9 ms·

At Kodak, Clinging to a Future Beyond Film

41 points by gdilla 12y ago

markbnj 12y ago
I visited the Kodak works in Rochester during the company's heyday in the late 1960's. It was an amazing place, literally a city dedicated to making the things people used to take pictures. The words with which this excellent short film by the NYT opens could serve as a pointed warning of the dangers of thinking things will always be as they are.
jey 12y ago
“I’m mining the history of this company for its underlying technologies,” said Jeff Clarke, 53, who became Kodak’s chief executive last year. Mr. Clarke has no delusions that Kodak could bring those technologies to market on its own; Why are they so down on Kodak as a brand? There's still a ton of people who have very fond associations with the Kodak brand, since the film camera would only come out only at those special meaningful moments like birthdays, weddings, vacations, etc. (No, people didn't just routinely snap pictures of their lunch back then.) Anyway, where can I get a Kodachrome Instagram filter?
- glesica 12y ago
  My family took a ton of pictures on Kodak film when I was a kid so I certainly fall into the demographic of people who have fond memories of the brand. However, I would hesitate to buy a Kodak product now because I would assume that it was just a piece of junk with Kodak branding. Until just now I didn't even realize Kodak still did anything besides license patents.
  - SpaceInvader 12y ago
    Well, that is not true. I'm shooting film my whole life (my father was a photographer and we had several cameras at home). I use digital for about 95% of my pictures, but I have more analog than digital cameras, all of them are in perfect shape and I use them regularly. My favourite BW film is Kodak Tri-X [0], which is still being produced. I'm also using Kodak Ektar, Portra and still have few rolls of Kodak E100, although that one is not in production anymore. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Tri-X http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Tri-X
    - setpatchaddress 12y ago
      I think it's true. Kodak film is still respected today. Kodak cameras are not. What pictures have you taken with a Kodak?
    - glesica 12y ago
      I wasn't talking about Kodak film, I was talking about any arbitrary Kodak branded product. When companies die they often sell the brand, which then gets slapped on lots of random, usually low quality, products unassociated with the original company. This is why I would have been, until I found out that Kodak still exists as a real company, been extremely hesitant to buy something with "Kodak" on the box.
logicallee 12y ago
I was like, cling, cling, what's the pun, are they making some kind of celophane now, something about clingy....film... > At Kodak, Clinging to a Future Beyond Film Then I was like. WAIT a minute. This awkward title isn't drawing attention to "cling". It's just a painful nytimes headline word order. Seriously, this is just painful.
- freehunter 12y ago
  Why even use the word "cling"? Clinging would be if they stayed true to film. Leaving film for digital isn't clinging, it's adapting. Clinging is what they did in the 90s when digital started to rise and they ignored it. You don't cling to the future. You cling to the past.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
    They're clinging to a relic of the past: a Kodak that thought it could adapt. They're clinging to the hope they had that they can adapt. They're not adapting.
  - logicallee 12y ago
    I meant that the natural word order is "Kodak still clinging to a future beyond film." Not, "at Kodak, clinging..." This doesn't even make any sense.
ScottBurson 12y ago
Kodak’s researchers invented digital photography and put the technology in professional cameras in the 1990s. There were plans to move to digital consumer cameras, but the cash Kodak made on traditional photography made it complacent. Wow, talk about fumbling the future. I guess they didn't read Clayton Christensen. Disrupt yourself, or someone else will save you the trouble.
- porsupah 12y ago
  But, they did try: http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/kodak/ http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/kodak/ My understanding is, however, that they simply weren't all that noteworthy. Also, bear in mind the degree of pivot required - it's not merely a shift in strategy, but a fundamental transformation, from developing films, into developing entire electronic devices, with all the entirely new skills required in industrial design, UI, and so forth. It can, of course, be done - Fujifilm has managed to continue in the digital photography sector, although they were rather more broadly based to begin with. Similarly, Nikon and Canon were already acquainted with what was necessary in a DSLR, and were able to transition to the digital world with aplomb. To provide some context, consider this rec.photo thread from 1990, on the future of photography: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo/ZnqcQVzAln0 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo/ZnqcQVzAln...
  - ghaff 12y ago
    > Fujifilm has managed to continue in the digital photography sector, although they were rather more broadly based to begin with Well, they really became broader based in large part when they saw film was going to decline and branched into areas where they could apply their film expertise outside of photography. See e.g. http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/01/how-fujifilm-survived http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/01/how-fujifi... They do sell cameras today. (Nice ones; I own one.) But it's a relatively niche business. (And even so they struggled. Film sales absolutely fell off a cliff.)
  - Tuna-Fish 12y ago
    >> To provide some context, consider this rec.photo thread from 1990, on the future of photography: > Right now, 1 Megabyte of memory costs about $45 retail. This will not drop by an order of magnitude in the next decade without a breakthrough, or an economical Gallium-Arsenide process to replace Silicon. Hmm.
Animats 12y ago
Amusingly, Kodak is being paid by some major studios to continue to make 35MM cine film. [1] They're doing it to keep their older directors happy. Fuji quit that business in 2013. Film distribution is almost all digital already. Making, shipping, and handling film prints was always a pain, and that's over. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/kodak-movie-film-at-deaths-door-gets-a-reprieve-1406674752 http://www.wsj.com/articles/kodak-movie-film-at-deaths-door-...
jff 12y ago
I'd rather they just made a new Kodachrome line, but easier to process than the original... film is still pretty popular in the amateur crowd, and if they released a color film that was as easy to process as b&w and looked like Kodachrome, I'd be all over that.
- ghaff 12y ago
  Come on. That's a niche of a niche. Assuming it were even possible to develop such a thing, you wouldn't even pay back your R&D costs.
- js2 12y ago
  Then it wouldn't be Kodachrome. Kodachrome is fundamentally a different type of film from regular color negative and slide film, much less b&w film. It has no dye, rather the dye is added during processing. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process An easier-to-process color slide film exists... it's E-6. Some of the later Fuju slide films got very good using this process. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-6_process http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-6_process E-6 is easy enough to do at home, and good enough that it is largely responsible for Kodachrome's decline. You're kidding yourself if you think there would be any market for something between the two.
  - ghaff 12y ago
    Kodak had very good E-6 films latterly as well. I even mostly switched away from Kodachrome. (K-25 was always special but just too slow for most uses.) E-6 is doable at home but you still need fairly exacting temperature control. I never had that kind of equipment. Certainly harder than B&W. But I agree with your basic point. Besides, slide processing is basically a by the numbers operation unless you're doing really funky stuff.
  - jff 12y ago
    E-6 is easier than K-14 but it's still a lot pickier than B&W. I want a color film that's as easy to process as B&W in a Rodinal stand dev.
mbrownnyc 12y ago
This reminds me of how awesome NY Times is... I remember watching The Iron Triangle audio slideshow and thinking how great it was: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2004/02/28/nyregion/20040228_JUNK_AUDIOSS.html http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2004/02/28/nyregion/20... https://www.google.com/search?q=audio+slideshow+site%3Anytimes.com&gws_rd=ssl https://www.google.com/search?q=audio+slideshow+site%3Anytim...

