Podcasts about kodaks

In yet another request from our listeners for topics you wanted to hear, for Episode 88, you can include me as someone whose been interested in hearing an episode about the Kodak Retina and other German Kodaks. For many years, whenever I needed to write something about the Retina, the person I always reached out to was Dr. David Jentz.  David is not only the founder of the Historical Society for Retina Cameras, but also has published multiple written works about the Retina and its history.  In addition to his knowledge about the Retina, David frequently collaborates with historian Klaus Schicht who has studied the man who created the Retina, Dr. August Nagel.  Although Klaus does not appear on the show, David was able to quote some information regarding topics we discussed on this show. If one Kodak historian was not enough, we also invited Todd Gustavson from the George Eastman Museum to be on the show to fill in the blanks for any other Kodak related questions which came up. This was a closed episode, so we did not have any callers, and both Paul and Theo weren't able to make it, but what we lacked in callers, we more than made up for in fascinating Kodak, Nagel, and Retina history. Listen to Episode 87 to get a background on who Dr. August Nagel was, how he became a doctor, brief histories of his time working for Contessa Nettel, Zeiss-Ikon, and Nagel Kamerwerke prior to joining Kodak.  Did you know that before Kodak AG made cameras, they made film in Germany? We discuss other German Kodaks such as the Recomar, Pupille, Kodak Duo Six-20, and the mysterious Kodak Regent.  We get into the differences between the use of "Nr." and "Type" when referring to prewar and postwar cameras, and finally solve the mystery of Paul's Retinette Angenieux lens. In addition to camera history, we also take a deep dive into Kodak's introduction to making 35mm film.  While Kodak's type 135 daylight loading cassette was their most notable contribution to 35mm film in the 1930s, did you know they made 35mm film for the Leica and Contax before that?  David shares with us information about Kodaks original 35mm film, along with some detailed patent information about the Retina, and much more! As always, the topics we discuss on the Camerosity Podcast are influenced by you!  Please don't feel like you have to be an expert on a specific type of camera, or have the level of knowledge on par with other people on the show.  We LOVE people who are into shooting or collecting cameras, no matter how long you've been doing it, so please don't consider your knowledge level to be a prerequisite for joining! The guys and I rarely know where each episode is going to go until it happens, so if you'd like to join us on a future episode, be sure to look out for our show announcements on our Camerosity Podcast Facebook page, the Camerosity Discord server, and right here on mikeeckman.com. We usually record every other Monday and announcements, along with the Zoom link are typically shared 2-3 days in advance. For our next episode, we are getting on a boat and heading on a "Three Hour Tour" for our second Desert Island episode.  If you were stranded on a desert island with only three cameras, which three would they be?  Will a high spec but fragile electronic camera make the cut, or will people choose less technically impressive models built to withstand a lot more abuse?  Let us know what you'd choose!  We will record Episode 88 on Monday, February 24th at 7pm Central Standard Time and 8pm Eastern Standard Time. In This Episode David's Origin Story / His First Camera was a Kodak Retina IIIS Kodak Used to Have a Camera Museum in Stuttgart David Jentz Formed with Peter Tosh the Historical Society of Retina Cameras HSRC Received Permission from Kodak and the Rights to use the Actual Retina Logo Are the Retinas Separated in the George Eastman Museum? / There Are 22,000 Items in the Eastman Museum Collection Who was Dr. August Nagel? / Nagel Started Contessa Nettel and Merged with Zeiss-Ikon in 1926 Nagel Worked for Zeiss-Ikon for About 18 Months and then Formed His Own Nagel Werke Nagels First Cameras were the Recomar, Vollenda, and Pupille Kodak Gave Nagel Very Little Direction, He Was Free to Do What He Wanted Kodak And Nagel Both Benefited from the Two Companies Working Together If You Ship a Camera and Lens Separately, There are No Tariffs Nagel was Most Famously Known as a Great Designer Kodak's Design of the New Daylight Loading 35mm Cassette Kodak Made 35mm Film for Leicas and Contaxes Before the Release of Type 135 Film Was the Retina an Immediate Success? / Why Were the Nr. 117, 118, and 119 Released So Quickly Kodak Duo Six-20 and Other Nagel Designed Cameras Mike Has Questions About Nagel's Role in Making the Kodak Regent / Kodak Regent II Kodak's Transition During World War II / Early Post War Retinas Used Steel in Their Construction Are Retinas with the f/2 Ektar Lenses Worth Paying a Premium / 47mm f/2 Kodak Ektars Were Also on the Premier Instrument Kardon Kodak's CAMEROSITY Date Codes / Many Retinas Were Sold through US PX Stores / Identifying PX Retinas David Jentz Dispels Some of the Myths Mike Got Wrong in His Reviews Dr. August Nagel Never Once Used the Word "Type" to Identify Different Cameras He Made The Mystery of Paul's Angenieux Lens / French Kodak Retinettes Links The Camerosity Podcast is now on Discord! Join Anthony, Paul, Theo, and Mike on our very own Discord Server. Share your GAS and photography with other listeners in the Lounge or in our dedicated forums. If you have questions for myself or the other guys, we have an “Ask the Hosts” section as well where you can get your question answered on a future show! Check it out! https://discord.gg/PZVN2VBJvm. The Camerosity Podcast is now on BlueSky @camerosity.bsky.social.  This modern, and clean replacement for Twitter is a nice alternative to cluttered social networks out there.  Follow us there for show announcements and other content. If you would like to offer feedback or contact us with questions or ideas for future episodes, please contact us in the Comments Section below, our Camerosity Facebook Group, Instagram page, or Discord server. David Jentz - https://www.blurb.com/user/hsrc028N The Historical Society for Retina Cameras - https://www.hsrcretina.org/ HSRC Publications - https://www.hsrcretina.org/hsrc-publications The Official Camerosity Facebook Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/camerositypodcast Camerosity Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/camerosity_podcast/ Theo Panagopoulos - https://www.photothinking.com/ Paul Rybolt - https://www.ebay.com/usr/paulkris - https://thisoldcamera.net/ Anthony Rue - https://www.instagram.com/kino_pravda/

JC Kodaks is a New York City-based photographer, with roots in the Philippines.JC is known for capturing the vibrant street life of New York City and his work is heavily influenced by the film noir aesthetic.JC's work has been featured in the "Behind the Sensor" YouTube series, which highlights talented photographers.Follow JC:WebsiteInstagram

In the 68 previous episodes of the Camerosity Podcast, we've had the pleasure of talking to a wide variety of fascinating guests.  We've had collectors, historians, former Kodak employees, camera repair technicians, and a variety of other bloggers and other assorted people in the industry.  Each of those people were fascinating guests, but each had a special niche where their skill and experience fit in and not every listener of this might would have known who they were. In this episode however, our special guest is Mike Butkus, someone whose name should ring a bell to anyone who has ever picked up an old camera and searched for information on it online.  It is impossible to collect cameras and never have stumbled upon the massive collection of cameras manuals at Mike's site.  His site has over 6000 high resolution scans of manuals for film and digital cameras, flashes, exposure meters, and much more, available for everyone to view and download for free.  Mike's site is not only big, but it has been around for over a quarter of a century, making it one of the oldest still operating film and digital photography sites out there. Be sure to check out Episode 69 where Anthony, Paul, Theo and Mike are joined by returning callers Ray Nason, Howard Sandler, and first time callers Brian Zeman and Jordan Berube. In addition to hearing Mike's origin story and getting a glimpse into what goes on behind the scenes at the world's largest depot of camera manuals, we venture into a wide variety of other topics, such as tips and tricks to selling a large camera collection, what is everyone's favorite 6 x 9 camera, and how heavy is a Koni-Omegaflex M TLR. Theo shares a story about a camera he bought, then returned, and may one day buy again, Mike gets yelled at by a site reader for mistaking a 2¼ x 3¼ camera for a 6 x 9 camera, and Howard asks why old folding Kodaks aren't valued by collectors. Donate to Mike Butkus: For the past 25 years, Mike Butkus has run his camera manual website by himself.  He buys all of the manuals he scans with his own money, he pays the hosting and domain registration fees with his own money, and he does all the scanning in his free time.  All of this on a site with no ads.  If you have ever found any useful information on his site, we encourage you to send him a couple bucks through PayPal. https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/butkus As always, the topics we discuss on the Camerosity Podcast are influenced by you! Please don't feel like you have to be an expert on a specific type of camera, or have the level of knowledge on par with other people on the show. We LOVE people who are into shooting or collecting cameras, no matter how long you've been doing it, so please don't consider your knowledge level to be a prerequisite for joining! The guys and I rarely know where each episode is going to go until it happens, so if you'd like to join us on a future episode, be sure to look out for our show announcements on our Camerosity Podcast Facebook page, the Camerosity Discord server, and right here on mikeeckman.com. We usually record every other Monday and announcements, along with the Zoom link are typically shared 2-3 days in advance. We had originally planned on doing a "Cameras of the 1970s" episode for number 69, but with the availability of Mike Butkus, we bumped it by one episode, so for Episode 70, we are definitely getting our disco balls out and putting our bell bottoms on and will be going over the best, the worst, and everything in between from everyone's favorite film camera decade. We will record Episode 70 on Monday, April 29th at 7pm Central Daylight Time (-5 UTC), 8pm Eastern Daylight Time (-4 UTC), and Tuesday at 10am Australian Eastern Standard Time (+10 UTC). We look forward to hearing from you! In This Episode 2024 is the Year of Solar Eclipses, New Jersey Earthquakes, 17 Year Cicadas, and a US Election / Mike Has a Yashica Dental-Eye Mike Butkus's Origin Story / First Scans Were Made in 1999 of Chinon K-Mount SLRs The First Scans Were Done in Word Format Using OCR Mike Uses Google Analytics to See Which Manuals are Searched for the Most / Mike Has Over 6000 Original Manuals How Can We Help Mike? / Donate Manuals He Doesn't Have Camera Collectors are Lucky to Have Access to So Many Manuals / Preserving Mike's Website Online / Money Donations Mike Does Not Collect Cameras, He Has About 20 Cameras and That's All We Tried to Play "Stump Butkus" But Couldn't Find Enough Cameras to Stump Him Eckman's Tip on Finding a Manual On Butkus's Site Jordan Loves the Mamiya 6 But Mike Doesn't Have a Manual for the One He Has / There are Many Different Mamiya 6 Models Wooden Leicas / Mike Bought a Leica IIIa From Ray and Had it CLA'd by Allen Wade Butlus and Eckman are Both Verbs / Mike Butkus Also Has Flash and Light Meter Manuals Too Mike Eckman Wants More Camera Catalogs / A Shout Out to Pacific Rim's Reference Library Collecting Magazines, National Geographic, Modern Photography, Popular Photography Tips for Selling Off Large Collections of Cameras / The First Question is How Fast? / Dealers Selling to Other Dealers Selling Things on eBay Not as Described / Theo Returns a Telka III People Donating Cameras to Us as "The Camera Guy" What is Everyone's Favorite 6 x 9 Camera? / Century Graphic / Zeiss-Ikon Nettar / KMZ Moskva Some 6 x 9 Cameras are Actually 2¼ x 3¼ / Kodak Medalist Fujica GL690 "Texas Leica" / Fujica GSW690III / Zeiss-Ikon Super Ikonta / Voigtländer Bessa I / Plaubel Makina / Horseman Convertible Theo Bought a Red Bellows AGFA Record III From Mike / Folding Kodak 2¼ x 3¼ Cameras Mamiya Super 23 /  Kodak Monitor Six-20 / No. 1A Speed Kodak 116 Camera The Koni-Omega Users Group / Simmons Omega 120 / Koni-Omegaflex M They Shoot Kodak Hawkeye Brownies in the Amazon Show Fallout What Are the Best Bargains People Have Collected? Links The Camerosity Podcast is now on Discord! Join Anthony, Paul, Theo, and Mike on our very own Discord Server. Share your GAS and photography with other listeners in the Lounge or in our dedicated forums. If you have questions for myself or the other guys, we have an “Ask the Hosts” section as well where you can get your question answered on a future show! Check it out! https://discord.gg/PZVN2VBJvm. If you would like to offer feedback or contact us with questions or ideas for future episodes, please contact us in the Comments Section below, our Camerosity Facebook Group, Instagram page, or Discord server. The Official Camerosity Facebook Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/camerositypodcast Mike Butkus - https://butkus.org/chinon/index.html Donate to Mike Butkus - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/butkus Camerosity Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/camerosity_podcast/ Theo Panagopoulos - https://www.photothinking.com/ Paul Rybolt - https://www.ebay.com/usr/paulkris and https://www.etsy.com/shop/Camerasandpictures Anthony Rue - https://www.instagram.com/kino_pravda/ and https://www.facebook.com/VoltaGNV/

