# Kodak?



## craig (Jan 26, 2004)

A few days ago Kodak announced more job layoffs. What has happened to our beloved company. I blame myself because I shoot 90% digi.

At one point I had felt that they screwed themselves by changing the package design of every single one of there products. What do I know. What are your thoughts???


----------



## voodoocat (Jan 27, 2004)

There will be no more 35mm film (except for b&w) from Kodak in the near future I am positive.  Indeed, digital is advanced enough to replace 35mm film for the largest markets.  The average consumers and the portrait photographers, etc.  In the distant future digital will keep us alive to power their cities...


I'm sure it'll be available on a limited basis.  Like cassette tapes are now...


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jan 27, 2004)

Disposable cameras are the only part of the film market that is showing any signs of life


----------



## Dew (Jan 27, 2004)

thats sad   

but for any company to grow, they have to keep moving with the market ... apparently, their customers (or ex-customers) arent feeling any loyalty   

i hope they dont disapper, what would happen to that "kodak moment"


----------



## abonecronedone (Jan 27, 2004)

really sad... is this the end of analogic photopraphy? I don´t hope so.. but if companys stop producing films... wot will we do?


----------



## graigdavis (Jan 27, 2004)

I buy Kodak memory cards.  Does that help? :?


----------



## bogleric (Jan 27, 2004)

Kodak is a wonderful company, always stood by their stuff.  I really hope nothing happens to them.

I do know they are well diversified in technologies that it will take alot to make them disappear.


----------



## voodoocat (Jan 27, 2004)

Keep in mind that even if 35mm film is no more, they will continue to make larger format films till the sun explodes...


----------



## doxx (Jan 27, 2004)

I don't want to say that film is dying, but it's definitely becoming more and more a niche market

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3394183.stm


----------



## GerryDavid (Jan 27, 2004)

voodoocat said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that even if 35mm film is no more, they will continue to make larger format films till the sun explodes...



Im sure Kodak will be around for a long time in one form or another.

Ive been told that kodak makes the tips of nuclear devices, they are in the top 10 of the most land owners, including half of saracuse ny, or something like that.  I forget the other bits of info about kodak.  Oh ya, also theygot one very large building that has one door, and no windows, that has all robots inside, except for one human that keeps things in order, a large warehouse or something like that.  :0).


----------



## zio (Jan 27, 2004)

supposedly they're going to switch over to more digital stuff from what i've heard.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 28, 2004)

If Kodak drops film and darkroom supplies because they can't make enough money off of it, I won't miss them (even though I do love Tmax100).  I have always felt that Ilford (for BW) and Fuji (for color) seemed more concerned about their customers and quality, at least in modern times.  Once upon a time they were a company of photographers, now they're just accounts, and they want to move the last of the 800 Gold.

Kodak is cutting jobs, and moving overseas.  Even companies whose product is in demand are doing that.  When is the last time anyone bought a Kodak film camera for serious photography?  It was probably a Retina.  Although I am looking for a Kodak Tourist II w/ super 800 shutter if anyone stumbles across one in a flea market....

As bigger companies drop items from their traditional lines, smaller niche companies are snatching them up, and continuing to market them.  I'm excited at the increase in specialized films and darkroom chemicals available from previously boring (you know, they just used to sell the standard Photo 101 supplies) companies such as Freestyle.  35mm, MF, and LF film will still be available for the rest of my lifetime.  Maybe not the wide variety of consumer films, but plenty of the pro and art-market stuff will still be popular enough for someone to sell it.  If prices get too high, I'll start an old fogies' photo buying club, and we'll buy in bulk.


----------



## craig (Jan 28, 2004)

As of this writing matt's post counter was on 666. What about T64 and Kodachrome? Deep down inside I know that people are right when they say that Kodak is a dinosaur. The one fact that I do know is that they used to (or still do) own Rochester, NY


----------



## Mitica100 (Jan 28, 2004)

craig said:
			
		

> A few days ago Kodak announced more job layoffs. What has happened to our beloved company. I blame myself because I shoot 90% digi.



Nothing to blame yourself for.  The horse driven carriage was replaced by the automobile, just another sign of technology evolution.   

I feel that Kodak will remain in the 'analog' photography business, if not in 35mm market, at least in the MF, WF, specialized film and by all means chemicals and papers.  I'm gonna miss a few of their films though...


----------



## terri (Jan 28, 2004)

When the day comes that Kodak HIE (35 mm infrared film) is no longer made, part of me that loves photography will wither up and die...   :cry: 

Some of my favorite images are from that film.   I'm smitten with it.


