1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

the first step?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by pellicle, Aug 29, 2015.

  1. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
  2. Clint

    Clint Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 22, 2013
    San Diego area, CA
    Clint
    They didn’t dig a hole and hope to hide it, they did develop it around the rest of technology that took nearly 20 years to make a consumer digital camera feasible.

    And while Kodak didn’t foresee what they really had, Kodak saw worth to license the technology to the likes of Fuji, Logitech, Leaf, Apple, Canon, Casio, Ricoh, as well as others and partner with Nikon and Olympus.

    Because of the licensing, digital photography may have actually moved along at a quicker pace than if Kodak had kept the knowledge within its’ companies boundaries.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    good points Clint.

    Somehow during the development of Digital (I bought my first one in 2000) I felt that Kodak were dragging behind others and failing to advance. I was always frustrated by their balancing act of great stuff but stupidly done in marketing.

    This camera really impressed me
    https://luminous-landscape.com/kodak-760m-review/

    even with Film (which was their bread and butter) they somehow managed to work towards eroding their own market. For instance a case should have been better made in the early 2000's to have better scanners and cheaper. Kodak developed good stuff, but the marketing of it left it out in the cold (in my opinion because of pricing).

    Personally I still find benefits in film, and know that for quiet a while digital cameras did not have the lattitude of highlight capture that negative does, yet Kodak (to me) failed to tackle this head on and instead sought government bail outs to keep running.

    Now however the only place I have for film in my photography is in my large format camera in 4x5 sheets of neg (which I scan). Had cheap 35mm high res 16 bit files been available from Kodak (as they were later from Noritsu) I expect I'd have been using 35mm colour neg for a lot longer.

    But all things die, its just a question of when :)
     
  4. Clint

    Clint Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 22, 2013
    San Diego area, CA
    Clint
    What I posted above is all based on hindsight and nothing about the way I felt at the time! By the early to mid-90s I was so frustrated with Kodak, Nikon, Olympus, and few others that one day I simply stored all of my photography gear, where it stayed for about a decade. It was pretty hard to set aside 30 years of passion and move on.


    And I fully agree with you, film still offers substance that digital cannot duplicate. I would guess similarly to audio aficionados that love the sound of analog recordings over digital, there is a quality to film and prints that has pretty much disappeared. And with the high demand to develop perfect digital images with perfect lenses – much of photography is becoming seemingly all … too perfect? I don’t know, maybe it’s more metaphysical.
     
  5. NoSeconds

    NoSeconds Mu-43 All-Pro

    I remember seeing the first Sony Mavica's with 3.5 inch disks or CD-RW and thinking they were something out of a sci fi movie! Sony really was ahead of its time with those cameras, the only mistake they made (IMHO) was to persist with the doomed memory stick concept when everyone else was doing SD or CF cards at a fraction of the price...