Hot off our 50th episode, the Camerosity Podcast goes back to the roots of our name, exploring the rich history of Eastman Kodak, one of the most influential companies in the photographic world.  You can't talk about the history of Kodak without George Eastman and what better way to explore that history than with Todd Gustavson, curator of the George Eastman Museum in Rochester, NY. Todd has been on the show before, but in this the 51th episode, he gets center stage, talking of his role at the Eastman Museum, the origins of George Eastman and how his company got started.  In this episode, you'll learn about George Eastman making dry plates in his mother's kitchen, his motivation for making the original 1888 Kodak, where the name "Kodak" comes from, early 20th century Kodaks, prewar, postwar, and everything in between. Also joining us on the show is the only person in the US I would trust with Kodak Retina repair, Paul Barden.  Back in 2022, long time Retina guru Chris Sherlock hung up his lens spanners and retired from Retina repair.  Not willing to leave a void in quality Retina service, Chris passed on his knowledge to Paul, who lives on the west coast of the United States.  This not only means that there is still a quality option for Retina repair, but for those of you in the US, shipping rates are much cheaper than to New Zealand!  Listen to this episode as Paul talks about his work repairing Retinas, what some of his favorite models are, and what models he does and doesn't repair. In addition to Todd and Paul's massive amount of Kodak knowledge, we go deep into some of the best Kodak cameras ever made, the Kodaks Ektra, Medalist, Monitor, and Regent get discussed here.  We talk about Walter Dorwin Teague, Dr. August Nagel, and Hubert Nerwin.  Mike shares what his all time favorite Retina is to shoot, Anthony discusses his nomination for a medium format Retina, Todd and Mike talk about Joe Mihayli and his contributions to Kodak's legacy. As always, the topics we discuss on the Camerosity Podcast are influenced by you!  We would love to hear from more listeners, especially those who are new to shooting film or collecting cameras.  Please don't feel like you have to be an expert on a specific type of camera, or have the level of knowledge on par with other people on the show.  We LOVE people who are new to shooting and are interested in having an episode dedicated to people new to the hobby, so please don't consider your knowledge level to be a prerequisite for joining! The guys and I rarely know where each episode is going to go until it happens, so if you'd like to join us on a future episode, be sure to look out for our show announcements on our Camerosity Podcast Facebook page, and right here on mikeeckman.com.  We usually record every other Monday and announcements, along with the Zoom link are typically shared 2-3 days in advance. Our next episode of the Camerosity Podcast will be our widest ever, as the gang discusses panorama photography and panoramic cameras.  If you've ever wanted to know what it's like to shoot a Hasselblad XPan, Soviet Horizont, Noblex, or a Widelux camera, this is the episode for you!  Episode 52 will be recorded on Friday, June 30th.  We hope to see you there! This Week's Episode What is the George Eastman Museum and Why Should Anyone Go There? Largest Collection of Nitrate Film / Over 10,000 Cameras / Not Just Kodak Is on Display / One of Louis Daguerre's Original Cameras Paul Once Got Liquored Up in the George Eastman Museum / The Museum Has an Impressive Music Room George Eastman's Early Years / Eastman Dry Plate Company / Eastman's First Film Wasn't Actually Film The 1888 Kodak / Origins of the Kodak Name / Variations of the Original Box Kodaks George Eastman Pioneered Dental Care and Donated a Ton of Money to Local Schools What Caused Kodak to Move Away from Simple Box Cameras to More Complex Folding and Other Camera Designs? Early Color Film Was a Two Color Film / Kodachrome Was a 6 Layer Black and White Film with Color Filters Super Kodak Six-20 / How Many Were Made? Kodak's Priority Was to Manufacture World Wide / Kodak Canada and UK Kodak Film Was One of the Most Complicated Consumer Products Ever Made Was It a Coincidence that Kodak Started Producing Much More Advanced Cameras Right After Eastman Died? Kodak 50th Anniversary Brownie Camera Was Given Away to Children for Free Why Did Kodak Hire Dr. August Nagel to Make Cameras For Them? The Original 35mm Type 135 Cassette is Slightly Different Than the Ones Today Introducing Paul Barden Who Studied Under Chris Sherlock to Repair Retinas Paul Does Not Repair the Retina Reflexes or All the Models Chris Repaired Disabling Dead Meters on the Later Retinas Actually Improves their Usability As There's Less Parts to Move Which Retinas are the Most Dependable Shooters After Receiving a CLA? Mike is Working on a Review of the Retina IIIC /  Mike's Favorite Retina to Use is the Retina IB Not Having a Rangefinder is Not Always a Bad Thing / The Retina Accessory Lenses Aren't Very Easy to Use Besides the Retinas, What Other Great Kodak Cameras Were Made After the War? Kodak Signet 35 / Kodak Ektra / The Ektra's Focal Plane Shutter Was Like No Other Anthony Loves the Kodak Medalist / The Kodak Chevron is Not a Replacement for the Medalist How Much Influence with Walter Dorwin Teague Have on Kodak? Kodak Was Always a Film First Company / The Profit Margins Making Film Was 10x Higher Than Making Cameras Kodak Tourist and Monitor Folding Cameras / Series III Pocket Folding Kodak The Problem with Nearly All Folding Kodaks Are the Bellows, They All Leak Light Kodak Retina Bellows Usually Do Hold Up To Time and Rarely Leak Light The Kodak Duo Six-20 Is Like a Medium Format Retina / Kodak Regent Mike Summarizes Other Great Kodaks to Shoot / Kodak Signet 35 Kodak Dated Their Lenses and Cameras Using a Code Inspired by the CAMEROSITY Podcast! / UK Lenses Used CUMBERLAND What Was Kodak's Motivation With Instamatics and Disc Film? / Kodak Disc Film Was Better Than People Gave it Credit For Hubert Nerwin, Designer of the Zeiss-Ikon Contax II and III Designed the Kodak Instamatic Type 126 Cassette A Kodak Designer That Doesn't Get Talked Much About is Joeseph Mihayli / Mihayli Designed the Super Kodak Six-20, Ektra, Medalist, and Much More What Are Some Good Kodak Reference Books Out There? / Robert Shanebrook, Brian Coe, and Douglas Collins's Books Kodak's Major Developments in New Apparatus / Kodak Prototypes of the 1930s / Kodak's Crazy System TLR Kodak Super 35 and Kodak Technar Prototypes are in the Eastman Collection Anthony Was Heavily Inspired by The Art of Fixing the Shadow Paul Barden Can Repair Your Kodak Retinas (Excluding the Retina Reflexes) Always RTFM Before Shooting a Retina / Also Always Check the Exposure Counter Links If you would like to offer feedback or contact us with questions or ideas for future episodes, please contact us in the Comments Section below, our Camerosity Facebook Group or Instagram page, or email us at camerosity.podcast@gmail.com. The Official Camerosity Facebook Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/camerositypodcast Camerosity Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/camerosity_podcast/ George Eastman Museum - https://www.eastman.org/ Todd Gustavson - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkDCZrTKQaI Paul Barden's Retina Repair - https://kodakretina.exposure.co/the-story-of-the-kodak-retina-camera and https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulbarden/ Episode 8: Making Kodak Film with Robert Shanebrook Episode 25: Steve Sasson and the First Digital Camera Keppler's Vault 42: George Eastman Theo Panagopoulos - https://www.photothinking.com/ Paul Rybolt - https://www.ebay.com/usr/paulkris and https://www.etsy.com/shop/Camerasandpictures Anthony Rue - https://www.instagram.com/kino_pravda/ and https://www.facebook.com/VoltaGNV/