----------



## voodoocat (Jan 28, 2004)

terri said:
			
		

> When the day comes that Kodak HIE (35 mm infrared film) is no longer made, part of me that loves photography will wither up and die...   :cry:
> 
> Some of my favorite images are from that film.   I'm smitten with it.


Fortunately for you, I'm sure your film is going nowhere.  ever....
The specialty films will always have a market.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 28, 2004)

terri said:
			
		

> When the day comes that Kodak HIE (35 mm infrared film) is no longer made,



Don't worry Terri, if Kodak drops it, someone else will pick it up.  Are you familiar with Maco film?  I don't know much about them, but they seem to be specializing in reviving discontinued films, including IR.


----------



## GerryDavid (Jan 28, 2004)

terri said:
			
		

> When the day comes that Kodak HIE (35 mm infrared film) is no longer made, part of me that loves photography will wither up and die...   :cry:
> 
> Some of my favorite images are from that film.   I'm smitten with it.



Just wondering what people use infered film for.  Other than taking pics of girls in some types of clothing.  Just wondering if it has a real use or just a voyeur one.  :0).


----------



## voodoocat (Jan 28, 2004)

That use for infrared is around... but yes, plenty of photographers use it for landscape and sometimes portraits.  Or to have some fun with the remote controls.


----------



## terri (Jan 28, 2004)

Well, it's used for aerial photography a lot, as it cuts through haze, and that's how I found out about it.   My husband is an aerial photographer by trade so we've used it a lot over the years.   (Though he favors Konica for MF.)   But HIE is for 35mm and IMO is less harsh looking than Konica, with a finer grain, and it offers greater ISO versatility.   I shoot it around 360 ISO, and one of our posters (Motcon - Will) shoots it a lot for portraits at 100, and his stuff is jaw-droppingly beautiful.   

A jamming little film, all in all, for all its hassles.    I am encouraged by these comments, that you guys seem to think it will be around awhile.  

Matt, no, I've never heard of Maco film.   Is it true IR like HIE??  I'm intrigued.


----------



## GerryDavid (Jan 28, 2004)

terri said:
			
		

> Well, it's used for aerial photography a lot, as it cuts through haze, and that's how I found out about it.   My husband is an aerial photographer by trade so we've used it a lot over the years.   (Though he favors Konica for MF.)   But HIE is for 35mm and IMO is less harsh looking than Konica, with a finer grain, and it offers greater ISO versatility.   I shoot it around 360 ISO, and one of our posters (Motcon - Will) shoots it a lot for portraits at 100, and his stuff is jaw-droppingly beautiful.
> 
> A jamming little film, all in all, for all its hassles.    I am encouraged by these comments, that you guys seem to think it will be around awhile.
> 
> Matt, no, I've never heard of Maco film.   Is it true IR like HIE??  I'm intrigued.



Woudlnt the infrared film look different than regular film of the ariel shots?  Or can you modify it so it looks normal?  got any examples?  :0).


----------



## terri (Jan 28, 2004)

Other than its habit of turning your foliage white, from the air I think it will look pretty much like most B&W.   I frankly don't know if they use filters on their aerial cameras for commercial work.  From the ground it also turns foliage white (with appropriate red filter, typically #25 for HIE) and turns blue skies black, which can look dramatic with lots of cloud action.   

hmmm, Gerry, an example of Georgia DOT IR aerial photography...?   :scratch:   I'll see if I can snag an image.   I warn you, though: Georgia looks quite dull from the air.       Bunch of pine trees, or some nasty road project blazing through them.       I'll see what I can do.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 28, 2004)

IR photography is different from photographer to photographer.  This may explain why IR film doesn't come with instructions.  For instance, Terri posted that she finds the Kodak to be less harsh and finer grained than Konica, while my results are the exact opposite.  I get much more grain and contrast out of the Kodak than the Konica.  I prefer the Konica overall, although I use the Kodak if I need more speed.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jan 28, 2004)

I know of Maco, but I dont know it they have an IR film, their site seem not to be working for me to night, www.mahn.net , can across them because they along with Efke are the only companies that mass-produce 127 films


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 28, 2004)

Go to www.freestylesalesco.com

They sell the Maco IR film


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 28, 2004)

craig said:
			
		

> As of this writing matt's post counter was on 666.



Post of the beast.


----------



## craig (Jan 28, 2004)

Post of the beast. I found it strangely amusing myself.   
Everyone's comments are well thought out! The only view I didn't read was that of the Kodak employee or Rochester NY citizen. Further investigation may be needed on my end.


