Can't Kodak Help Save Film by.....

alanrockwood · Feb 18, 2012

Wayne,

Regarding your comment on whether this is the right forum category, this thread is about industry news. Therefore, this is exactly the appropriate forum category for this discussion.

If you don't want to participate in this particular discussion then why are you even here? Just stay away and save yourself the trouble while leaving the thread to those who are actually interested. What could be simpler than that?

If you want to talk about "pointless", it really is pointless to dictate what topics others may want to discuss, and doubly so if the criticism of a topic is that the discussion is "pointless".

Ian Grant · Feb 18, 2012

We need Kodak's film division to survive, if it fails it will have a knock on adverse effect on other companies, they need competition to help stimulate the whole film/paper/chemistry market.

Ian

c6h6o3 · Feb 18, 2012

Typewriter Correction Fluid, replacement styli for high end phonograph cartridges, buggy whips. Each was at one time, like film, a staple of its respective industry. The place of each in the industrial landscape has been replaced by some other technology. Yet each, like film, is still readily available. Film will be too, for a long, long, time. No matter what happens to Kodak, somebody will make it. Excuse me, please. I'm off to shoot some HP5+. I'll leave it to you captains of industry to advise Kodak on what they should do to keep film alive.

Steve Smith · Feb 18, 2012

I can actually buy needles for my gramophone in my town. If I want a stylus for my record player, I have to travel a bit further!

Steve.

Aristophanes · Feb 18, 2012

Ian Grant said:
We need Kodak's film division to survive, if it fails it will have a knock on adverse effect on other companies, they need competition to help stimulate the whole film/paper/chemistry market.

Ian

I would argue that competition is now a liability to the consumer if the survival of mass manufactured film is at stake.

I just confronted this problem in a report I reviewed for paper production (pulp). Over-capacity due to competition has led to both suppliers being so revenue poor that both are closing where one could conceivably operate for quite a while longer, albeit at reduced volumes. Customers left with uncertain supply abandon paper use, opting for other methods of packaging, advertising, etc.

What's happening with Kodak is similar in that no one is re-capitalizing through consolidation.

clayne · Feb 18, 2012

Aristophanes said:
I would argue that competition is now a liability to the consumer if the survival of mass manufactured film is at stake.

I just confronted this problem in a report I reviewed for paper production (pulp). Over-capacity due to competition has led to both suppliers being so revenue poor that both are closing where one could conceivably operate for quite a while longer, albeit at reduced volumes. Customers left with uncertain supply abandon paper use, opting for other methods of packaging, advertising, etc.

What's happening with Kodak is similar in that no one is re-capitalizing through consolidation.

I find it odd that the only threads you take part in, by vast majority of the time, are these types of threads. Why is that?

RattyMouse · Feb 18, 2012

Steve Smith said:
Except that they still make it.

But I thought you said they have moved out of film?!!!

Steve.

Wow....you really missed what I was saying. Flew right over your head. Sorry about that.

Aristophanes · Feb 18, 2012

clayne said:
I find it odd that the only threads you take part in, by vast majority of the time, are these types of threads. Why is that?

My area of employment and education.

clayne · Feb 18, 2012

Aristophanes said:
My area of employment and education.

So you come to a site dedicated to analog photography just to talk about bankruptcy and restructuring?

Aristophanes · Feb 18, 2012

clayne said:
So you come to a site dedicated to analog photography just to talk about bankruptcy and restructuring?

This is not the only photo site I frequent. And look at the thread title.

Why are you on this thread? We're all chasing the same ambulance

clayne · Feb 18, 2012

Yeah I see you over on RFF generally participating in the same type of threads.

There's a commonality between you and CGW and the general negative/obsolescence-obsessed threads you both participate in. It's evident in both the way you speak of things and the comparisons you readily make with digital etc. You strike me as someone who armchair shoots film and otherwise has fully embraced digital in your own life - most likely surrounded by many typical gadgets.

Example A: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1806744#post1806744

vpwphoto · Feb 18, 2012

I wont get into the debate of supply issues taking down the "others" if Kodak goes down the pipes as in permanently. Humans like to make stuff, stuff will be made if there is a demand for it at a price to make a profit... will it be a reasonable profit? or Luxury good profit? The future will only tell that. Sure there is a point where it will NOT be worth my personal economic resources to buy film sheets or rolls at say $10 per 80 sq inches. (1 35mm roll, 4,4x5 sheets or 1 8x10 sheet... the price for some of those is fast approaching already.
I am confident that ADOX (I am experimenting with Adox and and Ilford will be around a while... and they know they cant keep their operations going if demand drops signifacantly (Kodachome example from PE) Supplies can and will be made... film base is used in many similar products. emulsions can be made in a basement! Consistent coating requires volume production!

Stop thinking so much and I agree some folks around here can be real downers and seem to be very much engaged in the sport of stirring the pot.

And if film could be made behind the iron curtain it certainly will be made for some time in our "world is flat" economy.

Aristophanes · Feb 18, 2012

clayne said:
Yeah I see you over on RFF generally participating in the same type of threads.

There's a commonality between you and CGW and the general negative/obsolescence-obsessed threads you both participate in. It's evident in both the way you speak of things and the comparisons you readily make with digital etc. You strike me as someone who armchair shoots film and otherwise has fully embraced digital in your own life - most likely surrounded by many typical gadgets.

