Eastman Kodak, 1st quarter 2015

[RattyMouse]

Kodak released their earnings yesterday, reporting 50 million dollars or so in losses. The only blurb in their report on film was the following:

Consumer and Film Division (CFD) had sales of $72 million in the first quarter of 2015,
compared to $86 million in the prior‐year quarter, a decline of $14 million or 16%. The decline
was primarily due to the expected volume declines for consumer inkjet printer cartridges and
motion picture film.
CFD had Operational EBITDA of $18 million for the first quarter, an improvement of $8
million from $10 million in the 2014 first quarter. The improvement was primarily due to
improved inventory management and increased production efficiency for Entertainment &
Commercial Films.

 

[gone]

Might be a good idea to stock up on that Tri-X then :}

 

[Pioneer]

Might be a good idea to stock up on that Tri-X then :}

Have you seen the price of 400TX lately. I do expect higher film prices but Kodak is certainly milking that cow for everything they can get. I certainly hope they don't kill the golden goose in the process.

 

[Element 6]

EBITDA = earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization

Since it increased, this indicates an improvement in profitability. Good news I think.

 

[Xmas]

EBITDA = earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization

Since it increased, this indicates an improvement in profitability. Good news I think.

EK have a long term commitment from the big studios who clearly feel they still need to shoot on film.

I can't even think about Kodak bulk but that could be KA chopping the teeats of the cow.

My Kodak printer decided to die it was practical for proofing before wet printing and cheap to run.

 

[film_man]

Why don't they just spin off the film division completely and let it go its way. Then they can concentrate on making crappy "consumer" products and the film company can operate properly without getting lost in the sea of crapiness the rest of Kodak swims in.

 

[AgX]

People are queing to buy that division.

 

[Xmas]

Why don't they just spin off the film division completely and let it go its way. Then they can concentrate on making crappy "consumer" products and the film company can operate properly without getting lost in the sea of crapiness the rest of Kodak swims in.

EK are using profits from film (etc. part of their legacy divisions) to fund investment in their new ventures.
Part of their problem is they 'inherited' the middle management people and structure from the chapter 11 'success'.

But my printer was excellent, and they are still selling the cartridges, so maybe...

You buy shares in a company trading short term risks against long term profits.

 

[removed account4]

i think at this point, EK is coughing up blood and the lights are growing dim, just like olde duke ...



from the classic film " repo man"

DUKE
The lights are growing dim. I know a
life of crime led me to this sorry fate.
And yet I I blame society. Society made
me what I am.

OTTO
That's bullshit (nonsense). You're a
white suburban punk, just like me.


DUKE
But it still hurts.

OTTO
You're going to be all right man

Duke pukes up some blood.

OTTO
Maybe not.


http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Repo-Man.html

 

[Ian Grant]

Eastman Kodak aren't the company selling our films even though they are still coating them under contract for Kodak Alaris which is a separate British owned company which Belongs to the Kodak Ltd (UK) Pension fund.

Ian

 

[Xmas]

Eastman Kodak aren't the company selling our films even though they are still coating them under contract for Kodak Alaris which is a separate British owned company which Belongs to the Kodak Ltd (UK) Pension fund.

Ian

True but I buy 5222 when I can get it cheaper than Ilford.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

EK have a long term commitment from the big studios who clearly feel they still need to shoot on film...

The reality is that Eastman Kodak has commitments of indeterminate duration (except one, which was recently revealed to be two years) from several studios. The studios clearly feel they don't need to shoot on film. Rather, they were coerced into entering those agreements by a small group of influential directors.

The studios are, like all corporations, soulless machines designed to earn maximum possible profit, nothing else. Shooting on film costs more. The studios clearly wouldn't have perpetuated a technically unnecessary expense unless they calculated that failure to satisfy those directors could lead to even greater negative impact on their bottom lines. If, when the agreements expire, enough of the directors holding sway are satisfied that then-current digital shooting options have advanced sufficiently to achieve for them artistically what only film can do now, the pressure will be off. If Eastman Kodak hasn't successfully begun coating products other than film with a sufficient (by Wall Street's standard) level of profitability by that time, Bldg. 38 will be obliterated. Count on it.

Yep, if one is a fan, it would be good to stock up on TRI-X. Not frantically, but steadily, systematically filling a freezer over the next few years.

 

[Xmas]

The reality is that Eastman Kodak has commitments of indeterminate duration (except one, which was recently revealed to be two years) from several studios. The studios clearly feel they don't need to shoot on film. Rather, they were coerced into entering those agreements by a small group of influential directors.

The studios are, like all corporations, soulless machines designed to earn maximum possible profit, nothing else. Shooting on film costs more...

Yep.
The studios have a contract not the directors.
If the contract was not there or void Tx would probably be history already or tomorrow like Kodachrome or Plus-x
Kodak wanted to sell the manufacture to the studios they demurred.
The good news is an HP5+ 16x20 is difficult to distinguish from a Tx one.

 

[Hatchetman]

HP5 is fine in 120, but I can really tell the difference in 35mm. I really would miss Tri-X in 35mm.

 

[Xmas]

HP5 is fine in 120, but I can really tell the difference in 35mm. I really would miss Tri-X in 35mm.

I miss Kodachrome 25 still.

