Hard times for Kodak continue

Sirius Glass · Oct 31, 2009

Christopher Walrath said:
I know times are tight, and it probably won't matter a darn, but if you want these guys to stick around you gotta buy the product. I know, stating the obvious, as I prone to do from time to time. Well, OK. Most of the time.

Oh, STOP! ;p

What he said!

Steve

ajuk · Oct 31, 2009

Film dropping still at that rate, or is it mainly down to photo finishing, I would have thought film would be starting to find an equilibrium by now.

Photo Engineer · Oct 31, 2009

Dont forget that the economy in much of the world is contributing to this downward spiral.

PE

acroell · Nov 1, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Dont forget that the economy in much of the world is contributing to this downward spiral.

PE

Absolutely. Note (1st post of this thread) that Kodaks digital sales suffered even more than analog.

HerrBremerhaven · Nov 1, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
......

Kodak has not relegated film to a side line either. Film represents almost $1B in income each year. That is 50% of their income. How can they ignore that? They cannot and neither can the sharholders. So, film will continue as long as there is a market.

PE

That's really it. They need those revenues, and the film lines are still profitable. Their commercial printing division will only recover when the magazine and publishing realms, and corporate printing, start to increase again. Unfortunately advertising drives much of commercial printing, and the big three of advertising companies are all down near 50% from 2008, which was already a bit down from 2007.

However, I think Antonio Perez is simply not tuned in to the markets at all. He has tried to remake Kodak into a printing company, much like the direction of things he had when he was with HP. My personal feeling is that for Kodak to change, or improve, requires a change at the top, starting with removing Perez. Then perhaps Kodak can focus on being an imaging company.

It is pure romanticism to imagine Kodak returning to being a "film" company. The profits are still there, and they need the revenues, but there is no growth there. They could do more in OLED technology, and they could push more of what they do in commercial printing. Kodak bought Creo, but they do not behave in the same manner Creo did with their customers. When Creo was at printing trade shows, they were open and highly respected. Compare that to Kodak GCG, and they have a much smaller presence, are not as open, and the reps seem to not understand the market.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

JLP · Nov 1, 2009

As Tim Gray and others have said, Kodak continues to develop (No Pun) their current line of film and, another important fact no to overlook is that Kodak makes color film Ilford don't.

Ian Grant · Nov 1, 2009

Gordon, hidden in your post is a real reason Kodak struggles. Right from it's founding it has nearly always bought in technology, rarely actually pioneering and being creative. Even Kodak's flagship colour film Kodachrome was bought in Technology.

The reality is that there are now far more large multi-national companies looking to acquire the small pioneers who make technological break throughs and Kodak's not always made best use of it's acquisitions, it's also had a poor track record with too many so called innovations, particularly film formats.

Ron (PE) raised a point about Monopoly investigations, re-processing Kodachrome etc, but Ilford had similar problems in the UK with their coulor films in the 60's.

Ian

Colin Corneau · Nov 1, 2009

I fail to see why so many here take Kodak's actions personally...as if they ditched K64 or B&W papers just to stick a fork in THEIR eye.

They're a business. It's unfortunate. But we have choices. Kodak gives us choices others don't, and vice versa. I'm pretty sure it's nothing personal, folks.

Their recent introductions and improvements have already been stated ad infinitum, as has the current crappy economy.

Ian Grant · Nov 1, 2009

Colin Corneau said:
I fail to see why so many here take Kodak's actions personally...as if they ditched K64 or B&W papers just to stick a fork in THEIR eye.

They're a business. It's unfortunate. But we have choices. Kodak gives us choices others don't, and vice versa. I'm pretty sure it's nothing personal, folks.

Their recent introductions and improvements have already been stated ad infinitum, as has the current crappy economy.

Perhaps your comments about K64 and B&W papres should be separated.

K64's demise is a well planned phase out of Kodachrome, with other Kodak films available to switch to.

The B&W Paper decision was a savage cut made at a point of great uncertainty, and apparent melt down of B&W as a whole, and Kodak learnt from the mistakes it made there. The decision lost them film customers too as a consequence. For competitors it was a Godsend, it had a positive effect of partially stabilising their market.

It's fair to say that Kodak's problem in a shrinking market was made worse because it was the largest player, so had the least flexibility.

Ian

Perry Way · Nov 1, 2009

In the B&W world, aside from films (TMax, PlusX, TriX), does Kodak make anything supportive of the alt processes?

