak appears to have been the 1950s-'60s, in terms of both market share and image quality. During that time my family switched from poor quality 6x6 and smaller box cameras and murky, tiny contact b&w prints, to a reasonably good 127 format camera (no idea which, or whether it was a folder or box camera), and used mostly Kodacolor film and Kodak processing and printing on 4x6 paper. Those prints still look very good. It's the sort of look that has inspired a whole new generation of nostalgia by proxy emulators, photographers who weren't even alive back then but crave that "look": creamy, almost pastel subdued colors, not necessarily accurate but appealing to nostalgics.</p>

<p>I can see the effects of the 1954 antitrust case as the 1960s went along into the next couple of decades. Color film was no longer bundled with Kodak processing and printing. Quality ranged from pretty good (Fox photo) to abysmal. Few of our color prints from the late 1960s through the 1980s have held up as well as the earlier genuine all-Kodak stuff. The few negatives in my family collection also suffered when non-Kodak processing was used.</p>

<p>Fortunately during the mid to late 1960s my granddad became enamored of the slide show fad, and mostly used Kodachrome film with genuine Kodak processing and mounting. Those slides still look good. That was one area where Kodak continued to follow its earlier tradition of outstanding image quality, up until the 1990s. I finally quit using Kodachrome in the 1990s, because even though the film was still available the non-Kodak processing wasn't the same. Too many quality control problems.</p>

<p>Monopolies aren't always a bad thing. And I'm not sure that the concepts of monopolies and anti-trust should even apply to creative and intellectual property, particularly for non-essential goods and service like photography. It's not like food, fuel and transportation, market manipulations and other essentials.</p>