| |
World's earliest photo set to make £500,000 at auction
----------------- See:
http://www.optics.arizona.edu/nofziger/UNVR195a/Class9/WEPhoto.htm

Story filed: 11:52 Thursday 17th
January 2002 |
|
The grainy image of
a boy leading a horse was taken by French photographic pioneer
Joseph Niepce in 1825.
The 6in by 4in
photo is due to be auctioned by Sotheby's in Paris.
Philippe Garner of
Sotheby's said: "This image and its accompanying correspondence
oblige us to rewrite those crucial first stages of the history of
photography."
It was previously
thought he produced the first permanent photograph in 1826.
Niepce created his
photo of an engraving using a technique called heliography, where
light is used to project an image on to a photo-sensitive surface.
The photo lay
undiscovered in a French collection until recently without its
significance being realized. |
| |
Photograph by
Joseph Nicéphore Niepce 1827
This was Regarded to be the first known photograph (1827) until
the above mentioned.
| |
 |
| |
Harold Eugene
Edgerton
1931
Develops
and perfects the stroboscope for use in both
ultra-high-speed and still (or stop-motion) photography.
This discovery is announced in the May issue of Electrical
Engineering. Forms partnership with former student Kenneth
J. Germeshausen, an MIT research affiliate, to develop the
stroboscope for various applications. Receives D. Sc. in
electrical engineering from MIT.
See
Biography Timeline |
| |
|
 |
| George
Eastman (second from left) at
a gathering associated with the Edison Scholarship in
1929. The man on the left is identified as Lewis Perry.
The others (from left) are Charles Lindbergh, Thomas
Edison, Henry Ford, and MIT president Samuel Stratton.
See More |
Known worldwide
for his work in photographic science and as an authority on
complex color photography processing, Dr. C.E. Kenneth Mees
devoted his life to the establishment of the science of
photography. From the laboratories under Mees' direction came
outstanding research achievements including home movies,
panchromatic films and new processes of color photography.
At University
College, London, Mees and Samuel Sheppard worked together on the
theory of the photographic process. Their theses, published as
a book, Investigations on the Theory of the Photographic
Process, was known to photographic workers as "Sheppard &
Mees."
From 1906 through
1912, Mees worked for Wratten & Wainwright, Ltd. While there,
he manufactured a successful series of panchromatic plates,
light filters and darkroom safelights. In 1912 he went to work
for Eastman Kodak Company where he organized and directed the
research laboratory. He later became Director of Research and
Development for Kodak.
He also helped to
found several other departments including the first school of
aerial photography; a synthetic organic chemistry department;
and a photographic apparatus department.
He was the author of
over 150 publications and received many photographic and
scientific honors. Included among those are the Progress Medal
of the Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain; the Henry
Draper Medal of the National Academy of Sciences; and the
Franklin Medal. Mees was a Fellow in the Royal Photographic
Society; and Honorary Fellow in the Photographic Society of
America; and an Honorary Master of Photography from the
Photographers' Association of America.
See:
http://www.iphf.org/inductees/cmees.html
Kodak to cease black and white paper-making
AP , Rochester,
New York
Friday, Jun 17, 2005,Page 12
Ending a
century-old tradition, Eastman Kodak Co will soon stop making
black-and-white photographic paper, a niche product for fine-art
photographers and hobbyists that is rapidly being supplanted by
digital-imaging systems.
Kodak said
Wednesday it will discontinue production of the paper, specially
designed for black-and-white film, at the end of this year. But
the world's biggest film manufacturer will continue to make
black-and-white film and chemicals for processing.
"It's a shame to
see it go," said Bill Schiffner, editor of Imaging Business
magazine in Melville, New York. "Digital has done a lot of good
things for the industry but it's done some bad things too. It's
making a lot of these processes obsolete."
The paper is
manufactured at a plant in Brazil. Kodak declined to specify how
many employees would be affected by the production shutdown,
which is part of a three-year overhaul to eliminate 12,000 to
15,000 jobs by 2007 and shrink the company's work force to
around 50,000.
As the industry
shifts rapidly from chemical-based to digital imaging, demand
for black-and-white paper is declining about 25 percent
annually, Kodak spokesman David Lanzillo said.
John Eoff, owner
of Photo-Lab Inc, said his 91-year-old shop in Schenectady, New
York, still sells "a fair amount" of black-and-white paper to
photography students and enthusiasts, while professional
photographers have mostly gone to digital printing systems
already.