Example A: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1806744#post1806744

Facts are facts. You can get emotional if you want to and sling insults or personal inventive and assumptions. Ad hominems make no difference to me.

vpwphoto · Feb 18, 2012

I don't write very well... but if film could be made behind the iron curtain it certainly will be made for some time in our "world is flat" economy. I have absolutely no doubt about that.

No mater what is said here... film demand will likely continue to go down for to a point where it is just like fine oil paint or pastels... I am amazed now at how few people use anything but a PHONE to take family photos at school events and such (video too) I was just thinking tonight that the pocket camera industry is likely going to be in free-fall in another 3 years with miracle phones doing everything from pictures, to voice recording (I just realized I don't need my Olympus recorder anymore because my phone does that too.)

clayne · Feb 18, 2012

Aristophanes said:
Facts are facts. You can get emotional if you want to and sling insults or personal inventive and assumptions. Ad hominems make no difference to me.

Sure, but I'm not here to piss in everyone else's cereal.

You won't make any friends by continually trying to be right.

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 19, 2012

Feeble, but those of you on facebook might want to "like" "Kodak Comeback"--

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Kodak-Comeback/216644905094660?sk=wall

Which if nothing else, is a vehicle for Kodak's explanation for some of the actions they've taken recently.

Aristophanes · Feb 19, 2012

clayne said:
Sure, but I'm not here to piss in everyone else's cereal.

You won't make any friends by continually trying to be right.

What does my saying the industry should consolidate to save film production have to do with urine in Kellog's?

My statement was positive. Yours derogatory.

You're not reading the post's content. You are just looking for someone to call a digitalphile like some self-appointed analog policeman. You can neither defend nor promote analog film use by misrepresenting the problems it faces and running away to your comfort zone. If you don't like the facts or their distillation, don't read them.

Read the thread title again. The "save film" part.

Facebook is for friends.

keithwms · Feb 19, 2012

Thanks David!

Existing Light · Feb 19, 2012

RattyMouse said:
Can't Kodak help save film by dying? I hate to say that but it seems that if Kodak went belly up, and ceased all film manufacturing, then the remaining players Fujifilm and Ilford would have more customers and a more profitable business. I know that most would prefer Kodak to be the surviver and have Fujifilm disappear. However, clearly Kodak is the most mismanaged company out of the two. Fujifilm has successfully moved out of the film business and diversified enough to withstand the loss of their film business.

Anyway, what about the idea that having Kodak go under might actually help insure that film survives? Valid? Not so much?

If everybody that shot Kodak film could find a suitable replacement with Fuji or Ilford (or Foma or whatever), then I dont see the raw materials problem ever coming up. But how many people are going to get butthurt because they cant find something exactly like Tmax 100 or Portra and just go digital? I'd assume quite a few. Then, I'd assume the raw materials issue could be a problem. But then, I have pretty much no understanding of the manufacturing of film, so I'm probably completely wrong in this assumption. But I like to think that if (and that might a big if) enough kodak shooters went with Ilford if Kodak goes out of business (and I hope they dont!) that Ilford could keep the demand for raw materials high enough.

If not, I'll just stock up on as much FP4+, HP5+ and Arista paper as I can

thegman · Feb 19, 2012

Ideally I think Kodak film division would be spun off to a privately-held company. Worry less about pleasing the street, and more about turning a profit. Apparently Kodak film remains profitable, it's the rest of the company that isn't. Wall Street does not want to hear that, they want to hear plans for the future that they'd envisioned.

If Kodak spun off the film division, de-listed it, showed making film was profitable for them, and making digicams nobody wanted wasn't, I think that would be the best thing to happen. Of course, it won't happen, as to paraphrase Winston Churchill: CEOs of large companies always do the right thing, once they've tried everything else.

EddyDL · Feb 19, 2012

Poisson Du Jour said:
Do we really need another bloody thread about Kodak, supposed declining film and other bull being propagated as fact?
Shoot! Get out and photograph!

Right on... My thought exactly.

gregrudd · Mar 6, 2012

What is to stop someone approaching the receivers and making an offer to purchase the formulations for ecktachrome.

benjiboy · Mar 6, 2012

krifartida said:
I just bought 100 shares of kodak, just for sake of putting in my 2 cents (literally)

Was 2 cents the cost per share, or for the hundred ? (sorry couldn't resist it)

Michael W · Mar 6, 2012

vpwphoto said:
No mater what is said here... film demand will likely continue to go down for to a point where it is just like fine oil paint or pastels...

I'm not sure what you mean by this comparison. Demand for pastels, oil paints, charcoal and all the other traditional fine art materials is huge. This is one art form that is not being disrupted by digital.

Brian C. Miller · Mar 6, 2012

gregrudd said:
What is to stop someone approaching the receivers and making an offer to purchase the formulations for ecktachrome.

There is nothing to stop someone from doing it, but on the other end of it, the film has to be made. Everybody who has the expertise to make E-6 already has their own emulsion formulas and engineering expertise. This stuff doesn't magically jump from one plant to another. There is a very big ramp-up time, even if everything goes smoothly. And apparently on the high end of things there's a lot that happens that's specific to individual plants and processes.

Kodachrome is dead. Now Kodak E-6 is dead. All of the E-6 purchasing is now heading to Fuji. It remains to be seen what Fuji will do.

Can't Kodak Help Save Film by.....

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency