Hopeful Tone for Analog from Kodak

craigclu · Jan 4, 2009

Perhaps this has been mentioned and I didn't notice before but there was a reference to this article in Photo.net this AM. Kodak sounds committed to film in this piece....

Dead Link Removed

MikeSeb · Jan 4, 2009

They'll keep making it as long as it's profitable, which is as it should be. Our job is to keep shooting as much film as we can, so that this market remains viable.

This is why I don't understand the periodic rants against Kodak (not directed at you, Craig), and calls to boycott them for their supposed neglect of analog photography or their lack of "commitment", as if they have any responsibility other than to serve the interests of their shareholders--they don't. Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face....

The films we have from Kodak are superb, and the company keeps improving them. That seems commitment enough. I think we all spend far too much time worrying about "commitment". If we shoot it, someone will be around to produce it.

Peter Schrager · Jan 4, 2009

Kodak

the article is fine but has anyone checked the prices recently on Kodak sheet film?? 8x10 is up to $5/sheet for tri-x and Tmy....sounds like a shoot myself in the leg strategy to me....I did break down and buy 15 boxes of the new TMY in 5x7 from Glazers photo...but at $5/sheet I'm going to give someone else my next order for large sheet film....
honestly that is NOT a prescription for staying in business and certainly not a way to encourage newbies to using their film....
Best, Peter

analogsnob · Jan 4, 2009

It does seem from that article that there is room for hope. Perhaps the luster has come off digital and the bean counters are realizing there isn't money in digital and they should hold on tightly to what profits they can.

I seldom have a conversation about digital where someone does not lament (and it isn't always me) that the pictures just don't look as good anymore or the dreaded words "good enough" aren't used in relation to digital.

I echo the sentiment SHOOT FILM or more to the point buy film and wait for the revival of the demand for quality and good taste.

Photo Engineer · Jan 4, 2009

Regarding the article and some comments made here suggesting that Kodak make smaller batches, here is a tiny excerpt from that.

"Kodak switched a year ago from churning out large batches of film at a time to doing almost daily runs of small batches that are tied to consumer demand. The advantage is that the company carries far less inventory on hand, said operations manager Sue Sweet."

So, they are making smaller and smaller batches to more closely meet demands.

PE

craigclu · Jan 4, 2009

I work in an industry that does many types of precision coating, some of which require much more precision than photographic film coating. An industry trend that we see, parallels this thinking related by PE. Along with that is the fact that smaller coaters, requiring much less labor and being easier to precisely control, produces a superior product. The old, large coating operations required an amazing amount of pre-running/tuning to get into specification range. This resulted in large amounts of waste. In certain product areas, these marginal products could be used in the re-branded or generic brand use and initial runs for this use became part of many product lines.

Many things that Kodak seems to be doing remind me of similar moves in our industry. A best example is one where we have been able to replace a 200 person crew with 18 (6 per shift) with a narrow coater. It's kept busier and in use, makes a more precise product and for products requiring less precision, can be run at extreme line speeds because of the narrower, easier-to-control web widths. I can't help but imagine that Kodak is functioning in this manner as a logical approach to the film market changes and potentials (but upward and downward).

mikebarger · Jan 4, 2009

I'm pretty sure Sue Sweet was not talking about running on different (smaller) machines. I believe she is referencing pulling product from the plant rather than pushing.

Pulling requires the plant to build what customers are ordering and keeping very little inventory (inventory equals high cost). Run small batches each day resulting is several line changes per day.

Pushing is old school. The plant pushing out the door tonnage without much concern if the customer is really buying the product being produced (resulting in high inventory). Also, the fewer line changes the better. It's best to keep the plant running wide open 24/7, lets the sales team worry about getting rid of it.

The former, rather the latter, lets a company control it's cost.

Mike

wogster · Jan 4, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Regarding the article and some comments made here suggesting that Kodak make smaller batches, here is a tiny excerpt from that.

"Kodak switched a year ago from churning out large batches of film at a time to doing almost daily runs of small batches that are tied to consumer demand. The advantage is that the company carries far less inventory on hand, said operations manager Sue Sweet."