"What we assumed
was going to happen is the traditional black-and-white paper
processing was going to remain more an art form than a
commodity," Eoff said. Other companies, led by Ilford Imaging of
Britain, still make paper and there will be demand for it, he
predicted.
In April, Kodak
posted a first-quarter loss of US$142 million, citing a steady
slide in revenues from film and other chemical-based businesses
and higher-than-expected costs to cover job cuts. This month, it
replaced its chief executive, Dan Carp, with Antonio Perez, who
a few years ago oversaw the rapid growth of Hewlett-Packard
Co.'s digital imaging business.
Kodak grew into
an icon on the strength of its traditional film, paper and
photofinishing businesses. It is now betting its future in
digital terrain -- from cameras, inkjet paper and online
photofinishing to photo kiosks and minilabs, X-ray systems and
commercial printers.
Ilford, the
largest maker of black-and-white photo paper, went into
bankruptcy last year, emerging this year after a management-led
buyout. Germany's AgfaPhoto GmbH filed for bankruptcy last
month.
Kodak's exit from
the business "doesn't surprise me" because many portrait and
wedding photographers "are switching over to digital," said
Christopher Chute, an analyst with market research firm IDC in
Framingham, Massachusetts.
|
|
Camera
Joseph Nicephore Niepce
The camera was invented by Joseph
Nicephore Niepce, a retired French army officer, who made the
world’s first true photograph of a scene. The camera was invented
in 1826 in St-Loup-de-Varennes, France.
Niepce’s camera 'Obscura' consisted of
two wooden boxes, one carrying a lens and the other a ground-glass
screen. The boxes were connected by bellows so that the distance
between the lend and screen could be varied. Also he invented an
iris diaphragm which could be adjusted to vary the size of the
aperture and thus sharpen the image. Also by using a sheet of
paper which had been sensitized with silver chloride as the
negative.
The invention of the camera has
developed dramatically over the years. Such development are making
the camera portable (developed first by Friedrich Risner, German
mathematician), improvement in the films, electronic flash
(invented in 1931 by Harold E Edgeron, American photographer),
colour photograph(taken in 1861 by English photographer Tomas
Sutton, also invented the single-lens reflex camera) and many
more.
Now days, the camera has been
improved so much that is portable, colour, zoom and many more
capability and also it had differ greatly in sizes as well.
Without the development of the
camera, we would not be able to take photographs of the past and
photographs for us to remember from. Without it we could not be
able to accurately record what has happened in the past. Also the
development of the still picture camera led to the development of
many other things such as motion pictures.
http://library.thinkquest.org/16541/eng/learn/library/content/camera.htm
Hendersonville
Camera Club, Hendersonville, NC meets at the Sammy Williams Center, corner of 3rd. Avenue & Justice
Street, Hendersonville, NC at 6:30 PM on the 4th. Tuesday of each month.
Come on by and pay us a visit! See
some of our work. Have a cup of coffee and pick up a photo tip or two. And visit
our website at:
www.cameraclubofhendersonville.com
Table of
Content
C.E.K. Mees Observatory
The University of Rochester's
C.E.K. Mees Observatory - devoted to research, teaching, and
public instruction.
The Observatory is named after
C. E. Kenneth Mees (1882-1960), longtime director of research at
Eastman Kodak, in honor of his pioneering work in the development
of sensitive photographic emulsions for use in astronomy.
The Rochester Institute of
Technology's Center for Imaging
Science is an active partner in the Observatory. RIT has
provided the facility's camera/imaging spectrograph, at the heart
of which is a state-of-the-art 512x512 CCD and a voltage-tunable
narrowband LCD filter. RIT is also investigating active-optical
approaches to image improvement at the Observatory.
The Observatory is named after
C. E. Kenneth Mees (1882-1960), longtime director of research at
Eastman Kodak, in honor of his pioneering work in the development
of sensitive photographic emulsions for use in astronomy. Its site
on Gannett Hill includes the birthplace, and later the summer
estate, of Frank E. Gannett (1876-1957), founder of the Gannett
Newspapers. After Mr. Gannett's passing the estate was donated to
the University of Rochester by his wife Caroline, for use as an
observatory site. The Gannett family summer house now provides
office space and sleeping quarters for the observers. The summit
area adjacent to the estate, on which the telescope building sits,
was ceded to UR by Ontario County.
The Observatory, the Gannett
House, and the beautiful grounds surrounding them, are maintained
by site superintendent Kurt Holmes, as they were by Kurt's father,
Gene Holmes.
