Kodak bankruptcy (again)

[Dale]

I think the stakeholders in Kodak's reorganization should understand a
couple things real clearly

1) the dominant consumer imaging workflow is now digital cameras in cell
phones and ipad like devices for both capture, display, and distribution
via sharing mechanisms like facebook

2) smart TVs like iTV from Apple are quick on the way and in some cases
already there

3) these are not the advanced amatuer category, they have already
switched to higher resolution and zoom cameras for both still and motion

4) regardless of Kodak's licensing with IMAX high resolution display and
capture, DIGITAL are already here

5) Apple and the like are Kodak's new competitors and if they don't act
soon their brand will be tarnished beyond repair in ALL markets. If
Apple and Nikon and Canon etc. can turn a profit here Kodak should be
able to.

6) when I was in Kodak R&D about 15 years ago the consumer imaging
department had a three phase plan for consumer digital called Genesis.
Genesis Alpha was a film consortium to present the current advantagge of
film over digital,, Advantix film if you are famialiar with that name.
Genesis beta was an attempt to set a quality standard for scanning film
over digital capture, PhotoCD. The last part of Genesis was a 1
mmegapixel camera with electrophotographic printing. They decided to
not pursue the latter.

[PiLS]

Post by Dale
I think the stakeholders in Kodak's reorganization should understand a
couple things real clearly
1) the dominant consumer imaging workflow is now digital cameras in cell
phones and ipad like devices for both capture, display, and distribution
via sharing mechanisms like facebook

Film still has its uses, in niche but high-value markets. (arts, some
areas of science, consumer discardable cameras, consumer "artsy"
cameras à la Lomo, etc).
Digital sharing has precisely zero intrinsic value (negative value
actually, when you factor in the costs of hosting and bandwidth).
Facebook, Google and the like gobble "digital sharing" ventures
because they have a business model that allows them to spend cash
on otherwise valueless tech to channel users into their (other)
money-making services.

Post by Dale
2) smart TVs like iTV from Apple are quick on the way and in some cases
already there

iTV is dead in the water, sustained only by Apple's ample reserves of
cash. Although there are other more successful ventures in the same
area, the cost of entry for a newcomer is prohibitive. The cost of
acquiring content in itself is steep; and it takes time, as Apple
discovered with the iTV (which major use until now is to stream iTune
content to your TV)

Post by Dale
3) these are not the advanced amatuer category, they have already
switched to higher resolution and zoom cameras for both still and motion

I don't think you know what photography is about. Then again, so don't
the average consumer so you still have a point. I guess. But drop the
"advanced".

Post by Dale
4) regardless of Kodak's licensing with IMAX high resolution display and
capture, DIGITAL are already here

True.

Post by Dale
5) Apple and the like are Kodak's new competitors and if they don't act
soon their brand will be tarnished beyond repair in ALL markets. If
Apple and Nikon and Canon etc. can turn a profit here Kodak should be
able to.

The profit Apple make has nothing to do with the profit that Canon and
Nikon (and Pentax and Sony etc) make. They operate in completely
different markets.

Post by Dale
6) when I was in Kodak R&D about 15 years ago the consumer imaging
department had a three phase plan for consumer digital called Genesis.
Genesis Alpha was a film consortium to present the current advantagge of
film over digital,, Advantix film if you are famialiar with that name.
Genesis beta was an attempt to set a quality standard for scanning film
over digital capture, PhotoCD. The last part of Genesis was a 1
mmegapixel camera with electrophotographic printing. They decided to
not pursue the latter.

That's the crux of the problem. Kodak might have had a chance if they
had developped a quality film for niche markets. Instead of that they
peddled crap film that bleaches within a couple years.
Or they could have turned towards digital, but they were to busy trying
to protect their cheapo film market share to do that. Half-arsed on
every front.
Down they go, and they won't be missed.

[Martin Brown]

Post by PiLS

Post by Dale
I think the stakeholders in Kodak's reorganization should understand a
couple things real clearly
1) the dominant consumer imaging workflow is now digital cameras in cell
phones and ipad like devices for both capture, display, and distribution
via sharing mechanisms like facebook

Film still has its uses, in niche but high-value markets. (arts, some
areas of science, consumer discardable cameras, consumer "artsy"
cameras à la Lomo, etc).
Digital sharing has precisely zero intrinsic value (negative value
actually, when you factor in the costs of hosting and bandwidth).
Facebook, Google and the like gobble "digital sharing" ventures
because they have a business model that allows them to spend cash
on otherwise valueless tech to channel users into their (other)
money-making services.

Post by Dale
2) smart TVs like iTV from Apple are quick on the way and in some cases
already there

iTV is dead in the water, sustained only by Apple's ample reserves of
cash. Although there are other more successful ventures in the same
area, the cost of entry for a newcomer is prohibitive. The cost of
acquiring content in itself is steep; and it takes time, as Apple
discovered with the iTV (which major use until now is to stream iTune
content to your TV)

Post by Dale
3) these are not the advanced amatuer category, they have already
switched to higher resolution and zoom cameras for both still and motion

I don't think you know what photography is about. Then again, so don't
the average consumer so you still have a point. I guess. But drop the
"advanced".

Post by Dale
4) regardless of Kodak's licensing with IMAX high resolution display and
capture, DIGITAL are already here

True.

Post by Dale
5) Apple and the like are Kodak's new competitors and if they don't act
soon their brand will be tarnished beyond repair in ALL markets. If
Apple and Nikon and Canon etc. can turn a profit here Kodak should be
able to.

The profit Apple make has nothing to do with the profit that Canon and
Nikon (and Pentax and Sony etc) make. They operate in completely
different markets.