So, they are making smaller and smaller batches to more closely meet demands.

PE

I think a lot of industries are moving this way, for a few reasons. you can get changes to products on stream quicker, less cost for warehousing and inventory. This is a good thing to hear.

Photo Engineer · Jan 4, 2009

Mike is closer than Craig I would think.

But, one other fact is that the Kodak coaters become better the faster they run. This is an item I had to be aware of. The curtain coaters run at the highest speed make the best product, and as you slow it down, the coater has to change to a slide coater, and then an extrusion coater. Each step downward increases the chance of defects, as with an extrusion coater, you must run the material through the machine many times to get a multilayer.

PE

nickandre · Jan 4, 2009

Do they have any info about the return profit of running Ken Rockwell style "film is better" ads?

mikebarger · Jan 4, 2009

I have some experience with push / pull in the tire and charcoal industries. One black and round, one black and square.

Plant managers have the go go go mentality, because tonnage = bonus.

Today it is very cost prohibitive to run product that isn't selling. Fuel for transportation (product to warehouses rather than customers), third party warehouse space, and borrowed dollars for inventory really eat into the bottom line.

Mike

gr82bart · Jan 4, 2009

Kodak clings on to film

Great article on Kodak and film: Dead Link Removed

Regards, Art.

nickandre · Jan 4, 2009

any bets on how many more people will post this article?

Poisson Du Jour · Jan 4, 2009

A very interesting article indeed. I wonder what Fujifilm would have to say?

The patent truth about film comes in the statement by Richard Rowe near the end: "The prices continue to escalate. At a certain point in time, even the purists are going to say this is way too much of an investment." How much are we really willing to pay in a shrinking market??

And finally, I think film will have a longer and more sustained market in the USA rather than smaller countries, linked of course, to demand. Personally, I see film disappearing from Australia/New Zealand in about 6-7 years given the rapid take-up of digital and its inherent speed and versatility (but not, in my eyes, quality).

nsouto · Jan 4, 2009

Actually, in Australia I doubt it will ever disappear.
It's never been so cheap or easy to access and process film.

The article quoted has one particular section that defines the whole attitude, knowledge and honesty of whoever wrote this:

"But according to financial filings, the Japanese-based film giant saw its film business down 34 percent year over year for the first half of its 2009 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30"

Excuse me? "year over year" for the first HALF of "2009"? Do these people even realize the enormous imbecility of what they wrote?

:rolleyes:

With "facts" like these, ANYONE can claim the "end of film" happened 100 years ago...

As well, pronounciations by chain marketeers such as Rowe's mean absolutely nothing. The volume market stopped for film a decade ago, it's no suprise whatsoever that large chain retailers find no interest in it. All they want is to sell volume, couldn't care less of what.

Small retailers find heaps of interest, and continue to do well out of film. And that's how it should have been all along.

gr82bart · Jan 4, 2009

Processing film couldn't be easier. I went to PR over Thanksgiving. My date bought several disposables. She sent them to the local 1hr Lab in the hotel complex and an hour later decent size rez CD and double 5x7 prints! Processing, CD and prints was $14 each roll. All Kodak products too. Couldn't have been easier.

Regards, Art.

Photo Engineer · Jan 4, 2009

This thread has already been going for a few hours. I think they should be combined!

PE

waileong · Jan 4, 2009

nsouto said:
"But according to financial filings, the Japanese-based film giant saw its film business down 34 percent year over year for the first half of its 2009 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30"

Excuse me? "year over year" for the first HALF of "2009"? Do these people even realize the enormous imbecility of what they wrote?

YOY (ie Year Over Year, or more commonly, Year On Year) is a common term in the financial markets. It means you compare the performance of the period you're reviewing with the same period a year ago.

So you can talk about quarterly earnings declining X% yoy, or monthly earnings, or half-year earnings, etc.

So it's absolutely fine to say that the half-year earnings are down 34% yoy, which means this half-year's earnings vs the half-year earnings a year ago.

reverend jay · Jan 4, 2009

I must say I was hopeful until I read the last paragraph of the article. I am not so concerned about the price that companies may have to charge for film, I just don't want them to stop production all together some time soon.
After selling my business along with about 15K worth of digital cameras and equipment I went back to film and now enjoy photography again. I just will not be happy doing photography if I have to go back to digital.

David A. Goldfarb · Jan 4, 2009

Threads merged.

wogster · Jan 4, 2009

nsouto said:
Actually, in Australia I doubt it will ever disappear.
It's never been so cheap or easy to access and process film.

The article quoted has one particular section that defines the whole attitude, knowledge and honesty of whoever wrote this:

"But according to financial filings, the Japanese-based film giant saw its film business down 34 percent year over year for the first half of its 2009 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30"

Excuse me? "year over year" for the first HALF of "2009"? Do these people even realize the enormous imbecility of what they wrote?

:rolleyes:

With "facts" like these, ANYONE can claim the "end of film" happened 100 years ago...

As well, pronounciations by chain marketeers such as Rowe's mean absolutely nothing. The volume market stopped for film a decade ago, it's no suprise whatsoever that large chain retailers find no interest in it. All they want is to sell volume, couldn't care less of what.

Small retailers find heaps of interest, and continue to do well out of film. And that's how it should have been all along.

They said the first half of FISCAL 2009, a fiscal year is any 12 month period, for some companies it's the same as the calendar year, but for most corporations it's not, if the first half of Fiscal 2009 ended on September 30th, it means their Fiscal year starts April 1st, so on April 1st 2009 they will start Fiscal Year 2010. Considering that the busy period in many countries is around Christmas, having a Fiscal Year starting in April makes sense.

Your right about things like drugstore chains though....

Mahler_one · Jan 4, 2009

I think Peter is right on track. The price of TMY vs. HP5 was discussed here a few months back.

Ed

nsouto · Jan 5, 2009

wogster said:
They said the first half of FISCAL 2009, a fiscal year is any 12 month period, for some companies it's the same as the calendar year, but for most corporations it's not, if the first half of Fiscal 2009 ended on September 30th, it means their Fiscal year starts April 1st, so on April 1st 2009 they will start Fiscal Year 2010. Considering that the busy period in many countries is around Christmas, having a Fiscal Year starting in April makes sense.

Actually, they said "year over year" and then mentioned the first half of a specific year, which you reckon might be their 2009 financial year. I'm not that otpimistic. It can't be year-over-year and first half of year, to put it very simply. I'm familiar with skewed financial years, but I never saw one start more than 9 months the year before. Like I said: makes no sense whatsoever.

Simon R Galley · Jan 5, 2009

I recall when colour imaging came out 'big time' in the 1950's the soothsayers were estimating the remaining life span of monochrome....well its still here.......!

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

JBrunner · Jan 5, 2009

Here's a note:

Every time we get an influx of new members we have a spate of film vs digi debates, and dire predictions, lamentations, etc. about film. While he have lost products and will probably lose a few more, we also sometimes gain products. While the business has certainly changed, the desire for strong images remains, and the expression of those images in the artifact of a print is the most tactile and present expression possible. Persons who find that film and darkroom printing is their best method of creation will be able to practice their craft long into the future. Most of the materials used by hardcore analogists went out of vogue long ago, which shows that as long as the craft is practiced certain products will be sustainable.

I believe we are nearing the point where most the abandoned gear has been dumped and once that reaches a certain penetration the market for enlargers etc. will be small but sustainable.

I think there needs to be more emphasis on printmaking as a craft, instead of just image making. The world is awash with images. Prints are a different matter. If I show someone something on a computer they look. If I give them a print, they feel.

Hopeful Tone for Analog from Kodak

craigclu

MikeSeb

Peter Schrager

analogsnob

Photo Engineer

craigclu

mikebarger

wogster

Photo Engineer

nickandre

mikebarger

gr82bart

nickandre

Poisson Du Jour

nsouto

gr82bart

Photo Engineer

waileong

reverend jay

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

wogster

Mahler_one

nsouto

Simon R Galley

JBrunner

Moderator

Hopeful Tone for Analog from Kodak

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency