It's official, Kodak is selling its film business.

cdkrenzer said:

All I would ask is that you realize that within Kodak, there is a talented, passionate group of people who have worked hard to keep the film business moving forward.

Click to expand...

Good morning Colleen,

So far that hazmat suit is treating you well on here, good for you for braving the emotions to greet those who can keep it at bay.

I want to thank you for saying what needs to be said ( above ) in terms of the group of people who work hard to keep the film biz moving forward despite the battle going on much further up the corporate ladder, I am not sure most people realize just how human an element this is, so I have posted a photo of the group who I toured Building 38 with back in 2009……look at the faces, Scott Sheppard is in there, Josh Root from Photo.net, Stephen Schaub, Scott Disabato, Audrey Jonckheer, Garret Kokx, etc….

View attachment 55960

No matter what happens, a lot of the people in this photo have had just as much hope to keep giving you great films as you have hoped to keep buying them, this has not changed, they are as sad as you are that we are all in this boat at this point.

And there are some hurdles to overcome. Colleen has stated on the RFF thread that Kodak is also selling the chemistry sector as part of the sale. As it has been pointed out on here, Champion Chemical makes our Kodak soup and is owed a lot of money by EK so not knowing the details, I can only speculate as to whether the buyer of the film group also has to buy the chemistry operation and gets the debt with it?

So we keep going round and round on the fact that both still and motion stocks are made in Building 38 so how can they separate them. Well, who is to say that Kodak is not selling the entirety of both lines to the still film buyer only to lease the line back when needing to make motion stock? And who is to say that a big, big player in the motion picture industry is not going to buy the stills division and then make, sell and distribute both motion and still stock…some of them are owed some 26 million in rebates after all….all speculation, could be as close to a hit as throwing a stone at pluto from a hurricane…

But, what we do have is an opportunity here and I am frankly surprised that no one has hit upon it yet. Imagine for a moment that we are all children in a orphanage. We are sad that no one seems to want to take care of us, we feel left behind, outcast, etc. But we hear that a bunch of potentially wonderful and willing parents are coming to find a child in need to take care of and help bloom into a well rounded adult, to get the care they deserve. Would it not make sense to then put on our best behaviors, be our best for the betterment of of our own self image and the image these parents see?

That is what we have in front of us right now, we need to put the numbers aside and show the potential new owners of Kodak film that we are going to continue to support the product and not only make great photos with it, but meet these people more than half way with great dialogue in how to help market film, how to show that it really matters in the year 2012. The people that are currently involved in marketing Kodak film have had their hands fiscally tied for years, that grip has only gotten tighter. So with this new chapter, that will obviously free up, it has to. So why not meet this possibility half way with giving them a helping hand. Don't wait for the new owners to bathe you in new slick ads and TV commercials, start thinking of how to be a stake holder in Kodak film in going forward.

This is not a mainstream thing we are talking here, this is film and that is niche, we have to think in terms of that from here on out in order for it to thrive under new ownership. This could turn out better than our wildest dreams, but we have to try to meet it all at least half way.

NB23 said:

This is nonsense.
They're all in it for the money, not for the image of the industry. If Kodak is gone, their cake suddenly gets bigger. And they'll be happier.

Click to expand...

Not nonsense. It's not about the "image of the industry". It's about the perception of the industry.

Nonetheless, "image" and "perception" both affect sales.

Their cake does not get bigger. Their share of the cake gets bigger, but the cake gets smaller.

NB23 said:

This is nonsense.
They're all in it for the money, not for the image of the industry. If Kodak is gone, their cake suddenly gets bigger. And they'll be happier.

Click to expand...

I thought you said you were out of this thread.

You make no sense. If Kodak cannot find a suitable buyer for their film division the supply chain for the entire industry will be compromised. Like it or not.

Plus, what business is NOT in it for the money? Seriously.

The picture gets interestingly complicated.

We in the forum presume that Kodak basically coats film on one machine. The vast majority of film coated is motion picture film. We also presume, as per Photo Engineer indication and experience, that patents and "recipes" are not easily exported outside of a production plant and to some different production staff. So if Ektar, Portra etc. are going to survive, they are going to be coated on the same machine as motion picture film. We also know, IIRC, that the productive scale of the remaining coating machine at Kodak is big and is not easily down-sizeable, and its economic operation is justified by the great volumes of coating generated by the motion picture business. Kodak doesn't have any more the small coating machines that can be economically operated with the small volumes of production that still film requires.

