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

[PKM-25]

That's my plan! Except for the dog part and Tri-X.....I have a ton of Porta and Acros in the house and I need to start burning that down.

LOL, you realize that sounds like you are going to burn your house down, right?

 

[lxdude]

Because two readers can't see it doesn't mean it's not happening, only that it's being effectively executed.

Sal,
Utter bullshit.
Talk about spin! You excerpt sentences from two separate posts about different product lines and quote them so it looks like she's talking out both sides of her mouth. She stated in one post that one product line is part of the sale. She stated in another post that another product line is not part of the sale. Period.
Here are the full sentences:

Post #74: All the still photography films are part of the sale.
Post #97: Fabrizio - the motion picture business is NOT part of the sale.

No spin, no PR speak, nothing happening except two clear, concise statements of fact.

I don't get your agenda with this crap, but bogus attempts to support your straw man just make you look foolish.

Colleen is very good at her job. By the time she got to the large format forum several hours ago

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...-film-division&p=924434&viewfull=1#post924434​

she'd refined her post so none of my comments here apply.

Actually, she reverted to much the same form she used on RFF yesterday. Dan Bayer linked it in post #18 of this thread. I can't say I blame her after the needless ration of shit she got here.
Note in that linked thread on RFF that Roger Hicks, a somebody in the world of photography (unlike you or me), speaks well of Colleen. Dan is another professional who knows the Kodak people and clearly does not share your view of Colleen.

Now please, Sal, give it a rest.

 

[RattyMouse]

LOL, you realize that sounds like you are going to burn your house down, right?

As long as the film is OK, I am good to go.

 

[SkipA]

I have read in full the 20 pages full of comments (seriously!) and, while I agree with some comments and disagree with others, I find it pointless to discuss who's wrong or who should be praised.

Nevertheless, there is something I wanted to remark, and for that I took the liberty of quoting (nothing personal SkipA, you just happen to be one of the latest posts mentioning this at the time of my writing

I think you are missing some point here: in the US, Kodak may equal film. In Europe, I doubt it (I have no figures to go with my guess, though . Here, we have had Agfa, Orwo, Ferrania, Negra, Adox, just to name a few. Heck, even Voigtländer, Ensign and Zeiss-Ikon sold film under their own brand (at this point I have no idea if they were the actual manufacturers). All of them as they were known are long gone, and life went by. Some have resurfaced and are doing fine (at least they stay in business and I support them as much as I can) and that is well known by European film photographers. The way I see it, if someone thinks Kodak = Film, then he/she is not informed, and I doubt he/she will even remotely know about Kodak going out of business.

If film with quality is available, naming it won't matter. Most of the newcomers to film won't have or haven't heard about Kodak anyway, except maybe in "tales from the Granpa". The name will mean nothing to them. Newcomers here are driven to film by things such as "lomography".

No offense taken. Yes, I could be wrong. But I don't think I am wrong. None of the films you mentioned have world-wide recognition or (significant) distriubtion. Kodak film does. Which of them are still actually being produced? I did not think Ferrania was still produced. I've never heard of Negra.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You know, our GEH lunch group has more EK Horsepower than all of APUG combined, and we don't know what is going on or what is going to happen. This is pretty much giving me a laugh at all of the speculation. Give it a rest. There is nothing that you can divine or figure out from the news reports. Just relax and knock it off.

PE

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I think what Kodak should do as a gesture of goodwill is to lower the price of Tri-X to 1.00 a roll.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Give it a rest.

I dunno, PE. This is the Mother Of All Events when it comes to traditional photography. It's what everybody here has been waiting to see happen for years. This will probably be the biggest story ever discussed on APUG, regardless of how it turns out. It's probably the only event that could ever top the Death of Kodachrome thread.* You may be asking for the impossible.



Ken

* That both stories directly involve Kodak speaks to the total control of mindshare that Kodak once held on the photographic masses. Using the phrase "I'll go get the Kodak" when the time came to make family photos didn't happen for no reason.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal,
Utter bullshit...

Thank you for your polite and gracious response.

...I don't get your agenda with this crap, but bogus attempts to support your straw man just make you look foolish...

I have no agenda. After being a Kodak customer for more than 45 years (still, to this day) and participating in on-line forums for almost 13 years, I recently reached a level of frustration with the lack of realism displayed by people yearning for Kodak's "good old days" and stopped holding back. Cold, wet washrags of reality apparently do wake people up, but to a state of anger rather than acceptance.

...Note in that linked thread on RFF that Roger Hicks, a somebody in the world of photography (unlike you or me), speaks well of Colleen. Dan is another professional who knows the Kodak people and clearly does not share your view of Colleen...

I have always found Roger's inputs helpful. They were most valuable at the time of Ilford's re-birth as HARMAN, when he connected me with the new owners there so I could establish how long their site lease is. I wanted to know that before investing in a new custom whole plate camera, since Ilford is my source for that size film.

I have not spoken ill of Colleen in this thread or anywhere else. You seem to interpret my descriptions of what PR people do as being negative. They're not -- just realistic observations. I even posted that she's good at her job.

...Now please, Sal, give it a rest.

Not because you're asking, but because there's nothing more to add, I'm done. Anyone reading what I've posted who just gets angry rather than making a realistic assessment of the film market and Kodak's chances in it would get nothing out of further input. Enjoy the bliss!

 

[Roger Cole]

If film with quality is available, naming it won't matter. Most of the newcomers to film won't have or haven't heard about Kodak anyway, except maybe in "tales from the Granpa". The name will mean nothing to them. Newcomers here are driven to film by things such as "lomography".

If we needed any further proof the photo world is different in Europe, there it is. "won't have or haven't heard about Kodak anyway?"

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA! Good thing I wasn't drinking anything. It would have burned my nose and made a mess on the monitor.

Maybe over there. Here anybody old enough to remember when film ruled, which is everyone age 25 or older, thinks Kodak = film, though most also know that Fuji made film.

Many don't know that it's still made, and in the 80s I already knew people who didn't know black and white was still made, and most have indeed never heard of Ilford, Adox or Efke (or Agfa or Rollei for that matter some of the former brand available now made by Fuji and the latter brand stamped on repackaged specialty films made by the remains of the former - hell, it's complicated even for us hobbyists!)

 

[Photo Engineer]

I dunno, PE. This is the Mother Of All Events when it comes to traditional photography. It's what everybody here has been waiting to see happen for years. This will probably be the biggest story ever discussed on APUG, regardless of how it turns out. It's probably the only event that could ever top the Death of Kodachrome thread.* You may be asking for the impossible.



Ken

* That both stories directly involve Kodak speaks to the total control of mindshare that Kodak once held on the photographic masses. Using the phrase "I'll go get the Kodak" when the time came to make family photos didn't happen for no reason.

Ken;

And what good did umpteen pages of rhetoric (uninspired for the most part) do for Kodachrome or Kodak policy?????

PE

 

[SkipA]

The question is what good does it do for the photographers who are in the early stages of grieving a new loss?

 

[RattyMouse]

Ken;

And what good did umpteen pages of rhetoric (uninspired for the most part) do for Kodachrome or Kodak policy?????

PE

The right question is, what good did it do for the readers and posters? Talking out a tragedy helps.

 

[Curt]

Ken;

And what good did umpteen pages of rhetoric (uninspired for the most part) do for Kodachrome or Kodak policy?????

PE

None, except to get the agitators agitating.

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."

A. Einstein

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

And what good did umpteen pages of rhetoric (uninspired for the most part) do for Kodachrome or Kodak policy?????

catharsis (noun)
/kəˈθɑː.sɪs//-ˈθɑːr-/ [C or U] (plural catharses)
The process of releasing strong emotions through a particular activity or experience, such as writing or theatre, which helps you to understand those emotions.

In the end not much for either, I suppose. But I also suspect that wasn't the real point of it all, then or now. You know, it took Kodak 100+ years to build into the American psyche the belief that photography and Kodak were one and the same.

"Let's take some pictures! I'll go get the Kodak!"

That's what? Maybe four consecutive generations? Over that period both Kodak and Kodachrome became accepted cultural phenomenons. For three generations Kodachrome was how America took it's own self-portrait, in glorious permanent color. That collective sense can't be undone virtually overnight.

Did you happen to see the picture of me as a dorky 12-year-old Little League baseball player I posted in the Kodachrome thread? My late father made that photograph on a long ago warm summer afternoon. That's priceless to me. If my house were to catch on fire, I'd grab my father's Kodachromes before I'd grab my own money. Or cameras.

Perez and the Board thought they could undo a century of that phenomenon with the wave of a hand. Well, maybe for some. But not for all. That's what the Kodachrome thread was all about. And I also suspect that's what this thread will be all about if things do go sour in this proposed sale and Kodak film finally vanishes for good.

Catharsis.

Take care,
Ken

 

[alanrockwood]

Let me get out my crystal ball and speculate on who might buy the film division. I think the most likely outcome is some kind of management or management/employee buyout... that's if there is actually a sale. Of course, none of us can know at this point.

Also, to reiterate a point made by others, it seems to make little sense to separate the film division from the motion picture film division. Of course, that's not to say it won't happen that way, but separating products that require the same production line into different companies seems to me to be an anti-synergistic strategy that has a good chance of failing, even if they somehow negotiate supplier contracts between the companies.