Post by Dale
6) when I was in Kodak R&D about 15 years ago the consumer imaging
department had a three phase plan for consumer digital called Genesis.
Genesis Alpha was a film consortium to present the current advantagge of
film over digital,, Advantix film if you are famialiar with that name.
Genesis beta was an attempt to set a quality standard for scanning film
over digital capture, PhotoCD. The last part of Genesis was a 1
mmegapixel camera with electrophotographic printing. They decided to
not pursue the latter.

That's the crux of the problem. Kodak might have had a chance if they
had developped a quality film for niche markets. Instead of that they
peddled crap film that bleaches within a couple years.
Or they could have turned towards digital, but they were to busy trying
to protect their cheapo film market share to do that. Half-arsed on
every front.
Down they go, and they won't be missed.

If Dale's incoherent rants are representative of the calibre of their
R&D it is not surprising that they went down the tubes. Pity really.

True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they
muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to
their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them.
Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels pro,
6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at
1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide
scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back.

They did have reasonable and early digital cameras, but to protect their
film division it wasn't followed up properly. And from the outset they
confused the market by launching products with permuted names that
persuaded dealers that products were obsolete before their time. I got
an "obsolete" Kodak DC-120 just after the DC-210 came out. The former
was actually a fairly popular camera for scientific use because you
could with a bit of fiddling directly access the raw Bayer sensor array.

This was back in the early days when digital cameras looked more like
tricorders than cameras and ate a set of batteries an hour or so...

[stu7]

<snip>

Post by Martin Brown
True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they
muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to
their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them.
Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels
pro, 6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at
1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide
scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back.

*** nod... I recall when they switched from whatever it was...
*** four different resolution images, to one, and then to one
*** low quality. This is part of what I and many others, I am
*** sure, have commented on... its business first, never mind the
*** consumer / photographer... would this kind of switch-offs
*** mentality work at a mickee-Ds ? 'oh yes sir... you ordered
*** the bigmac and coke... well... we gave you a cheeseburger and
*** capachino instead... now get out before I call security(!)'.

Post by Martin Brown
They did have reasonable and early digital cameras, but to protect
their film division it wasn't followed up properly. And from the
outset they confused the market by launching products with permuted
names that persuaded dealers that products were obsolete before
their time. I got an "obsolete" Kodak DC-120 just after the DC-210
came out. The former was actually a fairly popular camera for
scientific use because you could with a bit of fiddling directly
access the raw Bayer sensor array.

*** I didnt really follow the Kodak death throes closely... at some
*** point, I will imagine, it became clear that orange and red was
*** not charting a strong course into the future... that they were
*** in the midst of corporate uncertainty and nominal policy
decisions.
*** While its easy to shout suggestions from the sidelines, the issue
*** remains, when quality and consumer satisfaction are no longer
*** the driving force, any business becomes just another profit
*** scheme... everybody loses, or, everybody who isnt cashing in
*** on losses.

<snip>

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[aruzinsky]

Post by Martin Brown

Post by PiLS

Post by Dale
I think the stakeholders in Kodak's reorganization should understand a
couple things real clearly
1) the dominant consumer imaging workflow is now digital cameras in cell
phones and ipad like devices for both capture, display, and distribution
via sharing mechanisms like facebook

Film still has its uses, in niche but high-value markets. (arts, some
areas of science, consumer discardable cameras, consumer "artsy"
cameras à la Lomo, etc).
Digital sharing has precisely zero intrinsic value (negative value
actually, when you factor in the costs of hosting and bandwidth).
Facebook, Google and the like gobble "digital sharing" ventures
because they have a business model that allows them to spend cash
on otherwise valueless tech to channel users into their (other)
money-making services.

Post by Dale
2) smart TVs like iTV from Apple are quick on the way and in some cases
already there

iTV is dead in the water, sustained only by Apple's ample reserves of
cash. Although there are other more successful ventures in the same
area, the cost of entry for a newcomer is prohibitive. The cost of
acquiring content in itself is steep; and it takes time, as Apple
discovered with the iTV (which major use until now is to stream iTune
content to your TV)

Post by Dale
3) these are not the advanced amatuer category, they have already
switched to higher resolution and zoom cameras for both still and motion

I don't think you know what photography is about. Then again, so don't
the average consumer so you still have a point. I guess. But drop the
"advanced".

Post by Dale
4) regardless of Kodak's licensing with IMAX high resolution display and
capture, DIGITAL are already here

True.

Post by Dale
5) Apple and the like are Kodak's new competitors and if they don't act
soon their brand will be tarnished beyond repair in ALL markets. If
Apple and Nikon and Canon etc. can turn a profit here Kodak should be
able to.

The profit Apple make has nothing to do with the profit that Canon and
Nikon (and Pentax and Sony etc) make. They operate in completely
different markets.

Post by Dale
6) when I was in Kodak R&D about 15 years ago the consumer imaging
department had a three phase plan for consumer digital called Genesis.
Genesis Alpha was a film consortium to present the current advantagge of
film  over digital,, Advantix film if you are famialiar with that name.
Genesis beta was an attempt to set a quality standard for scanning film
over digital capture, PhotoCD. The last part of Genesis was a 1
mmegapixel camera with electrophotographic printing. They decided  to
not pursue the latter.

That's the crux of the problem. Kodak might have had a chance if they
had developped a quality film for niche markets. Instead of that they
peddled crap film that bleaches within a couple years.
Or they could have turned towards digital, but they were to busy trying
to protect their cheapo film market share to do that. Half-arsed on
every front.
Down they go, and they won't be missed.