41 points by gdilla 12y ago

I visited the Kodak works in Rochester during the company's heyday in the late 1960's. It was an amazing place, literally a city dedicated to making the things people used to take pictures. The words with which this excellent short film by the NYT opens could serve as a pointed warning of the dangers of thinking things will always be as they are.

jey 12y ago

“I’m mining the history of this company for its underlying technologies,” said Jeff Clarke, 53, who became Kodak’s chief executive last year. Mr. Clarke has no delusions that Kodak could bring those technologies to market on its own; Why are they so down on Kodak as a brand? There's still a ton of people who have very fond associations with the Kodak brand, since the film camera would only come out only at those special meaningful moments like birthdays, weddings, vacations, etc. (No, people didn't just routinely snap pictures of their lunch back then.) Anyway, where can I get a Kodachrome Instagram filter?

glesica 12y ago
My family took a ton of pictures on Kodak film when I was a kid so I certainly fall into the demographic of people who have fond memories of the brand. However, I would hesitate to buy a Kodak product now because I would assume that it was just a piece of junk with Kodak branding. Until just now I didn't even realize Kodak still did anything besides license patents.
- SpaceInvader 12y ago
  Well, that is not true. I'm shooting film my whole life (my father was a photographer and we had several cameras at home). I use digital for about 95% of my pictures, but I have more analog than digital cameras, all of them are in perfect shape and I use them regularly. My favourite BW film is Kodak Tri-X [0], which is still being produced. I'm also using Kodak Ektar, Portra and still have few rolls of Kodak E100, although that one is not in production anymore. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Tri-X http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Tri-X
  - setpatchaddress 12y ago
    I think it's true. Kodak film is still respected today. Kodak cameras are not. What pictures have you taken with a Kodak?
  - glesica 12y ago
    I wasn't talking about Kodak film, I was talking about any arbitrary Kodak branded product. When companies die they often sell the brand, which then gets slapped on lots of random, usually low quality, products unassociated with the original company. This is why I would have been, until I found out that Kodak still exists as a real company, been extremely hesitant to buy something with "Kodak" on the box.

logicallee 12y ago

I was like, cling, cling, what's the pun, are they making some kind of celophane now, something about clingy....film... > At Kodak, Clinging to a Future Beyond Film Then I was like. WAIT a minute. This awkward title isn't drawing attention to "cling". It's just a painful nytimes headline word order. Seriously, this is just painful.

freehunter 12y ago
Why even use the word "cling"? Clinging would be if they stayed true to film. Leaving film for digital isn't clinging, it's adapting. Clinging is what they did in the 90s when digital started to rise and they ignored it. You don't cling to the future. You cling to the past.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  They're clinging to a relic of the past: a Kodak that thought it could adapt. They're clinging to the hope they had that they can adapt. They're not adapting.
- logicallee 12y ago
  I meant that the natural word order is "Kodak still clinging to a future beyond film." Not, "at Kodak, clinging..." This doesn't even make any sense.

