First Kodachrome, now Kodak?

[distant.star]

Two years ago we lost the much beloved Kodachrome. Next year we could be taking digital pictures of a tombstone with the name KODAK on it.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120103/BUSINESS/120103030

[dr croubie]

I read an article about the demise of Kodak last October.

That article seems to be a bit more of a stock-market thingy, they could just as easily consolidate the shares 10:1 or 100:1, then each share would be worth $6.50 or $65 (I've never heard of that $1 rule in Australia, i've bought and sold shares here from 1.000 to 1.010 cents and made a profit).

It would be really crap to lose such an iconic company though, especially since all the photolabs around my city use the same Fujifilm printers/paper, and the colours don't look any good, I go well out of my way to use the only Kodak Express because the colours actually match my monitor...

[Kahuna]

 
Kodachrome
You give us those nice bright colors
You give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
I got a Canon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

Thanks Kodak for years of photographic fun!  Best wishes for the future.

[AprilForever]

 

[gmrza]

I read an article about the demise of Kodak last October.

That article seems to be a bit more of a stock-market thingy, they could just as easily consolidate the shares 10:1 or 100:1, then each share would be worth $6.50 or $65 (I've never heard of that $1 rule in Australia, i've bought and sold shares here from 1.000 to 1.010 cents and made a profit).

It would be really crap to lose such an iconic company though, especially since all the photolabs around my city use the same Fujifilm printers/paper, and the colours don't look any good, I go well out of my way to use the only Kodak Express because the colours actually match my monitor...

I tend to agree on that - I doubt that Kodak is at risk of filing for bankruptcy protection.

For that matter, I have really come to like the Kodak Endura lustre and metallic papers.

[scrappydog]

... they could just as easily consolidate the shares 10:1 or 100:1, then each share would be worth $6.50 or $65 (I've never heard of that $1 rule in Australia, i've bought and sold shares here from 1.000 to 1.010 cents and made a profit).

The $1 rule is a listing standard of the NYSE.  If they are delisted, their shares could still sell on the OTC market, which is the realm of penny stocks and foreign stock with ADRs (e.g., Nintendo).  As you note, they can also conduct a reverse stock split to boost the share price.

It would be really crap to lose such an iconic company though...

+1

[Canon-F1]

well why would i waste a tear on kodak?

kodak had it´s time.. as the C64 had.
but i have not used a C64 in 20 years and kodak for almost 15 years.

beside kodak metallic paper kodak has not much to offer in the digital age ... for me.

thought i can understand sentimental thoughts about the past.

[daveheinzel]

I got a Canon camera

You made my day.

[Mendolera]

As a Rochestarian, its sad to see Kodak fall as far as they have. Management made some poor decisions years ago and now are facing the wrath of the digital age. Buying anything Fuji in Rochester was like buying a Honda in Detroit growing up.. ::sigh::

Basically there valuable patents are keeping them afloat..

[wallybarthman]

I'm with you - I remember shooting film and scoffing at those who bought and shot Fuji because my Dad was a kodak employee. 

[distant.star]

well why would i waste a tear on kodak?

kodak had it´s time.. as the C64 had.
but i have not used a C64 in 20 years and kodak for almost 15 years.

beside kodak metallic paper kodak has not much to offer in the digital age ... for me.

thought i can understand sentimental thoughts about the past.

I guess for me there is sentiment mixed with awe over how silicone and mathematics have so devastated chemistry and paper. But Kodak did have a choice -- they could have put more of their resources into a future that was painfully obvious. So many old-line corporations can't seem to cope with change -- they are like deer in the headlights.

Their metallic paper I sure have come to love. Great stuff. Yet my printer goes with the Fuji Pearl for anything in large display and competition stuff.

[pwp]

Just in...

It looks like 2012 may be Kodak's final year. The inability to find buyers for their patents has left no option but bankruptcy.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/01/04/wsj_eastman_kodak_readying_bankruptcy_filing.html

This does not look promising for George Eastmans once revolutionary company. He was the Steve Jobs of his age with a successful desire to create a convergence of technology and art wrapped up in a highly viable business model. The name Kodak is an invention. Eastman wanted to come up with a word that was easily pronounced in any language on the planet. Kodak.

Paul Wright

[gmrza]

Here's another take on why Kodak is on the brink:

http://technologyspectator.com.au/emerging-tech/social-media/kodaks-missed-facebook-opportunity

This article argues that Kodak failed to understand the shift in the reasons why people take photographs. - Because Kodak still thought that people were taking photos for recording memories, they focused on printing, and missed the fact that most people take photos to share them online - that is photos have become a form of communication rather than a form of memory.

[cheeseheadsaint]

What does that mean for AdoramaPix? What paper are they switching to?

[distant.star]

Thanks. That's a fascinating idea and one I've spent a lot of time thinking about. A while back I started a thread here asking what photos meant to people, but the response was slim and most people still said memories, for the most part.

But the communication makes sense in a fast moving, throw away world. "Here's me today. Tomorrow, this reality is gone -- and a new picture will replace it."

Makes me wonder if we lose a lot of history this way -- personal and otherwise.

Paper will surely hang on for a while. I always see people printing pictures when I go in CVS, Walgreens, etc. Maybe 20 years from now that will all be gone too. Imagine going to a photo show in a gallery and having nothing but screens on the wall -- with resolutions that look so real you could walk into them; that's the future of digital imaging, I believe.

Kodak would need a miracle at this point.

Here's another take on why Kodak is on the brink:

http://technologyspectator.com.au/emerging-tech/social-media/kodaks-missed-facebook-opportunity

This article argues that Kodak failed to understand the shift in the reasons why people take photographs. - Because Kodak still thought that people were taking photos for recording memories, they focused on printing, and missed the fact that most people take photos to share them online - that is photos have become a form of communication rather than a form of memory.