If Dale's incoherent rants are representative of the calibre of their
R&D it is not surprising that they went down the tubes. Pity really.
True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they
muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to
their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them.
Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels pro,
6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at
1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide
scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back.
They did have reasonable and early digital cameras, but to protect their
film division it wasn't followed up properly. And from the outset they
confused the market by launching products with permuted names that
persuaded dealers that products were obsolete before their time. I got
an "obsolete" Kodak DC-120 just after the DC-210 came out. The former
was actually a fairly popular camera for scientific use because you
could with a bit of fiddling directly access the raw Bayer sensor array.
This was back in the early days when digital cameras looked more like
tricorders than cameras and ate a set of batteries an hour or so...
--
Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on
the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the
back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came
off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe,
Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such
possibilities in the instructions? I don't.

[nospam]

In article

Post by aruzinsky
I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on
the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the
back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came
off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe,
Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such
possibilities in the instructions? I don't.

why did you remove the label? all cds work that way, not just photo cd,
and i remember lots of warnings about stick-on cd labels that could jam
the drives or peel off the data layer.

[aruzinsky]

Post by nospam
In article

I had a bad experience with PhotoCD.  The PhotoCDs had gold plating on
the back that could easily be peeled off.  I put a gummy label on the
back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came
off. That was $30 of my money down the drain.  Maybe, my bad, maybe,
Kodak's bad.  Do you remember seeing a warning about such
possibilities in the instructions?  I don't.

why did you remove the label? all cds work that way, not just photo cd,
and i remember lots of warnings about stick-on cd labels that could jam
the drives or peel off the data layer.

I don't remember why I did it. It was the first and last time on any
CD or DVD. I suspect that I accidentally touched the label to the
back but I can't imagine a likely scenerio for that to happen.

[Martin Brown]

Post by aruzinsky

Post by Martin Brown
True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they
muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to
their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them.
Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels pro,
6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at
1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide
scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back.
- Show quoted text -

I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on
the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the
back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came
off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe,
Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such
possibilities in the instructions? I don't.

I think you were just out of luck.

I had a look inside one of mine and whilst it doesn't say don't stick a
label on it does have pictograms for handle by the edges, don't bend,
store <40C, out of direct sunlight, don't get wet, write on or use
solvent cleaners. They still read OK 15 years later - I had cause to use
one last week which is why it is still hanging around on my desk.

It would never have occurred to me to stick a label on one. They were
laser etched on the central clear spindle area with their serial no. By
the time they had 80+ scanned images on they were quite an investment.

Even today I have known people come seriously unstuck with CD labels
curling up and wrecking a CD drive.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Post by Martin Brown

Post by aruzinsky

Post by Martin Brown
True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they
muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to
their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them.
Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels pro,
6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at
1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide
scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back.
- Show quoted text -

I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on
the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the
back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came
off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe,
Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such
possibilities in the instructions? I don't.

I think you were just out of luck.
I had a look inside one of mine and whilst it doesn't say don't stick
a label on it does have pictograms for handle by the edges, don't
bend, store <40C, out of direct sunlight, don't get wet, write on or
use solvent cleaners. They still read OK 15 years later - I had cause
to use one last week which is why it is still hanging around on my
desk.

Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file formats.

[Martin Brown]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Martin Brown

Post by aruzinsky

Post by Martin Brown
True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they
muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to
their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them.
Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels pro,
6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at
1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide
scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back.
- Show quoted text -

I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on
the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the
back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came
off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe,
Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such
possibilities in the instructions? I don't.

I think you were just out of luck.
I had a look inside one of mine and whilst it doesn't say don't stick
a label on it does have pictograms for handle by the edges, don't
bend, store<40C, out of direct sunlight, don't get wet, write on or
use solvent cleaners. They still read OK 15 years later - I had cause
to use one last week which is why it is still hanging around on my
desk.

Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file formats.

Older versions do and at a pinch IrfanView will read almost anything.

[Richard Knoppow]

Post by Martin Brown

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Martin Brown

On Apr 26, 1:34 am, Martin

Post by Martin Brown
True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service
but then they
muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and
failing to explain to
their sales channels the *enormous* difference in
quality between them.
Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding
(upto 25Mpixels pro,
6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG
encoding at
1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of
Nikon slide
scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once
and never went back.
- Show quoted text -

I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had
gold plating on
the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a
gummy label on the
back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the
gold plating came
off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe,
my bad, maybe,
Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about
such
possibilities in the instructions? I don't.

I think you were just out of luck.
I had a look inside one of mine and whilst it doesn't
say don't stick
a label on it does have pictograms for handle by the
edges, don't
bend, store<40C, out of direct sunlight, don't get wet,
write on or
use solvent cleaners. They still read OK 15 years
later - I had cause
to use one last week which is why it is still hanging
around on my
desk.

Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file
formats.

Older versions do and at a pinch IrfanView will read
almost anything.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I wonder if Gimp does. Its a freeware image editor
similar in function to Photoshop.

[stu7]

Post by Dale
I think the stakeholders in Kodak's reorganization should understand a
couple things real clearly
Dale

-
<major snip>

something Dale emphasizes in his original post was, indeed, the
huge lack of understanding which occurred between consumers and
manufacturers... Im sure everyone experienced the "black hole"
effect, as roll film formats began disappearing during the 1960s...
until today... 35mm film isnt stocked in stores anymore, and
processing has almost totally dried up.

Interesting to see his perspective, as a former Kodak insider

I would say Kodak-s biggest mistake was diversification to all
things graphical and image oriented. In the "old days" you could
get an inexpensive film camera from Kodak, with decent optics, and
prints therefrom... there is always a need for basic picture taking /
picture printing consumer services... if a base company remained,
Id say they could still succeed with this original business plan.

Years ago, I posted about the sudden disappearance of Kodak's
premier film processing/printing services from drug stores /
supermarkets... problem being... ten years into the "digital
revolution" there is still nothing available which approaches
the quality or convenience of that service. This was a one time
use camera... terrific prints in four days... about 15 dollars
total... theres just nothing comprable today.

As regards Kodak again... they had the digital transition covered...
with that forementioned premier quality film camera service, anyone
with a computer and photo software could also get all their pictures
back on an optional photo CD... once more... with all the processors,
so did the CD services go away.

Was the disintegration of photo processing / printing all just a
market ploy ? Put fifty million snapshot hungry consumers out on
the street... absolutely nowhere for them to go when they wanted
snapshots of the kids birthday party. Sure_ for many hundreds of
dollars and a college degree, you could get, and be able to use,
your own printer and a reasonable digital camera_ something more
than a camera-phone.

All this is a long way of saying, I generally agree, whoever takes
over Kodak should also take a long look at what the public wants,
camera / printed photograph wise... or... perhaps some bright
entra-pen-oor will see the void, and "snap up" this market ?

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by stu7

Post by Dale
I think the stakeholders in Kodak's reorganization should understand a
couple things real clearly
Dale

-
<major snip>
something Dale emphasizes in his original post was, indeed, the
huge lack of understanding which occurred between consumers and
manufacturers... Im sure everyone experienced the "black hole"
effect, as roll film formats began disappearing during the 1960s...
until today... 35mm film isnt stocked in stores anymore, and
processing has almost totally dried up.
Interesting to see his perspective, as a former Kodak insider
I would say Kodak-s biggest mistake was diversification to all
things graphical and image oriented. In the "old days" you could
get an inexpensive film camera from Kodak, with decent optics, and
prints therefrom... there is always a need for basic picture taking /
picture printing consumer services... if a base company remained,
Id say they could still succeed with this original business plan.
Years ago, I posted about the sudden disappearance of Kodak's
premier film processing/printing services from drug stores /
supermarkets... problem being... ten years into the "digital
revolution" there is still nothing available which approaches
the quality or convenience of that service. This was a one time
use camera... terrific prints in four days... about 15 dollars
total... theres just nothing comprable today.
As regards Kodak again... they had the digital transition covered...
with that forementioned premier quality film camera service, anyone
with a computer and photo software could also get all their pictures
back on an optional photo CD... once more... with all the processors,
so did the CD services go away.
Was the disintegration of photo processing / printing all just a
market ploy ? Put fifty million snapshot hungry consumers out on
the street... absolutely nowhere for them to go when they wanted
snapshots of the kids birthday party. Sure_ for many hundreds of
dollars and a college degree, you could get, and be able to use,
your own printer and a reasonable digital camera_ something more
than a camera-phone.
All this is a long way of saying, I generally agree, whoever takes
over Kodak should also take a long look at what the public wants,
camera / printed photograph wise... or... perhaps some bright
entra-pen-oor will see the void, and "snap up" this market ?

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying..

Clearly the guy with snapshots of his kid's party is able to go to
almost any drugstore in the US with his cellphone or camera and have
prints of the event within the hour. It won't be from a Kodak
setup of course, but I doubt any consumer even knows or cares what
brand machine is back there.

[stu7]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying..
Clearly the guy with snapshots of his kid's party is able
to go to almost any drugstore in the US with his cellphone
or camera and have prints of the event within the hour.
It won't be from a Kodak setup of course, but I doubt any
consumer even knows or cares what brand machine is back there.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

right... or, it used to be that way... most serious photographers
do have their own processing/printing equipment anymore, so this
argument does not really relate.

my comments rehashed that particular *premium* Kodak process /
print service which, to me, was just so incredible... it was
50% more money than standard processing, but the quality was
unmatchable... this again was great prints from one-time-use
cameras /and/ with the original Photo-CD, was as close to the
Eastman dream as it ever got, IMHO.

Secondly, I was coming from a local perspective... this is the
capital city of Ohio, and a busy campus area. Nonetheless, I
have not seen -any- process / print shops worth looking at here,
anymore, and even the lousy ones have mostly gone away (one
exception to this... any campus area people can check out the
automated printer at Kin*os : -)

I shouldnt be whining... I know of, and use, a few internet
accessible services, which offer top of the line prints, and
8x10 enlargments (WINK Fla*h is still going, last I looked).

+ +

[Alfred Molon]

Post by Dale
1) the dominant consumer imaging workflow is now digital cameras in cell
phones and ipad like devices for both capture, display, and distribution
via sharing mechanisms like facebook

We're not there yet, simply because not enough tablet devices have been
sold so far. By the way, shooting photos with a 10" tablet seems a bit
funny.

Besides I happen to use my smartphone mostly to record video, and little
for stills. Don't know why, considering that the image quality of the
stills is surprisingly good. Probably it's because the smartphone has no
zoom.

[nospam]

Post by Alfred Molon

Post by Dale
1) the dominant consumer imaging workflow is now digital cameras in cell
phones and ipad like devices for both capture, display, and distribution
via sharing mechanisms like facebook

We're not there yet, simply because not enough tablet devices have been
sold so far. By the way, shooting photos with a 10" tablet seems a bit
funny.

we're definitely there. cellphones have already impacted p&s sales and
tablets are starting to do that. having a full size 1080p viewfinder,
the same as what you will view the video, is compelling.

Post by Alfred Molon
Besides I happen to use my smartphone mostly to record video, and little
for stills. Don't know why, considering that the image quality of the
stills is surprisingly good. Probably it's because the smartphone has no
zoom.

further proof.