One company comes immediately to mind when you think about photography: Kodak. Kodak cameras have been around since the late 1800s, and the company has released a wide variety of models over the years. While some of these cameras are now considered antiques, others are still prized by collectors for their unique design or rare features. As a result, the value of an old Kodak camera can vary greatly depending on the model and condition. And despite new digital cameras, drones, and highly sophisticated smartphones, a classic like Kodak cameras always comes out on top. Because of this, the price of a vintage Kodak camera is rising daily. Nowadays, everyone wants to have an antique Kodak camera, including museums, professional photographers, and vintage collectors. For those familiar with the models and the features that influence value, buying and selling retro Kodak cameras will be better. The desire for old Kodaks in good condition is driven by the fact that many of these old cameras are indeed functional today. For example, a vintage Kodak Box camera from the early 1900s might sell for just a few dollars, while a mint-condition Kodak brownie camera from the 1950s could fetch hundreds of dollars at auction. As with any collectible, the value of a Kodak camera is ultimately determined by the market. However, certain models will always be more sought-after than others. So did you stumble on an old Kodak camera while arranging and want to know what it's worth? Or are you a lover of old cameras and would love to add Eastman Kodak to your collection but don't know the prices? In this article, we shall walk you through all the necessary details. Check Images: Valuable Antique Detector(https://www.txantiquemall.com/old-kodak-camera-models-and-value/) Pin: https://www.pinterest.com/valuableantiquedetector/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/valuableantiquedetector/ TW: https://twitter.com/antiquedetector Ins: https://www.instagram.com/valuableantiquedetector/   Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

We are all well aware of the fact our working lives have changed since we've moved on from the thick of the pandemic. But have our organisations and our leaders caught up? And are we really making the most of the new opportunities this 'now' of the future of work is presenting?In this episode I chat to Aaron McEwan: top 100 HR Influencer, coaching psychologist, strategic advisor,  innovation expert and self confessed tech geek. Aaron wears a number of professional hats, but his main one is VP of Research & Advisory at Gartner. And his recent work and research dives deep into how we need to reimagine a more human centred kind of organisation, with leaders to match, since all discovering there's more to life than work. And that working with a dog at your feet can't be matched by any kind of fancy cafeteria.  Join us as we discuss some of the trends, insights and implications of this new working world and some serious considerations leaders must make relating to people and employee experience. Unless they want their organisations to become the Blockbusters or Kodaks of tomorrow.You can connect with Aaron on LinkedIn or check out Gartner's research on their Website.MentionsOther Life Podcast - Writing in the Age of Machine IntelligenceWork for Humans - The Great Resignation and the Future of Work Aaron McEwanMeaningful Career Change A self-paced, online audio course to kickstart your mindful and meaningful career change journey with focus and intention. Avoid the overwhelm and get started on the right foot with logical steps, practical exercises and insightful tips. Sign up at https://www.leadingbeings.com/meaningful-career-change-course WebsiteInstagramLinkedInGet in TouchWant to work with me in 2023? Book your coaching discovery call.

On this episode: Welcome to Episode 182! Roderick & Cari are back this Monday to deliver another 5-Star Pod! This week in music, the guys review NBA Youngboy's surprise album '3800 DEGREES', Quavo & Takeoff's 'Only Built For Infinity Links', & Kodaks new album being pushed back. In news, the crew continues their convo on Kanye West's antics in the media, 50 Cent's son having trouble living off of $6700/month, Nicki Minaj's new college course set to hit UC Berkeley next spring, Draymond Green punches Jordan Poole during a GSW practice, Brittney Griner's mental state, & Joe Biden to take steps toward decriminalizing cannabis.     Intro: T-Pain- Can't Believe It (feat. Lil Wayne)   Roderick | Kurupt- We Can Freak It   Cari | Blxst- Hurt   Subscribe to Apple Music now to hear all of the new albums & tracks we discuss: https://apple.co/3NgdXW

Pascal Finette é co-fundador da Radical Ventures e também Presidente de Empreendedorismo e Open Innovation da Singularity University. Ele compartilha sobre o futuro das empresas que não querem se tornar Kodaks. Confira no também no YouTube: https://youtu.be/celfyjybGQI Toda quinta-feira, às 17h, o PMEx Podcast traz um convidado com os temas mais relevantes para você. O PMEx é um programa de mentoria para empreendedores exponenciais, da StartSe University, apresentado por Marcelo Pimenta, head de Growth e sócio da StartSe.

 In today's show we'll be spinning up some special doo wop tracks, and not necessarily the ‘big hits'. We'll be sharing some under-the-radar sounds from some of the greats and some of the ‘never-heards'. Doo wop's heyday was clearly brief, running from the early urban street corner sounds of the early 1950s to the more commercially viable and polished sounds of the early 1960s. Tune in for the popular sounds of The Cadillacs, Little Anthony, The Flamingos, and The El Dorados as well as off chart vocal gems from The Pastels, The Quotations, The Kodaks, and The Fascinators. All with a story and all in clean fun on Sonoma County Community Radio. 

Advancements in consumer digital camera and editing software has made us more visual. Before, we would covet our friends' fancy Canons and Kodaks strapped around their necks. Now we boast about which version of a new phone we have. A focus on filters, AR, editing, and sharing functions of our phones have replaced our old-school focus on megapixels. We are now all photographers and videographers. But is that a good thing, and what do journalists need to know about visuals today? Jennifer Midberry, Brian McDermott, and Jessica Collier discuss. Texts Discussed in this Episode:McDermott, B. P., Mortensen, T. M., Ejaz, K., & Haun, D. D. (2019). “I Was Doing a Good Deed”: Exploring the Motivations of Photo Story Subjects in Granting Photojournalists Access. Journalism Practice, 13(8), 916-921.Midberry, J., & Dahmen, N. S. (2020). Visual Solutions Journalism: A Theoretical Framework. Journalism Practice, 14(10), 1159-1178.Collier, J., Kim, Y., & Stroud, N. J. (2020). How News Images Affect Clicking on Subscription Appeals. Journalism Practice, 1-19."Journalism research in practice: Scholarly inquiry for journalists" special issueProduced and hosted by Robert (Ted) Gutsche, Jr.Give feedback to the podcast on Twitter @JournPractice or email jwordpodcast@gmail.com

The boys are back with another episode, this time with some new inspiration from a very confident individual on the gram. (3:10) Q couldn't hold back his excitement over the NBA buyout market and trade deadline. (9:40) OnlyFans is starting to take over the world, and another teacher was recently fired again for having an Onlyfans account is this right? And the guys talk if they could be involved with someone with an Onlyfans? (22:55) NFT's are starting to become something huge, but are still very new and very confusing. Noah tries to explain NFT's to Q and the pod as they are becoming increasingly popular and entering the music industry, and Noah thinks this could literally change everything. (35:30) The Music Industry made $21.6 Billion in 2020 but is this good? (38:30) New Music with Q, Q gives you the run down of the new music including Rod waves new album and Futures dominate feature week. (48:00) NLE Choppa gets arrested and Noah goes in (54:10) Kodaks label that was supposed to be is probably the scariest thing ever Sleepers Noah: Dozie - Suffa Q: Moneybagg yo Ft. Future - Harder for the next

Photo: No known restrictions on publication.1903.Corner of San Diego's Fifth Street and F Street, looking north, ca.1903Photograph of the corner of San Diego's Fifth Street and F Street, looking north, ca.1903. The busy dirt road is lined with tall buildings and shops on both sides. Those on the left have awnings covering the first floor windows. There is a row of utility poles on the left side of the street, and there are two streetcar tracks in the middle of the road. There is a streetcar on the track on the right while horse-drawn vehicles line both sides of the street. There are several pedestrians on the sidewalks and two people can be seen pushing a cart across the street at center. Legible signs include, from left to right: "Cigars", "The Palace", "Book", "[La]undry", "[Ba]nk of Commerce", "Kodaks", "Patterson", "56", "To 31st & National Avenue", "Normandie Furnished Rooms", and "Annual Clearance".The New John Batchelor ShowRepresented by CBS News Radio/CBS Audio Network@Batchelorshow Border crisis sends unaccompanied children to the San Diego Convention Center. @JCBlisshttps://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/san-diego-convention-center-border-minors/index.html