ScottBurson 12y ago

Kodak’s researchers invented digital photography and put the technology in professional cameras in the 1990s. There were plans to move to digital consumer cameras, but the cash Kodak made on traditional photography made it complacent. Wow, talk about fumbling the future. I guess they didn't read Clayton Christensen. Disrupt yourself, or someone else will save you the trouble.

porsupah 12y ago
But, they did try: http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/kodak/ http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/kodak/ My understanding is, however, that they simply weren't all that noteworthy. Also, bear in mind the degree of pivot required - it's not merely a shift in strategy, but a fundamental transformation, from developing films, into developing entire electronic devices, with all the entirely new skills required in industrial design, UI, and so forth. It can, of course, be done - Fujifilm has managed to continue in the digital photography sector, although they were rather more broadly based to begin with. Similarly, Nikon and Canon were already acquainted with what was necessary in a DSLR, and were able to transition to the digital world with aplomb. To provide some context, consider this rec.photo thread from 1990, on the future of photography: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo/ZnqcQVzAln0 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo/ZnqcQVzAln...
- ghaff 12y ago
  > Fujifilm has managed to continue in the digital photography sector, although they were rather more broadly based to begin with Well, they really became broader based in large part when they saw film was going to decline and branched into areas where they could apply their film expertise outside of photography. See e.g. http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/01/how-fujifilm-survived http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/01/how-fujifi... They do sell cameras today. (Nice ones; I own one.) But it's a relatively niche business. (And even so they struggled. Film sales absolutely fell off a cliff.)
- Tuna-Fish 12y ago
  >> To provide some context, consider this rec.photo thread from 1990, on the future of photography: > Right now, 1 Megabyte of memory costs about $45 retail. This will not drop by an order of magnitude in the next decade without a breakthrough, or an economical Gallium-Arsenide process to replace Silicon. Hmm.

Animats 12y ago

Amusingly, Kodak is being paid by some major studios to continue to make 35MM cine film. [1] They're doing it to keep their older directors happy. Fuji quit that business in 2013. Film distribution is almost all digital already. Making, shipping, and handling film prints was always a pain, and that's over. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/kodak-movie-film-at-deaths-door-gets-a-reprieve-1406674752 http://www.wsj.com/articles/kodak-movie-film-at-deaths-door-...

jff 12y ago

I'd rather they just made a new Kodachrome line, but easier to process than the original... film is still pretty popular in the amateur crowd, and if they released a color film that was as easy to process as b&w and looked like Kodachrome, I'd be all over that.

ghaff 12y ago
Come on. That's a niche of a niche. Assuming it were even possible to develop such a thing, you wouldn't even pay back your R&D costs.
js2 12y ago
Then it wouldn't be Kodachrome. Kodachrome is fundamentally a different type of film from regular color negative and slide film, much less b&w film. It has no dye, rather the dye is added during processing. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process An easier-to-process color slide film exists... it's E-6. Some of the later Fuju slide films got very good using this process. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-6_process http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-6_process E-6 is easy enough to do at home, and good enough that it is largely responsible for Kodachrome's decline. You're kidding yourself if you think there would be any market for something between the two.
- ghaff 12y ago
  Kodak had very good E-6 films latterly as well. I even mostly switched away from Kodachrome. (K-25 was always special but just too slow for most uses.) E-6 is doable at home but you still need fairly exacting temperature control. I never had that kind of equipment. Certainly harder than B&W. But I agree with your basic point. Besides, slide processing is basically a by the numbers operation unless you're doing really funky stuff.
- jff 12y ago
  E-6 is easier than K-14 but it's still a lot pickier than B&W. I want a color film that's as easy to process as B&W in a Rodinal stand dev.

mbrownnyc 12y ago

This reminds me of how awesome NY Times is... I remember watching The Iron Triangle audio slideshow and thinking how great it was: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2004/02/28/nyregion/20040228_JUNK_AUDIOSS.html http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2004/02/28/nyregion/20... https://www.google.com/search?q=audio+slideshow+site%3Anytimes.com&gws_rd=ssl https://www.google.com/search?q=audio+slideshow+site%3Anytim...