 

[hdeyong]

Like an earlier poster, I also read all 22 pages. People are angry, frustrated, and wondering what will happen now.
The worst part of this whole situation is how long it's taking. It's like going for a medical test and having the technician say, "Ok, we should have the results on whether you're dying or not in a couple of years. Of course, I suppose you could actually be dead by then."
It's just not been a fun couple of years for people who use Kodak products. Maybe this proposed sale will finally rip the bandage off for once and for all.
Keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[MartinP]

To Alan, in post-214. I think the movie and still-photo films are split because of the massive difference in volume and because of the totally different distribution organisations. That makes sense if one wanted to dump an awkward part (still-photo film distribution) and keep the 'easy' high-volume part.

It is still unclear, but a buyer may expect to lease production from rump-Kodak to make the relatively low-volume still-photo films. Thus removing the costly and uncertain change of location and personnel, which others have already mentioned. The question then becomes what happens when the movie-film contracts run out in three years or so . . .

 

[Uncle Bill]

You know, our GEH lunch group has more EK Horsepower than all of APUG combined, and we don't know what is going on or what is going to happen. This is pretty much giving me a laugh at all of the speculation. Give it a rest. There is nothing that you can divine or figure out from the news reports. Just relax and knock it off.

PE

Amen. I for one am not panicking yet. I'll start doing that if a buyer does not come forward for Kodak's film division. In the meantime if everyone is having such a freak out about this and Efke's winding down of operations, who is going to put their money on the table, not to buy product but to put an offer in?

P.S. Stop trashing Colleen, the PR person. I hate it when professional colleagues get hit in the head for being the messenger (I'm in PR myself), she most likely works for a PR agency hired by Kodak to deliver the news and no doubt the information she's delivering is what Kodak wants to give out. Secondly separating the motion picture business from the film photography business is dumb.

 

[PKM-25]

Like an earlier poster, I also read all 22 pages. People are angry, frustrated, and wondering what will happen now.
The worst part of this whole situation is how long it's taking. It's like going for a medical test and having the technician say, "Ok, we should have the results on whether you're dying or not in a couple of years. Of course, I suppose you could actually be dead by then."
It's just not been a fun couple of years for people who use Kodak products. Maybe this proposed sale will finally rip the bandage off for once and for all.
Keeping my fingers crossed.

Perfect analogy for this...

Life is short and it is precious, so why agonize over it while waiting for word? If you really love the patient, have hope, spend time with them, don't just abandon a loved one because they turned ill and might not pull through. Instead, spend every moment you can with them as they are still alive, can talk to you, look you in the eyes and smile, share memories with you and make new ones.

No one goes to the bedside of a loved one and says they are not going to visit them anymore because the doctor is incompetent.....now do you all get the picture? Or is your love of Kodak film not true or lifelong and is instead, one of convienient self interest?

Last night my wife asked me why I am taking this so personal. I told her because this whole crises with Kodak goes far beyond the loss of technically great materials, my relationship with Kodak goes back to my childhood and is therefore much deeper than that.

 

[jnoir]

It goes without saying that my intention is to keep friendly chat and learn about other's insights, if something I say may be seen as rude or blatantly false, polite corrections are more than welcome :munch: I do not know what will happen, but I find it interesting to hear somebody else's opinions, sometimes it helps me realize facts that I hadn't considered before, and sometimes not even related to photography exclusively.

Nevertheless, as pointless as all this rethoric may seem, for me it's good entertainment to read while souping this week's films

No offense taken. Yes, I could be wrong. But I don't think I am wrong. None of the films you mentioned have world-wide recognition or (significant) distriubtion. Kodak film does. Which of them are still actually being produced? I did not think Ferrania was still produced. I've never heard of Negra.

My point exactly, they disappeared (long ago) and you didn't care, or even didn't knew them. As I said, all of them are long gone, and life went by. Kodak may disappear, but I doubt it will mean the end of the industry, or of course photography as I understand it. I do not know any single shop which only carries Kodak products. Any shop I have walked into so far selling Kodak has, at least, Ilford and Fuji. Right, worst case scenario they may have a couple of emulsions from Kodak, and just one from the others, but if I can buy it at the shop close to me, this is significant distribution. Most of the time photography shops (sorry, I do not buy my film at the grocery ;-) have a good variety to choose, and sometimes even online ordering is cheaper.

Maybe over there. Here anybody old enough to remember when film ruled, which is everyone age 25 or older, thinks Kodak = film, though most also know that Fuji made film.

Again, my point exactly ;-) WW young people are the ones that {will | should} keep the industry alive. I'm in my 20's and, around me, people says - if speaking about film at all - "let's do some lomography", no "let's go take the Kodak". I myself started in photography 20 years ago with a pretty simple camera loaded with Kodak Gold. Here I am, sad as everyone else, although it is long since I quit using Tri-X more than once in a blue moon I still use Portra 800 from time to time.

