[HN Gopher] Kodak has no plans to cease, go out of business, or ...
___________________________________________________________________
Kodak has no plans to cease, go out of business, or file for
bankruptcy
Related from yesterday: _Kodak says it might have to cease
operations_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44875270
Author : whicks
Score : 276 points
Date : 2025-08-14 15:09 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.kodak.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.kodak.com)
| FredPret wrote:
| They've been a marginal concern for years now, though there still
| seems to be plenty of revenue to work with:
|
| http://valustox.com/KODK
| busterarm wrote:
| They've been killing it with new products lately. Specifically
| the new film stock without Remjet and Lucky C200.
| tecleandor wrote:
| Lucky C200 uses the old Kodak factory/es but they are an
| independent Chinese company, isn't it? Same as Fotoimpex/ADOX
| bought Ilford equipment...
|
| And btw, what's the new remjet-less film? I'm not up to date
| lately...
| busterarm wrote:
| It's the new version of Vision 3.
|
| https://mimundoensuper-8.blogspot.com/2025/06/kodak-
| removes-...
| ilamont wrote:
| Good for Kodak for responding quickly AND being transparent about
| the numbers involved.
|
| FWIW, discussions about Kodak's decline have been going on for
| years. This thread is from 2016:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12111597
| dylan604 wrote:
| In today's post-truth alt-facts world, will this actually do
| anything to convince otherwise?
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| In this world where business's make bold faced lies,I'm not
| even sure I fully believe this. It could be a half truth like
| "we aren't going bankrupt... But we're gonna look at being
| acquired by private equity in the next few months".
|
| But this is a film/camera company so I guess I have no skin
| in this game anyway. Just giving a bit of scrutiny based on
| other experiences like this.
| m3047 wrote:
| Kodak at one time was a powerhouse of applied chemistry,
| curating a huge library of chemical compounds. I know this
| because a particular early biotech company rented out the
| processes (in their own labs) they were developing so that
| Kodak could test some of these chemicals for particular
| forms of biological activity. That's how the biotech
| managed to have cash flow before they were allowed to let
| any material whatsoever out of the lab, let alone near
| humans.
|
| (I also worked for Kodak for a brief time supporting a
| "dark line" where they packaged photosensitive products. A
| kick in the ass, great fun, very disciplined, and writing
| code which ran machinery in a black box!)
| cubefox wrote:
| We will see. The Kodak stock is still 22.5% down over the
| past 5 days.
| abirch wrote:
| This is from Kodak's Q2 Financial report:
|
| As a result, these conditions raise substantial doubt about the
| Company's ability to continue as a going concern as of the
| issuance date of the Company's second quarter financials.
|
| https://www.kodak.com/en/company/press-release/q2-2025-finan...
|
| As Walter Bagehot said "Every banker knows that if he has to
| prove that he is worthy of credit, however good may be his
| arguments, in fact his credit is gone..."
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| So... A report that is legally required to be accurate, vs a
| press release. Interesting.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| no plans to vs. may not be able to are qualitatively
| different statements.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| If nothing gets restructured, they almost certainly will be
| insolvent, but plans for restructuring are well along the
| way.
| nxobject wrote:
| To be fair, "[substantial] doubt about the Company's ability
| to continue as a going concern", at least for audited
| statements, is accounting jargon with a limited and technical
| definition. Notably, it _doesn 't_ take into account debt
| restructuring or other negotiations with debtors -- which is
| what TFA states may happen; notably with pension obligations.
|
| https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-
| standards/d...
| vasco wrote:
| If you read financial reports frequently you'd know this is
| standard language included in reports of many companies
| people wouldn't think are in any real trouble.
| abirch wrote:
| What is the most stable company that has used this
| language?
|
| https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/q=%2522these%2520conditi
| o...
| mrandish wrote:
| > "these conditions raise substantial doubt about the
| Company's ability to continue as a going concern"
|
| When the story got attention yesterday I recognized that
| phrase as the standard boilerplate language securities
| lawyers warn public companies to include in filings anytime
| it looks possible that they might not be able to fully meet
| all their obligations on time. It's a CYA to prevent (or
| reduce the cost of) investor lawsuits if things go badly.
| It's not uncommon to see this phrase sometimes pop-up even in
| filings of companies who are pretty obviously going to be
| fine, so it doesn't mean much because it covers a huge range
| of conditions.
|
| I'm sure it's already appeared in Kokak's filings in recent
| years. The only surprising thing is that some media outlet
| decided to headline it as click-bait and it worked well
| enough a lot of people not familiar with the phrase and its
| lack of significance saw it. Nice of Kodak to at least issue
| a press release but unfortunate the click-bait got that much
| attention. It must have been a slow news day.
|
| Even a cursory glance at Kodak's financials shows enough
| revenue that creditors certainly aren't going to force the
| company into liquidation in the foreseeable future. Instead,
| the company will renegotiate and/or refinance the obligations
| - which is what usually happens in these situations. When
| there's significant revenue from ongoing operations, even if
| it's somewhat unprofitable, it's usually in everyone's
| interest to keep the company operating in the hope it can be
| turned around. In fact, scary sounding statements like that
| are sometimes intentionally issued by the company as part of
| the debt renegotiation process (although it doesn't appear
| that's the case here as things aren't that serious).