Happy holidays...and welcome back to another episode of Selling the Rock! This episode is EXTRA special... It's our 2 year anniversary in the business! It took a lot longer than two years in thought and process to build what we've got here, but we've opened our doors for business just at the end of December in 2018! Reflecting back on the idea of a brokerage, what was important to me at the time was creating, establishing and growing something from scratch. The idea of building something that my kids could point to one day and say, "Look what Dad did"...the idea of legacy played a huge role in the behind the scenes of what I've done. 2019 was an okay year. Our sales were basically flat year over year. We had some highs...and some lows. I remember reflecting on why our team hadn't grown in size and why our sales were the same year over year. Lake City Realty wasn't growing the way I had imagined. I thought that if I built something, people would just start approaching me saying, "Dave, I'm interested in joining your brokerage." Clearly that wasn't happening. As we rounded out 2019, we really dove into creating content. This podcast, Selling the Rock really fired away! Shortly into 2020, we found ourselves in a big global pandemic. Everything was closing around us, leaving me with the uncertainty of how we would continue to function, grow and survive. I still remember wondering if I'd be able to sell another home in 2020. The government just announced another round of Province wide shut down...sure it's going to be a little bit less in the North, but it's another two week's where nothing can go on. Rounding into 2021...we have some interesting times ahead. 2020 was also a great year for our business - we grew in sales at about 5% and we did about 165 deals this year...which is fantastic! That's an increase of almost 10% year over year. We doubled the size of our team! The idea that if I built something, 'they' would come turned into more than an idea! Lake City Realty started with myself, Mike, Tristan and my Dad! This year we've had Kelly - my sister, Jennifer Brouillette and Chad Moore join our family! The Content...we had done some content and started this podcast in November of last year, but the contents been on fire this year! One of my goals was to hire someone focused on content development and a media expert and we were able to find the perfect fit! Circling back, we wanted to build a real estate brand for the future - we know that consumers are looking for something different in 2030. We don't want to be the Kodaks of the world...I read the other day that Kodak developed the first digital camera 25 years before anybody else had developed one but they didn't put it out in the world because they didn't want to cannibalize their traditional sales. I think with me, I always want to push the boundaries and build the business that's going to succeed in 5, 10, 15, 25 years from now. So that's a little bit of a summary of what's gone on behind the scenes in 2020. We survived a global pandemic - so far. I can't be more blessed for the team I have around me! Thank you from the bottom of my heart for listening to my podcast and for the continued support from the community and from family and friends! Til' Next Time!

We all watch Netflix, and we all love it.  After all, what's not to love (especially when we are locked in our homes)?  But, as invincible as this streaming giant seems, it isn't.  No company is.  The Blockbusters and Kodaks of the world remind us of that.  In this provocative episode, Peter takes the bear's contrarian argument about Netflix and its prospects.  He lays out Netflix's very real, and very significant, vulnerabilities.  Peter also identifies potential ways those vulnerabilities can be addressed and risks mitigated.  So can Netflix go it alone in the long-run?  Or will a much bigger fish ultimately swallow it up?  Listen and then place your bets.

It's a loaded show this week as we dive into the PPOTY (potato photographer of the year) winning image, problems capturing the Neowise comet thanks to SpaceX and Kodaks stock has just gone up - find out why on this episode of The Photography Bar. PPOTY - Neowise Comet - Kodak Investment   Check back every Monday to be sure that you don't miss a single episode. Hit that subscribe/follow button so you don't miss out. Make sure you follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook. To get in touch please email chat@thephotographybar.co.uk.  