But, fact is that most young people goes into photography with digital cameras, children have mobile phones with cameras at the age when I had my old plastic camera. If they experiment with film, they may reckon Kodak as the maker of some sensors, if they are deep in the technical part. Otherwise, probably Fuji will have more name than Kodak to them, what with it being deep in the digital world.

This is of course the opposite for those of us having shot more than the odd roll of film, but I am under the impression that most of the people here at least doubles my age, and they will be happy to be able to shoot film for just 20 or 30 years more... Me, I'd rather use film for at least 50 to 60 years, please

 

[Ektagraphic]

Does Kodak have a buyer?

 

[benjiboy]

I appreciate that Kodak is part of the fabric of American and indeed World photographic life, but all this gnashing of teeth and foaming at the mouth will not effect the eventual outcome one iota, and what we think and feel won't change a thing.

 

[BrianShaw]

... and speaking of that...

[wailing] [gnashing of teeth] And where's our government when we need them to save the fabric of American life? They stepped in an bailed out GM when all we really needed was a healthy Ford. I'll bet they would bail out Cocal Cola if Coca Cola needed bailing out. Oh, the humanity... [/wailing] [/gnashing of teeth]

 

[SkipA]

My point exactly, they disappeared (long ago) and you didn't care, or even didn't knew them. As I said, all of them are long gone, and life went by. Kodak may disappear, but I doubt it will mean the end of the industry, or of course photography as I understand it. I do not know any single shop which only carries Kodak products. Any shop I have walked into so far selling Kodak has, at least, Ilford and Fuji. Right, worst case scenario they may have a couple of emulsions from Kodak, and just one from the others, but if I can buy it at the shop close to me, this is significant distribution. Most of the time photography shops (sorry, I do not buy my film at the grocery ;-) have a good variety to choose, and sometimes even online ordering is cheaper.

Put it this way, if Kodak doesn't find a buyer for the still film and paper business and it is halted, then it's another nail in the coffin for film. There will still be film produced by other companies, for as long as it is profitable, but demand for the films will continue to diminish over time. The loss of Kodak will not yield a bonanza for other film producers, nor will it increase the demand for film in general. That is the piont. The perception that film is dead and gone will solidify in the general public, fewer will shoot film, fewer will even think of it except as a old obsolete practice. Or if the thought of trying film occurs to them, many of them will not act on it because it will be so hard to find film for sale. And when they do find it, they'll have second thoughts when they see the price.

I don't buy my film in the grocery store either, but neither do I buy it at local camera stores, because for the most part, they don't sell film anymore. They sell digital cameras and accessories. Or they carry a limited range of products from Kodak and Fuji, mostly 35mm, some 120, and no sheet film, and they charge high prices for what little they carry. So I buy from the internet. But the amount of film you and I buy is pretty insignificant compared to the slow but constant flow of 35mm film at tens of thousands of grocery and drug stores.

Again, my point exactly ;-) WW young people are the ones that {will | should} keep the industry alive. I'm in my 20's and, around me, people says - if speaking about film at all - "let's do some lomography", no "let's go take the Kodak". I myself started in photography 20 years ago with a pretty simple camera loaded with Kodak Gold. Here I am, sad as everyone else, although it is long since I quit using Tri-X more than once in a blue moon I still use Portra 800 from time to time.

But, fact is that most young people goes into photography with digital cameras, children have mobile phones with cameras at the age when I had my old plastic camera. If they experiment with film, they may reckon Kodak as the maker of some sensors, if they are deep in the technical part. Otherwise, probably Fuji will have more name than Kodak to them, what with it being deep in the digital world.

This is of course the opposite for those of us having shot more than the odd roll of film, but I am under the impression that most of the people here at least doubles my age, and they will be happy to be able to shoot film for just 20 or 30 years more... Me, I'd rather use film for at least 50 to 60 years, please

What you don't seem to understand is that the other manufacturers of film are likely to experience reduction in demand if Kodak stops producing film. Film isn't advertised anymore, except on specialty web sites and magazines. There is barely a mention of film in general photography magazines any more, as they are all concerned with megapixels and sensor sizes. Out of sight, out of mind. Out of mind, out of sales. Kodak is still the largest producer of still camera film in the world. If Kodak stops producing film, the single most visible icon of film will be gone. Out of sight, out of mind, going, going, gone.



But really, I hate to be so negative. I'm got room in my freezer for a couple more boxes of sheet film. I'm thinking of Portra 160 and Ektar 100 in 4x5 and some more 8x10 Tri-X.

 

[mikendawn]

Relax ... and shoot Tri-X