| Basically, the implied threat from the company to creditors
| is "renegotiate debt terms or you may get much less or
| nothing."
| abirch wrote:
| It last appeared in a Kodak filing in 2019 https://www.sec.
| gov/edgar/search/#/q=%2522these%2520conditio...
|
| Oddly it didn't appear prior to the 2012 Chapter 11.
| lucas_membrane wrote:
| That kind of statement is made to warn the investors and
| potential investors about the contents of the financial
| statement to which it is attached. The statement will include
| amounts representing the 'value' of the firm's assets
| according to the accounting rules for valuing assets. Current
| earnings being the most important number that investors and
| potential investors look for in the financial statements, the
| 'rules' for reporting those asset 'values' are designed to
| get the current earnings to come out 'right' for firms that
| are operating more or less normally. In other words, the
| asset 'values' and the 'earnings' numbers are hypothetical,
| being based on the hypotheses that either the assets will be
| of use to the company or that the company will keep operating
| long enough to write off the mis-valued assets over many
| years without that amortization of the value ever having a
| catastrophic impact on earnings. Bottom line on that
| disclosure is that Kodak's accountants or auditors made them
| say it and that's because accounting standards make them make
| them say it, and that's all that it means.
|
| When I look at the company's follow up assertion
| characterizing the required disclosure as not direful, the
| first thing I notice is what is not there: they do not deny
| that the firm is likely to be acquired.
| b-stockman wrote:
| I have no insider information, but with all of this I'm
| thinking BUY BUY BUY!!!
|
| Why else would people be trying to hurt their stock other than
| to make an opportunity for someone to swoop in and make a
| killing?
| FredPret wrote:
| Short-sellers sometimes publish real or made-up negativity
| about a stock so as to push the price down.
|
| Then they can close out their positions at a profit
| regardless of whether the underlying business is any good. In
| fact, it's kind of better to pick a poor business for this
| since it's less likely the stock will spike organically for
| some reason.
| gchamonlive wrote:
| That's gambling. The right way to invest is to see if you
| trust the company to make a profit long term, not buying into
| speculation. It can go right and you make a buck, or it can
| go spectacularly wrong. Just like with gambling.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| I've worked in an industry served by Kodak for 20 years, and
| it's been that way at least that long. I always knew it was
| pure speculation and BS, because we never sought out another
| vendor to replace them, "just in case". Their customers know
| they aren't going anywhere.
| bitdivision wrote:
| One of the 'misleading media reports' for context:
| https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/14/kodak-going-concern-gen-z-fi...
| dylan604 wrote:
| Or the entire HN thread about it:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44875270
| skybrian wrote:
| Maybe someone who knows could explain why the "going concern"
| warning is there and how it might be misleading? How would Matt
| Levine explain this?
| FabHK wrote:
| Matt Levine - that's impossibly high standards... but here's an
| attempt:
|
| If a business shuts down, the assets on its book have to be
| written down to what you could get in a quick sale, their
| liquidation value, minus the costs of closing shop. And of
| course, once you're closed, there's no more income.
|
| The standard assumption for bookkeeping is that the business
| will keep operating. This is the "going concern" assumption,
| and it lets you value the assets as part of the ongoing
| business. Switching from "going concern" to liquidation
| accounting drops the book value, maybe a lot.
|
| If there's debt coming due in the near future that the business
| can't repay, the survival of the business is in question. An
| accountant would then have to issue a "going concern" warning.
| That is, however, not a prediction of doom.
|
| Here's Kodak's Q10 form, with the "going concern" note on page
| 8: https://investor.kodak.com/static-
| files/17a780a0-cd47-4128-8...
|
| Looks like they have some debt coming due, but expect to get a
| cash boost from terminating their pension plan (after meeting
| all their obligations). So the company plans to continue their
| business, and is confident that they will.
|
| But that is technically predicated on certain conditions (being
| able to roll over some debt, getting that cash as anticipated)
| that's not entirely under Kodak's control, and so there is that
| going concern warning: we think it'll be fine, but we still
| have to tell you.
|
| Apparently that was misunderstood as a prediction of bankruptcy
| or intention to close shop.
| skybrian wrote:
| Thanks!
| jihadjihad wrote:
| Reports of its death were wildly exaggerated?