Research
Though most of the astrophysical
research conducted by the faculty and graduate students of UR and
RIT involves large telescopes on high mountain sites or
in space, the Mees
Observatory is still used for astronomical research at visible
wavelengths. Recent projects have included investigation of the
Initial Mass Function of young stellar clusters (using photometry
and imaging spectroscopy) and looking for planets transiting
nearby stars.
http://spider.pas.rochester.edu/mainFrame/resources/Mees.html
A History of The Rochester, NY
Camera and Lens Companies
|
Not just in Western North Carolina - All over
the world !!!
Film fading fast
Posted: Sunday, Jan 22,
2006 - 11:41:08 am PST
By KRISTI ALBERTSON
The Daily Inter Lake, Montana
|
Local labs
increasing focus on digital photography
Film or no film
-- that's the question that has been revolutionizing photography
for the last decade.
Every year, more people choose the latter, causing a huge shift in
the way photo labs and camera stores do business. Earlier this
month, Nikon announced plans to discontinue almost all of its film
cameras to focus on digital models.
Local photo businesses aren't exempt from the change, either.
"Our roll
count has drastically gone down," said Kelley Hatfield, manager of
Burch's One Hour Photo Digital in the Blue Cow building on U.S.
93. "It's just amazing."
"As far as a camera store goes, they're phasing out an awful lot
of what we do," agreed Joel Brann, part owner of Photo Video Plus
in Kalispell.
Instead of rolls of film, people can bring in memory cards to have
photos printed. To accommodate these photographers, photo labs
must have the right equipment to meet the growing digital demand.
"The labs that are staying in business really have had to adjust,"
Brann said. "If they haven't adjusted by now, they're probably
going to go out of business."
Brann and others in the industry have adjusted by following the
rapidly changing trends in photography. This has included watching
the demand for slide film decrease dramatically.
"I would guess slides are down 80 percent probably," Brann said.
Sometimes the quickly shifting industry affects stores' big
purchases. About seven years ago, Brann and his partner Paul
Menssen bought machines to develop prints and write negatives to a
CD. Then, it was brand-new technology.
"All the equipment is basically out of date now," Brann said.
Vendors also have to offer more digital cameras. Photo Video Plus
sells about 30 digital cameras for every film camera, Brann said.
In December, they sold only four or five film cameras the whole
month, Brann said, bringing the ratio closer to 40 to 1.
Most people have switched to digital for the sake of convenience,
Brann said. Instead of developing an entire roll of film,
photographers can choose which pictures, if any, they want to
print.
"People are perceiving that digital is the way to go," he said.
The problem for photo labs is that at-home printing technology is
increasing as rapidly as the cameras.
"We thought it was kind of scary at first because you see
advertisements for printing your pictures at home," Hatfield said.
"But people found out quickly that it's way more expensive to
print them at home than to go to a photo lab."
This is because ink cartridges and special photo paper are so
expensive, she said.
"It's so easy to just come here," she said.
Brann believes the benefit in bringing photos to a lab is in the
quality.
"We can make a better print than you can at home," he said.
Hatfield agrees that quality is much better when customers bring
their memory cards to a lab. Labs use the same printer for digital
prints that they use when printing rolls of film, so the quality
is identical.
"Customers are just amazed," she said. "They say, 'Wow, it's a
real picture.'"
Those "real" pictures may still differ in quality from film
photos, as people continue to debate whether film cameras take
better pictures than digital.
Technique plays a large factor in this, Menssen said.
You can toss any image into a computer and fix it, he said, but an
underexposed or overexposed digital shot will still look poor.
"The digital shot that was exposed well and then printed well
looks very nice," he said.
"I think it's easier to take better pictures with digital," said
Burch's owner Bob Burch. "I guess my take is that with a good
quality camera, I've seen some pretty magnificent images.
"I think (digital) is a good thing from a picture-taking
standpoint."
Brann disagrees.
"Film is still better in my opinion," he said. "There will be
people who debate that."
Regardless of how good the shots are, there are more of them,
thanks to digital cameras.
"The neat thing about it, the good thing, is there are more
photographs being taken now than there were with just film," Brann
said.
More photographs doesn't necessarily mean more prints, however.
Because people can choose which photos they want printed, they are
more likely to pick only a few pictures or simply store those
pictures on their computers.
This is a trend that will continue with the increased popularity
of camera phones. Conversation is no longer the sole function of a
mobile phone. Now they can be used to listen to music, surf the
Internet and yes, take pictures.
"I assume that that'll be a pretty big player shortly," Menssen
said.
Right now, camera phones aren't making much impact on business, he
said, because the images they produce are of such a low resolution
that they don't print well.
Hatfield agrees.
