I was hired in the early 80’s by an absolutely amazing company. It was a powerhouse, generating profits that most companies could only dream about. Everything was coming up red and yellow roses.
An indication that this company was something more than a mere widget maker occurred to me long before working there. It was my introduction to KPAA, the Kodak Park Athletic Association, a company funded sports and hobby program. There were clubs and teams that all the employees could enjoy. The Camera Club was the largest of its kind in the world, where one could rent cameras, obtain very inexpensive supplies, and make prints. My Dad used to take me there to make enlargements, nearly for free.
Another facet of KPAA was the its summer softball leagues for kids, and not just for those of employees. Anyone could play. Just gather together a bunch of friends from the neighborhood, sign up, and ride your bikes to the field.
Another facet of KPAA was the its summer softball leagues for kids, and not just for those of employees. Anyone could play. Just gather together a bunch of friends from the neighborhood, sign up, and ride your bikes to the field.
Even better, the program ran on weekdays during working hours. Full-time employees oversaw the action and made sure we did not descend into Lord of the Flies behavior. It was an incredible benefit to the community.
On the day I was hired, the company employed over 60,000 people in Rochester, NY. It was the peak, the summer solstice, the zenith. From that day forward, the number of employees and the fortunes of the organization began to dwindle. One might be inclined to infer that I was the cause, but I remind you that correlation is not necessarily causation.
As a neophyte member of the technical staff, there were numerous forms to fill out and papers to sign. I really only remember one which would have some importance much later, but when one is flush with the joy of finally being employed in a good-paying job, not much thought goes into where one’s signature is going.
![]() |
| Did you read it thoroughly? I don't think I did either, on May 2, 1983. There is at least one clause I'd never sign up for now. |
A few weeks after I was hired, I took my lunch to a table in one of the courtyards mixed in among the massive buildings at the Elmgrove Plant. I was shocked to see a band setting up. Unannounced, a very competent 4-piece combo serenaded my consumption of salami and cheese. It was a shame that those viewing the noontime movies weren't aware of the music.
I was to work in the Integrated Circuit Design area. The design center was located on the third floor of Building 1 of the sprawling manufacturing center that was created to pump out all the Disc cameras in the world. That’s “Disc,” not “Disk.” Shortly before I arrived, the plant had done just that. Consider the manner in which the product was introduced...before a single camera was sold, 20 MILLION were manufactured and stored until the May, 1982 release. 20 MILLION !!! Who does such things?
I was to work in the Integrated Circuit Design area. The design center was located on the third floor of Building 1 of the sprawling manufacturing center that was created to pump out all the Disc cameras in the world. That’s “Disc,” not “Disk.” Shortly before I arrived, the plant had done just that. Consider the manner in which the product was introduced...before a single camera was sold, 20 MILLION were manufactured and stored until the May, 1982 release. 20 MILLION !!! Who does such things?
Well, only certain types of organizations can afford or manage such releases. The government comes to mind, in the form of the Post Office and stamps. And monopolies. While the company went to great pains to prove otherwise, it was effectively a monopoly for many years because the chemical science and huge capital necessary to "build film" made competing with the giant very difficult. Considering that the scientific and manufacturing base was coupled with business and marketing arms that were some of the best, and it was no surprise that the company dominated the creation of images throughout the world.
But often monopolies sow the seeds of their own demise with actions necessary for protecting their turf. In 1954 (following similar action in 1921) the company had to endure a "consent decree" from the US government to keep from running afoul of the Sherman Act (anti-trust law). As a result, film and processing could not be bundled together for a single price.
While that may seem a minor inconvenience for a giant of a photographic company, the latent effect was that the company became much less of a photographic company and much more of a film company. While flexible photographic film, the pride of George Eastman, was certainly a source of great profit before that time, and for years after, the reliance on a single type of product in a varied marketplace would prove limiting. More so as the market began to change. And more importantly, the psyche of the company became warped. Decision makers strove to extend the life of film at the expense of all else, sending the company in dubious directions.
While that may seem a minor inconvenience for a giant of a photographic company, the latent effect was that the company became much less of a photographic company and much more of a film company. While flexible photographic film, the pride of George Eastman, was certainly a source of great profit before that time, and for years after, the reliance on a single type of product in a varied marketplace would prove limiting. More so as the market began to change. And more importantly, the psyche of the company became warped. Decision makers strove to extend the life of film at the expense of all else, sending the company in dubious directions.





It was a little secret in the film world, where I worked, that the engineer in charge of making the film for the disc camera falsified his test results to make the film look better than it was. So when it went into production the quality was shit. What would be expected when an image is collected on a piece of film the size of a pea and enlarged about 100 times? - Anonymous
ReplyDeleteAlso, the original design was for 12 images on a disc instead of the 15 that were in the release. 12 would have been much closer to the size of the 110 format, which was marginally acceptable. Marketing overruled technical in this instance.
DeleteThe entire disc system was dependent upon new and better film technology, which did not truly arrive until years after the release. "Is that Johnny's head, or is it a film grain?"
In fact the lousy quality of the initial film was more due to little (not sure of exact size) bubbles of material that were coated on the film webs to prevent the film from sticking to itself when it was rolled up. When you combined this (supposedly invisible) distortion with the really short focal length of the camera and the required resolution of the image - well you do the math.
DeleteGreat read. When is the next chapter?
ReplyDeleteAs I would tell the kids at any point along our route on cross-country trips, "Soon."
DeleteI agree with Dave, great read Randy. As a Kodak kid I have similar sentiments about the family experience. Remember Kodak vitamins? Bowling alley? Tomboy that I was, there was no girls KPAA and I hated watching the boys head off on their bikes to play ball without me. I did, however, get to attend charm school in blg 28 and learn to walk with a book on my head. Ha!
ReplyDeleteI was quite obviously never invited to charm school.
DeleteIf I am what I ate, a significant part of me is a Kodak vitamin. Why did they smell like film?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFrom what I recall of Disc, and I was not working on it - but the security and hush hush around it rivaled the inner working of the NSA. And the progression of simpler, easy to use 35 mm cameras like the 1986 K12 VR 35 camera took awesome photos and made the Disc seem worse - but hey, let;s not leave out the APS format a mere 10 years later in 1996 to review and it's 58% size vs 35mm...and the rise of digital photography acceptance in the years to soon follow. The dynamics to change/shift industries within the industry can often miss the thunderbolts from outside.
ReplyDelete