[Miles Bader]

Post by nospam

Post by Alfred Molon
We're not there yet, simply because not enough tablet devices have
been sold so far. By the way, shooting photos with a 10" tablet
seems a bit funny.

we're definitely there. cellphones have already impacted p&s sales and
tablets are starting to do that. having a full size 1080p viewfinder,
the same as what you will view the video, is compelling.

My cellphone has a great camera (truly amazing considering the size it
fits into), but using an external lcd instead of a viewfinder is
complete misery in many situations... I often wish I had a real
camera, not for the increased quality, but just so I can take pictures
in the sunlight without needing 3 hands and yoga training.

[And tablets?! A big fad right now, but also a _really_ horrible
form-factor for a camera, even for a very uncritical audience ... sure
they're great for browsing on your couch, but they aren't a P&S
replacement by any rational calculation. Most pictures, even by
casual photographers aren't taken in the living room, but in places
where it's very unlikely people will have dragged a tablet along.]

-miles

[nospam]

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam

Post by Alfred Molon
We're not there yet, simply because not enough tablet devices have
been sold so far. By the way, shooting photos with a 10" tablet
seems a bit funny.

we're definitely there. cellphones have already impacted p&s sales and
tablets are starting to do that. having a full size 1080p viewfinder,
the same as what you will view the video, is compelling.

My cellphone has a great camera (truly amazing considering the size it
fits into), but using an external lcd instead of a viewfinder is
complete misery in many situations...

who said anything about an external lcd?

Post by Miles Bader
I often wish I had a real
camera, not for the increased quality, but just so I can take pictures
in the sunlight without needing 3 hands and yoga training.

you must have one of the most unusual cellphones ever made.

Post by Miles Bader
[And tablets?! A big fad right now,

tablets are unquestionably *not* a fad. their popularity is growing
like crazy and you're in denial if you think otherwise.

Post by Miles Bader
but also a _really_ horrible
form-factor for a camera, even for a very uncritical audience

tablets may not be the ideal form factor if their sole function was a
camera but if you happen to have a tablet with you, why not its camera?
having a 10" or even 7" viewfinder is extremely nice and with a tripod
mount, you essentially have a view camera, one that is vastly more
portable than a real view camera.

Post by Miles Bader
... sure
they're great for browsing on your couch, but they aren't a P&S
replacement by any rational calculation.

who said tablets were a replacement for a p&s? on the other hand,
cellphone cameras, particularly ones in smartphones, *are* becoming a
replacement for p&s.

Post by Miles Bader
Most pictures, even by
casual photographers aren't taken in the living room, but in places
where it's very unlikely people will have dragged a tablet along.]

yet they drag a bulky slr with a bag full of lenses wherever they go.

also, what makes you think they won't drag a tablet along? unlike an
slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.

[Miles Bader]

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
My cellphone has a great camera (truly amazing considering the size it
fits into), but using an external lcd instead of a viewfinder is
complete misery in many situations...

who said anything about an external lcd?

I mean what every cellphone / pad / ... has: an LCD on the outside of
the unit (as opposed to a viewfinder which you put up to your eye).

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
I often wish I had a real
camera, not for the increased quality, but just so I can take pictures
in the sunlight without needing 3 hands and yoga training.

you must have one of the most unusual cellphones ever made.

Hmm, no it's pretty normal (for Japan), although it has an unusually
good quality camera.

What I mean is this: When it's sunny, it's quite common that the LCD
display on a cellphone is completely obscured by glare _and/or_ the
sun causes glare/artifacts through the camera lens.

So what I end up doing is, holding the phone with one hand, while
trying to shield the display enough to see something with another,
_and_ trying to use another hand to shade the lens to avoid the worst
glare effects in the image. As you can see, that's three hands... :]

Since I don't have three hands, what I actually end up doing usually
involves quite a bit of contortion, trying to use one hand for both,
or stand in the shade of a pole or something or ...... anyway, it's a
big pain.

A camera viewfinder avoids the problems with the display, at least,
and generally makes everything more manageable. This is why I'd like
one.

[and a pad, is _worse_, because you basically need two hands to hold
it up (the ipad, at least is quite heavy [and the 3rd gen even heavier,
from all reports]).]

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
[And tablets?! A big fad right now,

tablets are unquestionably *not* a fad. their popularity is growing
like crazy and you're in denial if you think otherwise.

... which doesn't mean they're not a fad of course.

Anyway, I'm sure they have a good solid niche, but they certainly
aren't perfect, or some sort of universal replacement for all other
devices. The "faddishness" is people who suddenly think they _are_
the latter.

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
but also a _really_ horrible
form-factor for a camera, even for a very uncritical audience

tablets may not be the ideal form factor if their sole function was a
camera but if you happen to have a tablet with you, why not its camera?

That was my point: Tablets are cumbersome enough that people _don't_
usually bring them along wherever they go. Most probably _do_ always
carry their cellphone, however, so cellphones are much better bet as
the future of casual photography than pads are.

Post by nospam
having a 10" or even 7" viewfinder is extremely nice and with a tripod
mount, you essentially have a view camera, one that is vastly more
portable than a real view camera.

Er, well, except for whole image quality thing which is really the
only reason people put up with view cameras in the first place...

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
Most pictures, even by
casual photographers aren't taken in the living room, but in places
where it's very unlikely people will have dragged a tablet along.]

yet they drag a bulky slr with a bag full of lenses wherever they go.
also, what makes you think they won't drag a tablet along?

[Some] people put up with the cumbersomeness of SLRs because they want
the advantages of an SLR: good quality images[*], speed, etc. Tablets
provide mediocre quality images, no better than a cell phone or P&S.
People that demand such features can't get them from a tablet, and
people that don't demand them are likely to prefer to avoid dragging
anything along (as their phone or P&S can likely provide the same
quality with greater convenience).