 

[redstarjedi]

As much as i appreciate films shot on films (it still looks better than digital to my eyes) i don't want the decline in cinema film to drag my tri-x, portra, and ektar down with it. Is there anyway to actually separate their fates? There is renewed interest by photographers in using film, either old people coming back to it, or a younger crowd who are captivated by it. It seems so ridiculous that the trend of growing interest is ruined by the motion picture industry.

 

[Xmas]

As much as i appreciate films shot on films (it still looks better than digital to my eyes) i don't want the decline in cinema film to drag my tri-x, portra, and ektar down with it. Is there anyway to actually separate their fates? There is renewed interest by photographers in using film, either old people coming back to it, or a younger crowd who are captivated by it. It seems so ridiculous that the trend of growing interest is ruined by the motion picture industry.

It is the other way round cine has kept EK profitable for decades.
If the studios don't contract then EK stops all film

 

[RattyMouse]

As much as i appreciate films shot on films (it still looks better than digital to my eyes) i don't want the decline in cinema film to drag my tri-x, portra, and ektar down with it. Is there anyway to actually separate their fates? There is renewed interest by photographers in using film, either old people coming back to it, or a younger crowd who are captivated by it. It seems so ridiculous that the trend of growing interest is ruined by the motion picture industry.

There is no way to separate the fate of still film from movie film because they come from the same place, building 38. This is a massive facility, designed to produce an enormous amount of film, far more than the world needs today. PE once stated that building 38 could roll the world's entire need for film in a single day (excluding down time for formulation changes, etc...). That shows you how oversized it is for today's world. Kodak cannot re-size this operation as the cost is beyond what they are willing to pay.

Thus, still film is forever tied to movie film. They share the same fate.

 

[Pioneer]

...still film is forever tied to movie film. They share the same fate.

That appears to be the case with Kodak but I don't believe that is true of some of the other producers who have already successfully downsized.

And I do suspect that even Kodak could downsize, just not in Building 38. The problem of course is whether or not they want to.

 

[RattyMouse]

That appears to be the case with Kodak but I don't believe that is true of some of the other producers who have already successfully downsized.

And I do suspect that even Kodak could downsize, just not in Building 38. The problem of course is whether or not they want to.

This thread is all about Kodak films and I was replying to someone who wanted to free Portra, Tri-X etc..., from the fate of movie film. No other manufacturer of film makes movie film so in no case are they tied together. Fujifilm dropped movie film several years ago but still continues to make Superia and 400H color film.

Kodak of course could build a new coating facility, one that is much smaller than building 38, but that will never ever happen. Film is not their core business anymore and so would never receive the level of investment needed.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Kodak is not still trying to remain in the film business. That residual business lingers simply as an increasingly inconvenient artifact of the past.

If Kodak had wanted to remain in the film business, they would not have sold that business during bankruptcy proceedings to Alaris. And if Alaris had primarily wanted that film business, they would not be concentrating all of their efforts on digital technologies. Alaris received the film business only as part of a package deal together with other stuff (color paper) that they really did want.

Even at this very late stage, with the last limb of the sun about to sink below the horizon at dusk, people are still lamenting that Kodak might yet find a way to get back into the film business. Please continue reading at the top of the first paragraph...

Ken

 

[kb3lms]

The problem of course is whether or not they want to.

Correct.

 

[Xmas]

Kodak is not still trying to remain in the film business. That residual business lingers simply as an increasingly inconvenient artifact of the past.

If Kodak had wanted to remain in the film business, they would not have sold that business during bankruptcy proceedings to Alaris. And if Alaris had primarily wanted that film business, they would not be concentrating all of their efforts on digital technologies. Alaris received the film business only as part of a package deal together with other stuff (color paper) that they really did want.

Even at this very late stage, with the last limb of the sun about to sink below the horizon at dusk, people are still lamenting that Kodak might yet find a way to get back into the film business. Please continue reading at the top of the first paragraph...

Ken

All true but more exactly the UK staff of EK had a pension fund that should have been funded for EK to exit from chapter 11 they needed to sell something to clear the debt. The pension fund accepted the profits from stills as part payment as well as (together with) the EK factory at Harrow UK as a going concern as settlement.

EK are still making money from cine sales as well as printer cartridges... They use this profit from legacy products to pay for the new business development.

The split between cine and stills at peak was about 90 : 10, both cine and stills have crashed. Ron (PE) has that they coated kchrome once per year from 2005 but that was still too much for demand, so the coated once per 18 months, and then stopped... One can suspect Plusx was similar.

I bought Agfa pan 100 made in Ge until fall '14 so Agfa mono master rolls from 2005 keep(t) well.

This begs the question when did EK last coat Tx, or when might they need to coat the next one...

I can't afford to buy Tx cause I only by cheap or bulk cept when I empty a gbag on a shoot.

We could start a lottery for best date cause the date on the box is not the master roll going into deep freeze?

 

[georg16nik]

No legal requirement for Kodak to disclose if they are serving the menu out of deep freeze or not.
When we look at the situation from a grand argument story point of view, Kodak are big american tragedy fans and very crazy about it.
That deep freeze should be a real something, otherwise I don't see how Tx won't came out fogged out of it.

Looks like some folks over yonder are still, a bit confused about Kodak being good or the bad guy in the story; and whether they are headed for humanistic or commercial outcome.

 

[Pioneer]

Actually the thing that bothers me most about Kodak going down is what happens to Portra.