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| A company reporting an "ongoing concern" isn't dead yet.
| blindriver wrote:
| Can FASB please get rid of the term "going concern" and replace
| it with something more understandable? It has caused a lot of
| confusion for many companies and there's no need for it
| whatsoever. They can completely replace the term with something
| else like "Continuing Operations". It's really fucking easy, I
| don't know why they insist on that backwards terminology except
| maybe they enjoy the confusion it creates.
| barbazoo wrote:
| People love their ingroup terminology and quirks. Like that a
| power cable connecting the RV is a shoreline (eyeroll) and that
| ships are female (double eyeroll).
| soulofmischief wrote:
| What's wrong with a standardized vernacular or domain-
| specific language?
| cyral wrote:
| This particular one gives the opposite meaning to anyone
| unfamiliar with the term
| otterley wrote:
| Many languages use gendered nouns today including German and
| Spanish; the few remaining in English are a holdover from
| centuries past.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English
| Hilift wrote:
| Qualified opinion. Definition: An auditor's report that
| indicates the financial statements are presented fairly, in all
| material respects, _except for the effects of a specific
| departure_ from generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)
| or a limitation in the scope of the audit.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| I think this is the quote in question:
|
| > As of the date of issuance of these financial statements,
| Kodak has debt coming due within twelve months and does not
| have committed financing or available liquidity to meet such
| debt obligations if they were to become due in accordance with
| their current terms. These conditions raise substantial doubt
| about Kodak's ability to continue as a going concern.
|
| I'm not sure using more modern language would have cleared up
| any confusion here. "These conditions raise substantial doubt
| about Kodak's ability to continue operations" is no less scary.
|
| The "confusion" (according to Kodak) arises from the fact that
| the accountants did not consider (or considered and then
| discounted) the fact that Kodak apparently intends to put in
| place financing to help it repay or roll over its debts before
| they fall due. I'm not an accountant but I'm sure there are
| many rules around what they can and cannot consider before
| including such a statement.
|
| Clearly, reporting that Kodak is about to go bankrupt simply
| based on that statement is jumping the gun. But I'm not sure
| there is anything particularly wrong with the statement itself.
| It seems to me like a credit crunch or even a spike in interest
| rates could derail Kodak's refinancing plans and what would
| happen then?
| toast0 wrote:
| > The "confusion" (according to Kodak) arises from the fact
| that the accountants did not consider (or considered and then
| discounted) the fact that Kodak apparently intends to put in
| place financing to help it repay or roll over its debts
| before they fall due. I'm not an accountant but I'm sure
| there are many rules around what they can and cannot consider
| before including such a statement.
|
| Well, from the statement itself, such financing would need to
| be committed, which likely they haven't done. This might be
| strategic, if it allows them to wind down their pension
| obligations and harvest the surplus investments.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| This is like telling software people to stop using words like
| "bug" or "patch". It would be silly. Those terms are firmly
| ensconced in the vocabulary of the people who use them and
| everyone who needs to know what they mean do know what they
| mean.
|
| It's not "really easy". This is a technical term used the world
| over to convey a very specific meaning. Bankruptcy laws define
| and use the term. Contracts define and use the term, etc, etc.
|
| Jargon arises out of need and is carried on because it becomes
| embedded in the scaffolding of a discipline. It's not about
| feeling special as part of the in group or something like that.
| mandeepj wrote:
| Maybe someone had a huge Short position
| cluckindan wrote:
| Someone like media executives amplifying the news in a negative
| light.
|
| It does reek of market manipulation.
|
| Edit: the short volume on 2025-08-12 was ten times that of
| 2025-08-11: https://fintel.io/ssv/us/kodk
|
| So that happened the same day the news articles went public,
| when the SEC filing was published already on the 11th.
|
| Someone might be looking to buy the company.
| hinkley wrote:
| Market manipulation can also be used to cover an existing
| short position. More likely to be an act of desperation as
| well.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| An interesting thought experiment for me is I wonder when we read
| a statement like this from someone like Nvidia, Microsoft,
| Google, etc. in the future? The world changes around companies,
| and no empire lasts forever. Ask IBM. Ask the Dutch East India
| Company. Kodak didn't adapt to a filmless world, what are FAANG
| companies not adapting to now?
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Probably not within our lifetimes. IBM is still around. We can
| see from companies like Sears that it can take a long time for
| a company to completely disappear. They lasted what around 125
| years right? Would be interesting to see how long NVIDIA lasts.
| Out of the companies you mentioned, if we look really long term
| they are the most replaceable, ie. on a long enough time
| horizon the Chinese could completely replicate/leapfrog what
| they do, they could become completely commoditized like sound
| cards were, or someone comes along that makes them irrelevant.
| Google/Microsoft have long term lock in that will keep them at
| the very least a trailing edge player just due to all the lock
| in and the bureaucracy of switching that entails.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Kodak says it might have to cease operations_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44875270
| daft_pink wrote:
| I worked for a company with going concern adverse disclosure like
| Kodak has when I was in college. They no longer exist.
|
| They don't predict the future, but they are a very serious
| indicator that should not be ignored
| jordanb wrote:
| Yeah I worked for Sears. "Going concern" notice went out pretty
| much with the minimum legal notice period ahead of bankruptcy.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| In this case Kodak has a plan for avoiding the situation, but
| it almost entirely depends on market conditions and the
| current holder of the pension obligations. They have the
| cash, but it's tied up contractually and they're working to
| release the contract so they can use the cash to pay down
| some debt.
|
| Incidentally pharmaceutical manufacturing and some of the
| other industries they're in are still very good industries to
| be in. So they could still pull through.
| daft_pink wrote:
| They could pull through and I think in all likelihood the
| business would be purchased and not go under if they
| didn't.
|
| But the company remains in a precarious position.
| porphyra wrote:
| I wonder what the actual strategies are that Kodak can use to
| turn around their business? I think currently their revenue
| streams are:
|
| * Commercial printing and imaging. They are one of the main
| suppliers for equipment and consumables for large-scale offset
| printing used in books, magazines, and stuff.
|
| * Advanced materials and chemicals. They even have an FDA-
| registered pharmaceutical manufacturing facility.
|
| * Film and industrial film production.
|
| * Brand licensing and partnerships.
|
| I think that while film has a bit of a comeback due to its
| nostalgia factor, it's always going to be relegated to a handful
| of niche applications. Meanwhile, I don't see Kodak getting back
| into consumer photography, much as I love photography, since it's
| a low margin and increasingly niche business. Also, they sold off
| their medical imaging division in 2007.
|
| I miss those Kodak CCDs.
| camillomiller wrote:
| Fujifilm was able to make a massive comeback with a big pivot
| towards chemical. They're the best at making anything film-
| related, including a lot of stuff the pharma industry needs.
| The camera division is extremely profitable due to the Instax
| golden goose: great marketing, stellar margins both on the
| cameras and the consumables.
| hoytschermerhrn wrote:
| Somewhat surprisingly, they've also successfully diversified
| into high-end skincare, applying their chemical expertise to
| moisturizer forumulations and whatnot.
| hinkley wrote:
| Film chemistry involves a lot of emulsions does it not?
| hoytschermerhrn wrote:
| Yes, exactly. Apparently the chemistry for film emulsion
| is very similar to what's needed for skin applications. I
| think a lot of companies would not be so forward-
| thinking, so I give them a lot of credit here.
| porphyra wrote:
| Fujifilm's digital cameras are also doing great these days in
| a somewhat surprising comeback.
| i_am_proteus wrote:
| Perhaps not so surprising: Fuji was producing excellent
| film cameras and lenses in the 1980s and 1990s, whereas
| Kodak was not.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| Kodak already spun off its chemical company.
|
| They seem to be doing pretty well.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Chemical_Company
| at-fates-hands wrote:
| Just remembered them coming out with a crypto coin back in 2018
| and the first link was to an Investopedia story from yesterday:
|
| https://www.investopedia.com/a-flash-in-the-pan-the-strange-...
|
| _Unfortunately for Kodak, its foray into digital assets
| coincided with the onset of crypto winter--the cyclical slump
| in crypto markets that tends to follow periods of speculative
| frenzy. The price of bitcoin slid from a record high of more
| than $20,000 in late 2017 to less than $4,000 in December
| 2018._
|
| _In October 2018, KODAKOne launched a beta version of its
| licensing portal, which reportedly generated $1 million in
| licensing claims in its first two months.But the portal never
| exited beta mode, nor was KODAKCoin ever integrated with the
| platform._
| RobotToaster wrote:
| AFAIK kodak have a virtual monopoly on colour film production
| today.
| wmeredith wrote:
| Unfortunately, this is akin to having a monopoly on the horse
| saddle market.
| foldr wrote:
| Demand for film has been rising over the past 5-10 years.
| Being the last major player in the color film market isn't
| a bad position to be in.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| A cursory search suggests the global horse saddle market is
| worth $4.5 billion. Kodak's annual revenue being $1
| billion, having a monopoly on the horse saddle market would
| be huge for them.
|
| But even with it being a small market, if they're valued
| correctly and they've got a monopoly on the market that
| sounds like a great and sustainable position to be in.
| bpye wrote:
| Fuji supposedly still produce colour film, but production
| seems intermittent. Harman, the company behind Ilford, is
| getting into colour film and recently released their second
| gen. Orwo still makes colour film. Lucky in China is
| supposedly going to start?
|
| But yes - Kodak and Fuji's colour films are considerably
| better than the others.
| tracker1 wrote:
| I just hope that any brand licensing doesn't lead to garbage
| products that only detract from the brand.
|
| Kodac still has enough of a brand recognition that it could
| still be a leading option for digital video/photo equipment.
| They are pretty much the only option standing for film, which
| is somewhat scary in a few ways. It makes me apprehensive when
| technology becomes completely unavailable. What gets lost to
| humanity when this happens.
| hinkley wrote:
| The real pisser is that Kodak was ahead of the curve on digital
| photography before they decided on five year thinking instead
| of fifteen year thinking.
|
| They paid for a modified version of Mosaic that could handle
| high resolution images. I want to say 4 megapixel before anyone
| else even had digital cameras. They were going to have you send
| in your images and then order a CDROM via a website with the
| ones you wanted to keep. Because storage was terrible at the
| time. I don't remember if prints were an option, but I can't
| imagine why they wouldn't.
| h2zizzle wrote:
| I imagine that their revenue isn't as much a concern as their
| debt. A lot of companies in this position have decent revenue
| for a smaller company, and would be fine if they could cut
| costs (but they can't, because they have massive debts to
| service). I haven't looked at their balance sheet, though, so
| who knows.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| >I wonder what the actual strategies are that Kodak can use to
| turn around their business?
|
| The retro scene has never been larger and shows no signs of
| stopping. Bring back all the popular film and charge a premium
| for it so I can stop scouring eBay. Print a billion dollars by
| next week. Start printing vinyl records too, another billion.
| Pivot into the modern retro-futurism company. People are tired
| of "tech".
| morkalork wrote:
| Any one of those revenue streams could be functional as its own
| business operating with its own goals and direction, why are
| they having a hard time?
| squidsoup wrote:
| Most film shooters I meet these days are young people that were
| not alive when film was commonly used by the public, so I don't
| think it's nostalgia. I suspect film is becoming more popular
| again as embracing a fully analog process allows you to
| disconnect from computers.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| The film business is increasingly niche.
|
| I can't get over how much better performing 35mm full frame
| mirrorless cameras are than the old film cameras. To get a shot
| like this
|
| https://mastodon.social/@UP8/114401857009398302
|
| with film I would have needed a medium format camera and tripod,
| today it is an easy handheld shot you can do spontaneously with a
| travel lens that goes from 28-200mm. I can go to a soccer or
| basketball game and shoot bursts, come back with 3000 photos and
| catch things like two guys tries to head the ball at the same
| time
|
| https://mastodon.social/@UP8/113240678816336189
|
| ... and I can afford to do it!
| the_af wrote:
| Hey Paul, this comment sparked my curiosity:
|
| > _Got a lot of great photos this time because I put to use
| what I learned shooting basketball._
|
| I suppose you mean "action photos"? Any (informal, quick and
| dirty) tips? Especially for photos to be taken with phones or
| cheap cameras? Or is it hopeless?
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| I still shoot primarily on DSLR. I don't know how a modern
| mirrorless compares, but for me shutter lag is the big killer
| when it comes to action shots.
|
| I grew up shooting 35mm film and my first digital cameras
| were a shock with their significant shutter lag. To some
| extent I can "learn" the lag for a given camera and
| compensate somewhat for things that move regularly. For
| irregular motion (like sports) shutter lag is maddening.
|
| Re: hopeless - I supposed you could use multi-shot burst on
| laggy cameras and pull the trigger early.
| UltraSane wrote:
| Modern digital cameras have a mode where they are
| constantly taking pictures in a small rolling buffer and
| when you press the "shutter" button it simply keeps the
| last n seconds of images. It is an amazing feature for
| action photography and is how a LOT of amazing shots have
| been captured.
|
| With 6k and higher res video the line between video and
| photography is blurring and with RAW codecs you can just
| capture scenes in video and pic out what frames you like.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| For me one realization was that a good portrait is a good
| sports photo. It is better still to show some action or make
| a photo that tells a story but you can sell pictures to the
| parents of a student athlete if you make their child look
| like a superstar.
|
| The best purchase I made for indoor sports photography was
| DxO photolab which has a denoiser that means photos shot at
| ISO 6400 look perfect and can even make decent shots at
| 50000+ ISO
|
| https://mastodon.social/@UP8/114961647210448472
|
| With basketball and a lot of sports there is the problem that
| if you follow the ball you get a lot of shots of people's
| rear ends because that is how the geometry works so you have
| to fight that and look for the opportunities where things
| open up and you get a good 'portrait' and if you do that the
| action and story shots will happen. Headers in soccer are a
| special case, you realize people in sports are trained to do
| things a certain way so you know if the ball gets kicked high
| towards certain players they will try a header so you shoot a
| burst. For baseball you camp at a spot where you can see home
| plate and third base so you can show what is at stake, get
| the runner making a score, etc.
|
| https://mastodon.social/@UP8/114849463914827733
|
| I started out with a Sony alpha 7ii which was deeply
| discounted, when it broke and I wanted to stay in the game I
| got a 7iv and sent out the 7ii out for repair, now I have a
| monster backpack and often go out with two cameras
|
| https://mastodon.social/@UP8/114866409940645564
|
| But since the lid blew off in Gaza we have a clear bag policy
| at my Uni so I take just one camera to games. For indoor
| sports my weapon of choice is this lens
|
| https://electronics.sony.com/imaging/lenses/all-e-
| mount/p/se...
|
| but my favorite lens for walking about and outdoor events
| where I can get close is
|
| https://tamron-americas.com/product/28-200mm-f-2-8-5-6-di-
| ii...
|
| which I use for things like
|
| https://www.yogile.com/trackapalooza-2025#12s
|
| because the optical quality is great for a lens so versatile.
| throw432189 wrote:
| > 35mm full frame mirrorless camera
|
| Can I ask what camera you use?
| losteric wrote:
| I shoot on digital and film. Film photography has been "niche"
| for nearly 2 decades at this point. Comparing it to digital
| photography is like pointing out "smart watches can do so much
| more than mechanical watches" - that's not the point.
|
| There's an overlap between the mystique of analog technologies,
| the ritual and limitations of physical processes, and status.
| Status in affording the time to learn about this niche, the
| money for hardware and film, the space for development
| (sometimes), signalling a different mentality towards content
| (in theory). Plus, for me, the end-to-end analogue feels like a
| retort to this phase of digital disinformation/AI-everything.
|
| Any Joe can buy an expensive mirrorless with a good travel
| lens, shoot 3000 photos at a game, and come away with some good
| ones. Monkey on a typewriter and all that.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| This primate spends plenty of time in the digital darkroom,
| more than I spend at the actual events whether I am looking
| at the best 10% or 1%. I color grade everything and almost
| always make local adjustments -- I find color graded flower
| photos are hugely crowd pleasing and for sports a lot of
| student athletes have the beauty of youth _but_ also really
| bad acne not just on their face but on their legs and for
| every event I develop a LUT which handles issues like that
| not too mention everything from neon-colored sports gear and
| green foliage that can be too saturated if not entirely out-
| of-gamut while still keeping the jersey colors recognizable.
|
| My last 3 years of photography really started when I got a
| "free" inkjet printer and realized it would dry out if I
| didn't use it regularly and challenged myself to make a print
| every day and realized it couldn't just be anime girls from
| danbooru so that program was hungry for images and dragged me
| kicking and screaming into photography
|
| https://www.behance.net/gallery/232344867/Life-is-Better-
| Wit...
|
| and as much as people like to bitch about the ink mafia, the
| performance of digital inkjet printing for the price is off
| the chart, my materials cost for 13x19 prints is well under
| $2 a page.
| jamil7 wrote:
| I don't spend anytime post-processing or editing apart from
| occasional cropping. Film gives me a better baseline for that
| than digital does, at least for what I want and I just prefer
| the process. Digital encourages a workflow thats a lot more
| attached to post and being back at my computer rather than
| just out taking photos.
| alistairSH wrote:
| All of this.
|
| I shoot more film today than digital. I like the process
| more. The shots cost real $, so I'm more thoughtful about
| what I capture. The cameras[1] are mechanical art and feel
| good to use. I look forward to the delayed satisfaction due
| to off-site processing. The results might not be "pixel
| perfect" but photography rarely is... I prefer the slightly
| less perfect aesthetic - the grain, the slight miss on color,
| etc.
|
| But, I also shoot Polaroid, so I might just be a hipster who
| lacks self-awareness. ;)
|
| 1 - Olympus 35DC, Olympus 35RD, and Canon Demi EE-17 for
| film. Olympus E-M5 and Pen E-P5 for mirrorless. Polaroid Go
| for instant.
| h2zizzle wrote:
| To be fair, film photography has itself always been, "Monkey
| with a trust fund on a typewriter." Even with those that are
| actually technically adept, the skill/luck balance is far
| less venerable than with actual artists like painters and
| sculptors and CG wranglers.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _To be fair, film photography has itself always been,
| "Monkey with a trust fund on a typewriter."_
|
| As a GenXer who lived through the transition, and worked a
| photo-processing job for a couple of years, I disagree.
| There were plenty of people taking meaningful--though
| perhaps not artistic--photos with point and shoot and even
| disposable cameras.
|
| Regular people taking photos of birthdays, weddings,
| funerals, baptisms, vacations, retirements, etc. I
| processed and colour corrected tens of thousands of photos
| and the majority of them had people smiling, laughing,
| crying, _etc_ , and were put in photobooks: some to never
| to be seen again, or perhaps looked when someone died when
| memories for a photo slideshow were desired.
| i_am_proteus wrote:
| If you're interested, hunt around for an EOS-1 or 1N - it's a
| 35mm film camera with pretty fast autofocus that can use
| contemporary Canon EF-mount lenses. (Canon still sells the
| cameras and lenses, although they're being phased out in favor
| of RF). Load Portra 400 and shoot in good light, and you might
| be surprised.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| 3000 photos. One mans dream is another's nightmare.
| SamBam wrote:
| I think it's a dream if you know your _aim_ at the onset is
| to get 2-5 good shots out of it, so you know you 're going to
| quickly go through and delete almost every photo. Just scan
| the whole thing and see if there are _any_ that are great.
|
| If you're undisciplined and only delete the obviously bad
| ones, and end up with 1800 photos that you think you'll look
| through at some point, well then you have a pile of junk
| you're never going to look at again.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I do events for the Finger Lakes Runners Club which I look
| at like "Space Mountain", you paid admission so you should
| get at least one good pic, at this event there were a total
| of 1000 volunteers and runners and I think I got about 600
|
| https://www.behance.net/gallery/232159469/Skunk-Cabbage-
| Run-...
|
| mainly camped at the finish line. I went to a double-header
| basketball game of men and women Aug 31 and finally got
| around to developing it last week and got maybe 400 images
| that I processed with DxO, that is part of a program of
| building up a stock of images so I can always be posting
| them to social media. All of those are "good enough" but
| yeah the best 40 or best 4 of those are better. If I was
| selling pictures to the local paper I'd be selling 1 to 3
| per game. My secret weapon for going through huge numbers
| of photos is an XBOX controller and
|
| https://keysticks.net/
|
| so I can push a couch up near the computer and sit back and
| grade photos quickly. I hear some pros shoot 10,000 images
| at soccer games. I regularly spend more time processing
| images from an event than I spend at the event.
| the_af wrote:
| > _and end up with 1800 photos_
|
| I suffer from this when taking photographs of my daughter.