A conversation with Ashish Arora about how and why the interlocking American institutions that support technological change have evolved over time, their current strengths and weaknesses, and how they might change in the future. Ashish Arora is the Rex D. Adams Professor of Business Administration at the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University. His research focuses on the economics of technology and technical change and we spend most of this conversation focused on his recent paper: “The changing structure of American Innovation - some cautionary remarks for economic growth.” I tried an experiment this episode and wrote notes on the paper before the interview.  Key Takeaways Ashish introduces a useful framework by breaking the innovation world down into four players : academia, incumbent companies, inventors, and government and then look at how their relationships evolve over time. The current innovation system is well equipped to enable new products with large technology risks and almost no market risk (like new cancer drugs) or high market risks and almost no technology risks (like most software) but falls short in between those two extremes. A fuzzy one but it’s important to marinate in the constant complexity of the answer to ‘How does technology happen? ’   Notes Ashish’s Home Page Ashish on Twitter The Changing Structure of American Innovation My notes on the paper Steve Usselman’s Website Transcript (Experiment and automatically transcribed) [00:00:00] [00:01:00] just to start us off, , would you give a summary of the paper? I'm going to direct everybody to go read it, but just for people who are, are listening, like what, what do you think are the key things that you would want people to take away from reading your paper? So the paper itself is descriptive, but our objective data is to, to make, make one argument, which is that the way in which innovation in America is organized? Has changed over time. And there's a sense in which the system we have now is closer to what we had say at the turn of the night of the 20th century. So, you know, a hundred years [00:02:00] ago there are important differences. So that's, that's one from a descriptive point of view. There are important differences too. And we, you know, we can talk more about that, Ken. The part, which I think is, is most interesting. And perhaps also most speculative is, you know, two things. One, why has, why, why, what, what caused this change? What caused this system to evolve? And the second is, well, you know, is it good or bad? And you know, what, what might, what should one do about it? What could we do about it? , and I suspect we would spend some time on that as well. Yeah. I thought the, the dividing up the paper into different areas was, was really important., and so actually, would you say a little bit more about how,, the way that innovation is structured now resembles the way that it did at the turn of the 20th century? [00:03:00] So if you think let's start with today, right? If we think about today, we have the, the. Big tech companies. , but most people would say, you know, if you think about the innovation system today, we have sort of three sets of players, maybe four, we have the universities where, which do a lot of the research produce a lot of the fundamental knowledge and importantly, a lot of the, what economists call human capital people that, that do it. so that's one. The second part is, is the startup community, right? The startups and the VCs that fund them and all that kind of stuff. And the third are the firms, the, the incumbent firms, as we call them in economics, the peanut, the Googles, the Facebooks, but also the IBM's Microsoft and so on. And these, these are the different components. And if you go back to Adam Smith, He talked about a division of labor as being the quintessential aspect of capitalism. That [00:04:00] capitalism is this relentless force towards specialization. And what we have, you might think of it as a division of labor in innovation there, the universities that produce the research, the startups that take it and make it more commercially applicable. And then the incumbents that apply it. If you go back. Say two 1860s, that's kind of the system we had. We didn't have the universities, but we had independent inventors and we had people that backed them. And then those inventors would sell that inventions for the most part to companies that were producing, you know, early ones were railroads, for example. And so there's a sense of, you know, in that sense, it's similar. You could think of this as a splinter or a fragment system. I prefer to think of this as, as specialization and a division of innovative labor. Does that make sense? Yeah, definitely. I think so. Something that, so I completely agree with that. , those similarities, the thing that strikes me, that's [00:05:00] different between that, like the technology then, and the technology now is. Sort of the level of complexity and the amount that it takes to integrate it. Like something that I noticed about, , 1850s technology, and maybe this is this, this might be like a cognitive bias where it's like a fish in the water sort of thing. But you look at like patents from 1850. And like, you could, you could take that. You could take that patent and you could like build the thing., whereas now. Everything is just, is so complex. And like, literally, if you like, even just like downloading software from get hub and try to get it to run, sometimes doesn't work. and, and so do you, do you think that that comparison breakdown at all there, you know, that's a fair point and that I've struggled with it? So, so there's a sense of what's surely things are much more complex now than they were earlier. , but, but let me offer you. , a sort of a counter example or two, please. So one, if you think about one [00:06:00] complex industry of the time was agricultural machinery, right? Those mechanical devices were complex and people did, , innovative parts of it. , and at some point, you know, the whole system became integrated. You can just sort of bolt on stuff. The second sort of, probably more compelling one is, is, , the railroads, which if you think about as a technical system, we're quite complex. And, , Steve  who's at Georgia tech has written up. He he's a historian of study science. He studied this extensively and I'm persuaded by his work that this was really complex. , but somehow the railroads managed to integrated. While, still relying on independent inventions. So if you think about track switching, these all came from different, different parts of, , you know, different people in different parts of the co , of the country. And, and they didn't really, the railroad companies themselves didn't really have a function whose [00:07:00] job it was to, to, to develop these innovations. This somehow had got managed. Yeah. So, you know, I mean, I find it depending on which side of the bed I wake up, I either agree with you or disagree with you. But yeah, I think the trick with all of this,, that I think is fascinating is that it's so multi causal and so nuanced that it's, it's very, it's tough to say like, okay, like this is. Exactly the same or exactly different., and so I, I think that conversations like this are actually really important for sort of exploring that nuance., actually like just something that I'm wondering about the railroads is, , my, my sense of modern corporations is that they are very hesitant to integrate. External systematic change. Right? So it was like in my, my mental model, if we've had a railroad today and someone came and said like, Oh, I have this, this like, great way to change the way that you do tracks, but you need to [00:08:00] do all your tracks this way. It would never adopt that., is, do you have a sense of whether there was like a cultural difference or a good point? I'm not an expert on this, but again, relying on Steve's work. Steve Musselman's work. There's an interesting case of, , of breaking, you know, when you have a, when you have a locomotive and you've got these, these are these bogeys that are coupled, how do you stop this thing? And so this was a complicated thing and it was, it was a system that had to be installed, , in, in, in all the, all the cars and the railroads were. So, so there's a sense in which they were very open to the system, , and Westinghouse. Was that was the guy who was one of the people who came up with the whole system. There were others who came up with different ways of accomplishing this. And the railroad said, fine. , you know, we'll, we'll take it, but we want to do it. And Westinghouse said, no, no, no, I'll supply you the whole system. And just, you just put it in. And there was a lot of friction around that and, and [00:09:00] eventually Westinghouse prevailed, , thanks in part to his, his patent position. And his willingness to take the railroads on. So,, but to go back to your big question, is there a cultural change? I mean, surely there has to be right. And we were talking about 150 years, right? Yeah. But you know, that, that particular axis. Yeah. I suspect, I suspect that that all particularly since companies now have an autumn D function or an engineering function, that's that, you know, build certain. Builds up such certain sort of preferences or biases or, or views. It would be hard to adopt something wholesale from the outside and give up what you have internally. If you didn't have such an entrance function, it might be easier. But you know, I'm really speculating on this one. Yeah, absolutely. That's, that's what we're here for. The, the, like, this is not, , we're not doing any sort of peer review or anything. and, and so I guess I, another. Big [00:10:00] theme that I was wondering about that you didn't. Like, I feel like you hinted at, but didn't quite touch on in the paper was sort of the nature of the technology in these different areas themselves, like, you know, , late 18 hundreds, you have a lot of sort of mechanical inventions and then sort of giving way to chemistry and then electronics,, and then eventually software. and, and do you, do you have a sense of whether the, the organization of American innovation. Was Al was like, which way does the causality run? Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, so, so, so far I think it is, I think you've got something really important there, which is, it may be that mechanical systems are maybe designed based systems have this kind of a, are different from more integrated systems, like, like a, you know, if you think of. , a modern chemical process, which is highly optimized in many ways, and everything [00:11:00] is, is interacting with each other. So, so the shortly our differences, and you could make the argument that, that sort of the mechanical systems were more amenable to sort of bolt on parks. Right? You take this part out of the, the, the agricultural machinery and you bought a different type of, , part onto it. Yeah., A variant of that, which is an argument that, , again, a historians have made economic historians have made, which is the one difference from, from the mechanical technologies of the late 19th century and the, the chemical and electrical technologies of the early 20th century was the latter of a much more science-based and your independent thinkers, you know, had much less of a, , The opportunities were much, much less fruitful for just the tinkerer, the famous Yankee in January, which, which, you know, was that was irresponsible for, for America's [00:12:00] rise to riches prop, you know, in some sense, had, had, had, had to change and evolve to accommodate the new science based industries. And I think that's probably true. And that may be one reason why. Companies like DuPont had to start doing some of the, the inventing themselves and to, to bring some of this insight there inside the phone. That's certainly, certainly one possibility on the other hand, you know, I'm sorry, this is going to be on the one hand, on the other hand, that's amazing. On the other hand, think about a petroleum refining, which is. We started out as tinkering, but eventually had a very strong science, scientific and engineering base. Yeah., some of the most far reaching and inventions were made by, , independent inventors, but by a guy called interestingly enough, CP dubs and I've read, I can't [00:13:00] verify that C stands for carbon and P stands for petroleum. So the guy's name was carbon petroleum dubs, and he came up with a dubs process. And the, that led to, to the technology that is that's used in pretty much every on refinery that you can think of the, the platin , what's called the platform. Other platinum reforming technology uses a platinum catalyst. So, you know, there was lots of room for independent invention., even in these new science based industries, by the way, dubs was competing with standard oil. Wow. Standardize. It had the song process and this guy that the modern day company, you can look it up. It's called UOP universal oil products build itself as the supplier of technology to the independence, the independency of being the independent oil refining companies, independent of the standard oilbrella. Yeah. Wow. And, and [00:14:00] so yeah, the, the, the relationship between like a science and tinkering is. I feel like there's, they're, they're like the people on the science side and they're the people on the tinkering side. But my, like the hypothesis that I've sort of been coming more and more towards is that it's almost, almost like a cycle where like, everything goes through cycles where it's like very tinkering heavy and then very science heavy. And then maybe back to tinkering heavy,, depending on, on where it is., and so. I think what's, what's interesting to me now. So like let's pull to the present day is that the structure of the American innovation system feels to me at least very geared towards software, right? Like this, the whole started started a software company in your garage. You have like these really cheap startup costs., You know, high, high capital expenditures, low operating [00:15:00] expenditures,, really does seem to lend itself to venture capital, , acquisitions by large companies, sort of this externalized R and D model that you talk about., what I wonder is like, have you looked at how, but at the same time we still do have all of these other industries, right. And. At least to my eye. It feels like they, that model, which is really good for like the call it the like the hot, or like most top of mind industry then gets applied to all the other industries., is that like, does that ring true to you? And like, did that sort of happen in other places as well, where you would see like when corporate labs started rising up. Get the corporate lab started get applied to industries that previously didn't need them. So, so, so let's, let's break this question up into two. One. Is, does the VC model work elsewhere? [00:16:00] It's certainly being was started elsewhere., I think the other place, what it arguably works is is, is biotech, which is a very different kind of sector. Right. Very science heavy. Yeah., Capital-intensive as heck, , at least in terms of sort of paying for, for equipment and reagents and people., and it, I would say on the whole, it works well there as well. So it works with two very different, you know, almost like two extreme sides of the economy. Yeah. I think, and you know, I, I want to be cautious. I think it, it sort of breaks down in the middle. And we have a way of thinking about it that it's, it's speculative at this point. , so, so, so that's the answer to your first question is, you know, yet it works at extreme ends of the spectrum is sort of breaks down in the middle. You know, if you think about materials, technologies, , energy, climate change related stuff, it's, it's difficult. [00:17:00] I mean, we haven't really seen very much coming out of it., and Peter deals sort of famous quote. Oh Quip, you know, we wanted flying cars and we got 140 characters. It is, , it's in a sense, has it has a element of bitter truths there that the system, for whatever reason, hasn't really worked in the middle to go back to the other, you know, how did it work earlier? I suspect we didn't have, you know, professional investors investing other people's money, which is what VCs are for the most part. Right.,, But we did have people who, who backed independent in ventures., you know, if you think about, , I, I spent a long time at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh and Alcoa was a homegrown company and it was, it was funded by, by wealthy individuals today. We will, we might call them angel investors, but really that, that involvement went much farther than, than a typical angel investor would do. And you, there are lots of other examples. Well, you know, the, the [00:18:00] people who backed Tesla, for example, the Nikola Tesla, you know, Westinghouse back, back to him out of personal funds. So, so we, we had, we had people willing to, to, to, to back in independent inventors., you know, obviously things were never quite the same, you know, history never quite repeats itself, but, but yeah, there's certainly, you know, you can see the, you can hear the resonance. Of the past in what we see today. Yeah. I think the, where I'm, I'm interested in, whether you could make sort of a broad sweeping statement that the, and, and I, and I realized that this is like a very, sort of like a big statement, and I'm not asking you to like, endorse her undergoes, but like, what would you say about the, the, the thought that,, the structure of the American innovation system. Sort of follows what's best for the most profitable, [00:19:00] , industry at the time, and then sort of applies itself to all industries regardless of applicability, like at that time. Yeah. You know, so it's, it's, it's, it's, there's an interesting point. I think I would put it in a different way, which is it's certainly the case that. If, if you're interested in, in the VC type model, there are a couple of sectors, you know, the VC is like a particular model and they're willing to go to go for that. The thing that's striking to me about the American system. Has been its diversity and its, you know, the incredible diversity, , and the, , willingness to experiment in many different forms. So even, even within the VC sector, you'll find VCs who are specializing in science-based. , thing, , you know, startups, they're not whether it's showing the, that they're sort of, they're saying we won't follow the heart and just do you know, SAS, or we just do, you [00:20:00] know, B to C companies or platforms or whatever it is. You can find people to back. You pretty much, no matter what you're doing, , maybe not, not enough, , in some sense to meet societal needs. So I would say, in fact, it's the opposite that the American system has been very good in terms of diversity in large measure because of its scale. I mean, America is in some sense, , and this is a tangent, but it is just a giant exception, right? It's a continent, which is one which has had a unified currency, a largely unified set of rules for commerce, , for trade. A common system of law. It's, it's, it's really quite, quite amazing, , what, what we have here. , so for countries who want to emulate America, I always have this caution is that is only one, you know, , , and, and the fact, you know, unlike Yoda, it didn't really have to, to kind of reinvent something from all plot and wait for [00:21:00] 200 years. I mean, I'm overstating it, right? I mean, it's an important point. Right., so, so we have this diversity, there's a sense in which the VCs, you know, a lot of them are chasing the trends as you talk as you, as you say., and perhaps for good reasons. I mean, maybe this was, this was getting us off point, but maybe if you think about it, right, , we're. Work w America is a really rich country. And, you know, it seems odd to say this in, in the situation we're in, but we pretty much solved a lot of the basic problems that signed some technology could solve., you know, if you go back 250, 300 years ago, the big problem was getting enough to eat, fighting off jumps and microbes, and just basically the sheer drudgery of daily living. And for the most part. Again, I don't want to sound, , like, like a, like a nut, but to some, to, to, to a large extent, we've solved [00:22:00] those problems. So if I, if I look, I have teenage kids, I have a, you know, a kid college rising, rising senior, and I look at their lives and their lives are so different from what I grew up in India. And it strikes me that that biggest problem is, is boredom. That we've, we've ultimately reached the stick stage in, in, in, in America where people people's people have to fight the boredom. And you could argue that many of the so-called innovations that the VCs are funding are a solution to that problem, which was the problem. How do, how do, how do you stay off boredom? Yeah, I think now, no, it's my turn to do the on the other head, which is so I, I actually, I completely agree with you about how far we've come and how, how many amazing things we have. And I like don't, , I don't want to understate that. And I think that people do, I think that people are not [00:23:00] grateful for like what, how different it was even a hundred years ago. and yet I think my. My point is, or my hope is that there's so much more to be done. Right like that, that it's not, we're not at some tapering off point. Right. But ideally there's, there's so much more to be done. So ideally not only would we not worry too much about bacterial infections, , but we would also not have to worry as much about viral infections. Right. And instead of going like really the maximum speed limit being, you know, Couple hundred miles per hour on an airplane, it would be, you know, a couple thousand miles per hour on a rocket ship or something. So, yeah. Well look, I, I completely agree with you. I'm, I'm, I'm an optimist and we will find that the, the challenges we're dealing with now, to some extent we've created, right? If you think of the big challenge we face or a big [00:24:00] challenge we face, which is, which is climate change, it's, it's, it's something that essentially is a fruit of our own success. Yeah, that the arts can now support so many more people. It's, it's fundamentally changing the earth itself. Right. All of the fossil fuels that took so to, to build we're we're, we're consuming and we're dumping all the carbon back in the, in the environment. So to CO2 back in the, yeah, that's a tough one. It definitely is. And so I guess actually sort of looking to the future,, you, you touch on this sort of lightly in the paper, cause it's mostly focused on, , the, the history and sort of like how we got to where we are today., where do you see sort of like in your mind, where is the American innovation system? Sort of like less equipped to handle sort of featured things then [00:25:00] maybe it could be. So, so that's, that's a great point. And, you know, we've between my Cortez and me, we've had a, , , , I would say a very spirited debate on both this and therefore what, what might happen., so, , So I'm not going to represent them. I'll represent my views. Oh, okay. Well, if you, if you, if you could like mention their views as well, that would be amazing. Right? So, so, so let's, let's start with sort of, you know, where we might be going. One view is, and th their view is in some ways market forces or the profit motive. Has entered so deeply into the innovation system that it's taking us away from, from pressing important problems to, as I said, you know, for example, solving the problem with bored teenagers. Right? Okay., so this, this is one view I don't disagree with, you know, [00:26:00] when we are in terms of what were the, what big parts of the innovation system are doing, but. The question is, you know, what is it? Is it, is it profit motive or something else? You know? Cause every it's, it's natural to look back at, just roughly say the period between 1930 and up to 1980, what we had these, you know, the DuPonts, the GEs, the Kodaks the IBM of course, the bell labs, Xerox park, you know, one after the other, these companies great companies that did great things,, did one for themselves. What also did get, did great things produce, you know, fantastic, , innovations., you know, there's a sense in which people want to go back and sort of go back to that golden past, , in, in many ways, , really possible. And my view is that's just not going to happen that, you know, Much for whatever it's, it's, it's far, there's a sense in which we're not, I don't think it's possible to go back there. [00:27:00] So this is the system we have for, for better or for worse., which is the, you know, they mentioned the universities, the startups, and then the incumbents. And the question is, , where might we go and what, what might we be able to do with it? I think that this kind of system could be improved., You know, if you look at the current pandemic, , which is an interesting case in point, we find ourselves hopelessly under prepared. And if you look at, for example, the CDC has guidance on what universities should do to, to reopen the CDC does not recommend at this point,, widespread and regular testing, which I find absolutely. Definitely it's absolutely baffling. I do it baffled given that we really don't have any, any, any prophylactic, any way to prevent. If we don't have a vaccine, we're not going to get a vaccine for the next 18 months, no matter who and whatever, you know, on a widespread or wide-scale. Yeah, we [00:28:00] don't have a cure. The only thing we could do is to sort of test and isolate and prevent people. , you know, from, from infecting others and the fact that this wonderful innovation system has left us six months after this, why this was first discovered, why are the CDC is still not prepared to say you should test and test regularly? I suspect it's because our testing capacities, woefully inadequate. That's the only charitable reason I can, I can describe as to why they're doing it. Yeah. But it's, it's, it's, it's a huge, I think we're putting thousands of lives at danger, , because we haven't developed this, this ability to deploy, destined, which uses technologies that by and large exist, right. You're you're using PCR based antibody testing or, or automate [00:29:00] testing, whichever. I, you know, I'm not an expert, but certainly those technologies exist. We know how to do these things. And the fact that the richest country in the world, the technically the most sophisticated country in the world is, is unable to deploy. It tells us something about the innovation system that I think is not flattering for the system. It's, it's failed us in important ways. And I suspect one could make a similar claim as regards climate change. I think the system is failing us., what I think we will have to do is imagine a more constructive role for the government and perhaps, , private philanthropy as well, that can fill in some of the gaps that the cotton system leaves, where we can have more of our minds, the bright, wonderful minds that America produces on that it attracts. Use to S you know, employ to solve what I, at least I consider to be more pressing problems and [00:30:00] more important problems., and, you know, we, we, we could, we could talk about what, what shape those things might take, but at least, you know, at a high level, that would be my answer to your question is I it's, it's, it's a great system. There are some weaknesses that need to be fixed. Yeah, I, I would, I would, would you mind sort of digging into, into those weaknesses? , cause I mean, I have, I have my own opinions on that, but I 100 w yours and I can react to them. Okay, sure. So I think mine actually, , you, you, you illustrate this very well in the paper where you talk about. I believe it was a DuPont. I think it was DuPont, , tried to acquire, they, they bought the patent, , for, I think it was synthetic silk,, yes, Korean and, , they just, they couldn't get it to work. And so they, they eventually needed to actually bring the people in and start doing things in house. And that [00:31:00] was one of the reasons that they started, , Like that, that corporate labs took off was because,, there was, there was like a lot of sort of integration work that needed to be done. And at least in my mind, we've sort of returned to. That weakness now. And so I see at anything that can either, , sort of stand on its own or be very modular and quickly,, become part of a larger thing. , it does well, like th the system does really well for it, but,, technologies that sort of are like improvements to systems or replacements for systems. they, they sort of wither on the vine. Yeah, no, I think that's right. I mean, one way to think about this is that, you know, if you go back to where the VC based system does really well, you see the two opposing ends. If you think about software, I would argue to a first approximation software is mostly about [00:32:00] figuring out what consumers want, will enough people buy it? Do I, can I find them? So if you think, if you see what, what, what a lot of VC money gets spent. It's not in, in solving the technical problems. It's in solving the commercial problems. Yeah. How do I find the market? What is the market? You know, how do I sell it? And, and, and I did those things out, which is why VCs don't care about whether you make money, but they're care. They care about top line growth. Can you acquire the customers? Can you acquire them cheaply enough? So the system is well tailored to that. On the other hand, other end, if you think about the biotech side, The problem that is not do customers want it? Yes. We want a cure for, for, you know, for Colbert. We want a cure for cancer. The big problem is the scientific and technical problems. Can we find something that will do it? And once again, I would argue the VC system for the most part is, is, is well suited or VC system. The startup [00:33:00] based system is well suited to that. Yeah. You have patient capital people willing to put in money where they will not see. The final outcome for another 20 years, people are, you know, are spending money in, in how you could make a human beings immortal and you know, just think, think about, you know, there's no, there's no doubt. There's a market for that. And we also know, we also know who, who, who will want it. Right. I'm in that category. I like living too, right. It's the stuff in between it, where these two things interact and important place where, you know, if you go back to the question of, of, , nylon, let's say our, our rail on the question of what are you going to do with it? So you have a new material, what should it be used for? So did we used to make. Make underwear for women, or should it be used to make parachutes, could it be used to make a billiard balls, which is one of the earliest, , not for nylon, but for something else. [00:34:00] There's a myriad of possible ways so that, you know, you could have many different kinds of markets, many different kinds of consumers, and depending on each, you would have to take this and get to a different price point, have different sort of performance characteristics. And all of those have considerable technical uncertainty. So for example, when nylon first comes in, you can dye it, you can call it it. So it's this really crappy looking, Dell gray kind of material. Well, who would want to buy stuff? You know, clothes may not have that if you could only buy gray, so you have to solve the problem of, okay, how do I diet? But that depends on what you use it for. If you go to make it to use rope, you don't cash, right? Right. So it's when these two things need to interact in important ways and that are important, you know, funding decisions that have to make, should I invest in, in changing the performance characteristics of this material? Well, that depends on what market I'm going after. Well, which market should I go after? [00:35:00] That's when I think the system does much, you know, it's not clear at all, , that the system is, is, is weak and it, I would argue. , the, the integrated system would work much better. Yeah. That's really insightful. , I hadn't, I, I hadn't put those pieces together before. and that, that sounds really correct., and so do you have any thoughts about,, How instead of like, I guess without saying like, Oh, let's just make corporate labs again. , do you, do you have a sense of what steps we could take from where we are now towards, , a system that supported those kinds of innovations? Yeah. So I would say that they're probably one just to come back to, , the question of, of the role of government. One another place where the current system works breaks down is when you [00:36:00] have what economists call externalities. Whereas, you know, it's hard to capture all the benefits that you're producing and some cases, those benefits could be, could be quite significant. The government is already involved in one sector in a big way that solves this, which is a university sector. We we're now, you know, , , the university sector just would not survive. Without the NIH and the NSF funding and the other source of the funding over the last two decades, maybe three, I certainly three decades. I think that the system has the government system has become more short term. I think they're willing to take fewer bets, , perhaps for good reasons. , but, but I think. If you think about many of the things that, that we got many of the breakthroughs we got, certainly after following world war II, the government not only subsidize some of the upstream [00:37:00] research, they were happy to support the training of students and they were happy to, to buy the things that came out at the backend. what's. Interesting. So let's go back to covert. One of the things that would have been very useful is for the government have also announced early on that they would, they would be ready to buy, you know, 250 million units of vaccines for the next so many years. I couldn't agree more. And if he has to write and test and forget, government buying government is actively hindering. The use of, of tests, right? They won't allow people to do tests. The FDA has become such a force, , such a destructive force and disrespect, I would say, , it's it's, it's, I'm, I'm shocked and saddened by, by how, at least in this particular case, the FDA has behaved., so, so, so the, but just not to get too [00:38:00] far off on my pet hobby horse right now is. So the government, I think we need to find a way where, where the government can, can not only solve some of the upstream, scientific uncertainty, commercial, you know, technical uncertainty part, which they're currently doing through funding research and so on, but maybe also try to do something at the, at the backend where they stand ready to, to procure or to, to, to be important customers for, or somehow. Help mitigate some of the commercial uncertainty through the procurement. So I'm, , I feel like very torn on this subject because so, , to, to expose my biases, like I, I'm a big fan of markets. And so,, I'm very, I buy the arguments that, , government is not. Well, especially when, when it's, they're not buying something for themselves, they're not, they [00:39:00] will always make the best choice about what to buy. But at the same time, I, I find the argument you just made compelling., do you have any sense of like how to, to balance those two? Yeah, I think it's a good point. So, I mean, The government as, as the user, as a lead customer, for many of the technologies and electronics computing, et cetera, kind of makes sense because I don't know if they bumped the best ones, but they certainly bought a lot of them. And it was justified by, you know, by the, by the space race, you know, the Sputnik and then the core war that followed. And in some sense, even if you bought the wrong things as the government. In those days, you could console yourself by saying, well, at least we trained a whole bunch of PhDs and engineers. , and so we, we got something in the body game, right? We, we developed a capacity. We developed a way to test these systems. So [00:40:00] I'm, my biases are the same as yours. I am generally having grown up in India. I'm very suspicious of government. , You know, actively interfering in the marketplace because usually no good comes out of that. Yeah., but at the same time, it's hard not to look at the, the current crisis we have and say, well, here's one thing that, you know what, I would have supported some sort of government intervention, both on the front end, in helping develop the knowledge that we need to develop the vaccines and the tests. But also to S to, to at least backstop some of the commercial risk. Yeah., without it, nobody will make investments. There was a very nice article that I read about the, either the Ebola or the SARS epidemic, where some people made significant investments in, in scaling up capacity for, for vaccines and or for PPE. And then we're left, hanging. Because if the government doesn't, doesn't intervene [00:41:00] actively to buy some, you know, to provide some significant quantity of demand is just not viable. People. People are not going to pay for tests for themselves, or at least the right people will not pay for tests for themselves. They will pay for tests when they think they're sick. You want the test when they don't think they're sick. Exactly. And most people won't pay for that. You do need, this is a classic case where you do need the government to come in and say, well, we'll pay for it. And within in India, for example, smallpox are more or less wiped out because the government subsidized not only the acquisition of the vaccines, but also the large scale deployment. Yeah, we also need government to help perhaps deploy this, but given our fragmented insurance and medical delivery system, we need, we need a lot of help both on the regulatory side and on the dollar side to help that. And so while I share your biases, I think there are definitely cases where [00:42:00] we need the government to be more thoughtful and more, more progressive. Yeah, I think that the tricky thing, so I agree and I think. The tricky thing that I, I don't know how to do is how to decide like where, where where's the line., and that's, I think beyond, beyond the scope of this, but, , it's, it's an interesting, , question that I don't think that we have a good conversation about yeah. I mean, w w a different way to do it is we don't have to draw the line, , which we can do it on a, on a, as is basis. Right? I mean, part of the thing that I asked. Over time. I've come to the view that we want to have principles, policies, or principle ways of, of, of, of approaching these kinds of decisions, which is fine. And it's a, it's a, it's an instinct and an impulse that I understand, but sometimes that stands in the way, so, so we can draw the line. Fine. Yeah. [00:43:00] It's okay. Let's do it here. Then when the next one comes along, we can figure out whether the government should do something like this or not, or whether the government and the reality is the government does get involved. Right. I mean, yeah. So all the nice lines we draw don't seem to stop anything in any case. Yeah. And actually speaking of bare, mid and shifting a little bit, I, you, you sort of outline., the antitrust trends over time. And,, like in, in the paper, , you make the argument that antitrust was pressure to, for corporations to do more internal research so that they could expand markets. and there's examples. Both of this., but then at the same time, there are also examples of, , sort of the, the technology. Like another reason why people have really liked corporate labs is because [00:44:00] technology also like escapes them, right? Like you see, , the transistor coming out of bell labs and, and to my understanding, they government antitrust also. Sometimes would prevent, , big companies from going into new markets, even if they were to invent things. So,, can you, can you sort of like walk me through, , your, your argument of. The value of trust. Yeah. So that's a really good point and I should have, I should have thought about that. Thank you for reminding me. here's a, here's an interesting piece. Just going back to DuPont in 1911, DuPont had a monopoly on smokeless powder. They were the monopoly suppliers of smokeless powder to the us Navy in 1911 in a famous antitrust case. The government went in and broke up DuPont into three parts. So there was DuPont Hercules and Atlas three companies to, to provide, , to provide smokeless powder. And this is quite remarkable. If you think about right, they took a dominant one form that was doing well. And they said, you know, we're going to break you up [00:45:00] into three producers. Now, those Atlas soon March with Hercules, I believe. And then Hercules' remained as an independent company for many years in similar spaces to DuPont and they had reasonably friendly relationships. But I think that episode was a singular episode for DuPont because they understood that that ability to grow was going to be constraint that they could not do what companies do now, which is just buy up competitors and, you know, look at T-Mobile and sprint. Right. I mean, it's, we've gone from four to three and I'm not an antitrust experts. I don't understand these things, but there's a sense in which. If growth is, is an imperative for companies. And if they're going to be constrained from growing, by buying up, , you know, by expanding by, by, through, through, through sort of what we call inorganic acquisitions, there's a sense in which, , they will [00:46:00] have to find new products and these new products could come from startups. Although there's an antitrust scrutiny there as well. , but it's much easier if they come internally. And that's essentially how DuPont went from being a producer of large, largely undifferentiated chemical products, like explosives and fertilizers into new materials. And they eventually went almost all the way into getting into textiles and then they stopped and they, you know, when they got into nylon and polyester, they said, how far do we go? Do we want to be producing our own cloth? And they said, no, no, no. We want to stop here. We're going to demand an industrial company. , ATMT while they could not get into merchant semiconductors, they use semiconductors internally. It was very important for them that they needed those to solve their own internal problems and to grow the telephony business. Yeah. Did, did they,, produce, did they make their own semiconductors or did they purchase them from, [00:47:00] I believe. Hi, I'd been interested. I believe they did for, for quite some time and an IBM similarly. Right. I don't think they were a merchant supplier of semiconductors to others, but they've certainly produced any conductors for themselves. Yeah. And so this is going to be a naive question, but like, why, so, I mean, I would like, I guess the question is like, why doesn't Bowie, why don't we see a lot of amazing research coming out of Bowie? Because I sort of think of them as. Basically a monopoly on, I mean, it's like, there's like Boeing and Airbus and they're the only, , companies that can produce like giant airplane, like giant complex airplanes. so if, , the, if like the monopoly profits are what enables like longterm thinking and,, really great corporate labs, like why, why doesn't Boeing have an amazing corporate lab? That's a great point., I don't know, but remember boy was allowed to buy McDonald Douglas,, [00:48:00] and, and words was not stopped there. And really, , that, I don't know. I don't know the answer, but I think, I think part of it is at some, they, they never either never developed the capability to do this kind of fundamental research. Are, or they do. And somehow it's all tied up in various kinds of government contracts that we don't see, you know, because they had a large government contractor as well. And maybe the government is not demanding from them. The same sorts of innovative products that it might have demanded of its contractors in an earlier era. Yeah. So, but it's a, it's a great question, Ben. I don't know. I never thought about it. Like why don't they have,, a large corporate lab? No. Remember one reason we will never go back to these large corporate labs is because they are incredibly difficult to manage insight, a publicly traded company. Yeah. And this was the big [00:49:00] point of disagreement between my, my, my coauthors and me. My view is research inside of a large public company is always a strange animal. It's always a strange animal., and the only way it's happened is if, if corporate headquarters protects it and nurtures it as the shiny example, here is Microsoft. Microsoft is, had set up under bill Gates, , and more of a world of fantastic research lab, which, you know, they, they nurtured, but, and this is a big part. If, if you ask yourself, what did Microsoft shareholders get out of that lab? That, that would be an interesting quality. I don't know that it's been systematically studied. Yeah. But looking at it from the outside, if you look at what Gates as successors have done, I think I'm going to get in trouble for saying [00:50:00] this, but I think. What we are now seeing since probably 2015, 2016 is the beginning of the end of Microsoft research. Wow. That's and I say this because you're that the person was heading, Microsoft research was replaced by two people. Oh yeah. And part of that was, was taken away. And part of what was, was moved into sort of more applied. so. You know, I that's, why both, I think we'd never go back to the corporate labs, , in a, in a serious way. Yeah. Because it's incredibly hard to manage and it's incredibly hard to justify, you know, the billion dollar, roughly expense that Microsoft research, you know, cost Microsoft. If you think about huge, huge public good. , but it's, it's, it's no longer justified given that Microsoft now faces significant competition. Yeah. In terms of growth goes back to the externalities piece [00:51:00] again. Yeah. So there's certainly large externalities., you know, if you think about IBM when IBM had to take a potential crisis or even a little bit before that IBM's Watson research lab, essentially God reoriented and pushed more and more into being managed by the individual divisions and the businesses inside. IBM. And those divisions have quarterly reporting responsibilities, right? You have to justify the capital that you get from, from, from the parent corporation. And it's really hard to say what something you've, you know, investing in now may or may not work. If it works. We might see the results in six years, you know, in terms of the technical and scientific findings and the commercial benefits might be even further down the line. It's, it's hard to manage that. I, I don't blame it on, on. On on short term as though I don't believe that argument, but I certainly do think that it's this, this kind of bundling between a main activity of a corporation, let's say [00:52:00] IBM, which is to sell computers, to produce, and then to do all this other cool research, which could be relevant, but perhaps not. But, you know, perhaps someday it's really hard to manage and do that. And I think this is the relentless logic of, of. You know, golf capitalism is we have to unbundle things. We have to specialize. So they go back to, to kind of Smith and say, and as I said, this was the point of contention between the research team that's working on this problem. So you're just hearing one side of it. They think I'm,, I'm overtaking the customer so to speak. I, well, I mean, I certainly buy your argument, so. I forgot what that's worth., I'll, I'll tell them, , so the last thing I always like to ask guests is,, what is something that people are not thinking enough about that they, they should be thinking more about? That's a tough one, [00:53:00] not very imaginative sort of guy.,, I would, I would disagree, but, well,, Okay. No, I don't think I can give a, give a clever enough to justify the advertisements. That's that's fair. That's fair. Well,, I really appreciate you doing this. , this is,, and I really appreciate you being willing to, to sort of like, Almost like play with these ideas., I think that, that people don't do that enough. And,, I, my, my hope is that by I sort of playing with them, , we can, we can figure out new ways to make awesome things happen. I really hope that, you know, I would really like to learn because none of these ideas are set in stone and it's. I, I thank you for the opportunity to talk to you. And I hope we'll, we'll, we'll learn some more and people will, will come up with, with new and better ways of thinking about this problem. [00:54:00]   [00:55:00]      

Sportevenementen en songfestivals worden uitgesteld. Borrelpraat blijft recht tegen de trends ingaan en haalt de start van het nieuwe seizoen - op jullie verzoek! - juist naar voren.We blazen het derde seizoen binnen met explosief materiaal: kernbommen! En wat heeft fotofabrikant Kodak ermee te maken? Sanne stelt incestschandalen in Europese vorstenhuizen aan de kaak. Pun intended. En Rufus blijkt in de jaren negentig niet te zijn verwittigd van een wijziging in de Nederlandse verkeersregels. LUISTERAARSFEITJES GEZOCHT!We hebben voor aanvang van de coronacrisis niet genoeg afleveringen opgenomen om een heel seizoen mee te vullen. Daarom gaan we in deze thuiswerktijden weer luisteraarsfeitjes opnemen.Heb je een mooi feitje om te delen, laat het ons weten met een DM'etje op Instagram naar @borrelpraat, of mail naar podcast@kesselskramer.com.

Die wundervolle Caroline Zenker ist zu Gast bei uns und wir haben die Gelegenheit mit ihr über die selbstständige Arbeit als Fotografin und über die Fashion und Beauty Branche zu sprechen. Es geht um Modelagenturen und wie man mit diesen zusammen arbeiten kann. Außerdem sprechen wir über unsere letzten großen Fails in der Fotografie und über Kodaks letzte Ankündigung.

Nick and Teej talk about Kodak’s shenanigans, how Cardi B can be problematic, and our Social Justice All-Star Team. Special Guest is Janae from the Trippy Chronicles Podcast on ITunes. Follow us all on IG at @femmexfatale_ @_iamteej_ @knickfair

A Good Honest Conversation Never Hurt Anyone! The pod bros FOLS FOREVER & MR VANS are back again for their 179th episode joined by organisers of popular brunch events, DLT. We start things off by going behind the story and origins of DLT. Why they decided to bring brunches to the London scene, how they managed to get to this current point and also their future endeavours. Following the untimely passing of Nipsey Hussle last week, a video surfaced online of rapper, Kodak Black making comments in poor taste towards Lauren London (partner & mother of Nipsey's child). The hip hop community doesn't react well to Kodaks comments in particular, T.I. Is the anger justified? We also speak on the recent #MeTooOnCampus trending topic on twitter last week and rape culture at universities. The DLT lads also recall stories of being finessed by strippers in the U.S and we also speak about the difference between entrepreneurial endeavours and regular careers and making the most of opportunities. TICKETS STILL AVAILABLE FOR OUR LIVE SHOW ON LINK BELOW: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/offthecuffpod-live-show-tickets-58778085837 PLEASE RATE, REVIEW, COMMENT SHARE & SUBSCRIBE Don't forget to get involved in the conversation and use the #OFFTHECUFFPOD Email enquiries to: offthecuff24@hotmail.com Socials (Twitter/Insta): @OFFTHECUFFPOD/offthecuffpod @DLTBrunch/DLTBrunch @folsforever/folsforever @mrvans7/mrvans7

Kodak has it's own cryptocurrency, Intel joins forces with Ferrari, Nissan,Iced Tea company can't afford Bitcoin machines, --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/dollarsandcents/support

Businesses that thrive long-term continue to innovate, even when they are at the top of their game. If the Kodaks of the world don't disrupt themselves, someone else certainly will. So, the question becomes, how does an organization continue to drive growth and generate new ideas—even if there is no one in the rearview mirror? Dr. Natalie Nixon contends that the key to accelerating innovation lies in the ebb and flow between rigor and wonder. Dr. Nixon is the Founder and Principal at Figure 8 Thinking, a consultancy dedicated to helping organizations accelerate innovation by connecting the dots between creativity and strategy. A design strategist and hybrid thinker, she leverages her background in service design, anthropology and fashion to support clients in cultural transformation, leadership development, and team collaboration. Nixon is also a Fellow at the Paris d.School and a lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania, and she created the Strategic Design MBA program at Philadelphia University. Nixon is a frequent contributor to Inc. magazine, and she has been a featured speaker at the Business Innovation Factory, 360 Possibilities and The Copenhagen Institute for Interactive Design. Today, Nixon shares the connection between her background in anthropology and fashion, explaining how she sees the world from a ‘worm's eye view.' She discusses how her business, Figure 8 Thinking, evolved from a talk on improvising at work she delivered at TEDx Philadelphia in 2014. Nixon describes how companies can accelerate innovation by driving growth based on consumer needs, hiring from a non-traditional wheelhouse, and benchmarking progress against a wide variety of sectors. Listen in for Nixon's insight around kinesthetic learning and the balance between wonder and rigor.   Key Interview Takeaways Drive the growth of your business based on the needs of the consumer. Nixon contends that if you focus on the end-user, profitability, efficiency and productivity will follow. Ensure thought diversity by hiring from a variety of sectors. More diverse inputs result in more innovative outputs, so companies willing to hire anthropologists, psychologists and artists will naturally accelerate innovation. Benchmark your team against other sectors. Rather than simply making comparisons with others in your industry, Nixon suggests casting a wider net to determine what ‘best in class' really means. A superiority complex can be fatal. Nixon argues that companies like Kodak fail when they lose their curiosity. A false sense of security and resistance to change leaves a company ripe for disruption. Physical activity helps balance the mind. Nixon's recent return to the dance studio is fueling her creativity and outlook in a positive way. Rigor cannot be sustained without wonder. Corporate culture emphasizes structure and processes, but problem-solving only happens when we balance that rigor with the time to daydream—to pause and suppose. Connect with Dr. Natalie Nixon Figure 8 Thinking Dr. Nixon on BigSpeak Resources Dr. Nixon at TEDx Philadelphia Strategic Design Thinking: Innovation in Products, Services, Experiences and Beyond edited by Natalie Nixon Dr. Nixon's Column in Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Outerfocus Podcast!I'm working on a new, dedicated, Outerfocus website. We'll have the podcast, library, news and education all in one place. I'm just figuring out the details and hopefully there won't be any interruption to your listening.As always, if you dig what we are doing leave us a sweet review on iTunes and tell all of your mates. Love you loads!This week we are joined by Gisele Duprez who is a street photographer based in New York. We discuss what Gisele likes to shoot, why, where and what she doesn’t like to shoot. We also hear about how she got started in photography including an insight into how she educated herself, and continues to do so with her love of photography books.A look back at photography history we discuss Gustave Le Grey who is noted as one of the most important French photographers of the 19th century. We take a look at some of his highs, and lows in both his work and personal life. To finish this weeks episode Gisele joins us to look at the good and bad in the industry today and find out what Bradley has to say about Kodaks new product.Links:Gustave Le GrayGuest Links:Gisele Duprez Instagram Facebook This is the subway photograph Gisele mentioned........© Gisele Duprez PhotographyHost Links:Bradley Hansonhttps://www.bradleyhanson.comhttps://www.facebook.com/bradleyhansonphotographySupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/outerfocuspodcast)

”There will be more Kodaks”  - Joakim Lindbom and Casimir Artmann discuss disruption in the auto industry and the consequences to manufacturers and society. 

The Mirror Test with Jeffrey Hayzlett, as in the name of the best selling book that asks Is Your Business Really Breathing. Larry speaks with the Social Media and Marketing Expert and Kodaks former Chief Marketing Officer.

NJBankers Podcast #3: Digital Printing for Banks Recorded Thursday, May 4, 2006 (105.9 mb mono MP3 file, 1:52:55) The Digital Print Revolution is here and is changing the way we market to our customers. In this third in a series of podcast recordings, produced for NJBankers by Lubetkin & Co. Communications LLC of Cherry Hill, NJ, you will learn how emerging print technologies can improve both your marketing and your bottom line. Speakers (Photos Copyright Ã�©2006 Steven L. Lubetkin. All rights reserved. Photos available for purchase at EventPictures.com  Diane M. Quinlisk Senior Manager, Pull Marketing Kodak Graphic Communications Group Diane M. Quinlisk joined Kodak Graphic Communications Group in 2004. Her responsibilities include educating the advertising, marketing and creative communities about variable data printing and the personalization capabilities possible with new digital output technologies. Ms. Quinlisk leads cross product strategic initiatives to expand Kodaks presence within the corporate marketing and agency market place; she is also Kodaks industry interface with key trade associations and councils. Barbara Pellow Chief Executive Officer Pellow and Partners A digital printing and publishing pioneer and marketing expert, Barbara Pellow formed Pellow and Partners to help companies develop multi-media strategies that ride the information wave. Whether it is developing a strategy to launch a new product, building a strategic marketing plan or educating your sales force on how to deliver an effective value proposition, Pellow and Partners brings the knowledge and skills to help companies expand and grow business opportunity. Michael Moran , President, Market Connections Mike Moran is the co-founder and President of Market Connections Inc. Michael and his partner, Daniel Brown, have created a one-stop, full service, custom publishing and marketing systems provider for the North American marketplace. In response to the demand for complex and adaptable products. Market Connections has continued building aggressively on its original concept, to establish itself a leader in the market today. Please take part in our podcast listener survey. Click on the icon or follow this link. Thanks! Podcast Theme Music from Mike Stewart, "Internet Audio Guy"