Ask HN: Insider history of the demise of Kodak? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Insider history of the demise of Kodak?

#231

Post by Laforet » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 5:36 AM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #211

Laforet wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've looked into these processes years ago but backed off because they seemed to require some really stringent temperature control. Is it no longer the case?

In general I'd say the C-41 kits are relatively simple for someone who's accustomed to B+W development. It comes down to being sure the chemicals are at the proper temperature and that agitation is even. There's much less tolerance for variation compared to B+W but it's still well within the reach of a diligent amateur who focuses on reproducibility and good lab skills. The main requirement is a temperature-controlle…

Thank you, looks like little has changed since I checked last time.

I live in a relatively mild climate and B+W development usually means measure the temperature of tap water once and go with it for the day. For C-41 it's also a bit harder to keep things at 39C which makers a larger gradient against room temperature than 20C, but in the end I suppose it's not too hard with a water bath.

Re: Ask HN: Insider history of the demise of Kodak?

#232

Post by mark-r » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 10:03 PM UTC

ecpottinger wrote: post #228

mark-r wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike Apple, Kodak was caught in a very hard place. With film they would collect revenue for every picture taken, through the film itself, developing, and printing. With digital you could make money on the cameras themselves, but your per-picture revenue opportunities were limited - this was the great attraction of digital. It's not the same as Apple replacing devices one-for-one.

Tell that to the people who make the inks for my Epson inkjet printer. Inkjets can do great prints of photos, but only if you pay for the paper and ink.

Remember, Kodak was collecting for every picture. So few pictures get printed today, the cost of ink is literally a drop in the bucket.

Re: Ask HN: Insider history of the demise of Kodak?

#233

Post by T0T0R0 » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 3:33 AM UTC

summarite wrote: post #229

T0T0R0 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding the current contrast between apparent states of Apple and Microsoft, I'd say Apple could be reduced to an identical state in a matter of six months by any other company coming out of the woodwork with some new, fully realized product the general public hasn't seen before. It's not innately reasonable to divine what such a product might be. Meanwhile, consider that Microsoft was very strong in 2003, but thro…

I'm not sure why you all think Microsoft has big problems. They still have the corporate and public sector, largely even the education market cornered. They are hugely profitable and right now taking crazy-looking but probably not exactly stupid steps towards changing their consumer business model.

Well, from the consumer perspective, their most visible and obvious source of relevance, they've got barely anything worth talking about, and everything they've bought up, people are holding their breath waiting for corporate inertia to contaminate and ruin.

But yeah all that business, corporate, government, enterprise activity is probably plenty more than just life support. It's not like I read shareholder earnings reports or anything, though.

Re: Ask HN: Insider history of the demise of Kodak?

#234

Post by PostOnce » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 12:36 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #180

porsupah wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even amongst more technically minded folk, there were some having difficulty accepting that the technical challenges facing digital photography would, in fact, be overcome. Here's quite an interesting thread from rec.photo, Dec 1990 onwards, discussing just that. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo/ZnqcQVzAln...

"No doubt, my recent $8000 35mm camera investment was a safe one." Ouch!

They're right, it was 1990. The first DSLR didn't come out for 5 years, and it was less than 2 megapixels.

The Nikon D1 didn't come out until 1999, so nine years later, for $6000, for a 2.75mp camera.

Did that even compete with film? Can you put that on the cover of a magazine at under 3 megapixels?

So yeah, it was a safe investment in 1990.