I'm a more recent ground hog popping up from below the surface of 20 years of chasing a day job around, so I don't really know the full on history of everything here, but it seems to me from what I've seen this past year, the alt processes are where all the growth really is in this craft or industry. And likewise, it seems logical to me that if a company wants to increase sales they should make available the things that people want.

An example of a new product that would support the growth area (as I perceive it) would be: A transparency positive you can treat like paper. Take your negative, enlarge it in enlarger onto transparency stock, develop like normal photographic paper, it comes out a positive of the image projected on it (which is a negative), thereby resulting in a negative which can be used for contact printing. Man, if they had a product like that, wow! It would be a real cost savings to folks, and therefore of real value to both the producer and the user. This is the kind of technology that I believe is long overdue. The alternate method would be to purchase an incredibly huge camera of immensely huge cost to the average Joe, or to purchase a high grade scanner and a high grade printer that prints on transparencies with pigment inks and software like Photoshop which is still an immensely huge cost to the average Joe, or to play darkroom roulette with that whole process of turning a negative into a positive using chemicals and reexposing to the right quantity of light, which you probably would never get done correctly the first time resulting in a huge learning curve and therefore a huge cost. Anyway this is but one tiny little example of what I believe would be a growth product. There are others. All of which a company like Kodak would certainly have the marketing arm and the distribution arm to bring to fruition.

Are there any executives over at Kodak that pay attention to the musings on APUG?

Photo Engineer · Nov 1, 2009

Ian;

I think that you discount Kodak's R&D effort too much. They were the first with the best digital sensors, and they were the first and best with masked color negative and dispersed couplers. They were first in slide coating and they are currently at the head of the pack in a new generation of sensors and OLEDs. Their senstizing dye technology is second to none!

When Land could not make an instant product, he turned to Kodak to make him one and then give him the formula. For years, Kodak had to make it for him, as he could not build a plant capable of its manufacture in an economical manner until the SX-70 came along and he built a new plant.

Yes, they bought technology, but before Mannes and Godowsky, they had a 2 color film and a lenticular color film.

Kodak's R&D Labs gets thousands of useful patents each year, and the engineers publish many research papers. I think that your viewpoint is sadly lacking in information.

PE

Photo Engineer · Nov 1, 2009

Kodak recently modified its sheet films such that they do not contain a UV absorber. This allows alternate methods of printing that use UV light.

So, in effect, they do recognize and support alternative processes. But, they never have made specific products for that field.

PE

Ian Grant · Nov 1, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Ian;

I think that you discount Kodak's R&D effort too much. They were the first with the best digital sensors, and they were the first and best with masked color negative and dispersed couplers. They were first in slide coating and they are currently at the head of the pack in a new generation of sensors and OLEDs. Their senstizing dye technology is second to none!

When Land could not make an instant product, he turned to Kodak to make him one and then give him the formula. For years, Kodak had to make it for him, as he could not build a plant capable of its manufacture in an economical manner until the SX-70 came along and he built a new plant.

Yes, they bought technology, but before Mannes and Godowsky, they had a 2 color film and a lenticular color film.

Kodak's R&D Labs gets thousands of useful patents each year, and the engineers publish many research papers. I think that your viewpoint is sadly lacking in information.

PE

Actually I don't under estimate Kodak's R&D abilities, at Rochester & Harrow, they are exceedingly good, even when technology was bought in it was/is taken much further.

Kodak's problems have never been at the R&D level, but rather with senior management decisions which send negative signals. The dropping of the high end DSLR's appeared to mean to most photographers that Kodak had left the field to concentrate ony on lower end producuts while in fact that's notb true at all.

There's too a lack of direction at the helm of Kodak and no-ne can deny that. Perhaps it's time the company was split up and divisions left to sink or swim on their own merits.

Ian

removed account4 · Nov 1, 2009

Colin Corneau said:
I fail to see why so many here take Kodak's actions personally...as if they ditched K64 or B&W papers just to stick a fork in THEIR eye.

They're a business. It's unfortunate. But we have choices. Kodak gives us choices others don't, and vice versa. I'm pretty sure it's nothing personal, folks.

Their recent introductions and improvements have already been stated ad infinitum, as has the current crappy economy.

hi colin

i know exactly what you are saying " it's just business "
but i guess the problem is that (film) photographers still have an inferiority complex ... ( as they did in the 1800s and 1900s )

clayne · Nov 1, 2009

jnanian said:
hi colin

i know exactly what you are saying " it's just business "
but i guess the problem is that (film) photographers still have an inferiority complex ... ( as they did in the 1800s and 1900s )

One has to be personally interested and affected by the moves of such a major company as Kodak if you shoot film. Sorry, but "it's just business" is an easy rationalization. Will one be saying that if they hypothetically closed the doors on the last film out there?