| I suppose every parent does. And the end result IS that I
| end up with a pile of photos I'll never look at again.
|
| "I should delete 99% of these photos I took from her
| birthday. But she looks so cute in this one! Oh, and this
| one! Which is a minor variation of the other one. But I
| could never delete it."
|
| I'm much more inclined to delete redundant photos of
| nature, landscapes, etc, but then again -- since they are
| static -- I also tend to take fewer of those to begin with!
| SamBam wrote:
| Fully agree, as a parent.
|
| I used to set goals for myself during my train commutes,
| to try and delete 100 pictures during my half-hour ride,
| but I didn't keep it up long enough to really make a
| dent.
| squidsoup wrote:
| Sounds like a nightmare. My cameras gives me 10 exposures. I
| think about them carefully.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Hi Paul! Are you a fujifilm guy?
| squidsoup wrote:
| Not many digital cameras today can approach the quality of
| medium format 6x7, and no digital cameras in existence can hope
| to approach the resolution and quality of large format film
| photography.
| Finnucane wrote:
| A medium-format Hasselblad or Fuji camera can get pretty
| close. I mean, my Hasselblad 503cx and Fuji 690 are my
| favorite cameras, and if I could justify spending the money,
| a digital back for the Blad would be pretty tempting. And for
| my 4x5s, it really depends a lot on the particulars of film
| and lenses. That's quite variable. And it's an entirely
| different way of working.
| codr7 wrote:
| https://github.com/codr7/hacktical-c/blob/1406322cde3c46aab8...
| MarkusWandel wrote:
| So the pension fund thing. My accrued pension value took a
| significant haircut when my own former company went out of
| business. In this case, they can take $0.5B out and still "meet
| all their obligations" without a haircut? So their pension fund
| was significantly overfunded and all their retirees still get all
| that was promised to them?
| pests wrote:
| Correct
| throw0101a wrote:
| See my comment from two days ago in previous thread:
|
| * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44876283
|
| AIUI, the money they are taking out is 'surplus'. All current
| obligations will be handed off to either an insurance company /
| annuity or lump sum. Future retirement funds will probably be
| in personal 401(k)s.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Kodak deserves to just die.
| https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/kodaks-nazi-connec...
| blueflow wrote:
| Everyone from back then is dead. Ship of Theseus something.
| throwmeaway222 wrote:
| where do they get cash from?
| delduca wrote:
| They make good lenses; the lenses in my glasses are theirs.
| Insanity wrote:
| Oof. The initial media report might actually have caused material
| (financial) damage to Kodak.
|
| If someone was shopping around for a Kodak product, saw that
| original article, they likely decided against Kodak. I personally
| wouldn't feel comfortable buying a product from a company close
| to bankruptcy - because if anything goes wrong, no warranty,
| replacement parts, etc..
| akkad33 wrote:
| It's a camera, not a car
| tjr wrote:
| I for one have been known to keep some cameras longer than
| some cars.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| I think it depends on what you do with them.
|
| If your living depends on the camera, you're probably not
| buying Kodak anyway, since in that case you're buying more
| into a system, which Kodak doesn't have.
|
| If you're an amateur, it's likely that it will outlive its
| warranty anyway, so it doesn't make much of a difference.
| Also, since there's no "system", grabbing a different one
| isn't that expensive financially.
| ozgrakkurt wrote:
| Cameras can get really expensive, and kodak isn't the only
| option. So it is very likely that the situation GP wrote
| would happen
| Insanity wrote:
| That can still be an expensive costing hundreds to thousands
| of dollars once you add additional lenses etc.
|
| Even hundreds of dollars for a camera is not "throw away
| money" for a lot of people..
| kotaKat wrote:
| The problem is the brand dilution that's already happened has
| already turned some people off from the brand.
|
| I really don't know what they were going for approving it on an
| air purifier.
| rglover wrote:
| Would love to see Kodak do a hail mary on a camera that looks as
| thin/clean as an iPhone, gives you same or better camera quality,
| BUT has the absolute _best_ UX around getting your photos
| transferred, printed, archived (as I upload stuff from the
| camera, send me permanent backup dvds for an added fee) etc.
|
| Could also offer little software upgrades in the form of filter
| packs, plugins/add-ons, etc. I can use it to take normal photos,
| do 4k-8k video, stream direct from the camera, etc. Make it the
| most versatile camera known to man, all at an affordable price of
| like ~$299.
|
| Call it the Kodak Moment to piggyback on the existing tagline and
| you've at the very least got a successful flash in the pan
| hipster product.
| squidsoup wrote:
| Kodak make exceptional film that no one else makes, or can
| make. There is no replacement for Portra. Anyone can make a
| soulless digital camera.
| rglover wrote:
| I don't doubt that, but most consumers are not professional
| photographers. They want results that _look_ professional.
|
| A digital camera is a no-brainer combined with a printing
| station where the phone just docks. They already have a
| version of this, but if they control hardware they could make
| it really solid--no compatibility issues, no headaches, just
| exactly what you want: an easy way to capture high-quality
| memories that don't get lost in the void of your camera roll.