[*] Many aspects of which are very hard to provide without large
lenses (high quality zooms, popular effects like shallow DOF and bokeh
which are impractical to provide with very small sensors and small
apertures), making it unlikely that the sort of very small embedded
cameras in phones / pads will ever completely really take over the
DSLR market.

Post by nospam
unlike an slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.

That's a bit of a stretch .... :]

-miles

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
My cellphone has a great camera (truly amazing considering the size it
fits into), but using an external lcd instead of a viewfinder is
complete misery in many situations...

who said anything about an external lcd?

I mean what every cellphone / pad / ... has: an LCD on the outside of
the unit (as opposed to a viewfinder which you put up to your eye).

Well -- the movie pros have been moving to video assist for years,
apparently preferring video monitors placed wherever they're convenient
to a dim eyepiece where, if you get your eye in exactly the right place,
you can see what the camera is seeing. (35mm motion picture gear should
have better optical viewfinders than 16mm did, but I hear even those
weren't very good.)

Despite 30 years using viewfinders for still photography before I got to
digital, I'm quite happy with the external LCD most of the time. Very
occasionally it's a bit hard to see in the sun -- but, if that were a
big problem, I could get a hood or something to shade it. Hasn't been
a big enough problem to consider spending $30 on yet. When I use a view
camera I have to carry a big black cloth to put over me so I can see the
image on the ground glass, digital is much better than that!

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
I often wish I had a real
camera, not for the increased quality, but just so I can take pictures
in the sunlight without needing 3 hands and yoga training.

you must have one of the most unusual cellphones ever made.

Hmm, no it's pretty normal (for Japan), although it has an unusually
good quality camera.
What I mean is this: When it's sunny, it's quite common that the LCD
display on a cellphone is completely obscured by glare _and/or_ the
sun causes glare/artifacts through the camera lens.

Three hands are useful, certainly :-).

Post by Miles Bader
So what I end up doing is, holding the phone with one hand, while
trying to shield the display enough to see something with another,
_and_ trying to use another hand to shade the lens to avoid the worst
glare effects in the image. As you can see, that's three hands... :]
Since I don't have three hands, what I actually end up doing usually
involves quite a bit of contortion, trying to use one hand for both,
or stand in the shade of a pole or something or ...... anyway, it's a
big pain.

For an actual camera, you could buy a screen hood, but I don't think
that's available for the cell phone size screens (and there's no place
to mount it, anyway).

Post by Miles Bader
A camera viewfinder avoids the problems with the display, at least,
and generally makes everything more manageable. This is why I'd like
one.

Yep, they do that. I shoot outside so little, and can work around the
sun most of the time anyway, it's a non-issue for me, but I know lots of
people shoot outside most of the time.

Post by Miles Bader
[and a pad, is _worse_, because you basically need two hands to hold
it up (the ipad, at least is quite heavy [and the 3rd gen even heavier,
from all reports]).]

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
[And tablets?! A big fad right now,

tablets are unquestionably *not* a fad. their popularity is growing
like crazy and you're in denial if you think otherwise.

... which doesn't mean they're not a fad of course.

Fad implies popularityh at the time, but also implies it won't last. We
don't know if it will last; I expect it will, myself.

Post by Miles Bader
Anyway, I'm sure they have a good solid niche, but they certainly
aren't perfect, or some sort of universal replacement for all other
devices. The "faddishness" is people who suddenly think they _are_
the latter.

For lots of people they're a better fit than a laptop. Not for me,
though.

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
but also a _really_ horrible
form-factor for a camera, even for a very uncritical audience

tablets may not be the ideal form factor if their sole function was a
camera but if you happen to have a tablet with you, why not its camera?

That was my point: Tablets are cumbersome enough that people _don't_
usually bring them along wherever they go. Most probably _do_ always
carry their cellphone, however, so cellphones are much better bet as
the future of casual photography than pads are.

More people will carry a tablet than a laptop, though. And I've been in
rooms at parties with 5 people using their laptops sometimes.

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam
having a 10" or even 7" viewfinder is extremely nice and with a tripod
mount, you essentially have a view camera, one that is vastly more
portable than a real view camera.

Er, well, except for whole image quality thing which is really the
only reason people put up with view cameras in the first place...

And the movements, and the really really smooth tonality from the big
negative.

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
Most pictures, even by
casual photographers aren't taken in the living room, but in places
where it's very unlikely people will have dragged a tablet along.]

yet they drag a bulky slr with a bag full of lenses wherever they go.
also, what makes you think they won't drag a tablet along?

[Some] people put up with the cumbersomeness of SLRs because they want
the advantages of an SLR: good quality images[*], speed, etc. Tablets
provide mediocre quality images, no better than a cell phone or P&S.
People that demand such features can't get them from a tablet, and
people that don't demand them are likely to prefer to avoid dragging
anything along (as their phone or P&S can likely provide the same
quality with greater convenience).
[*] Many aspects of which are very hard to provide without large
lenses (high quality zooms, popular effects like shallow DOF and bokeh
which are impractical to provide with very small sensors and small
apertures), making it unlikely that the sort of very small embedded
cameras in phones / pads will ever completely really take over the
DSLR market.

On the other hand, the P&S market is mostly *NOT* interested in anything
beyond snapshots. That's being decimated by phones already.

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam
unlike an slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.

That's a bit of a stretch .... :]

And who wears dress jackets these days anyway?

[nospam]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Miles Bader
So what I end up doing is, holding the phone with one hand, while
trying to shield the display enough to see something with another,
_and_ trying to use another hand to shade the lens to avoid the worst
glare effects in the image. As you can see, that's three hands... :]
Since I don't have three hands, what I actually end up doing usually
involves quite a bit of contortion, trying to use one hand for both,
or stand in the shade of a pole or something or ...... anyway, it's a
big pain.

For an actual camera, you could buy a screen hood, but I don't think
that's available for the cell phone size screens (and there's no place
to mount it, anyway).

there are cases that can be used as hoods, including for tablets. i saw
one that had 3 side coverage for the ipad (top, left & right).

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Miles Bader
Anyway, I'm sure they have a good solid niche, but they certainly
aren't perfect, or some sort of universal replacement for all other
devices. The "faddishness" is people who suddenly think they _are_
the latter.

For lots of people they're a better fit than a laptop. Not for me,
though.

it's not an either or. they serve different, but overlapping needs.
some people own both.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
On the other hand, the P&S market is mostly *NOT* interested in anything
beyond snapshots. That's being decimated by phones already.

very decimated.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam
unlike an slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.

That's a bit of a stretch .... :]

And who wears dress jackets these days anyway?

who said anything about a dress jacket? i'm talking an ordinary jacket
to keep you warm when it's chilly outside. most people have more than
one, depending on how cold it is outside.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Post by nospam

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Miles Bader
So what I end up doing is, holding the phone with one hand, while
trying to shield the display enough to see something with another,
_and_ trying to use another hand to shade the lens to avoid the worst
glare effects in the image. As you can see, that's three hands... :]
Since I don't have three hands, what I actually end up doing usually
involves quite a bit of contortion, trying to use one hand for both,
or stand in the shade of a pole or something or ...... anyway, it's a
big pain.

For an actual camera, you could buy a screen hood, but I don't think
that's available for the cell phone size screens (and there's no place
to mount it, anyway).

there are cases that can be used as hoods, including for tablets. i saw
one that had 3 side coverage for the ipad (top, left & right).

I guess I'm not really surprised, though I haven't seen them yet.

Post by nospam

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Miles Bader
Anyway, I'm sure they have a good solid niche, but they certainly
aren't perfect, or some sort of universal replacement for all other
devices. The "faddishness" is people who suddenly think they _are_
the latter.

For lots of people they're a better fit than a laptop. Not for me,
though.

it's not an either or. they serve different, but overlapping needs.
some people own both.

Sure, many people embrace the power of 'and' :-) .

Post by nospam

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
On the other hand, the P&S market is mostly *NOT* interested in anything
beyond snapshots. That's being decimated by phones already.

very decimated.

Yeah, maybe 20% or even 30%.

Post by nospam

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam
unlike an slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.

That's a bit of a stretch .... :]

And who wears dress jackets these days anyway?

who said anything about a dress jacket? i'm talking an ordinary jacket
to keep you warm when it's chilly outside. most people have more than
one, depending on how cold it is outside.

My light jackets definitely do not have tablet-size pockets. My serious
winter jackets sometimes do, and the dress jackets do.

[nospam]

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
My cellphone has a great camera (truly amazing considering the size it
fits into), but using an external lcd instead of a viewfinder is
complete misery in many situations...

who said anything about an external lcd?

I mean what every cellphone / pad / ... has: an LCD on the outside of
the unit (as opposed to a viewfinder which you put up to your eye).

to me, that's a built-in lcd. and external lcd is one which is tethered
to the camera and usually much bigger than what the camera has.

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
I often wish I had a real
camera, not for the increased quality, but just so I can take pictures
in the sunlight without needing 3 hands and yoga training.

you must have one of the most unusual cellphones ever made.

Hmm, no it's pretty normal (for Japan), although it has an unusually
good quality camera.
What I mean is this: When it's sunny, it's quite common that the LCD
display on a cellphone is completely obscured by glare _and/or_ the
sun causes glare/artifacts through the camera lens.
So what I end up doing is, holding the phone with one hand, while
trying to shield the display enough to see something with another,
_and_ trying to use another hand to shade the lens to avoid the worst
glare effects in the image. As you can see, that's three hands... :]
Since I don't have three hands, what I actually end up doing usually
involves quite a bit of contortion, trying to use one hand for both,
or stand in the shade of a pole or something or ...... anyway, it's a
big pain.

no different than any other camera that has an lcd and a lot of them no
longer have optical viewfinders at all.

Post by Miles Bader
A camera viewfinder avoids the problems with the display, at least,
and generally makes everything more manageable. This is why I'd like
one.

then buy a camera with one. most people don't find it to be a big deal,
or they shade the camera with their other hand.

Post by Miles Bader
[and a pad, is _worse_, because you basically need two hands to hold
it up (the ipad, at least is quite heavy [and the 3rd gen even heavier,
from all reports]).]

or you don't shoot in bright sunlight with it glaring on the display.

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
[And tablets?! A big fad right now,

tablets are unquestionably *not* a fad. their popularity is growing
like crazy and you're in denial if you think otherwise.

... which doesn't mean they're not a fad of course.

it's not a guarantee but it's very obvious they're not.

Post by Miles Bader
Anyway, I'm sure they have a good solid niche, but they certainly
aren't perfect, or some sort of universal replacement for all other
devices. The "faddishness" is people who suddenly think they _are_
the latter.

nothing is perfect and it's not supposed to be a replacement for
anything.

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
but also a _really_ horrible
form-factor for a camera, even for a very uncritical audience

tablets may not be the ideal form factor if their sole function was a
camera but if you happen to have a tablet with you, why not its camera?

That was my point: Tablets are cumbersome enough that people _don't_
usually bring them along wherever they go.

they're starting to bring them instead of laptops

Post by Miles Bader
Most probably _do_ always
carry their cellphone, however, so cellphones are much better bet as
the future of casual photography than pads are.

sure, but that doesn't mean tablets won't be used. not that many people
use dslrs as compared to p&s and cell cameras.

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam
having a 10" or even 7" viewfinder is extremely nice and with a tripod
mount, you essentially have a view camera, one that is vastly more
portable than a real view camera.

Er, well, except for whole image quality thing which is really the
only reason people put up with view cameras in the first place...

and now they can get 1080p with a full size 1080p display, not some
dinky 1" evf or 3" lcd.

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
Most pictures, even by
casual photographers aren't taken in the living room, but in places
where it's very unlikely people will have dragged a tablet along.]

yet they drag a bulky slr with a bag full of lenses wherever they go.
also, what makes you think they won't drag a tablet along?

[Some] people put up with the cumbersomeness of SLRs because they want
the advantages of an SLR: good quality images[*], speed, etc. Tablets
provide mediocre quality images, no better than a cell phone or P&S.
People that demand such features can't get them from a tablet, and
people that don't demand them are likely to prefer to avoid dragging
anything along (as their phone or P&S can likely provide the same
quality with greater convenience).

different tools for different jobs.

Post by Miles Bader
[*] Many aspects of which are very hard to provide without large
lenses (high quality zooms, popular effects like shallow DOF and bokeh
which are impractical to provide with very small sensors and small
apertures), making it unlikely that the sort of very small embedded
cameras in phones / pads will ever completely really take over the
DSLR market.

nobody expects that cellphones will take over the slr market. however,
they *are* impacting the p&s market.

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam
unlike an slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket.

That's a bit of a stretch .... :]

not really. 7" tablets easily fit in nearly any jacket and 10" tablets
fit in some.

[Savageduck]

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
My cellphone has a great camera (truly amazing considering the size it
fits into), but using an external lcd instead of a viewfinder is
complete misery in many situations...

who said anything about an external lcd?

I mean what every cellphone / pad / ... has: an LCD on the outside of
the unit (as opposed to a viewfinder which you put up to your eye).

to me, that's a built-in lcd. and external lcd is one which is tethered
to the camera and usually much bigger than what the camera has.

The iPad as a camera accessory tethered remote (wireless or usb) has
great potential. For the photographer who wants to carry a digital
portfolio without lugging a laptop around, the iPad is very useful.
< http://jesserosten.com/2010/wireless-tethering-to-ipad >

Then the ability to move both JPEGS and/or RAW files from camera to
iPhone or iPad via Eye-Fi "Mobile X2" or "Pro X2" SDHC cards when used
with their free iOS or Android App.
< http://www.eye.fi/products/prox2 >

OnOne Software has a free version of its "DSLR Camera Remote" available
via the Apple App Store along with its full featured "DSLR Camera
Remote HD" for the iPhone @ $19.99 or iPad @49.99
< http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/dslr-camera-remote/ >

[Savageduck]

Post by Savageduck

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader

Post by nospam

Post by Miles Bader
My cellphone has a great camera (truly amazing considering the size it
fits into), but using an external lcd instead of a viewfinder is
complete misery in many situations...

who said anything about an external lcd?

I mean what every cellphone / pad / ... has: an LCD on the outside of
the unit (as opposed to a viewfinder which you put up to your eye).

to me, that's a built-in lcd. and external lcd is one which is tethered
to the camera and usually much bigger than what the camera has.

The iPad as a camera accessory tethered remote (wireless or usb) has
great potential. For the photographer who wants to carry a digital
portfolio without lugging a laptop around, the iPad is very useful.
< http://jesserosten.com/2010/wireless-tethering-to-ipad >
Then the ability to move both JPEGS and/or RAW files from camera to
iPhone or iPad via Eye-Fi "Mobile X2" or "Pro X2" SDHC cards when used
with their free iOS or Android App.
< http://www.eye.fi/products/prox2 >
OnOne Software has a free version of its "DSLR Camera Remote" available
via the Apple App Store along with its full featured "DSLR Camera
< http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/dslr-camera-remote/ >

...and there is this;
<
http://fstoppers.com/how-to-tether-your-camera-to-an-ipad-without-jailbreaking

[PiLS]

If I may attempt a clever conclusion to that endless discussion.
Kodak's tombstone will bear the words:

"We failed where Fuji strive"

[aruzinsky]

Post by PiLS
If I may attempt a clever conclusion to that endless discussion.
"We failed where Fuji strive"
--
PiLS

Not exactly. Regarding photo paper for ink jet printers with dye (not
pigment) inks, Kodak Ultima with Colorfast Technology was the best
swellable polymer paper ever made. The problem with most other
swellable polymer papers is that ink is prone to form large pools
before being absorbed by the paper. Fujifilm Premium Plus Photo Paper
is prone to such ink pooling. The problem with Kodak was with
management decisions and not R&D for developing this outstandingly
good paper. First, management decided to give it the same name as a
bad paper, "Kodak Ultima" but without "Colorfast Technology." This
paper was very prone to ink pooling. Retailers, such as Office Max,
advertised and sold a big glut of the bad Ultima paper to customers
who thought it was the same as the one with "Colorfast Technology."
Then (maybe 5 years ago???) Kodak stopped making swellable polymer
paper, maybe, because pigment inks were becoming more popular. I
don't know currently what proportion of inkjet printers are dye
printers, but, mine, Canon iP3600, still is. Thus, it seems that
Kodak management negated the good work of R&D.

[PiLS]

If I may attempt a clever conclusion to that endless discussion.
Kodak's tombstone will bear the words:

"We failed where Fuji strives"