Kodak is spinning out its still film but not its motion picture film.

That implies a scenario when some buyer, let's call him "NewKodak" would buy the patents and trademarks of still films. He would then outsource production to "OldKodak" under certain constraints regarding production quality, terms of delivery etc.

NewKodak would only be in charge of the "business" side: risking capital, determining production level, product mix, finding distributors, managing client relations, PR, hopefully making profit out of it. OldKodak would continue its business from the production side (which they do well and which basically "only" they can do on that plant) and would get rid of all the commercial side where they made... ahem... a suboptimal performance.

The big problem in this solution is that it is the production volume of the motion picture film that is taking the coating business alive, given the productive scale of Kodak coating machine. NewKodak would be left in the cold and dark if, in a few years, OldKodak decided that motion picture is not any more in their plans.

If this "big problem" was overcome or was not existent (maybe because the coating machine can actually work for small volumes or because Kodak can get hold, in case, of a smaller coating machine and put it into production with the present products) that could, in my opinion of this immediate moment, make the rose of potential buyers much larger than one would have expected.

The buyer could be anybody with some capital to risk in this endeavour and a good experience and know-how in consumer staple distribution. It could be anybody from Gillette to Procter&Gamble to 3M*, to say some names at random. There would be no need to find a buyer with some form of coating activity (such as a solar panel producer) or with a "technical partner" with coating experience.

Just my mumbling
Fabrizio

* I know 3M exited the production side of film many years ago when they sold Ferrania. But now it would be only about managing the distribution side of the business.

It's very important to read all words posted and evaluate their meaning. For example:

cdkrenzer said:

...I am not privy to discussions about how a sale would proceed. What I can tell you is that Kodak is continuing to manufacture the films and papers in its portfolio and will continue to do so...

Click to expand...

Note that, first of all, the construction includes "a sale." There is currently no sale, just an offer. A PR person's job in this instance is spinning things so customers don't prematurely abandon Kodak film, which, if they did, would diminish the operation's desirability to potential purchasers.

cdkrenzer said:

...the intention of the company is to find a buyer who will continue to make the same products and services currently produced. I say "intention" because its early in the process...

Click to expand...

This confirms the announcement was about an "offer" rather than a "sale" and that there are likely no buyers ready to purchase today.

cdkrenzer said:

...But licensing the brand is one thing that the company will consider, and it would be a term subject to negotiation...

Click to expand...

Translation: if no purchaser materializes that wants to buy the operation and continue making what it makes now, Kodak will take what it can get for any value the brand might still have. We could look forward to the same kind of wonderful, high-quality products currently being sold as "Polaroid" with "Kodak" logos on them instead.

cdkrenzer said:

...If you look historically at the businesses Kodak has sold, those businesses have been successful...

Click to expand...

More good spin using a red herring. Those other businesses were not photographic film/paper manufacturing in 2012 using a high-volume coating facility in the face of a mostly gone and rapidly shrinking market. They were viable operations in other fields.

In my opinion, Kodak is getting its (or the bankruptcy funding lender's) money's worth. I can't imagine a better job of spinning the situation by any other PR representative.

Ahh, the separation!!!

Kodak sold its medical products division to Onyx, who have changed their names since the. Anyhow, they own what was once Kodak Colorado and coat the products there on the 72" machine. Now, Kodak needs that facility to coat wide color paper so they lease time on those machines and the crews live happily side by side in the same facility but under different management. This is probably what is envisioned at EK Rochester.

Also, Kodak does have a chemical division that makes specialty chemicals for color film and paper. This includes couplers, sensitizing dyes and other rare beasts. Previous chemicals included Kodachrome couplers and color developers. But, IDK if they mean that division in the statements referred to here.

PE

ChristopherCoy said:

For those of you who have always shot film, this may be something that you have experienced before. But for those of us whose only just returned to film in the recent years, this is a big blow. Should I give up the analog dream of creativity? Sell my film gear while it's truly still worth barely something? Quit investing in my analog processing equipment? Polaroid is long gone, Fuji is consistently discontinuing one film or another, and now Kodak is selling. KODAK. Everyone says their is so many other choices, but is there really? How long will they be around? I just feel like the wind has just been taken out of my sails.

Click to expand...