"I haven't seen a good picture yet," she said.
This will not long be the case, though. Phones with chips of five
megapixels or greater -- enough to easily print a high-quality
8.5-by-11 inch photo on a home printer -- are available outside
the United States.
"We are not necessarily taking away from the ordinary digital
camera but making picture-taking an experience that more people
will do," said Camilla Gragg, communications manager with Nokia.
"More people have cell phones in their hands than they have
digital cameras.
"It's kind of opening it up to a broader audience. You might not
have your camera with you, but you are probably going to have your
cell phone."
Camera phone users tend to take "random" or "spur of the moment"
pictures, according to a study released by Fuji Photo Film U.S.A.
Inc. in September 2005.
All those random moments add up, and nearly half of the 400
camera-phone photographers surveyed wished they'd printed those
pictures. The study also said that people who did print them took
almost twice the number of photos as camera phone owners who
didn't print their pictures.
Even with digital's incessant increase, photo labs haven't quite
lived out their usefulness.
"We expect film to be around for a while," Menssen said. "(But) at
some point people won't be processing film anymore. I don't know
if that's two or three years away or 10 years away, but it will
happen. |
|
|
|
New Names for Old Companies
When, why, and how to change a
company's most valuable asset.
By Thomas Mucha
November 1, 2005
– Among the biggest problems facing
Kodak recently--and it has a ton of them--was what to do about a
name. Battered by declining revenues and a stock price hovering
near 20-year lows, Kodak had pinned its hopes on Ofoto, the
Internet-based photo-services firm it acquired in 2001, to
establish the company's relevance in a postfilm world. But that
raised an issue: If Ofoto was to become a key element of Kodak's
turnaround strategy, shouldn't the website feature the name of,
well, Kodak? "Do you spend tens of millions of dollars building
the Ofoto brand," Kodak VP for online services David Rich asks,
"or do you leverage the legacy of a hundred years of Kodak?"
After six months of study,
Kodak dropped the Ofoto name in March and redubbed the site the
Kodak EasyShare Gallery. Why the mouthful? EasyShare is the name
of Kodak's popular digital cameras, which today command an
industry-leading 22 percent share of the market. Likewise, the
company has shipped more than 2 million EasyShare-branded
printers since 2003. "EasyShare Gallery telegraphs the brand and
the services customers will receive," Rich explains. "It tested
well with our target."
Such naming dilemmas
have become increasingly common in American business: Corporate
name changes are up 12 percent since last year. Consider all the
companies that want to distance themselves from the taint of
Internet excess or corporate scandal. (Think of MarketWatch
dropping its ".com," or WorldCom changing its name back to MCI.)
Then fold in mergers and acquisitions. Last year more than 9,000
M&A deals were struck in the United States--the most since 2000
and a 50 percent jump from the previous year. Suddenly, renaming
has become a big priority for many companies.
The Name of the Game
Different
circumstances present different challenges. Start with mergers,
by far the leading trigger for corporate name changes. When one
company gobbles up another, executives face three choices:
Settle on one of the old names, combine the two names, or come
up with something entirely new. The decision usually comes down
to picking a name that best fits the strategic direction of the
combined entity. Sometimes the choice is easy, as in the case of
Atlanta-based ValuJet Airlines, which in 1997 adopted the name
of its merger partner, AirTran, as part of an effort to rebuild
passenger confidence following the 1996 crash of a ValuJet DC-9
in the Florida Everglades.
In less dramatic
cases, it's important to evaluate the relative strength of each
M&A partner's brand. "You do substantial quantitative research,"
says William Lozito of Minneapolis-based Strategic Name
Development. The survey techniques are rigorous, but the
questions themselves are necessarily subjective: "Can the brand
be described as a leader or a follower?" "Does it feel young or
old?"
As a result, these
decisions often turn out to be judgment calls. This year, for
instance, former Baby Bell SBC has proposed adopting the
120-year-old name of its takeover target--AT&T. That might be a
good idea, given AT&T's superior name recognition among
consumers, but it's also risky, given AT&T's tarnished image on
Wall Street. Sprint, meanwhile, decided that its well-known name
was a better strategic fit than Nextel, the name of its
acquisition target. Yet, in a compromise, Sprint adopted
Nextel's yellow-and-black color scheme, along with the tagline
"Together with Nextel," to signal that the combined firm will
still offer the unique network capabilities that Nextel's
customers have long enjoyed. "It's a perfect example of
co-branding," says Lozito, whose firm wasn't involved in the
effort.
