Comments on: The Kodak tragedy What makes a great picture? Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:13:37 +0000 hourly 1 By: MaryKelly Wed, 09 May 2012 15:20:50 +0000 Great timeline and documentation of the affinity many of us feel for Kodak. When I was a kid you’d visit theme parks and there would be signs “Stop here for your Kodak moment.” Same thing with some state/national parks.

As Americans we’ve lost much of our brand loyalty. Perhaps because some of the American auto industry taught us that we weren’t important in their equation. They possessed the technology of their foreign competitors but didn’t employ it. We felt betrayed. It’s natural to go for something better, cheaper or more functional, but unfortunately it’s at the expense of losing some iconic American companies that made the mistake of not moving toward the future fast enough or early enough.

I just received the consumer announcement email today about the Kodak Gallery being sold to Shutterfly and my pictures being transferred to Shutterfly.

So Sad. Having a “Kodak moment” is such a strong brand statement. It’s like “pass me a Kleenex.” Kodak was a part of the American evolution of photography for the every man. They are a real American icon. A brand known round the world, fading. It’s such a shame. I wish their was some cutting-edge technology on your development plate that you could debut and revive your company. Having such a strong brand is not so easy to achieve.

Thanks for the Kodak moment memories.

By: buzzquick Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:48:00 +0000 Companies that cannot think outside the box and adapt are doomed today. Technology is moving so fast, the digital age demands the old way of doing business is yesterday. Tomorrow is a leap ahead of yesterday.

By: jpiazza Mon, 23 Jan 2012 02:30:21 +0000 I literally just finished developing a role of Plus X prior to reading this piece. Digital cameras and Photoshop have made everyone a photographer. Film, on the other hand is much less forgiving. It takes an artist to make great images, especially with B&W film. Kodak may be in critical condition, but I believe if they can find their feet and stick with what they know best they can come through this. They may never again be the industry giant they once were, but they can hold on to their rightful place in history.

By: hkrieger Sun, 22 Jan 2012 05:58:21 +0000 I started in photography in Detroit in the early 1940s.
My first decent camera was the Kodak Bantam, then I went to the Kodak 35. I still use a film camera (and Kodak film), but now I scan the developed negatives, and handled them further on a computer.
“Photo essays in black and white”,

By: AlanRoss Sat, 21 Jan 2012 04:32:56 +0000 Great post, Gary, thank you. I, like you and many others, am deeply saddened by the Chapter 11 filing of Eastman Kodak. I found your note that an Ansel Adams print from a negative is better than a digital reproduction to be especially interesting. In our digital age, it’s a big controversy if Ansel Adams would have shot digital if he were still alive. As a former Ansel Adams assistant, I have a unique perspective and just penned a little article about it. If you’re interested, here’s a link:

I welcome your comments.
~ Alan Ross

By: fredprouser Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:30:23 +0000 excellent blog, a trip down memory lane, of hundreds of gallons of dektol and d-76 mixed-my very first camera was a kodak instamtic 100, moved up to the motor driver version, spring wound instamatic 104 i think, kodaks first slogan was for their first mass market camera was
“You press the button, we do the rest,” you literally sent the whole camera back to kodak, they processed the film, sent back the 100 pixs you shot, as prints, and camera reloaded with film…the No.1 Kodak which sold for $25 back
i still have some old aluminum film cans from my grandfather as pictured in one of the blog post pixs…