Chris-

Don't sweat it. Asking this is like asking "should I sell my '57 chevy because Exxon/Mobil wants to sell Mobil?". Unless you're trying to make a living at photography, you shouldn't be looking at the gear you've bought as an "investment" anyway. Quite frankly, the biggest fear if Kodak should fail to find a buyer for their film manufacturing business would be that their color films would no longer be available. Which would of course be a tragedy, but it would not mean the death of film. Fuji would rapidly absorb the business left on the table by Kodak's departure in the color film department, and Ilford will be around to continue making b/w emulsions (which are excellent btw, and you ought to give them a try if you haven't already).

TheFlyingCamera said:

Fuji would rapidly absorb the business left on the table by Kodak's departure in the color film department, and Ilford will be around to continue making b/w emulsions (which are excellent btw, and you ought to give them a try if you haven't already).

Click to expand...

Aside from a random roll of HP5 or Delta400, all I ever shoot is TriX. Ever. I don't, or haven't done anything color thus far, and probably won't now.

I get the analogy of the '57 ford, but I don't want something that sits in a garage and only gets taken out once every decade for the town parade.

PKM-25 said:

...the group of people who work hard to keep the film biz moving forward despite the battle going on much further up the corporate ladder, I am not sure most people realize just how human an element this is...a lot of the people...have had just as much hope to keep giving you great films as you have hoped to keep buying them, this has not changed, they are as sad as you are that we are all in this boat at this point...

Click to expand...

Dan, I come to this discussion after a long career in the corporate world, having witnessed from an "in the trenches" location numerous battles "further up the ladder" similar to what's going on now at 343 State Street.

Reality is cruel. Nobody, especially those who are passionate about and work hard doing things like making the films posters here enjoy, ever likes it when reality stomps all over their world and products. I know from personal experience. Nonetheless, despite any claims of "our people are our most important asset," "people first" or similar HR / executive management pronouncements, reality is that numbers, and only numbers, drive all decisions. Kodak's numbers are like "spray painting on the wall." The operation is oversized for today's market. Today's market is more robust than tomorrow's market will probably be. Especially when the inexorable march of digital into cinema progresses further in a few years. Hope won't change reality.

Over the course of commuting 750,000 miles during the above-mentioned corporate career, while never affixing any to my own car, I observed many bumper stickers. The one that stood out said "I feel much better since I gave up hope." My suggestion to everyone fretting about Kodak film's future is: Buy and use what you can while it's still available, don't count on continued availability and support Ilford whenever possible. Reality always prevails.

lxdude said:

Not nonsense. It's not about the "image of the industry". It's about the perception of the industry.

Nonetheless, "image" and "perception" both affect sales.

Click to expand...

Agreed....I fear that the perception amongst the general public is that the analogue film industry (and maybe Kodak is seen as the same thing) is finished.
I was at a wedding last week when guests were given a Kodak recyclable camera to use...people were interested and amused by them..."didn't think you could still get these", "can you remember when you had to wait a week to get your photos back", "my Dad used to use film", "don't hear anything of Kodak now...do they make anything these days?".
(Even, "where's the screen thingy on the back?" )

The Wall Street Journal said this lump of businesses had sales of about $1.3 billion last year. That is still pretty damn big. A good % of that is color film I would guess.

Sal Santamaura said:

It's very important to read all words posted and evaluate their meaning. For example:

Note that, first of all, the construction includes "a sale." There is currently no sale, just an offer. A PR person's job in this instance is spinning things so customers don't prematurely abandon Kodak film, which, if they did, would diminish the operation's desirability to potential purchasers.

Click to expand...

Sal, I see no spinning here. It is talked about "discussions about how a sale would proceed" not "the sale". It's all hypothesis and it's all treated as such.

And yes, Kodak understands the importance of reassuring all stakeholders that film business is not going to stop during the transition phase. And yes, there's no guarantee that Kodak film will survive in any case. Nonetheless, I think it is important that Kodak recognises that keeping film alive, in this conjuncture, is important for its survival.

I agree with the orphanage reasoning by PKM-25.

And I agree that if Kodak film ceased to be some "ripple effects" (abandoning of film use by some, abandoning of film distribution by shops, abandoning of film development by large distribution chains etc.) is to be feared and it might even damage the entire industry beyond repair.

railwayman3 said:

Agreed....I fear that the perception amongst the general public is that the analogue film industry (and maybe Kodak is seen as the same thing) is finished.
I was at a wedding last week when guests were given a Kodak recyclable camera to use...people were interested and amused by them..."didn't think you could still get these", "can you remember when you had to wait a week to get your photos back", "my Dad used to use film", "don't hear anything of Kodak now...do they make anything these days?".
(Even, "where's the screen thingy on the back?" )

Click to expand...

Well exactly, you make my point. for the general public, Kodak's been dead for at least a decade. kodak dying today will not hurt but support the other film makers.
Try and make me believe that Ilford will be sad when Kodak disappears

TheFlyingCamera said:

Chris-

Don't sweat it. Asking this is like asking "should I sell my '57 chevy because Exxon/Mobil wants to sell Mobil?". Unless you're trying to make a living at photography, you shouldn't be looking at the gear you've bought as an "investment" anyway. Quite frankly, the biggest fear if Kodak should fail to find a buyer for their film manufacturing business would be that their color films would no longer be available. Which would of course be a tragedy, but it would not mean the death of film. Fuji would rapidly absorb the business left on the table by Kodak's departure in the color film department, and Ilford will be around to continue making b/w emulsions (which are excellent btw, and you ought to give them a try if you haven't already).

Click to expand...

What about that large percentage of colour film consumers who dabble in black and white and perhaps convert to it? The existence of and interest in colour film eventually breeds a large number of black and white converts - I'm one myself. I only wonder if it's these people that keep Ilford going. I worry that today most people develop an interest in black and white materials *only* after a preliminary period with colour. It's all about transition - today, from digital to colour neg, then depending on how 'deep' the person gets, eventually a move to black and white and darkroom. The transition from digital to the darkroom is a massive leap of faith. Without colour, I really do worry for black and white. Slide film was the way I eased myself into traditional photography.

ChristopherCoy said:

Aside from a random roll of HP5 or Delta400, all I ever shoot is TriX. Ever. I don't, or haven't done anything color thus far, and probably won't now.

I get the analogy of the '57 ford, but I don't want something that sits in a garage and only gets taken out once every decade for the town parade.

Click to expand...

Since your main interest is black and white, relax. It's great that you've standardized and you standardized on a great film but you can get just as proficient with Ilford. Or Acros. Or even Foma.

NB23 said:

Well exactly, you make my point. for the general public, Kodak's been dead for at least a decade. kodak dying today will not hurt but support the other film makers.
Try and make me believe that Ilford will be sad when Kodak disappears

Click to expand...

part of the problem is materials used to make film.
kodak is a huge consumer of these chemicals, and if they stop
some of the places that make the raw chemicals might have trouble
producing smaller quantities of these chemicals and it will disrupt the whole industry.

these things have been discussed ad nauseum in the past 6 or 7 years here
with people like PE who have an idea about the chemistry &c used to make the materials we
consume.

it would be hard to educate yourself about these topics ...

I know people for whom digital shapshooting became the path for upgrading into film and darkroom.
I have also met a fair number of aspiring photographers and graphics types from the art schools who
would like to broaden their skill set by learning traditional film skills, including large format. But the
big hurdle isn't the availability of film per se - it's the cost of real estate and having a hypothetical surplus of income and space where one can build a darkroom! Not so easy for the younger set, for whom jobs per se are becoming a scarce commodity. The other problem is the demise of venues
where people can see real prints and learn to appreciate them, versus the generic smudges over the
web that are now taken as the standard of visual communication.

Diapositivo said:

And I agree that if Kodak film ceased to be some "ripple effects" (abandoning of film use by some, abandoning of film distribution by shops, abandoning of film development by large distribution chains etc.) is to be feared and it might even damage the entire industry beyond repair.

Click to expand...

This is actually my biggest concern.

As a working professional, I have noticed that photography in general is subject to the nastiest of all "jabs" by people who are not self informed but hype informed. My wife and I had an hour long discussion about this last night, the whole hype driving large scale perception thing. When Kodachrome left and the ensuing media coverage hit the web, most people simply thought that Kodak had stopped making all films and to give credence to how strong the brand still is, most people had no idea that Fuji made film let alone Ilford or Efke.

So now we face the even bigger challenge that if a sale is completed or god forbid, Kodak film leaves us, well that will really drive the perception in the public's mind that film is simply history and not to be found in any shape or form at all, ever. This is not good. When a person sees an oil painter working, they do not ask can you still get that stuff, why are you not using Adobe Illustrator? Same thing for the acoustic guitarist, they don't say to him he is stuck in the past and really ought to try "Garage Band". But when it comes to film, people just LOVE to stick that jab in, it is truly sad and frankly disgusting, it is a real problem and will only get worse if we lose Kodak film....a lot worse actually.

