Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Why Does Kodak Stock See-Saw All The Time?

2 views

Skip to first unread message

Anonymous

unread,

Aug 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/4/99

Kodak stock goes up and down, and has no long term gain over the last 2
decades. Why? My theory? This seesawing is driven by well planned
announcements that trigger short term trading and investments, and
accompanied with INSIDER INFORMATION AND TRADING by higher ups and bosses,
A PIGGING FIELD for pompus elitists that work in management and are bosses
there and provides NO RETURN FOR REGULAR STOCKHOLDERS AND NO RELIABLE JOBS
FOR SKILLED EMPLOYEES. I have attached SEVERALL FILES FROM AN ANONYMOUS
POSTER AT REC.PHOTO.FILM+LABS, see deja archive, that seem relevant.

Since George FISHER HAS GIVEN UP OUT OF FRUSTRATION, and has appointed Dan
CARP, who learned early on in his career that DIGITAL video CAPTURE is a
NO-NO, and is therefore UNCAPABLE of dealing with OLD KODAK, as eveident
in decisions to allow Old Kodak to absorb and DE-ABILITATE an otherwise
potential equipmetn and software business at ELMGROVE plant, for the sake
of allowing Old Kodak to adminstrate electronics since they have run out
of other things to adminsitrate.

It looks like I am going to have to run this company from the usenet
newsgroups myself. I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at The Westboy
Colduck Company. You can contact me by posting a message to
rec.photo.film+labs, with subject ATTN: Imagining Science. I therefore am
announcing the need for a HOSTILE TAKEOVER and the following RESTrUCTURING
plans, build 1:

1) Chain of Command: from the outset it will be made CLEAR that there is a
single and formal chain of command, eminating from and reporting to me.
INVISIBLE power structures, and INTERNAL POLITICS and braveness like
STALLING, AVOIDANCE, FILIBUSTERING, etc. will be dealt with FIRMLY, and
those individuals will be dealt with. It takes no marketing and management
to run film manufacturing machines or drive distribution trucks, so if I
have to disappear every marketing or management dissident I run into, it
won't make a damn bit of difference to me or the bottom line.

2) Identification and Elimination of "SOAP OPERA" positions and employees,
and I don't mean women, you fancy boys know exactly who I am talking
about. There are far to many people going to meetings all day and nodding
their heads in approval to every stupid idea that comes along just so as
not to rock each other's boats and maintain a COUNTRY CLUB environment.
There is a need for administration, but everyone does not have to be a
manager of something, and it does not need to be the company culture,
ADMINISTRATION WILL BE MINIMILIZED. Business and employment is not a
country club or playground for fancy folks. These people can afford to
lose their jobs, buy an average house, and live for a generation off their
parents savings and be fancy at home, I feel no sorrow for anyone coming
to work expecting to SOCIALIZE all morning, go to a fancy LUNCH, then
SOCIALIZE some more. This is the KODAK CULTURE that everyone has been
trying to change, this is OLD KODAK, lots of FAT and DUMB, LAZY,
administrative LEECHES. This country clubbing is the plaque of all large
companies, resulting in TOP-HEAVY businesses, that have NO INNOVATION and
deliver NO RETURNS TO STOCKHOLDERS, in exchange for COMPLACENT "soap
opera" jobs. This company will be an example that this does not have to be
the case. More emphasis will be placed on keeping investments in
intellectual skills, technical skills, manufacturing skills, and plain
hard working labor, and when layoffs are neccesary, any country clubbers
go first. You will see an immediate change in MORAL. There will be a
direct bond and relationship between working people and the top level
company management, without unnnecessary layers of fat, much like the
promise George Eastman made with the yearly BONUS, that has so
sacreligeously been trampled upon in recent years. This WILL NOT BE LIP
SERVICE, and any existing numbers of layoffs needed this year will be
country clubbers and "soap opera" types.

3) Digital Imaging, Equipment and Software. Immediately I declare that the
leaders of these business divisions will be given authority over film
managers and budgets, and what to do with profits from consumer film. It
is time to make as good of an equipment or softare business as can be
made, optimixizing the use of film/media profits as start up capital for
different equipment/software ventures. Fisher hinted at this with the
Digital Science branding campaign, it can still happen. The time has come
to accept the fact that this company does not control enough of the
technology any more to prevent digital competition with media based
businesses. Stalling techniques, reactionary strategies, and closed
propreitary systems will only get the company about as far as closed
system approaches got IBM in the PC market, There are other CCD
manufacturers, there are many digital camera manufacturers, and the
imaging and color science to make this happen is no secret anymore. In
order for this to succeed the Imaging Science and Color Managment
Divisions, including all film simulation, film modeling, and other Old
Kodak holdbacks of technology will report to these electronic business
managers. These technologies will all go stale if they contrinue to be
squelched by old Kodak, and digital imaging is the only place these
sciences will ever be utilized anyway, duh. A centralized, non-Kodak Park
location for Imagining Science will be chosen. Old Kodak media groups can
always contract back imaging science support. Keeping these technologies
under the Old Kodak management, does not offer any slow down to
inevaitabel digital capture, and only serves to defeat any potentails for
for equipemtn and software business development and profit. The time has
come to make as best of a business out of this technology that can be
made, before other companies do. THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF SUCCESS FOR THESE
BUSINESSES IS TO TIE A LEAD BALL TO THEIR FEET, AND MOVE THEM TO OLD KODAK
PARK AND LET OLD KODAK ADMINISTRATION DROWN THESE BUSINESSES WITH OVERHEAD
AND STALL STRATEGIES. IF YOU HAVE TO MOVE PEOPLE OUT OF ELMGROVE, WHICH I
DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO, YOU MIGHT WANT TO TAKE SOME STEPS TO PREVENT OLD
KODAK INFLUENCE ON THESE BSUINESES.

4) CLEAN HOUSE AT OLD KODAK MEDIA BUSINESS. The idea of laying off skilled
people and neccesary resources, to fuel cost savings while keeping a
COUNTRY CLUB atmosphere of administration at Kodak Park will not be
tolerated. Buldings to be considered first are (26,2,49,59,6,23,69). There
are two issues to deal with here: a) identification and protection of
manufacturing critical operations that make the film/media business
operate, and b) identification of valuable further research and
development efforts. Some effort has been made to identify manufacturing
critical resources, but the purpose has been to transition Old Kodak 3rd
generation chronies into these areas via the but-buddy system for long
term do-nothing appointments. So we can assume a level of manufacturing
critical areas and resoruces have been identified, this just needs to be
done one more time to weed out OLD KODAK FAT like FRED FANT that only go
to meetings for a living. I do not consider 2-3 layers of management 10-12
managers supporting small groups of 4-5 people that make after the fact
quality assessments to be quality control or to be manufacturing critical,
these little pockets of hold-out OLD KODAK FAT needed to be identified and
kept in mind, when full milking mode is enabled. In-line quality control
is all that is needed in order to milk film/media, so building 6 along
with all the other "soap opera" types parading as manufacturing critical
resources can take notice that real jobs and real profits will not be
sacrificed for people doing busy work. Now as for further development
issues. The current strategy for research has been to abandon any image
strcuture and image quality programs to silver halide medias and pursue
cost cutting and environmental programs, like LOW SILVER CHLORIDE
EMULSIONS FILMS, PEROXIDE BLEACHES and HIGH AGITATION PROCESSORS. There
are also programs to enable silver halide digital output media.
Atlernative output medias like inkjet has been widely implemented, but
there has been stalling and avoidance techniques put in place so as not to
develop a electrohphotographic output media, in order to trry and thwart
develop of electrophotographic workflows. This is another Old Kodak
fallacy that does not work in todays market. If indeed advancements in
silver halide image structure and quality have been abandoned in light of
impending didigtal capture, then resources need to be allocated
appropriately, and I can assure they are not. IF YOU ARE GOING TO MILK
THIS SIDE OF THE BUSINESS, YOU DON'T NEED ADMINISTRATIVE FAT. ALL YOU NEED
TO DO IS RUN THE FILM/MEDIA MACHINES AND DELIVER THE PRODUCTS, send the
"soap opera" types home, especially marketing and administative wannabees
in the following buildings (26,2,49,59,6,23,69) and in R&D in general. You
could probably do without building 26 althogether, you might want to aks
these people to take a month off and see what happens without them.

5) Worldwide operations will also be instructed to operate under the new
low-administration, back to business. back to work strategy.

6) Research labs will be freed from administration and politics. Product
development will be rid of marketing wannabees.

7) The state of affairs in terms of information systems in beyond repair.
While purchasing everyone in the company a copy of MS Office, which
includes a email/calendering soultion called Outllook, they decide to
spend an extra couple hundred dollars a head to by Lotus Notes, so they
can continue to be but-buddies with IBM. Christ, you can use Outlook
express for free. And instead of buying MS Office, a lot of people could
get by with just using wordpad built into MS windows,and the idea of Lotus
Notes died with the onset of web browsing, wake up. I will address this
issue in a further communication, since the fat and "soap opera" attitude
runs so rampant in information systems, that I am going to have to puke.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

>I need to find a good film for purposes of scanning, that is, I want a
>film that is well adapted to being scanned on a CCD film scanner and
digitized.
>There are so many jillions of films out there that I'm having trouble
>figuring out which is best. My criteria are as follows:
>

all image structure criteria is reasonably met in any existing films,
films have a dpi of around 3000-4000, lower speed films have less grain,
no real secret there

>What I need is something that I can use in
>a wide variety of situations, and for which I can just carefully calibrate
>my scanner once and then forget it.
>
>I've been using Kodak Portra NC
>but it seems to have a very slight greenish tint to it
>
>I've also tried Velvia.
>and the colors look a tad unrealistic at times.
>
>What other films might meet my requirements? I'd prefer to avoid going
>through twenty different kinds of film just to find one that works.
>

The short answer to good color from negatives is that the film really
isn't the important factor on most existing desktop, graphics, portrait,
etc. applications. The important factor is how much time you spend on your
setup for that film, therefore the cheapest private label film is the best
for most scanning applications. I will explain why.