| jfim wrote:
| Phones already do a lot of processing of images to make
| them look better than what a digital camera would capture
| out of the box, and Kodak already makes such a dock, it's
| called the Kodak dock:
| https://www.kodak.com/en/consumer/product/printing-
| scanning/...
| rekabis wrote:
| $200CAD. Ouch.
|
| A little cheaper than an Epson EcoTank printer, for sure
| (about 2/3 the price), and likely much better prints.
| But it's a single-purpose machine, not something that can
| print off _anything_ in colour on Letter/A4 sized paper.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| No chance. The number of patents involved means that only
| established cellphone manufacturers could ever dream of such a
| thing. If it involves a portable camera or screen that connects
| to the internet, it is totally locked down.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Who is the target market for this?
|
| How many people want a device that's the same form factor of a
| phone and has all of the same photo features of that phone? Why
| not just use the phone that most people already carry around?
| It doesn't seem like there would be many people who want their
| pictures mailed to them on DVD that don't already know how to
| download pictures from their phone.
| snapetom wrote:
| The standalone camera market outside of SLRs is too small to
| make significant impact on Kodak's bottom line. There's also
| substantial hardware manufacturing investment that they can't
| afford to make. Maybe they partner with a manufacturer and
| license the name with a lot of software control, but at the end
| of the day, the hardware (and software) costs are going to
| shave off any substantial profit. High risk, low reward.
|
| Kodak is a chemical company these days with modest profits.
| They need to double down on that. Cameras are not in their
| wheelhouse.
| un1970ix wrote:
| When I learnt that Kodak deleted that Xinjiang photo, I stopped
| buying their products. Fine to not post initially, but publishing
| then deleting and apologizing shows weak corporate backbone.
|
| Previously discussed on HN:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28024539
| hypertexthero wrote:
| Anyone reading at Kodak, please consider making a camera that
| has:
|
| 1. 35mm-equivalent basic plastic lens, 6 megapixel sensor with
| big pixels, autofocus, center-weighted metering.
|
| 2. No screen to see photos. Only a tiny LCD for basic settings
| like remaining pictures and remaining battery power.
|
| 3. Pictures saved to replaceable built-in SD card, downloadable
| to computers via USB-C to USB-C connector.
|
| 4. Long battery life (one whole day of shooting). Powered by
| rechargeable AA batteries.
|
| 5. Splash proof.
|
| 6. Photo sensor that adds grain to blown highlights and lost
| shadows.
|
| 7. Less than $100.
|
| 8. Bonus: Open source firmware.
|
| Basically a competitor to the Camp Snap, but better.
|
| Thank you!
| sammyteee wrote:
| This ^
| rekabis wrote:
| I'm not understanding the use case, here. Aren't there plenty
| of no-name disposable Chinese cameras like this?
|
| For me, it's capabilities beyond a cellphone camera, in a
| package not much bigger. One of the biggest frustrations is
| taking a photo of something and the phone's limited optical
| resolution makes that item nothing more than a tiny spec in a
| large 48 megapixel image. Yes, even the iPhone 15 Pro Max's 5x
| zoom is horrifically inadequate for a good 40% of the photos
| and videos I take.
|
| That's why I rock a Nikon Coolpix A1000 - it does 4K video, has
| a 35x optical zoom, and all sorts of other goodies in a package
| that can collapse down into a block that's not much thicker
| than a paperback book, and even smaller (H&W) than my iPhone.
| It's small enough to fit into my satchel as an EDC for use at a
| moment's notice, and not something that requires special
| dispensation every time I want to drag it along.
|
| Consumers want flexibility in a portable package. There is no
| way I'd be able to drop another type of superzoom like the
| Nikon P1000 into my satchel, despite the much more attractive
| 125x optical zoom. It's just too chonky as a whip-it-out-in-a-
| heartbeat EDC.
| paul7986 wrote:
| Maybe they can make a comeback using AI and work with Open AI to
| enhance Open AI's upcoming camera built into their device.
|
| There's a lot that can be done using AI to enhance the UX of
| taking and photos themselves!
| xenadu02 wrote:
| There are plenty of areas Kodak could make a difference if they
| cared to.
|
| Fuji's instant Polaroid-like camera is a novelty and we still use
| it. Getting an immediate physical print is entertaining for
| people of all ages these days.
|
| The security camera business is crowded but mostly with low image
| quality garbage.
|
| For that matter webcams are also often garbage. A quality camera
| with optical zoom and good ISP and low light performance could do
| really well, especially with so much remote work.
|
| The market for high speed cameras is still under-served. As is
| the market for high quality microscope cameras.
|
| There are lots of opportunities out there if you aren't only
| focused on products that can sell a billion units.
| t1234s wrote:
| Any chance Kodak is still doing work for the US Military?
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Flash! Developing story. Film at eleven.
| rc_mob wrote:
| love this. hearty fuck you to whoever wrote the misleading
| article
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| This reads as the same announcements that shady crypto exchanges
| were posting right before running away with the funds and closing
| down.
|
| I don't wish that for Kodac but I mean their first bullet point
| specifically says "repay or extend". Doesn't exactly inspire
| confidence.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-14 23:01 UTC)