There is no reason for this, I don't have to tell John Sexton that film is still a viable medium for the artist, but yet, when I asked him last week what he is planning in the face of these possibilities with Kodak, he simply said he is well stocked up in several freezers, even has long gone Kodak black and white readyloads to use.

Artists and hobby shooters know better, but the public does not, this is why I am going to repeat until I am blue in the face, we the film users HAVE to be the best marketing that film will ever have. This is *so* critical at this point that I want to get on NPR and scream this at the top of my lungs. We can no longer be partisan here, use Ilford, use Kodak, use Fuji, but promote ALL OF IT and NOW!!!

NB23 said:

Try and make me believe that Ilford will be sad when Kodak disappears

Click to expand...

Simon Galley has posted specifically on that issue here.

My best recollection is that this is a good paraphrase: "Harman Technology Ltd. (Ilford) strongly prefers having a healthy Kodak in the marketplace."

MattKing said:

Simon Galley has posted specifically on that issue here.

Harman Technology Ltd. (Ilford) strongly prefers having a healthy Kodak in the marketplace.

Click to expand...

I'd like to know from Simon if this is because, like I said, people generally seem to transition from digital, to colour film, to black and white.

Thanks for the cynicism, Sal.

Colleen said at the outset that she is a PR person. Let her do her job. We all have a pretty good idea what "Public Relations" means. Her job is to communicate to customers and deal with questions. We should be gracious and listen. For a long time many of us have complained that Kodak and Fuji have no presence here. Now Kodak does, admittedly through a PR person rather than a principal of the company, but then Ilford and Adox are quite a lot smaller.

None of us are expecting some inside information or anything other than what Kodak's still film division wants us to hear. That does not make Colleen someone we should not listen to and ask questions of. Someone in the still film division thinks we should hear what's going on, which is a hell of a lot better than all of us blabbing on forums without a clue as to what's happening. They are smart enough to know that there would be a lot of jittery customers and also smart enough to know that being silent would serve neither the company nor the customers.

Lots of us have felt burned by statements from Kodak saying "We continue to make" a product, then it's discontinued soon after. So, skepticism is warranted. And Colleen can only tell us what she knows. Still, that doesn't mean it's all BS to be rejected out of hand. I don't agree with all of your opinion; I also consider some of what you said to be stating the obvious.

Regarding your final statement: there's nothing Colleen could say that would satisfy you.

PKM-25 said:

Artists and hobby shooters know better, but the public does not, this is why I am going to repeat until I am blue in the face, we the film users HAVE to be the best marketing that film will ever have. This is *so* critical at this point that I want to get on NPR and scream this at the top of my lungs. We can no longer be partisan here, use Ilford, use Kodak, use Fuji, but promote ALL OF IT and NOW!!!

Click to expand...

I agree with all that you said. The public is generally ill informed about things they are not passionate about. The quality of information available on the web is incredibly questionable, but since it's quick to access, people don't bother looking for information that is accurate because it's not practical. The only way to get through is to have enough information out there to convince. You can have the best idea in the world, but if nobody knows about it you can't make any money on it.

NB23 said:

Well exactly, you make my point. for the general public, Kodak's been dead for at least a decade. kodak dying today will not hurt but support the other film makers.
Try and make me believe that Ilford will be sad when Kodak disappears

Click to expand...

Ned, you are a creative photographer who makes his living shooting weddings on film. That takes a certain level of belief in your self and drive to keep the momentum moving forward. That said, I think you have had every right to emote the way you have, but after a certain point and without even knowing it, you are undermining the very thing that allows you to move forward, vision.

You may disagree with me on this, but I think you have nothing to lose by having a change of viewpoint in how this will all look in going forward. What I mean by that is when you knock Kodak, you knock film. For as much as you may not like it, when the vast majority of people think of film, dead or alive, they think of Kodak so adding to the witch hunt in this regard might be doing more harm than good when it comes to your personal future with the medium...

Why chance that? Take a deep breath my friend, know that your frustrations are shared and founded, but they are history and might be doing you personally more harm than good at this point.

lxdude said:

... They are smart enough to know that there would be a lot of jittery customers and also smart enough to know that being silent would serve neither the company nor the customers. ...

Click to expand...

... and I think that they are smart enough to know that they really don't know much at this point.

MattKing said:

Simon Galley has posted specifically on that issue here.

My best recollection is that this is a good paraphrase: "Harman Technology Ltd. (Ilford) strongly prefers having a healthy Kodak in the marketplace."

Click to expand...

If so, they are wrong.
Remember: Ilford is the new Kodak. HP5 is the new Tri-X.