1) Color negative films are designed colorimetrically to print on a
certain paper type, any color claims are only relevant to printing and
have very little translation to scanning,

2) Equipment: in a lot of cases the spectral characterisitcs chosen for
scanner color filtration are chosen either for compatibility with the dyes
of transparecny films, or are a compromise between the dyes of some
particular negative film and transparency film, or for a particular
negative film. No one scanner filtration can address all films types, so
this issue is in practice subordinate to the next topic, except for some
specific applications that surround the use of one film type, like motion
picture scanning applications.

3) Software: the color processing alogorithms for scanning color negatives
in most existing desktop, graphics or portrait application, are hacks.
There are some good hacks, that result in "good enough color", with enough
time spent turning knobs to dial in your film setup. This is what you can
expect in most open system applications, and the main reason the cheapest
private label film is the best for most scanning applications.

There are some good closed system examples of how to scan color negative
film properly. PhotoCD and Picture CD use information about the film
itself (dyes, spectral sensitivity, sensitometry, etc.) in order to back
track what colors in the original scene result in what dyes on a film.
Other examples are portrait and motion picture related (portrait film
analyzers, Lucht Repri, Cinesite, etc.) , where the intended relative
colorimetry of how the film is to be printed, is considered., to obtain
from the dyes of the film, what the rendered or printed color will be.
This requires both knowledge of the film and print media, in addition to
the algorithms to use the information. Needless to say the keepers of such
knowledge have not shared these techniques with scanner manufacturers in
general, or even marketed any software APIs to do so. The techniques to
scan negatives in the manners described above have been used intenrally by
the Westboy Colduck Company for 2 decades, and have even been implemented
for longer periods of time to design films. Why a secret you ask?

One might ponder that such keepers of knowledge might do so in order to
protect equipment business for themselves. Since some keepers of said
knowledge seem to be selling off large real estate investments in their
equipment business, you might draw the conclusion that protection of said
equipment business, or committment to said equipment business is
non-existant. Here at the WestBoy Colduck Company, we have recently
decided to sell our Elmgrave manufacturing plant.

So if that's not the answer, what is? Could it be that the keepers of said
knowledge are doing so in order to prevent widespread enablement of
digital workflows? Why would someone do this? Digital workflow=digital
capture. Let's use an example to demonstrate how out of hand this
situation is:

Take the digital mass portrait system marketed by a major film
manufacturer in the following link:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/printers/integratedDig
Sys/integratedDigSys.shtml

The scanning and color processing are very rudimentary implementations of
rendered color systems defined above (portrait film analyzers, Lucht
Repri, Cinesite, etc.), but very hackish even at that. You might ask why
is it that a company that has had the technology to implement the scanning
and color processing algorithms so successfully in other systems
(PhotoCD,PictureCD,cinesite,etc.) is having such a hard time here. The
problem is the keepers of the knowledge reside in the film side of the
business and use stalling and avoidance techniques to prevent flow of
knowledge even within the company to equipment and software groups, to
prevent enablement of digital workflows. So again, for these types of
systems, the lowest priced private label film, is all the quality you will
ever get, you will not see the portrait quality of professional films
through these hack systems.

You will also note some promises of a better system in this link:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/printers/integratedDig
Sys/cms.shtml

These improvements will no doubt be tightly linked to film
characteristics, so that digital capture cannot be implemented on these
systems, through lack of open-ness on input color processing, and lack of
scene balance color space adequate for mainpulation of digitally oriented
images. This is a critical consideration, the reason that film prints so
easy, is that there are scene balance algorithms that correct for exposure
and off color. If these algorithms continue to be linked to metrics
specific to film, such as the density of which the film prints on a
specific paper, then truly digital images will never print without
muddling around in photoshop for hours. In order to enable digital
workflow, scene balance algorithms in a digital non-film color space are
paramount.

It is clear that the strategy of film related companies with regards to
digital, is reactionary at best. You will not see a digital camera from a
film manufacturer, before someone else releases the technology, ala
Dicomed Bigshot a couple years back. Similiary, you cannot expect them to
be leaders in true digital imaging workflows, so mark your investments
appropriately, the sale of the Elmgrave plant is a clear message that
there is no committment to digital imaging at the WestBoy Colduck Company.

It is also worth noting that said film companies have had scan-only type
films, so eloquently and subliminally referred to by the poster of this
thread, chrome-like, no need for masking couplers, get rid of DIR, DIAR
couplers and interimage, because they complicate by adding higher order
math in the algoriothms as described above. This technology has also been
around for 10 years, and has not been commercialized at the WestBoy
Colduck Company, because just like any other non-positive film, you need
color processing algorithms available as defined above to use the film
properly, and enablement of the algroithms, means enablement of digital
workflow. So if/when you see these films, be sure to ask for the
algorithms to go with them, otherwise, the lowest priced private label
film, is still all the quality you need.

If someone like a digital camera or electrophotographic or inkjet printer
company is interested in enabling digital workflows, I am available for
consultation. I am particularly committed to enablement of digital capture
and workflow in the mass portrait markets, school pictures, etc. So if you
have a digital portrait system, and want to fiddle around with how to tack
on a digital camera, drop me a note to rec.photo.film+labs, ATTN:
Imagining Science. I could also be easily convinced not to give such
advice.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

Joe Miller <mil...@ucolick.org> said:

>When I took my first pictures with my CP 950 and printed them out, I was
>a bit disappointed. The prints looked sort of flat, lacked "snap." But
>then I took the picture to the spot where it was taken and noticed that
>the world looked just the same, sort of flat (not particularly
>saturated). I realized that I had become so conditioned to high
>saturation, high contrast prints from film that the digital pictures

>But I would rather have a camera
>that gave as accurate a rendition of the scene I'm looking as possible,
>rather than leave it to the film manufacturer to define "reality."

Digital cameras have FAR more color accuracy potential than film. It is
simple to take a set of rgb values that have passed through a camera CCD
filter defined by video standards or something close to tristimulus values
(how the eye sees the world), and mathemtically convert them to actual
tristimulus value RGB, and then through color profiles
(http://www.color.org) to any desired color space. On the other hand it is
not only difficult to design a film to do this, considering capabilities
of chemicals chemical models, and chemical vartiabilities, it requires
higher order math and knowledge of the films characteristics, in order to
reverse model scene colorimetry from film dyes if you want to scan the
films back to the original scene color. This path has been established
with PhotoCd and PrintCD, but the models have far more noise than a
digital camera model ever will. Dynamic range is not as big of an issue
that film companies make it out to be, but exposure latititude is.

>Of course, it is a simple matter to make the digital
>prints look like film prints with a few computer operations.

let's use an example, the wedding/portrait markets in the United States
have grown very accustomed to how Vericolor III VPS film prints onto a
portrait paper. You could develop a color transformation that results in
cameraRGBvalues------->VericolorRGBvalues, when you acquire your camera
image into Adobe Photoshop, you can apply this transformation to the image
and your camera image then looks like a Vericolor film wedding shot.

There are three ways to accomplish this

1) trial and error use of photoshop to develop a set of balances, very
iterative, and not quanititative

using color profiles as defined at http://www.color.org

2) you can empirically model both systems, I have tried things like this
at the Westboy Colduck Company, you run into some target issues, and
issues related to the dimensionality and processing of targets through
both the digital and photographic system, but it is purely empirical, and
requires no film specific information from a film manufacturer to pursue.
Not a canned technology, but nothing is.

3) having spectral and color design information of the camera and the
film/paper combination, you can mathematically calculate this model.
Requires information from camera maufacurer and film/paper manufurer. The
Westbof Colduck Company would never make a digital camera that spits out a
Vericolor portrait/wedding look, so this appraoch is somewhat of a moot
point, unless one of the photographic universities got involved.

I know how to do all three of the above methods.

So what about mis-exposed digital pictures, or off-color digital pictures?
The reason that film prints so
easy, is that there are scene balance algorithms that correct for exposure
and off color. If these algorithms continue to be linked to metrics
specific to film, such as the density of which the film prints on a
specific paper, then truly digital images will never print without
muddling around in photoshop for hours. In order to enable digital
workflow, scene balance algorithms in a digital non-film color space are
paramount. You will not see a film company drive these algorithms.

It is clear that the strategy of film related companies with regards to
digital, is reactionary at best. You will not see a digital camera from a
film manufacturer, before someone else releases the technology, ala
Dicomed Bigshot a couple years back. Similiary, you cannot expect them to
be leaders in true digital imaging workflows, so mark your investments
appropriately, the sale of the Elmgrave equipment plant is a clear message
that
there is no committment to digital imaging at the WestBoy Colduck Company.

It is also worth noting that said film companies have had scan-only type
films, chrome-like, no need for masking couplers, get rid of DIR, DIAR
couplers and interimage, because they complicate by adding higher order
math in the algoriothms as described above. This technology has also been
around for 10 years, and has not been commercialized at the WestBoy
Colduck Company, because just like any other non-positive film, you need
color processing algorithms available as defined above to use the film
properly, and enablement of the algroithms, means enablement of digital
workflow. So if/when you see these films, be sure to ask for the
algorithms to go with them, otherwise, the lowest priced private label
film, is still all the quality you need.

If someone like a digital camera or electrophotographic or inkjet printer
company is interested in enabling digital workflows, I am available for
consultation. I am particularly committed to enablement of digital capture
and workflow in the mass portrait markets, school pictures, etc. So if you
have a digital portrait system, and want to fiddle around with how to tack
on a digital camera, drop me a note to rec.photo.film+labs, ATTN:
Imagining Science. I could also be easily convinced not to give such
advice.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

Kenneth W Reed <kwr...@meganet.net> said:

>Could someone give a brief explanation to this novice ?
> (color crossover)

Color crossover is basically a contrast mismatch.

This is most simply explained by viewing a set of sensitomteric curves,
dye curves, ink curves, code value curves, etc. The term has been around a
long time, and it basically means that the contrast of one of the colors
curves has changed relative to the others. For example, if you are looking
at the sensitometry plots of a photographic print, you might see the
magenta dye curve contrast go lower, than the cyan and yellow. You would
then see magenta highlights and green shadows. Similiarly if you are
looking at the rgb code values of a digital camera relative to exposure,
you might see the green curve having a higher contrast, then the red and
blue, resulting in the same type of color mismatch defined above. Color
crossover is basically a contrast mismatch, in the photographic system
this is often a result of processing variability or funky film/paper,
since contrast is fixed with a given film/paper combo when printing. In
the digital system, crossovers can happen from a variety of reasons, like
photoshop mistakes for instance.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

Trudie Tapper <tapper...@jpmorgan.com> said:

>I have taken a few rolls of Kodak Advantix APS Film. 200 speed.
>... my pictures always come out
>extremely grainy. Is this the camera, the developer or the film?
>The images are so bad, I don't even carry the point and shoot for
>emergencies anymore because they aren't worth it.

Smaller format (26mm vs 35mm) = more grain. The film technology is the
same. You can easily see the difference in blue sky landscape scenes.
There is some interesting historical background here.

In the mid to late 1980s, the Westboy Colduck Company, forseeing the
oncoming of digital capture, enacted a set of developmebnt programs called
Genesis. Two of these programs were Genesis Alpha (GA), the idea behind
the APS system, and Genesis Beta (GB), the idea behind PhotoCD/Picture CD.
The intention of GA was to try and maximize image quality advanatges of
film over digital capture. The intention of GB was to enable films as a
highest quality means for digital input. So how did you end up with a
lower quality film system? It became clear along the way that no
additional image quality would come out. (OK, let's give the APS a small
advanatge for scene balance capability based on per frame). So as with
disk film, and other smaller format films, the intention shifted quickly
to how can we make more money from the same amount of film, you get
35/26=1.4 or 40% more film sales income from the same film manufacturing
cost with APS, not considering the extra cost because it is positioned
more into the advanced amatuer category. So the public kind of statement
is that we are trying to improve quality, whereas the internal strategy
was really how to milk more efficiently. This change of strategey or
positioning, is very represetative of the fact that film technology is
seen as about as mature as it is going to get, and the only real
developments to be seen are cost/environmental improvements (low silver
chloro based films,peroxide bleaches, etc.). So the original GA ideal
failed, and milking is the only apparent strategy in place. GB basically
failed too, the reason being is the closed systme approach that had to be
taken, if the company would have truly enable digital workflow for
negatives on an open system basis, it would have enabled digital capture
workflows. This closed system approach can only ever account for some
percentage of digital input, and is therefore not realistic. The main
problem here is that these types of strategies were defined and
implemented by the consumer side of the business with out consideration
for professional. printing, publishing, graphics, etc.. It is always a
second order consideration how then to hack up a lower quality consumer
application to fit professional use, ala PhotoCD/Picture CD fiasco. It is
common practice for consumer film money to be spent on technology focused
strictly on consumer applications, as opposed to generating high quality
professional applications, and then deriving watered down versions for
consumers. Back-assward strategic planning, and/or cowardice is the modus
operandi. All new films are first desgined for consumer applications now,
and then given to be tweaked color wise for professional applications, and
then some contrived keeping factors are thought up in order to justify
keeping them in a freezer and calling them professional. Similiar
appraoches are taken in the software and equipment side. Strategic
planning, research and development always take the more conservative
strategy to spend money on the consumer system directly, without having a
larger overall technology strategy to fullfill all markets needs. Very
inefficient use of technology and resources. Much too late to do anything
about it now. The same people making these types of decisions, have
succeeded in selling the Elmgrave equipment manufacturing plant, and
incorporating new and digital innovations into the old conservative
managment and generations old buddy system. Equipment and software will be
starved far beyond anything they have been to date. These businesses along
with the Imagining Science dept would be better off as a seperate company,
since they will be restricted from selling anything that remotely
challenges film workflows. This is clearly evident in many systems. If you
want some detailed technical examples I can provide them. Non film
companies will enable these workflows regardless of how much film
companies stall, someone is going to come out with a $50 digital camera
and a minilab to process the images, the computer guys are way innovative.
It is really to late in this game for stalling strategies to be effective.
You could then downsize the film side to manufacturing critical
operations, and environmental/cost savinsg programs. If you leave old
Colduck in charge of things, you will be doing nothing but fiddling around
like abunch of lazy fat dumb and happy idiots and continue to be a very
lame excuse for a company that has the capability to do better. Split off
equipment/software, give them the Image and Color Science and all the
secrets neccesary to succeed. Then pair down the film side, if it is time
to cash cow a business, this is how you do it. You achieve nothing by
laying off a bunch of innovative people, and keeping a bunch of fat dumb
lazy thrid generation do nothings.

>Any feedback would be appreciated.

No problem at all.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

tut@ishi (Bill Tuthill) said:

>The color crossover I have seen was magenta highlights with green shadows.
>Perhaps other crossovers exist, but this one might be most common.
>

The most common photographic ones I have seen result from processing
problems, dye fade, or use of films/papers not designed for each other.
For insyance, instead of using Kodak film with Konica paper, you wouild
most likely get better results from Konica film with Konica paper, exceopt
for slightly non-noticeable beefy flesh since school pictures are very
small print format anyway. All films are designed for a certian paper, and
all papers are design for a certain film, using the print through curve as
the target. magenta/green is the one I have seen most also, but any type
of crossover can occur ones a pciture is digital and someone is fiddling
with it in an editor.

>>How can you fix it in Photoshop?
>In the Color Balance window, click Shadows and reduce green (by increasing
>magenta on the slider), then click Highlights and reduce magenta. Usually
>you don't have to mess with Midtones, the default.
>

If it is a known effect, yopu can mathematically model it and create a
color profile. This has been down in the simulation of new films for many
years.

For trial and error approach to crossovers, I think a curves or levels
type of interface works best. So if you notice magenta highlights and
green shadows, take the green curve, and move the bottom in one diorection
adn the top in the other.

>Note that PaintShopPro, which tries to emulate Photoshop in terms of
>user interface,* lacks controls for setting highlight/shadow color
>balance.
>However Ed Hamrick's Vueprint program, $40 shareware, has this feature,
>and I found Ed's implementation easier to use than Photoshop's.
>
> * I find it humorous that PaintShopPro even emulates the Photoshop
> misfeature of having Reduce/Enlarge hidden three menu picks down.
> Reduce/Enlarge should have shortcuts, because they are very useful
> in conjunction with the Magic Wand.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

bjam...@mail.med.upenn.edu (William Jameson) said:

>Anybody else got the problem I've got with someone claiming to represent a
>business posting anonymously?

Are you calling me a spammer?

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

"Jethro Beauhunc" <beau...@hotmail.com>

>To have the problem with 7 different rolls at different times suggests to
>me that Trudie is getting underexposed negatives. Either Trudie is
shooting
>photos outside of the range of her camera and/or her camera is
>malfunctioning. I'm unfamiliar with the capabilities of the Yashica
>Acclaim. She might actually get *better exposed negatives* and hence finer
>resulting grain with *faster* 400 speed film. It depends on how much
exposure
>correction is called for.

You must be trolling.

a) point and shoot cameras are sposed to figure out the exposure for you,
remember APS is marketed as a SYSTEM
b) 400 speed is even grainier

Granted, there is plenty of over exposure latitude in color neg films, and
giving a little more exposure is a very reasonable fix that anyone can
try, so set your camera at a lower than rated film speed. Problem is many
of these things are automated in these point and shoot cameras and
sometimes you can't just tell the camera it is a lower speed film, or
adjust exposure otherwise. APS is a smaller format,, and is more grainy.
Take a 35mm 200 speed film and camera, take an APS 200 speed film and
camera, shoot some landscape scenes, and look at blue sky and clouds, APS
has more grain, THAT IS THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE REASON YOU DON'T SEE
PROFESSIONAL APS., it is grainer, it is grainer, it is granier, it is
granier, not quite as grainy as disk film, but it is grainer.

Let me tell you the only good thing about APS. First of all it is the same
film as reglar 35mm, so all film manuf and dev, is the same. But from
there up, there is somewhat of seperate structure from old Kodak, that has
a glimmer of hope for innovation. Too bad enough Old Kodak was involved
that they assumed customers were stupid and gave them a smaller format, in
a blantant attempt to push a system that gives them (35/26=40%) more film
profit from the same amount of films. Mass marketing always draws on the
STUPIDITY and ALOOFNESS of the customer, this approach does not make for
the same type of long term customer relationship that existed in the
past, it is just representative that the company has accepted that this
technology is about as mature as its going to get, and facing alternative
technoliges, has begun a MILKING mode. Milking=pricewar=byebye jobs.
Expect no further quality improvements in the film system, the only
programs being worked on are reduction in silver , chloride
emulsions(cost) and environmentally oriented issues like peroxide bleaches
and high agitation processors. It is not to say that the technology could
not be improved, and that there are not some people who could do it, it
just means there has been a conscience decision otherwise.

If you want to start a discussion about how consumers percieve picture,
how companies assess consumer picture quality, and whether or not there is
a significant difference between most films, we can go there too.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

George Mavromatis <Mavromati...@infineon.com>>

>I am currently in a foreign country for about 2 months.
>I shoot a lot of rolls and I want to develop them back in my country.
>Is it all right if I store exposed film in the refrigirator? Is this the
>same true for unexposed film? Will the image quality diminish if film is
>developed 2 months after exposure?

Exposed Film: all film emulsions are optimized for a certain period of
latent imagining keeping (LIK). this is the time between exposure and
processing. If you exceed that time, exposure onto the silver crystals in
the film diminish, you will see reduction in contrast. Internally at the
Westboy Colduck Company we successfully freeze exposures all the time, so
use a freezer and not a refrigerator. You will want to use some type of
humidity proof container, we use heat seal bags, this is probably not an
option for you, but take some steps to minimize exposure of the film to
humidity within the freezer. A refrigerator will do some good, but not as
good as a freezer.

Unexposed film: all films are designed to be kept for a distinct period of
time between coating and exposure/use, this is referred to as natural aged
imagining keeping (NAK). If you freeze the film/media in a humidity proof
container like the package the film came in, you can avoid this also. Many
things happen during NAK, including the rise of stain, and reduction in
sensitiivity of the silver crystals.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

"Florian Kohler" <fko...@icads.com>

>I'm helping my girlfriend get her portfolio off the ground and am looking
>into more afofordable possibilities than lab reproducitons.
>Im thinking of scanning her work and then printing via an EPson 700 with
>Photo paper. I've seen the quality, its amazing. My concern is that since
>its Ink Jet people say it wont last too long, but aren't all those regular
>posters that you buy in stores and museums the same type of ink Jet?
>Wouldn't mine last longer because its printed on Photo paper?

Hard copy archival charactersitics are now a moot point. All you need to
do is archive the digital file, and you can always reprint it upon demand.
There are a couple of arguments to this theory and I will address them.

Question 1: How Do I know I will get the same hardcopy in terms of color
when I reprint it 10 years from now? Simple, you do all your image
editing, such as in photoshop, in a universally accepted color space, such
as sRGB, or ICC-LAB, both of which can be accomplished using RGB or LAB
modes of most photo editors. You then print your picture to a printer
using a color profile (www.color.org). When you reprint your pciture 10
years from know, you have it archived in a standard color space, and you
will be able to reprint it to a new printer, with the new color profile
for that printer. Use the digital file in a standard color space as the
archive.

Question 2: Isn't digital media such as floppies, CDROMs, etc. susceptible
to archival problems? Yes, but knowing the keeping factors involved, you
can easily plan for this and you can always reburn a CD every 25 years.

Granted there are some cases where you can argue these points further. A
great many people use B&W film for archiving. Similiarly to some people a
particular print, in of itself is a piece of art, because of both the
image and the exact media it was printed to amek up an artwork, and
granted it is a piece of art. In those cases, there are arguments. In the
case of most digital printing, archival charactersitics are now a moot
point since you can archive the digital image.

>
>Also I was wondering if anyone had any experience with printing via those
>Laser printers that all the copy centers have. I dont know if the quality
>is
>as good or if it suffers from the same exposure limitations as Ink Jet.
>

Cheap inkjets like the Epson are getting closer to Canon's printers, but
do not have the volume capabilities. I haven't seen the same types of
photo quality electrphotographic paper. The Westboy Colduck company has
waffled around a program like this for years, and as for reasons you may
suspect have decided to stall. I think it will be nice when
electrophotographic printers start using a lamination step.

>
>
>
>

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

"Florian Kohler" <fko...@icads.com>

>What I want to do is ultimately sell the prints, but cant afford to pay
>the Lab the printing prices for their Lambda prints. I heard that the ALPS
>1300 offers dye sublimation . I don't know too much about that
technology, but
>some people say its clearer and doesn't fade.

For fading questions you could call 716-724-4000
and ask for Stan Anderson, Dave Kopperl , or Dave Price. Stan is the guy
they send to most museums and stuff to talk about archival issues.

Here's the real facts, testing at Colduck showed laminated thermal dye
prints were pretty good, They were close to if not archival quality, which
is 100 years. In fact the thermal dye-sub marketing peoples wanted to use
this as a sell point, but the silver halide photographic peoples wouldn't
let them. So I think the image stability technology is more than
reasonable for the dye-sub-like media I know.

>Is that true?
Yep.

What you are running into is a clear hole in this market. Where do I take
a digital image for a good print? Most digital minilab setups today and
point of sale type operations seem to use dye-sub.
Film companies are stalling systems like this cause it leads down the path
to where a reglar picture taker can use a digital camera and get good
prints.

With your existing inkjet printer, You can overcome the fading on the
inkjet prints, by taking them to a lab and having them laminated, in this
case you wouldn't even need to use the expensive photo paper, you get the
same degree of glossy-ness, and range from the lamination.. If you
laminate plain paper inkjet or electrophotographic prints, using the right
color processing, www.color.org, you can do well enough to scare silver
halide photographic media folks any day. Lamination solves a lot of
problems, in a lot of places.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

"Routh" <rou...@earthlink.net> said:
>I am going to shoot some indoor pictures with available light. I use only
>slide films. I am thinking of using [a] 400 ASA Ektachrome pushing to
>1600 ASA or P1600 Professional film pushing to 1600 ASA.- 2 stop pushing.
Any
>idea how long these slide films will last? Kodachromes supposed to last
>200 years. With thanks.
>

25-50 years, ballpark.

If you want some real answers you could ask the engineers at Kodak who run
their Image Stability testing. Stan Anderson, Dave Price, Dave Kopperl.
Dave Kopperl looks like a little bearded troll, but is a nice guy. Stan
Anderson most often represnets the company in discussions of this nature
with museums, and spends a lot of time in damage control when Henry
Wilhelm makes statements. Call 716-724-4000, the last numeric option is to
contact an employee. If you would rather speak to someone from the
Ektachrome film area, you could aks for Bill Doody or John Duncan.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

If you want to know who works on what projects at Colduck R&D. Post a
message to rec.photo.film+labs, with subjkect of ATTN: Imagining Science.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

mi...@xhplmmcg.xhpl.xhp.com (Michael McGuire) said:

>FWIW there is a Jim _Milch_ at Eastman Kodak who is well known in the
>digital imaging community. As for _Mulch_, I find little to disagree with
in his
>technical comments.

Single biggest thing to enable digital workflows is to provide automatic
scene balance algorithms in a non-film characteristic color space. When
you take your film to a lab it prints automatically, without reprints
because of these algorithms. The algorithms are not really all that
complicated. This is the kind of thing that is neccesary when you take a
digital camera or digital file to a lab and ask for prints and want to get
them as cheap and quick as a reglar print, without fiddling in photoshop.
As long as these algorithms happen in film characteristic or film density
type spaces, it will prevent open system digital workflow. Same goes for
operator adjustments in fixed exposure sitations like mass portrait or
catalog work, needs to be in a non film space. Enabling open system CMS
was a step in this direction, enablment of non-film related scene balance
is the next important step.

Here's the problems with imagining science at the Colduck company. There
are a couple of groups like compression technology that operate fine. But
in general there are politics as follows that prevent science from
happening:

a) Old Kodak Rochester media attempts to defeat any work being done that
will enable open system digital workflows, these people were very much
against ICC www.color.org and an open digital color space like CIELAB, and
were dragged there kicking and screaming. Most previous Kodak systems like
Premier, PhotoCD, Cineon, etc were closed systems tied tightly to film
characteristics, like film density, thus disabling digital capture input,
while also disabling any other kind of open system digital input. This
attitude is very alive and well, and is in fact an overall stalling
strategy.

b) internal competition, the imagining science division is very consumer
business oriented, whereas professional/graphics/printing/motion-picture
etc. keep their own technical groups. This leads to some interesting
internal politics, such as PhotoCD turning into a professional product and
consumer starting another PrintCD product, not to mention the whole damage
control fiasco when the graphics oriented group out of Boston started
participating in a multi-company color consoritum, www.color.org. The
imagining science division, is a political front for consumer related
programs. This Old Kodak media front is always trying to be keepers of
secrets, even to the point of keeping them from other departments in the
company, and always avoiding enabling open system digital workflow. Makes
for some real good stalling, avoidance and filibustering tpye politics
within what is supposed to be a science division. Lots of duplication of
effort. There is no congruent overall company effort to make technologies
that are professionally oriented and can be watered down for consumer
apps. What most frequently happens, is consumer groups will lock
themselves behind cipher locks and have closed/secret programs where
everyone has to have badge (like the APS program and the Photo CD
program), then let professional oriented groups in just in time to try and
figure out how they can hack consumer quality products for professional
use, ala PhotoCD, or can the whole idea like professional APS. There is a
facade of architecture effort, but the people pushing the architecture are
the consumer groups as defined above, and the same politics happens,
regardless of the amount of time making/graphs and charts that appear to
show otherwise. A very good example of this are fledgling busy-work type
attemtps OVER 10 YEARS to deliver good color processing to high volume
portrait market applications surrounding the use of scanners and LED and
CRT printers, while other programs like Picture CD seem to progress just
fine. See the following link for some excuses

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/printers/integratedDig
Sys/cms.shtml

This program has literally been in progress for 10 years, and Old Kodak
stalling technques are why it is done yet., afraid that it will enable
digital capture. You can be assured that the above CMS solution will be
tied tightly to film characteristcs, like the density at which the film
prints on the paper, like Premier, PhotoCD, and Cineon, and will not allow
for adequate color processing of plain digital file input, or digital
capture. Marking the success of the above name closed system proprietary
type products, you can expect similiar customer penetration. There were a
lot of people that shipped their PhotoCD workstations back to Kodak and
told them to go to hell, including Qualex, the old Kodak processing labs
they had to disassociate due to monopoly claims.

3) Typical big company stuff goes on, plenty of time spent on admin, etc.
at least one level of unneeded managment in every dept. Lots of work and
time spent on developing forms for work requests, etc.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

Dante Stella <da...@umich.edu> said:

>
>I know this may be off the digital workflow theme, but do you know what is
>going on with Verichrome Pan? It is starting to suspiciously disappear
>from Kodak literature and the web site. If not, do you know someone who
>would? I have now gotten different stories from EK, my local dealer, and
>various people on the NGs.

The only thing I know about black and white media, is that all film/paper
models should be turned into ICC www.color.org color profiles that you
could use in photoshop/photopaint. So if you scan an image, or capture an
image with a digital camera, you could then apply a ICC filter for your
input device, then apply an ICC special effect filter and get a particular
or popular B&W look. So if your are used to Verichrome Pan look, you
couldl use a digital camera and get the same look. This is very do-able,
all you really need are sensitomtry and print through curves since its
black and white, any photo oriented university should be able to assist a
digital camera company in doing this. You can add any toning coilor you
want in an image editor. Don't hold your breath waiting to see Colduck do
it, the resources are not there. Lots of managers, administrators, soap
opera types, marketing wannabees and country clubbers though.

You might call 716-724-4000, and ask for Sylvia Zwadski, or Dick Dickerson
about B&W.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

TEC...@photo-rescue.com (TEC...@photo-rescue.com) said:

>I want to know.

What do you want to know, and how bad to you want to know it? I could draw
a pretty good org chart of technical resources on both media and digital
R&D. Number of people working on what projects, number of people having
certain skills, what resources are really available, what technologies are
in research type stages, in development stages, what technologies are
there but being shelved/stalled, etc, associate actual names with
technologies, identify real skilled people and MVPs for headhunters. Along
with being able to do many of these skills myslef. Theoretically, I'd have
to charge you about $125K for a full vulcan mind meld. I might give up a
couple pieces of information to show I am serious, have anything
particular in mind?

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

"schub" <sc...@post.tele.dk> said:

>Hi Is it possiple to make a photo cd that´s playable in a Phillips cdi
player
>In Corel Photopaint and Adobe photoshop it is only possible to open images
>Does anyone know how to save them as pcd images
>

This is very old news, but I'm in the mood for a rant anyway.

The short answer is that they used to market a software called Build-it
for Solaris and maybe MacOS for around $.5-1K that would write a PCD
format file (image pac), to Kodak proprietray Portfolio CDs that costed
$10-20. Might even find someone that still does a business using this
stuff that can write digital files to a player compatible CD. Call
716-724-4000 and ask for Tim MAthers.

This file format, the idea of accessing what resolution you need, storing
in colorimteric space designed to hold full range, and full film captue
resolution, were good ideas. Along with some very good scanners. Good
technology, stupid closed system approach, and a couple years early.

The idea all along was to enable film as a higher quality digital input
media, to thwart digital capture. So you have to use film scans to use the
technology, you have to use $100-$150K of only Kodak equipment/software,
and ofcourse they tied it to only Kodak CDs, and high priced $10-20
branded ones at that. They gave into the CD media folks for Portfolio and
Build-it. About as big of a closed proprietary system as you could have
ever dreamed of. Lots of fun when Corel started burning CD image pacs to
non Kodak CDs and selling them. Lots of fun when $100-$150K workstation
owners shipped them back. Lots of fun when the company eventually
abandoned this appraoched for smaller jpeg rgb files on Picture CD or
Picture Disk. Should have learned a lesson about closed proprietary
systems, but haven't. Still a reasonable high volume commercially oriented
system, workflow is wrong for many other apps. Won't see many improvements
over what's there, no allocated resources, maybe you will see new CD
labels. So yes, you can write a .pcd format file to use in your player.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

TEC...@photo-rescue.com (TEC...@photo-rescue.com) attmepted to troll me
and now he is in for the rant of his life:

>"Hi Jim! "

That's Mr. Mulch, to you.

>>What you are running into is a clear hole in this market. Where do I take
>>a digital image for a good print? Most digital minilab setups today and
>>point of sale type operations seem to use dye-sub.
>
>Not mine.. it uses a silver halide based digital printer that beats
>dye sub print hands down.
>

I didn't say AgX digital output wasn't better than dye-sub. What I said
was most walk-up type systems that a consumer or photographer can take
some digital files are dye-sub. Most digital AgX are high volume
mass-commercial-largeformat, or mass portrait oriented and don't want to
bother with little walk-up business. Maybe some do, but its not what the
system was designed for. There is not a good walk-up digital output minlab
or portrait system. Maybe a Sienna printer. But otherwise if you are
calling me a spammer, you are going to have to be specific.

>>Film companies are stalling systems like this cause it leads down the
>>path
>>to where a reglar picture taker can use a digital camera and get good
>>prints.
>
>Au Contraire, James. At least four of the largest film manufacturers
>in the world are actively promoting digital imaging and printing from
>digital cameras. (Kodak, Fuji, Agfa and Konica. Between them, they
>account for about 95% of the world's film purchases .. and all of them
>offer digital equipment.)
>

You are clearly trolling.

Kodak has a reactionary strategy with digital cameras. They will always be
second on the market .They have the technology well ahead of when its
released, and stall as long as they can. In fact there are plenty of
arguments every time they come out with a better/cheaper chip.

>>With your existing inkjet printer, You can overcome the fading on the
>>inkjet prints, by taking them to a lab and having them laminated, in this
>>case you wouldn't even need to use the expensive photo paper, you get the
>>same degree of glossy-ness, and range from the lamination.. If you
>>laminate plain paper inkjet or electrophotographic prints, using the
>>right
>>color processing, www.color.org, you can do well enough to scare silver
>>halide photographic media folks any day. Lamination solves a lot of
>>problems, in a lot of places.
>
>I don't agree on this. To me, a laminated inkjet print just looks like
>a laminated inkjet print. I'll grant you that it DOES solve some
>problems .. but making an inkjet print look like a silver halide print
>isn't one of them. (At least not to people with eyes..)
>

bullshit, I can make a laminated inkjet or electrohphotographiuc print
that comes close enough to photo in all aspects that photo people don't
want you to see them. Want to wager some cash on this?

>I like the fact that laminating keeps the prints from running from
>water exposure, but I seldom run my prints under the faucet, so this
>isn't really an issue. I also appreciate the fact that laminating can
>help stop fading, if this is really fact. (I've laminated a few
>prints, but too recently to tell if it really stops fading or not)
>
>
>>If someone like a digital camera or electrophotographic or inkjet printer
>>company is interested in enabling digital workflows, I am available for
>>consultation. I am particularly committed to enablement of digital
>>capture
>>and workflow in the mass portrait markets, school pictures, etc.
>
>I know this is English, cause I could read all the words.. but I
>haven't a clue what it means. Could you translate for us idjits?
>

I am dedicating some portion of my life to destroying AgX.

>> So if you have a digital portrait system, and want to fiddle around
>> with how to tack
>>on a digital camera,
>
> .. er.. excuse me if I sound stoopid .. but why would someone have a
>digital portrait system without a digital camera?
>

Look at this links, no digital capture allowed.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/printers/integratedDig
Sys/integratedDigSys.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/printers/integratedDig
Sys/cms.shtml

You may say that they can accept digital files, well my repsonse is the
color implemtation is so closed system and film cahracteristic dependent
that you will need to fiddle in photoshop to get a good true print.
Exposure correction is done only in film cahracteristic dependent color
spaces.

>
>> I could also be easily convinced not to give such advice
>
>Why would anyone do that?
>

I just threw that in as a zinger.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

"schub" <sc...@post.tele.dk> said:

You might try asking in comp.publish.cdrom.hardware,
comp.publish.cdrom.software, and comp.publish.cdrom.multimedia.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

Lonely Boy <lonel...@geocities.com> said:

>Are you an ex-Kodak employee?

I'm an Imagining Industry Consultant, I'm an Imagining Science and
Imagining Systems Consultant, and every once in awhile, a Usenet
Performance Artist. Why do you ask?

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

jumpers...@my-deja.com said:

>Go Go my man Put the fist up they Kodak and twist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are good hardworking and opressed technical people there, but too
much FAT. But here is a couple examples of Kodak FAT.

a) Kodak Office, nothing more needs said, lots of "soap opera" jobs.

b) Fred Keong, building 69, Kodak Park, research division. After strating
a successful run for local political office in the Town of Greece, he was
granted a private office, with the view of a window. While these were
normally relegated for managers, while other technical peoplle in his
group, including Giorgianni, were sharing offices and sitting in cubicles.
Fred was also put on gravy duty. He sucked up some gravy duty of a
technical project that I had, in which I did not have time to deny him his
pigging, since I had better things to do. Usually you have to progress in
development from research to be a marketing wannabee, this was not the
case. Some clear abuse.

c) Same kind of strory with Don Eggleston, political office in Greece,
gives him gravy work at Kodak R&D. Some clear abuse.

d) Fred Fant, building 6, goes to meeetings all day and has other people
prepare data for him. Clear case of old Kodak chronie, acting like a
manufactuting critical resource.

e) one extra level of unnecessary admin in R&D at group leader level

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

le...@lime.org (lemonade) said:

>Maybe you could shed light on something for us: when I heard VPS was
>cancelled,

wrong, not cancelled. The old timers made this one so well, the only
replacement strategy is to HOPE customers will swtich to the new films,
has somewhere around 90% of US portrait market. VPS still requires
formaldehyde processing, and has the biggest slug of silver (except for
VID) around, 1000mg/sqft. 2-3 times as much as all newer films, flies in
the face all environmental bleach/fix processing efforts. In the late 80's
and early 90's the managers of this film signed an internal statement that
they would change the formaldehyde capability in this film by 1995. There
was a big program, spent $10M plus, only to shelve the film formula,
because flesh tones are so critical, and marketing was scared, they tried
to say that it would require to much systme work, they lied. VPS has a
very good portrait look. I can capture this look and make a digital camera
spit out the same thing, creating an ICC color profile, www.color.org,
that converts digitalCameraRGB--->VPSportraitRGB.

>I tried mightily to find out from Kodak about the image
>stability of the replacements, Portra. I couldn't get anywhere, but
>eventually a colleague got an explicit answer from Thom Bell: "After
>exposure, after processing, dark keeping of our new Portra films having
>better stability in both the magenta and cyan layer with the yellow layer
>about the same as VPS." This is quite amazing, since it applies to all
>Portras and makes the Portra 400's the only ASA 400 colour print films
>with claimed extended image permanence, in marked contrast to NPH. Yet
while
>the data sheet for VPS touts the extended image permanence, the data
sheet for
>Portra makes absolutely no mention of it.

There were only two real advancements in image stability for color neg
film in the last 2 decades. Stop using 114BR cyan coupler having problems
with leuco in films like VPL, and removal of 136MD coupler requiring
formadelhyde processing in consumer films. Everything else, is not all the
much different, if not worse, you'll get plenty of lip service on this,
but consider accuracy of ability to test this factor, you can be assured I
am right. The new lines of professional films, to some degree or another
are all coat-outs of consumer films, they take consumer emulsions and
dispersions, and tweak them a bit for professional use. Back-assward,
ought to be watering down professional technoplogy for consumers. Some
films like Ektapress, are the exact same thinsg as consumer films, except
some contrived keeping factors have been derived, for a little bit of
minor on-line caoting machine adjustment, not a formula change, and to
justify keeping them in a freezer and calling them professional. Might as
well by private label if you are going to buy Ektapress.

>Why do they want to hide this
>information?

avoidance strategy

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

Here's a small xample, many more to follow. If you work at Kodak, you
might want to schedule a 1:1 with each of the followng people, and get an
idea of their sincerity and personality yourslef, if you want to start
getting at where Kodak fat is really located.

a) Fred Keong (maybe spelled koeng), building 69, Kodak Park, research
division. After strating
a successful run for local political office in the Town of Greece, he was
granted a private office, with the view of a window. While these were
normally relegated for managers. All Other non-management technical
peoplle in his
group, including Giorgianni, were sharing offices and sitting in cubicles.
Fred was also put on gravy duty. He sucked up some gravy duty of a
technical project that I had, in which I did not have time to deny him his
pigging, since I had better things to do. Usually you have to progress into
development from research to be a marketing wannabee, this was not the
case. Some clear abuse.

b) Same kind of strory with Don Eggleston, political office in Town of
Greece,
gives him gravy work and do-nothing positions at Kodak R&D. Some clear
abuse.

c) Fred Fant, building 6, Kodak Park, goes to meeetings all day and has
other people
prepare data for him. Clear case of old Kodak chronie, parading like a
manufactuting critical resource.

d) one extra level of unnecessary admin in R&D at group leader level

e) many more to follow

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

Tim Forcer <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk.nojunk> said:

>Taking into account print size and emulsion differences,
>today's 4*6 APS snapshot prints should show VASTLY less grain than 3.5*5
>prints from 35mm film of ten years ago.
>

You must be trolling. There has been little emulsion effieciency over the
last 10 years, after T-grains, except some people running around with
their heads cut off when Fuji exhibited and still has efficiency
speed/grain in their 400/800 speed products. Any emulsion effiency has
been traded off for lowering silver content, and that's what all future
plans are. So as AgX dies, it will die with Fuji having the official
speed/grain advantage.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

"Mr. N" <n...@notforreal.net> said:

>Whatever's going on, it's the most fun in many a year.

What some better fun? Ask Harold Worden about a little project he was in
charge of called Sushi in early 90's. If you had the slightest idea Worden
was an outsider, you are mistaken. Upon facing needs to clean up methylene
chloride pollution, Kodak started a little propoganda effort threatneing
to shut down acetate film base manufacturing in Rochester/US, and start
buying from Konica. Example of commitment to community and workers. So if
you think you are contributing to the American economy when you buy that
yellow box, as things stand now, you would be far from correct. Same sort
of bullshit with shutting down Elmgrove equipment/software plant. Same
sort of bullshit with consumer digital camera manuf and single use camera
manuf abroad, etc. All they are doing is milking the Kodak name on every
product they can, and depending on aloof consumer-ness to purchase.

I got plenty of good stories, digital ones too. Every new CCD chip program
that happens has to go through film management, ask Tim Tredwell,
716-724-4000. How about the 1-800-EIKONIX story?

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

"george kowalski" <georgek...@email.msn.com> said:

>I just developed a roll of APS Kodak 100 film, using Kodak's Premium
>Processing and all shot with an Elph Jr. No grain anywhere in the
>panoramic shots. Pictures crystal clear! Absolutely beautiful clarity!
Impressed
>everyone I showed them to. What am I doing wrong? Should I be using a
>cheaper camera? Cheaper processing? Should I be listening to all of you
>who never have used an APS camera but are authorities on the subject?
Tell
>me, where have I gone wrong?
>

My point is that there is an honesty in advertising issue. There is no
difference in the film used between APS and 35mm. I personally viewed
prints inside Kodak that showed grain comparisons between these 2 formats,
and if you look especially in blue sky type scenes, among other scenes, it
is grainier. Whether it will go the way of disk/110 or whether most prints
are acceptable is another question. My point here is that the original
intent of the Genesis Alpha program was position film as high quality
capture over digital, and this is how APS is marketed, advanced amatauer.
Kodak pulled a fast one and snuck in an another small format. higher
profit (35mm/26mm=40% more) system. This is very representative of a
milking strategy, as opposed to the original Genesis Alpha strategy, and
should be a notice that no further emulsion or film quality work is going
to be done. Only cost cutting and environmental programs like low silver
chloro films, peroxide bleaches, and high agitation, thin tank impingment
type processes.. A have a distaste for mass marketing, but nothing is
worse than mass marketing that insults my intelligence. Great way to form
a relationship with customers.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

"Alex D. Hemsath" <hem...@owlnet.rice.edu> said:

>> >Why do they want to hide this
>> >information?
>>
>> avoidance strategy
>
>I can only imagine (that's "imagine", as in what I do with my brain, as
>opposed
>to "image", what I do with an "imaging system") that the reason you were
>fired
>from whatever company fired you was because of your complete lack of
>communication skills.
>

Its a common practice at Old Kodak to brand dissidents personell records
with "lack of communication skills". Prevents advancement in the company
and ability to swtich jobs in the company. If you want to get at some fat
sucking old kodakers, grab a pile of performance appraisals, and look for
this type of labeling and then ask the employee for their side of the
story. Too bad many won't answer honestly since they have to go back and
work for the fat suckers after your interview. I ran into this labeling
many times and with the help of compassionate right thinking people went
on to play a leading role in many projects that made significant impact
on both chemical and digital imagining sides of the business. Supported
both sides of the business flying all around the world as a represnetative
to customers and business partners. Representing the compnay at trade
shows like PMA,Photokina,Drupa,etc. All the while not knowing how to
communicate with people. So if you consider "lack of communication skills"
to mean failure to play ball with people who would rather use the company
to promote themselves or their own political agendas, as opposed to doing
the right thing, then I have "lack of communication skills" . I have also
found a good way to avoid this labeling is if they give you a place on the
appraisal for your comments, to write youir disagreement in their, they
will often reconsider since this throws up a flag, worked once for me, I
got one higher appraisal point by standing up to them but did not shake
the label, not a real solution to this overall abuse of the personell
system, or old kodak fat. Might want to take a look at personell
altogether, I know of instances where whole families are able to get all
of their sons employed at Kodak, even while all the layoffs are happening,
while their neighbor's sons and people layed off have to work at
McDonalds, if they are lucky. There are some factors other than ability to
do the job that are being considered. Then again, I am the type of person
that believes the University of Rochester and other poltical fronts
purposely drove George Eastman to commit suicide in order to take over his
business. Sad state of historical affairs that such an honest business and
excellent relationship with employees and customers was turned into a
pigging field for all the world to see. A disgrace to America.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

le...@lime.org (lemonade) said:

>> I am dedicating some portion of my life to destroying AgX.
>
>Why?
>

see message ID <1999073115000...@uni.nowhere.to>

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

le...@lime.org (lemonade) said:

>> >Maybe you could shed light on something for us: when I heard VPS was
>> >cancelled,
>>
>> wrong, not cancelled. The old timers made this one so well, the only
>> replacement strategy is to HOPE customers will swtich to the new films,
>> has somewhere around 90% of US portrait market. VPS still requires
>> formaldehyde processing, and has the biggest slug of silver (except for
>> VID) around, 1000mg/sqft. 2-3 times as much as all newer films, flies in
>> the face all environmental bleach/fix processing efforts. In the late
>> 80's
>> and early 90's the managers of this film signed an internal statement
>> that
>> they would change the formaldehyde capability in this film by 1995.
>> There
>> was a big program, spent $10M plus, only to shelve the film formula,
>> because flesh tones are so critical, and marketing was scared, they
>> tried
>> to say that it would require to much systme work, they lied. VPS has a
>
>
>Hmm, this is all really interesting. I understand that formaldehyde is
>evolved during the processing of VPS, and that the use of formaldehyde
>preservatives is one reason it needs to be refrigerated,

formaldehyde processing prevents magenta dye fade, refrigeration prevents
loss of silver halide activity and stain

>but what I don't
>understand is that it is still C-41: when I hand it in to a mini-lab, as
>I've done, I can't imagine they do anything special to accomodate my one
>roll of VPS once in a blue moon: is it just that they get formaldehyde
>stinking up the place and the technicians suffer? ... or does this mean a
>mini-lab can't process it properly?
>

the problems you run into with minilabs are

1) low voulme --> potential bad developer ---> potential bad color
crossovers
2) reduced bleach/fix cycles, retained chemicals, potential for bad imaeg
stability, problesm with printing using analyzers
3) lack of washes, image stability implications
4) most use a version of low formaldehyde stabilizer that smells like fish

>By the way, one can see from the physical aspects of VPS (cartridge, film
>can, or paper backing and tape) that it is made in a different, older
>plant
>from the newer emulsions... is this the plant where the good guys are? And
>when you say VPS is not cancelled...??? Colduck says they have stopped all
>production. ???
>

They are made at the same facilities/machines. They are just bluffing
saying they are going to cancel it, the portrait/wedding market won't let
them get away with it. Expect some real fun if they ever do.
>
>> There were only two real advancements in image stability for color neg
>> film in the last 2 decades. Stop using 114BR cyan coupler having
>> problems
>> with leuco in films like VPL, and removal of 136MD coupler requiring
>> formadelhyde processing in consumer films. Everything else, is not all
>> the
>> much different, if not worse, you'll get plenty of lip service on this,
>> but consider accuracy of ability to test this factor, you can be
>> assured I
>> am right. The new lines of professional films, to some degree or another
>
>So with regard to permanence, films such as NPS, VPS and Portra are, I
>presume, all the same for not using these couplers; while NPH, NHG, Gold,
>whatever, are all the same for using them?
>

Of the above VPS only uses 136MD any more, but this is perfectly fine if
stabilized with formaldehyde, and is at least as good as the others for
keeping. Fuji has some intresting polymer stuff happening in their magenta
couplers. For exact comparisons you might call Stan Anderson at
716-724-4000, or ask Henry Wilhelm. The newer films aren't as good in some
aspects.

There are other factors with newer films such as the use of DIR and DIAR
couplers for higher color that have their own image stability issues.
Image stability has been traded off for high color saturation.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

Elijah Ridge <Eli...@mindspring.com> said:

>Since you seem to have an opinion on some of the iner workings of an old
>company, what is your read on EK and PV.
>

maybe partnership against SONY, the more people that use Kodak CCD chips,
the more they can control the speed at which a $50 digital camera hits the
market. Picture network type approaches are clealry reactionary to
inevaitable market, falls in line with "Taking Pcitures Further", closed
system, tight control, proprietrary system that enables AgX as output
media of choice. I persoanlly think a high volume 4x6 electrphotographic
printer that laminates ought to be stuck on the end of these systems, but
thats just my opinion.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

curt...@aol.com (CurtJDahl) said:

>The photos I created in January, 1999 using genuine Epson paper and ink
>now
>show prohibitive deterioration and fading (very yellowish). Any
>suggestions
>for increased longevity? Using PhotoEx printer if that matters.

Take them to a pro photo lab and have important ones laminated. In either
case, keeping them out of light will help. Another appraoch is to just
reprint ones that fade, since you always have the digital file. The key to
reprinting is to make sure your file is saved in a well defined color
space, www.color.org., then you should be able to get the same color
reproduction, within gamut, from another printer.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

"Daniel H Lauring" <dlaurin...@hotmail.com> said:

>Jeeeeesh, if you put 1/1000th as much effort into your job as you do these
>postings you'd be a billionaire.
>

I worked my fucking ass off for that company. 24 hour shifts were not
unccomon, and I did many 48-72 hour ones also. I sacrificed time in my
personal life with those who were dear to me, and I was treated as follows:

>Wake up and smell the coffee, Jimbo. The same could be said of nearly
>every
>large corporation....US, Japanese, European...etc. They all have huge
>inertia problems and cultural problems.
>

Maybe you think just because something has become common, that it is
acceptable, but I don't.

>You have to decide whether you want to play the game and be successful
>within the parameters of the company...or step outside.
>

The parameters of this company need investigated. They are not set up such
that people who work hard or have technical skills can be assured that
there labors will be rewarded. Moreso, they have to work under constant
fear, while soap opera management and marketing folks pig it up off their
labors, and at the expense of stockholders and customers. A good example
is how they sent people on a boondoggle to the Woddstock festival to take
pictures, while other poeple were laid off, this is just great. They could
have easily just given some film to photographers.

>Wining about some the size of some guys office isn't going to get you
>anywhere....except possibly fired or facing serious litigation.
>

Someone who gets a private office in a public company, because they hold
political office in the town in which the company resides, is pigging off
the labors of workers, stockholders and customers.

Matlock, are you listening to this?

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

Every time Kodak Building 81 Sensor Research comes out with or starts a
new CCD chip program that scares the film people, the whole company goes
into several months of meetings re-evaluating pariticipation strategy in
CCD chips business. All CCD chips must be approved by film managers. You
can ask Tim Tredwell, 716-724-4000. Alll CCD chips are held back until
SONY releases an equiv one, purposely reactionary strategy. Similiar with
digital cameras using the chips, always second on market.

Now for a technical quality issue: NOISE. Kodak CCD chips for cameras use
something called a Bayer pattern in the filter, so that red green and blue
light can be simultaneously captured one chip instead of 3. The pattern is
a matrix of sorts, and has less blue sensitive areas than green and red,
there is some reasonable scientific reasons why that is good. PROBLEM IS,
when you capture pictures containing areas of high detail, LIKE HAIR IN A
PORTRAIT, you see NOISE, especially if you apply any high order color
models such as found on www.color.org neccesary to render good color onto
hard copy prints. This basically makes these useless for professional
portrait apps. There needs to be some work on a better pattrening. MAYBE,
THEORETICALLY, IS it possible that someone specifically built the Bayer
pattern such that it imparted noise into the system to prevent it from
being used in mass portrait apps? Impossible? Technically, no. Is the
motivation there to do this, yes. One can only assume SONY will be the
only CCD manuf to correct this problem.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

TEC...@photo-rescue.com (TEC...@photo-rescue.com) said:

>Kodak started sending out bulletins about 8-10 years ago telling
>minilabs that they should no longer accept VPS films for processing,
>but there wasn't much of an explanation that I can recall. In fact, I
>seem to remember that it had something to do with the short bleaching
>time of the more current (at that time) film processors, but that
>could be wrong. It has been a while since I saw the memo.
>

The technical reasons stated for not using minilabs were a) low
utilization developers result in color crossovers, b)low bleach/fix/wash
result in retained chemicals bad for image stability and printing using
analyzers. A stronger statement was made for Vericolor Slide film, since
they cut out saftey factor in the stabilizer such that enough formaldehyde
was there for VPS, but not slide. VPL was still around then too.

Politics on this was interesting.

Equipment: system 20 minilab, one of Kodak's own manuf minilabs. Had a 90
degree turn in the paper transport path, after the print was processed and
cut. Given high humidity summers resulted in gazillions of jams all around
the world, especaiilaly in Jamacia, or other nice places to travel to.
Equipment people made a big campaign to try and say the media poeople
changed the paper formula. Enough political bullshit happened that they
stopped making minilabs altogether. Sad state of affairs that Kodak can't
make a competetive processor.

System: The comsumer market folk's policy by late 80's was to go into cash
cow milking mode. No more quality improvements, no more emulsion
efficiency improvements, just lower silver cost cutting programs
masquarading under the auspices of environmental causes. VPS has
1000mg/sqft of silver, they lowered the consumer films, inlcuding 400
speed, down to the 300-400 level, needing far less bleach/fix etc, making
minilabs cycles viable. Professional market folks at that time still had
intent to improve silver halide materials quality. For years these
strategies clashed, and in the end consumer money won, and the
professional strategic planners had to put their tales between their legs,
and take new lower advancement potential jobs. This is very evident in the
fact that all new professional films are either re-boxed consumer films
(Ektapress), or ones that the professionals guys took what films they were
given to work with in the consumer controlled film R&D, and optimizing
color matrices/interimage a little. They will try to tell you Pro 100 was
a cooperative effort, yawn. What's next? Consumer R&D is pushing very low
silver choloride emulsion films, to be used with peroxide bleaches, and
high agitation impingement processors. Again, lower silver means more
profit, hiding under the auspices of environmental benefits. VPS still
flies in the face of all these efforts, but they just can't do the same
portrait loook with consumer films that contain all the dir/diar couplers,
interimage and high color saturation. There is also the point that VPS
isn't broken, in quality terms.

>You're right.. your minilab does nothing different when you give them
>a roll of VPS. For that matter, neither do most pro labs.
>

a lab with good voulme will most likely have a better developer. full
cycle gives you washes, etc, and therotically better image stability. dip
and dunk processors reduce physical defects, as long as the film doesn't
dip and stay dunked

>I've heard a few times that VPS requires formaldehyde in the
>stabilizer stage to properly process the film. Years ago many labs
>started changing over to formalin/glycol stabilizers (still a
>formaldehyde derivative) and then to formaldehyde free stabilizers.
>This was around the same time that Kodak recommended that minilabs no
>longer process the film. I don't know that any of this is true, nor
>am I that sure about my memory of how the events occurred. It has been
>several years and I'm sure I've accumulated some misinformation along
>the way.

they cut the formaldehdye in half, and started selling a blocked
formalhyde in C-41 and E-6. Testing showed this was sufficent for VPS, but
borderline for Vericolor Slide. Some applications like long roll mass
portrait where film is just thrown away anyway, has started to use a final
rinse with no formaldehyde.

>With the couplers mentioned being removed from the films (thanks, I
>never knew the names of them or just how this worked) this just makes
>life easier for the photo lab. Leuco caused lots of processing
>problems, but now it is virtually non-existant. (In fact, most labs
>don't even check for leuco cyan dye contamination anymore.. there were
>only a few off brand films that still had the couplers as of a few
>years ago and most <if not all> of them have dropped the couplers
>now.) Eliminating the 136MD means that we can safely get rid of
>formaldehyde stabilizers, since they are no longer necessary. This
>also makes life easier for the lab personell. Who knows what damage
>formaldehyde has already done. It might be another 20 years before we
>find out that formaldehyde was the 'asbestos' of the 80's all over
>again.

Could very well be. The data I have seen with the blocked formaldehyde
stabilizers out of the Kodak Health and Environmental Labs (Bob Cappel,
716-724-4000) is that these do not leave off significant vapors, under
normal operating conditions, or even in concentrated state.

Hi, I'm Jim Mulch, head of Imagining Science at the WestBoy Colduck
Company, I will try to answer your questions.

no...@nospam.org (J. Chapman) said:

>So how is it that they force it be only Kodak media? Is it the
>bar code on the cd?
>

I never really spent a lot of time figuring out how, but if I remember
there is a bar code or something on the inner ring of the disk. Might want
to ask on comp.publish.cdrom.hardware, comp.publish.cdrom.software, or
comp.publish.cdrom.multimedia. You could call 716-724-4000 and ask Frank
Nardozzi.

You know, I was going to break out my patriotism, and fly that bright blue
democratic working mans flag that my family has flown for generations. And
I was going to say that that we need to form a union between large
business owners, stockholders and skilled employees to rid our
corporations of the POMPOUS ELITIST CORPORATE CULTURE that has plagued
them into RIDICULOUS NON-INNOVATIVE MASS MARKETING MACHINES THAT RELY ON
THE STUPIDITY AND ALOOFNESS OF THEIR CUSTOMERS instead of making good
products. I was going to say these large corporations provide NO REAL
VALUE TO LONG TERM INVESTORS, or provide NO MEANS FOR WORKING PEOPLE TO
MAKE A LIVING and raise families. I was going to say they serve no purpose
except for PIGGING FIELDS for pompous elitist children of the priviledged.
You know, I was going to say I saw this first hand as I worked many years
in the 80's and 90's at EASTMAN KODAK, saw TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SKILLED
LABORERS LAYED OFF, all the while watching MANAGEMENT,ADMINISTRATION AND
MARKETING INCREASE IN NUMBERS over that same time. I was going to say that
management/administration and marketing was over 50% of the work force at
Kodak in the mid 80's and now it is even higher, while many FAMILIES HAVE
BEEN LAID TO WASTE. I was going to say if YOU NEED TO CUT FAT, you don't
ask the fat (management/administration and marketing) to cut itself,
because all it will do is continue to ELIMINATING SKILL WORKERS AND
LABORERS, resulting in nothing but A HIGHER FAT PERCENTAGE THAN EVER and a
lower innovation potential, as clearly evident at Kodak and clearly
evident in the ****SEESAW GO NOWHERE TREND OF KODAK STOCK OVER THE LAST
COUPLE DECADES****. This does nothing but feed SHORT TERM TRADERS, at
best, perhaps that's the intent, INSIDER TRADING BY HIGHER UPS, and A LAND
OF ELITIST PIGGING. I was going to say this same POMPOUS ELITIS CULTURE
not only makes a MOCKERY OF CAPITALISM, but makes a MOCKERY OF WORKING
PEOPLE by calling them trailer trash, whoring them as consumers to other
countries, shipping their manufacturing jobs oversees for stock profits in
overseas companies, sitting in their upper class seats and complaining
about spending a little money on social programs for those that need them,
not buying our American products, and taking away the welfare safety net
of the poor. I was going to say these same lousy pompous elitists have
infested our democratic working man's party and have done things far worse
than Reagan had ever dreamed of. They cancelled welfare, they have broke
unions, they have sold out manufacturing jobs, they have traded our
freedom for fear in terms of gun control and early detection thought
policing and profiling techniques that allow police the right to arrest
you before you have done anything wrong just because you are poor and
working class, and might just be hungry enough to steal a loaf of bread. I
was going to say they have done more to bring about tiered societies
described in 1984 and Brave New World than Reagan than the right wing
could have ever dreamed of doing. I was going to say America is no longer
considered the land of the free, but THE LAND OF ELITIST PIGGING, if I
judge from my employment at Kodak. But I fear it is too late.

Your pompousness and elitist arrogance have lead you to believe you can
start a war in the backyard of a country with nuclear weapons. Your
pompousness and elitist arrogance have lead you to believe it is in your
best interest to destroy Yugoslavia who partnered and fought side by side
with us in World War II. Your pompousness and elitist arrogance has lead
you to believe that sticking your nose in age old religous seperatism was
the right thing to do, instead of waiting for them to come around to the
ideals of freedom. Your pompousness and elitist arrogance leads you to
believe destroying a whole country leads the current generation on either
side of this conflict, or further generations, any better hope than to
wait for freedom to sink in. Your pompousness and elitist arrogance leads
you to believe that we do not know you have ulterior motives in this war,
in order to get more markets to exploit. Your pompousness and elitist
arrogance have risked our lives by making war in Russia's backyard. Your
pompousness and elitist arrogance has risked our lives by portraying the
Russia president as a buffoon on television when he said to get out of
Yugoslavia. Your pompousness and elitist arrogance led you to believe you
could uproot the Russian president through dissidents in his Congress.
Your pompousness and elitist arrogance led you to blow up the Chinese
embassy and add another nuclear power interest to this war. Your
pompousness and elitist arrogance led you to make light of Russia sending
in ground troups to Kosovo, immediately when our troops started to enter.
Your pompousness and elitist arrogance will bring an end to this world, if
we do not put an end to you now. And you republicans can shut the fuck up
too, because you were complaining we weren't doing enough by not sending
our poor and working class sons to die in a ground war.

Yes, We are tired of scrimping and saving in vain, while we watch you pig
it up off our labors. We are tired of seeing the hopelessness this society
provides our children, while yours go freely through elite schooling and
on to pompous elitist soap opera jobs you have prepared for them. We are
tired of living in city homes of ill repair and sleeping on mattresses on
the floor and feeling lucky we have one meal of macaroni and cheese for
dinner, while we watch you live in expensive houses and expensive cars,
and eating expensive food, and wasting more than we could ever afford. We
are tired, but you know what, your pompousness and elitist attitudes have
risked all our lives, and this is where the story ends. These issues go
far beyond race, color, creed, national original, or religous affiliation.
Return to us our working man's democratic party. Return to us the ideals
of America, make partnerships between business owners, stockholders and
unions of workers to strive for profits, opportunities for young families,
and to rid our country of pompousness and elitist arrogance of corporate
culture, the eltitist can afford to buy a conservative home and live off
their savinsg for a generation or so, in order to accomplish this. And for
God's sake, get the fuck out of Yugoslavia before you get us all killed,
those guys still have atomic bombs pointed at us.

0 new messages