Some merged companies
start over with an entirely fresh name. The 1996 marriage of
Swiss pharmaceutical giants Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz Laboratories
yielded the all-new name Novartis. However, the delicate nature
of managerial politics and employee sensitivities means that not
all mergers result in one tidy moniker--recall ConocoPhillips,
DaimlerChrysler, ExxonMobil, JPMorgan Chase, and Konica Minolta.
When two names are mashed together, the cumbersome result is
often difficult for consumers to remember.
A decision to change
the corporate name may also make sense when a company outgrows
its original business model or a product outgrows its parent
company. In the 1930s, Galvin Manufacturing sold a successful
car radio called the Motorola 5T71--leading the manufacturer to
adopt the name in 1947. The company now known as
Xerox--shorthand for a patented xerography copying method--was
originally called Haloid. And in 1983, Relational Software
changed its name to Oracle to reflect its top-selling database
product. The change doesn't always have to be formal; in its
marketing, Citibank often truncates its name to Citi to
deemphasize its ties to traditional banking as it expands into
other financial services.
Some companies simply
conclude that their original name has become a hindrance.
Following the humiliation of the Internet crash, dozens of
companies dropped their ".com" suffixes, including About,
Autobytel, and Infospace. (Likewise, the magazine you're holding
was formerly eCompany Now.) Primordial, a St. Paul, Minn.,
startup that began by selling vision-enhancement systems to the
military, was called Soldier Vision until founder Randy Milbert
decided that the old name was scaring off civilian clients.
After an exhaustive search--"Every other name in defense has
'stealth,' 'hawk,' or 'systems' in it," Milbert says with a
laugh--he hit on Primordial, a word that suggests newness. Since
the switch earlier this year, Milbert says, Primordial has
landed two new contracts with non-defense companies: "The new
name has been a huge plus."
Making the Switch
Whatever the reason
for the renaming, engineering a successful name change is hard
work, and it can cost a bundle. Many companies enlist the
expertise of a branding agency--a service that usually costs
between $30,000 and $150,000. For that price, agencies typically
provide detailed market research and a list of about 60 possible
new names. To make the exercise more realistic, many shops also
produce "demos" of the best potential names, including mock-ups
of annual reports, business cards, and websites. "Black and
white on paper isn't the same thing as the real world," says
Julie Cottineau of global branding agency Interbrand. "You need
to try it out."
The process should
also include legal and URL vetting--a serious headache when
trying to navigate the 11.8 million active trademarks and 83
million registered domain names around the world. "Names should
always be prescreened to avoid the risk of having executives
fall in love with one that's unavailable," Cottineau adds.
There's more than just potential disappointment at stake: In
2003, Philip Morris changed its corporate name to Altria Group,
which prompted a costly trademark fight with Altira Group, a
Denver venture capital firm founded in 1996. (A court eventually
decided against the VCs at Altira, ruling that trademark law
doesn't protect names that merely look similar.)
Once a new name has
been chosen, the practical mechanics of the switch begin.
Selling the new name and explaining its rationale to workers is
the first step. Suppliers, clients, and customers should be the
focus of a similar effort. Then comes the most expensive part:
introducing the new name to the world. In addition to buying new
letterhead and business cards or altering logos and signs, many
companies also launch a formal marketing campaign--advertising
and promotions that call attention to the new identity.
But even with solid
research and big marketing budgets, companies still make silly
naming decisions. In 2002, PwC Consulting (spun off from the
equally unwieldy PricewaterhouseCoopers) began changing its name
to Monday--a widely ridiculed plan that was quietly dropped when
the firm was acquired by IBM a few months later. And no name
change, no matter how clever, can save a company from bad
management or scandal. The 1985 merger of Houston Natural Gas
and InterNorth produced a new company called Enron. That name
remains an albatross for CrossCountry Energy, PipeCo, and Prisma
Energy International--firms trying to create new businesses from
the ruins of the former energy-trading giant.
"At the end of the
day, you've got to deliver a great-quality service. That's what
consumers buy," says Kodak's Rich. So are consumers buying Kodak
EasyShare Gallery? It's still early; the Ofoto name vanished
just last spring. Since then, Kodak says, the online service has
gone from 18 million to more than 25 million users, while
revenues have grown at a double-digit pace. Yet the site's more
intimate affiliation with its parent company may not be as much
of a help as Kodak executives might like to believe. Thanks to
Eastman Kodak's strategic woes, Interbrand today values the
Kodak brand at $4.9 billion--55 percent less than in 2001, the
year the company bought Ofoto.
What's in a Name?
Understanding the logic behind some high-profile changes.
|
|
|
|