----------



## terri (Jan 29, 2004)

> For instance, Terri posted that she finds the Kodak to be less harsh and finer grained than Konica, while my results are the exact opposite. I get much more grain and contrast out of the Kodak than the Konica.



Matt, don't forget a lot of your end result can be how you process this stuff, too.   I've had it developed with TMax and gotten smooth lovely results with very fine grain.   We also tried D-19 when we really wanted to enhance the grain, with very cool results - when we were after grain and increased contrast.   Konica is also MF film so your enlargement factor is much smaller for say, an 8x10 as opposed to 35mm.  Konica is my hubby's preference, too, btw, I've heard him say it has a great tight grain structure.   BUT - he is smitten with TMax developer and HIE at room temperature for smooth results with HIE.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 29, 2004)

I was only comparing 35mm format Konica IR to the Kodak.  There is no comparison, IMHO, between MF and 35mm in any film.  I use D76 1:1 with both, and the Kodak is much grainier for me.  But I was just trying to point out that different folks do get very different results from IR, and the only way to figure out how it's going to work is to experiment and take notes.


----------



## terri (Jan 29, 2004)

Yeah...of course I know you knew all that already.       As a matter of fact, my husband is more challenged getting results with the Konica he's as happy with as he is with the HIE.   I don't believe he's used D76 with the HIE, but I could be wrong.   So, this is your ratio for Konica?   I think I'll tell him, I'm pretty sure he's used that, as well, but I don't know his ratios.


----------



## Josh (Jan 29, 2004)

ksmattfish

Here Here, I'm right there with ya. But I like the delta line over T-max (the only thing I'll miss is Tech-Pan)


----------



## wwjoeld (Jan 29, 2004)

i wont miss kodak at all, i am die hard for Fuji color and Ilford B&W,

kodak doesn't really care about customers, they were just there for begginers, and anyone else who were just going for the big name.


----------



## desertrattm2r12 (Dec 24, 2015)

I recently bought three Kodak 35 cameras from the 1940s. In anticipation of losing Leicas and so on when war broke out Kodak took a scale focus camera and put a rangefinder on it and add enough knobs and bumps to make a witch's face happy. It's such an ugly camera I love it. They say the lens is pretty good and Kodak claimed it had more lenses available than Leica. I'll have to run some film through it. No Kodak film this time, though.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 24, 2015)

Wow.  Digging up a 12-year-old thread..........


----------



## petrochemist (Dec 25, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Wow.  Digging up a 12-year-old thread..........


Is does share a thread title with a fresh new thread though - probably the cause of the reincarnation.


----------



## chuasam (Dec 28, 2015)

It's not your fault. It's their fault for not evolving with the times. 
No reason a company should last forever. Their time is past and perhaps it is their turn to go quietly into the night.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 29, 2015)

And film has grown a lot since with lots of new films


----------



## Ornello (Jan 22, 2016)

chuasam said:


> It's not your fault. It's their fault for not evolving with the times.
> No reason a company should last forever. Their time is past and perhaps it is their turn to go quietly into the night.




Uhmmm...you've got it backwards: they invented digital photography. They were ahead of the times! There was no application for digital photographs in 1990, as hardly anyone had personal computers back then. Film was also very profitable. You could have all the greatest digital cameras in the world, but without the internet and inexpensive computers it would be useless.


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 26, 2016)

graigdavis said:


> I buy Kodak memory cards.  Does that help? :?


 They make memory cards ?!?

I was sure only Sandisk makes memory cards !


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 26, 2016)

Ornello said:


> There was no application for digital photographs in 1990, as hardly anyone had personal computers back then.


 What. The. WHAT ???????

Personal computers came up at the end of the 1970s/early 1980s.

In the 1990s, everyone had one. Heck, even I had a 386, and I was a poor student back then.

At the end of the 1990s, Netscape and the internet aka World Wide Web gained speed.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Jan 26, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Wow.  Digging up a 12-year-old thread..........



I think people who have such a problem with this would be better served to contact the forum management to delete threads after a certain period time instead of posting silly pictures.

A lot of good information is contained in old threads and new members shouldn't be afraid to post in those threads if they have something to say simply because it irks someone.


----------



## Ornello (Jan 26, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > There was no application for digital photographs in 1990, as hardly anyone had personal computers back then.
> ...




In the late 90s, yes, but not in 1991! Very few people had them. Not until the internet was widely available did digital photography have any utility.


----------



## petrochemist (Jan 26, 2016)

I brought a 286 with SVGA graphics for home use in the early 90s (and had a 80186 IBM coprocessor to run IBM software before getting the 286).
I even remember buying a shareware floppy with a digital photo on it (the image was called 'Lush' and showed a botanical garden somewhere).

Graphics were definitely limited back then, the PC at work had EGA graphics - IIRC limited to 16 colours. Even the Super VGA cards were often limited to 256 colours at 1068*768.

Several of my current images wouldn't fit on my early hard drives either (I think my first HDDs were 10MB, 40MB & 100MB). this would have been a major restriction on the popularity of digital photos at the time


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 26, 2016)

Mr. Innuendo said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.  Digging up a 12-year-old thread..........
> ...



I wonder if you realize the absolute, sheer irony and duplicity of your post.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 26, 2016)

Ornello said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > Ornello said:
> ...


Interesting.
Your computer today did not exist back then.

But we certainly had personal computers back then
The commodore PET, Radio Shack TR-80, Apple ][+, //e, original IBM PC (and the onslaught of many clones), the original MacIntoshes and many others were widely available back in the 1980s, much less the 1990s.  IBM tried to steal back the PC design with their MCA bus in the late 80's only to loose more market share.

My first digital camera was a Kodak DC50 which connected to the computer I had back then which was a PC clone 8086 w/turbo mode.

But as with Digital cameras, the full sized PC was more expensive when initially released.  Matter of fact a IBM PC with dual SS floppy disc drives and monochrome monitor cost mutiples of a lower cost laptop nowadays when it first came out.  It was the same with the initial digital cameras.

I guess it all depends upon your definition of "very few people had them"
Just like you can say very few people had smart phones 10 years ago because the product was in it's infancy with Palm dominating the market.

Back in the mid 80's at the University we had the Merit Internet (not WorldWideWeb) as we could communicate to schools (and gov't agencies) around the world.

of course, it wasn't until Al Gore came around and invented everything that we got to where we are today    LOL


----------



## Ornello (Jan 26, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> Ornello said:
> 
> 
> > Solarflare said:
> ...




Precisely: There was almost no market for digital cameras back then (early 90s).


----------



## wfooshee (Jan 27, 2016)

Might be because nobody wanted a camera with only a megapixel or so and costing 5 figures..... The Nikon D1 was less than 3 MP and cost almost 6 grand, at the _end_ of the decade! My dad's Sony was VGA resolution (640 x 480) and stored images on a 3.5" floppy, also very late 90s.

It wasn't that there was no market for digital cameras in the early 90s, there simply were no _useful_ digital cameras in the early 90s. You can't have a market for something that simply doesn't exist.....


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 27, 2016)

I once had a camera that used floppy discs for storage. Can't remember who made it but it had like a 2 hour battery life. It got stolen out of my car, a smash and grap at a 7-11. Didn't even have it a week. Seem to recall, I paid pretty good money for it. My insurance covered it. Heck, I still had the receipt in my wallet.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 27, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> I once had a camera that used floppy discs for storage. Can't remember who made it but it had like a 2 hour battery life. It got stolen out of my car, a smash and grap at a 7-11. Didn't even have it a week. Seem to recall, I paid pretty good money for it. My insurance covered it. Heck, I still had the receipt in my wallet.


Sony Mavica ?

I nearly bought one of those .. nearly.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 27, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > I once had a camera that used floppy discs for storage. Can't remember who made it but it had like a 2 hour battery life. It got stolen out of my car, a smash and grap at a 7-11. Didn't even have it a week. Seem to recall, I paid pretty good money for it. My insurance covered it. Heck, I still had the receipt in my wallet.
> ...



Yes sir. Just looked it up, that was it. Never replaced it. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## AceCo55 (Jan 27, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > I once had a camera that used floppy discs for storage. Can't remember who made it but it had like a 2 hour battery life. It got stolen out of my car, a smash and grap at a 7-11. Didn't even have it a week. Seem to recall, I paid pretty good money for it. My insurance covered it. Heck, I still had the receipt in my wallet.
> ...


Yes!!!!! The school that I was teaching at bought one. Had to go to the library to book it out.
Man - that brings back a whole bunch of memories!


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 27, 2016)

petrochemist said:


> I brought a 286 with SVGA graphics for home use in the early 90s (and had a 80186 IBM coprocessor to run IBM software before getting the 286).
> I even remember buying a shareware floppy with a digital photo on it (the image was called 'Lush' and showed a botanical garden somewhere).
> 
> Graphics were definitely limited back then, the PC at work had EGA graphics - IIRC limited to 16 colours. Even the Super VGA cards were often limited to 256 colours at 1068*768.
> ...


You and Astro would love the book Terrible Nerd by Kevin Savetz. Awesome book, easy read, and brings back all those memory's. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------

