Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Are we not photographers?  (Read 4207 times)

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5566
    • Photos
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2020, 11:23:53 am »

Why look at Kodak and not Fujifilm? Decisions in transformational moments do matter.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2020, 11:34:05 am »

Sure...but we are bombarded with C19 from every direction...can't escape it. I thought maybe a photography forum could be a hiatus, but no...it's infiltrated as well. Looking at the actual photography related threads and they are just dead.

I'm active on other photography forums and there seems to be much less politics / c19 taking over.
Why go to the Coffee Corner?  Just don't open these kind of threads to avoid ulcers.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2020, 11:39:55 am »

Fascinating, Les. When you first glance at it it looks as if the big rock and the grass are hanging in air.
That's what I saw at first.  Then I enlarged it.  Here's a picture I took of a mystical horse fleeing a storm.

Mystical Horse in Storm
by Alan Klein, on Flickr

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5338
    • advantica blog
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2020, 11:43:40 am »

Where is the horse? The white current or the icy bit below it?
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18208
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2020, 11:43:48 am »

Why look at Kodak and not Fujifilm? Decisions in transformational moments do matter.

Because both companies ended their natural cycle in traditional products: film and paper. The difference is, Fuji had a camera production line to rely on, Kodak stopped being camera manufacturer long time ago, well before digital.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2020, 11:44:21 am »

The good thing is that everybody can choose the threads he wants to follow. And some people will be pleasantly surprised that it is not mandatory to read the threads which are of no interest to them.

For example, since at this time I am not printing any images, I skip the Color Management and Printing forum sections. And it doesn't disturb me at all what people post there.
I don't bother deciding by topic.  I just click on New Posts and run them down.  If any titles strike my interest, those are the ones I open.  It doesn't matter what section they're in.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2020, 11:45:16 am »

Where is the horse? The white current or the icy bit below it?

Well it's more of an icey head of a horse. 

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5338
    • advantica blog
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2020, 11:47:44 am »

Fascinating, Les. When you first glance at it it looks as if the big rock and the grass are hanging in air.

Russ, thank you for your kind comment.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2020, 11:52:37 am »

Because both companies ended their natural cycle in traditional products: film and paper. The difference is, Fuji had a camera production line to rely on, Kodak stopped being camera manufacturer long time ago, well before digital.
Fujifilm has other interests that they make even more money from in the medical and scientific field.  It does around $18 billion in sales annually compared to Nikon who does approx $6 billion.  Canon by comparison is huge around $35 billion.  They have their fingers in everything. 
Fujifilm products:  https://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/medical/

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4600
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2020, 12:21:29 pm »



Mystical Horse in Storm
by Alan Klein, on Flickr

Very beautiful photo Alan, my compliments... !
(you could send it to 'show me your abstracts'... )
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2020, 12:26:55 pm »

Thanks Pieter.  I took your advice and posted it there.  DIdn't know that forum existed.  Live and learn. 

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18208
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2020, 12:46:34 pm »

... DIdn't know that forum existed.  Live and learn. 

There is life outside Coffee Corner, you know ;)

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2020, 01:11:20 pm »

Because both companies ended their natural cycle in traditional products: film and paper. The difference is, Fuji had a camera production line to rely on, Kodak stopped being camera manufacturer long time ago, well before digital.

My first 6 digital cameras were all Kodak. DCS420 DCS460 DCS465 DCS760 DCS560 and Kodak Pro Back.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5566
    • Photos
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2020, 01:17:23 pm »

Because both companies ended their natural cycle in traditional products: film and paper. The difference is, Fuji had a camera production line to rely on, Kodak stopped being camera manufacturer long time ago, well before digital.

I disagree, it's about being able to evolve and adapt. Darwin laws at their best. Survives the one who adapts better.
Kodak had an early footing in digital, they could have had most of the market but chose no to in order to protect their traditional business. It was many times larger than Fuji, they had the resources but not the will.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18208
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #34 on: April 07, 2020, 01:30:09 pm »

My first 6 digital cameras were all Kodak. DCS420 DCS460 DCS465 DCS760 DCS560 and Kodak Pro Back.

I didn’t check every model you listed, but they are not Kodak cameras (the camera part) but Nikon’s. There was also a model built upon a Canon.

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2020, 01:35:19 pm »

I didn’t check every model you listed, but they are not Kodak cameras (the camera part) but Nikon’s. There was also a model built upon a Canon.

Oh please. They were bought directly from Kodak. Invoice came from Kodak. They had Kodak badges on them. Two of them were backs not built on any camera. They also sold point and shoots cameras. May as well say Nikon don’t make digital cameras because the digital bit, the sensor, is made by Sony

Feel free to look up the range of Kodak consumer cameras if you want more evidence. DC series. First one was released mid 90’s there were loads of them. I owned two of them as well.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2020, 02:01:36 pm by Martin Kristiansen »
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18208
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2020, 02:06:09 pm »

Oh please...

FYI, I worked for Kodak in 1998-2000.

Their P&S were outsourced long time ago, just the logo was Kodak.

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2020, 02:19:03 pm »

FYI, I worked for Kodak in 1998-2000.

Their P&S were outsourced long time ago, just the logo was Kodak.

So what you worked for Kodak for two years. That’s proof of what exactly?

Actually I am not interested in climbing into this little rabbit whole with you. It’s not at all what this thread is about. Let’s say you are correct and Kodak never produced a digital camera and that they went out of business because people stopped buying film and not because they failed to capitalize on their original massive lead in digital imaging technology.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2020, 02:42:37 pm »

FYI, I worked for Kodak in 1998-2000.

Their P&S were outsourced long time ago, just the logo was Kodak.


Some companies don't miss the boat.  For 7 years, in the 1970's I worked for Johnson Service Co, now called Johnson Controls, a manufacturer of pneumatic temperature controls.  In fact Johnson invented pneumatic controls 100 years ago.  Thermostats, controllers, dampers and valves used in HVAC systems were controlled pneumatically as the pressure move rubber diaphragms in actuators. 

When I went for an interview at their NYC office, they explained what they do.  At the time I was working for Sperry Rand Univac computer division as a technician, and knew nothing about pneumatic controls.  During the interview for a position as an application engineer where they made these electronic systems connected to the pneumatic controls just for monitoring but little control, I asked  the manager why didn't they just drop pneumatics and use the electronic computers to monitor and control the system directly. The guy smile and hired me.  For years Johnson, Honeywell, and Powers, the key pneumatic players resisted giving up pneumatic controls, so lucrative was it.  In fact, Johnson's first computer based control system was built by others.  They private labelled it. It took them a couple of years to have their own systems. Unlike Kodak, they saw the handwriting on the wall and switched to digital controls.  Today they're still a very successful controls company. The old pneumatic thermostats make great paper weights as I'm sure do the old Kodak cameras. 

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18208
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Are we not photographers?
« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2020, 02:59:29 pm »

Oh please. They were bought directly from Kodak. Invoice came from Kodak...

I bought my Hasselblad from Kodak. It came directly from Kodak. Invoice came from Kodak. Ergo, Hasselblad is a Kodak camera.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up