JLP · Nov 1, 2009

Kodak recently modified its sheet films such that they do not contain a UV absorber. This allows alternate methods of printing that use UV light.

So, in effect, they do recognize and support alternative processes. But, they never have made specific products for that field.

PE, TMY never had the UV absorber and as far as i know TMX still have. Can you confirm that the UV absorber is gone from the TMX sheet film?
Thanks.

mustard seed · Nov 1, 2009

It’s only Business, they went their way, I went to Ilford, it’s only business and…
When BYD buys what’s left of this management blunder, I may buy a few rolls from them.
It’s only business!

Photo Engineer · Nov 1, 2009

JLP said:
PE, TMY never had the UV absorber and as far as i know TMX still have. Can you confirm that the UV absorber is gone from the TMX sheet film?
Thanks.

Jan;

I will have to check the film that I tested and get back to you. It has been a year or more and the test came in an unmarked box, with strips with no code notch.

PE

Dave Pritchard · Nov 1, 2009

mustard seed said:
Its only Business, they went their way, I went to Ilford, its only business and
When BYD buys whats left of this management blunder, I may buy a few rolls from them.
Its only business!

Tell the Don, it's not personal. It's only business.

Photo Engineer · Nov 1, 2009

Jan;

Here is the information that I was able to get from my source:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
T Max 100 HAS an integral UV coating in the emulsion.

The new T Max 400 DOES NOT have this UV component in sheet film. It was requested that Kodak not include the UV component in the newer version of TMY (2) out of sheet film which they wanted to include. The UV coating is included with the roll film which was a compromise.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this helps.

PE

JLP · Nov 1, 2009

PE, Thanks and yes it just confirms that nothing has changed. The "Old" TMY did not have the UV layer either but Kodak was close to have incorporated it in the new TMY-2

Photo Engineer · Nov 1, 2009

As for Kodak's digital problems, I was remided, while thinking of management problems, that Kodak continually seemed to ignore Moore's law or the book by Kurzweil about the coming "Singularity".

Maybe they should read more and manage less?

PE

Terrence Brennan · Nov 2, 2009

Colin Corneau said:
I fail to see why so many here take Kodak's actions personally...as if they ditched K64 or B&W papers just to stick a fork in THEIR eye.

They're a business. It's unfortunate. But we have choices. Kodak gives us choices others don't, and vice versa. I'm pretty sure it's nothing personal, folks.

Their recent introductions and improvements have already been stated ad infinitum, as has the current crappy economy.

I'm supporting Ilford, not because I hate Kodak, but because Ilford has demonstrated a commitment to providing B&W materials, and for what my relatively small amount of business is worth, I will continue to support them.

I preferred Kodak Poly IV by a slight margin over AGFA Multicontrast, for my RC/proof printing. I stopped buying Kodak products when they discontinued B&W paper and switched to AGFA. When they went down for the count, I made the decision to use Ilford products, as they had committed themselves to staying in the B&W market. As my current stocks of non-Ilford products are exhausted, they will be replaced with Ilford products only. The sole exception is chemistry; I find it just too much of a hassle to get liquid chemistry in the GWN, so I have started mixing everything from bulk again.

But enough Kodak bashing, already! They made a business decision, and so have I. And so have other photographers.

Anon Ymous · Nov 2, 2009

I'm not supporting any company, I buy what I like and can afford. I can't be sentimental about such things. If manufacturer X discontinues product Y that I really like, then so be it. I'll switch to whatever I find good and life goes on. For the record, I use Agfa, Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and Foma products.

removed account4 · Nov 2, 2009

clayne said:
One has to be personally interested and affected by the moves of such a major company as Kodak if you shoot film. Sorry, but "it's just business" is an easy rationalization. Will one be saying that if they hypothetically closed the doors on the last film out there?

i don't think we have any other choice but to not take it personally.
they are discontinuing sales of products that were a drag on their economic viability.

i don't think the people on top sat down and brainstormed
how they could mess with people who use traditional materials,
(seeing they are their lifeblood) ...

i think it was more like, what can we throw overboard to save our sinking ship.

Hard times for Kodak continue

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency