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

[zsas]

Silver glow - although your analogy is fair, in other art communities, when XYZ Manufacturing stops making Z material (eg some kind of oil paint, or a color of stained glass) there are usually a few other makers. With film/paper, gosh, we are taking a mere few....

Plus, when a manufacturer did announce a discontinuance of a paint, um, just check out this thread from our fellow art brethren at the forum wetcanvas.com:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1172272

 

[Photo Engineer]

The use of Cadmium Yellow pigments is more akin to the use of Potassium Thiocyanate used in some alternate photographic processes. It is not a good choice and people are working to eliminate both chemicals. It does not eliminate the process however.

PE

 

[zsas]

Hey PE my point is to talk about how folks are affected by discountinuances in other artistic mediums (thread three at the above makes my point), reguardless of the cause of such discountinuance. I don't wa t to derail this to discuss cadmium or eye of newt....

 

[Allen Friday]

I'm screwed. I use Kodak Tri-X for my 8x10 negatives and cadmium yellow in my gum prints.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Hey PE my point is to talk about how folks are affected by discountinuances in other artistic mediums (thread three at the above makes my point), reguardless of the cause of such discountinuance. I don't wa t to derail this to discuss cadmium or eye of newt....

Sorry;

I had forgotten that most did not know that Kodak struggled to eliminate Cadmium and Mercury from products in the '60s. Several major products were discontinued as a result and new products took their place, but production continued nevertheless.

Pe

 

[Sirius Glass]

If Kodak film becomes unavailable, how will I go Kodaking with Ilford HP5+?

 

[zsas]

Sorry;

I had forgotten that most did not know that Kodak struggled to eliminate Cadmium and Mercury from products in the '60s. Several major products were discontinued as a result and new products took their place, but production continued nevertheless.

Pe

Ahhhh noble mentor, great point! Folks move on!

Yep, back to the one trying to be so black and white, we all are entitled to be sad, annoyed, etc.

Not sure anyone is saying s/he is walking alway from photography because of Kodak

I guess I am guilty of falling prey to that person's trap....I won't make that mistake again...

 

[RattyMouse]

Sorry;

I had forgotten that most did not know that Kodak struggled to eliminate Cadmium and Mercury from products in the '60s. Several major products were discontinued as a result and new products took their place, but production continued nevertheless.

Pe

PE, your knowledge of Kodak is awesome. I wish we had a FUJIFILM counterpart to you here. The history of these two film companies is always fascinating to me.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Maybe Fuji cares less than Kodak does?

Think about that!

Regarding my comments, thanks but I was involved in the Cd, Hg replacement program.

PE

 

[Brian C. Miller]

You miss my point. The irrationality I wrote of earlier was not the love of photography, or even film, but rather the love of Kodak specifically, and the thinking that the death of Kodak would be the death of photography in general.

The problem with the "death" of Kodak ("I'm not dead!" "I'm getting better!" "I feel happy!") is that the number of good alternatives dwindles drastically. For instance, Fujifilm discontinued 120-size Acros 400, seen as a wide favorite. The Japanese government banned a chemical required for its manufacture, and Fujifilm decided that since it would never see a return on investment for the reformulation, it dropped the film. Kodak produces two 400-speed films, and Ilford produces two. If there's no more Kodak, then there's just two 400 speed films on the market, from one manufacturer.

What does that mean? Each of the films has certain characteristics. Acros has freakin' amazing reciprocity correction, while Tri-X and HP5 need extreme correction. You see, it's not just about grain, it's also what product can allow the photographer to do. And how about fast color film? Without Kodak, there's no high-speed (ISO 800) color film in 120, and Fuji would be the only source for any color film.

Sure, we'll all soldier along without Kodak, but personally, I'd rather have some quality choice. My current stockpile is Kodak E-6, which is quite defintely discontinued, and there's absolutely no chance we'll see that manufactured again.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

If Kodak film becomes unavailable, how will I go Kodaking with Ilford HP5+?

You'll just have to start Harmanizing with a different film...

Ken

 

[Henning Serger]

PE,

Do you know how the remaining Kodak coating machine compares in size with those at Inoviscoat and at China Lucky which are apparently running now mainly on non silver halide coating?

Hello Alan,

the coating machine at InovisCoat ( www.inoviscoat.de ) is one of the former coating machines from the Agfa plant in Leverkusen, Germany.This machine was moved from Leverkusen to Monheim. It has been modernised and downscaled. The coating width is now 108 cm. On this machine the current Adox MCC and MCP papers are coated.
The InovisCoat staff is all former Agfa Leverkusen engineers and technicians.

Due to Robert L. Shanebrook's excellent book "Making Kodak Film" (highly recommended!) the width of the coating machine in building 38 at Kodak Park is 54 inches = 137,16 cm.
Length of master rolls is one or two miles (dependant on what is needed).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[walsh]

The following is from a UK supplier in regard to the sale

Just some clarification on the Kodak announcement - for sale is the consumer film business and photographic paper. Pro film (Portra, Ektar, B&W) and Motion picture are not for sale.

Kodak have agreements in place with the major Hollywood studios to supply motion picture film until 2015 at which point then it becomes a point of discussion and negotiation again. Stills is coated on back of the MP so you can guarantee supply of Portra, Ektar, B&W for some time to come. And then there is always the possibility that the marketing and distribution will be sold to a third party, with Kodak making it as master roll. Any number of possibilities.

Currently we see a very strong growth in pro-film, particularly colour, as professionals, particularly wedding photographers are shooting more film to try and differentiate themselves in the crowded market place. This is a trend started in the US and, as with all photographic trends, especially wedding, finds it's way over here.

I thought all photographic film was included?

 

[georg16nik]

The following is from a UK supplier in regard to the sale

Originally Posted by AgPhotographic
Just some clarification on the Kodak announcement - for sale is the consumer film business and photographic paper. Pro film (Portra, Ektar, B&W) and Motion picture are not for sale.

Kodak have agreements in place with the major Hollywood studios to supply motion picture film until 2015 at which point then it becomes a point of discussion and negotiation again. Stills is coated on back of the MP so you can guarantee supply of Portra, Ektar, B&W for some time to come. And then there is always the possibility that the marketing and distribution will be sold to a third party, with Kodak making it as master roll. Any number of possibilities.

Currently we see a very strong growth in pro-film, particularly colour, as professionals, particularly wedding photographers are shooting more film to try and differentiate themselves in the crowded market place. This is a trend started in the US and, as with all photographic trends, especially wedding, finds it's way over here.

I thought all photographic film was included?

Thanks for sharing, walsh!
The first piece of solid and not self contradicting info, after so much pages

 

[Diapositivo]

The information given by AgPhotographic is wrong.
A spokeswoman for Kodak has said, in this thread, that professional still film is part of the sale. This was given as an answer to a specific question, and is more reliable than what AgPhotographic says.

The misunderstanding is probably born from the expression "consumer film" (on sale) and "commercial film" (not on sale).
The person speaking on behalf of Kodak has clarified that "commercial" film means "motion picture film" and "consumer still film" also encompasses "professional" still film as far as this sale is concerned.

The original press release by Kodak, linked in this thread, was ambiguous under this respect as the terms "commercial film" and "consumer film" would be (mis)understood, by the majority of photographers, the way AgPhotographic did.

The ambiguity raised the question and the question obtained an answer.

So the distilled final incontrovertible you-can-bet-your-balls-upon truth is: all Kodak still film is on sale.

 

[Steve Smith]

The information given by AgPhotographic is wrong.
A spokeswoman for Kodak has said, in this thread, that professional still film is part of the sale.

All we can deduce from that is that one or other of the messages is wrong.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

What about this?

http://www.labelsandlabeling.com/news/latest-news/kodak-to-focus-on-commercial-and-package-printing

Eastman Kodak Company has outlined its next steps towards emerging from Chapter 11 reorganization as a company primarily focused on commercial, packaging and functional printing technology and enterprise services.

Steve.

 

[Felinik]

All we can deduce from that is that one or other of the messages is wrong.


Steve.

"Kodak's 'Commercial Film' business includes aerial film, printed circuit boards, and surveillance type uses of film. Kodak also plans to retain its entertainment imaging business, which includes its motion picture business."

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...-sell-off-imaging-and-retail-print-businesses


Neither of those includes their Pro Photography products.

So it's just a question about who's gonna buy it...

 

[SkipA]

What about this?

http://www.labelsandlabeling.com/news/latest-news/kodak-to-focus-on-commercial-and-package-printing

Steve.

That's just a repackaging of the same Kodak press release that everyone else is quoting from, Steve. There is nothing new there. You can go back to the beginning of this thread and read the same thing from other sources.

What is and what is not included in the sale was clarified by (there was a url link here which no longer exists) (Colleen Krenzer) from Kodak's PR agency. Just read the last six posts from Colleen.

 

[Steve Smith]

That's just a repackaging of the same Kodak press release that everyone else is quoting from, Steve. There is nothing new there. You can go back to the beginning of this thread and read the same thing from other sources.

Perhaps it just sounds worse than it really is then. I read it as Kodak focusing on packaging.



Steve.

 

[SkipA]

If Kodak successfully sells the Personal Imaging business, which includes all the film and paper products that most of us on this forum use, to a business that can keep it going, then it won't matter so much what happens to Kodak, except as regards the disposition of building 38. Some of us use motion picture film too, and that is not included in the sale. The fate of building 38 is unknown, but it is presumed that its continued operation is critical to both MP film and still film. I'm not sure if its used for paper. So there are a lot of questions yet to be answered, but it doesn't seem all bad to me.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The Inoviscoat machine is close to 42" wide as were all Kodak machines until the recent machine currently in use. My previous answer of 42" was not correct for this new machine as Henning points out.

Sorry for the confusion.

Too many machines!

PE

 

[SkipA]

Hmmmm. As we know from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 42 is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything. And although the ultimate question itself is unknown (darn those Vogons), it stands to reason that 42 is also the right width for a coating machine.

I wonder if the Vogons had a hand in the design of that 54 inch machine in building 38, and if that was what really led to the Kodak's troubles. It smells like an insidious plot that was meant to destroy Kodak by wreaking havoc in the coated film continuum. On the other hand, I could be wrong. After all, 54 in decimal is 42 in base 13.

 

[Felinik]

If Kodak successfully sells the Personal Imaging business, which includes all the film and paper products that most of us on this forum use, to a business that can keep it going, then it won't matter so much what happens to Kodak, except as regards the disposition of building 38. Some of us use motion picture film too, and that is not included in the sale. The fate of building 38 is unknown, but it is presumed that its continued operation is critical to both MP film and still film. I'm not sure if its used for paper. So there are a lot of questions yet to be answered, but it doesn't seem all bad to me.

Question is, who, except for Harman, could be a possible prospect?

 

[Diapositivo]

This page was probably linked somewhere in this thread.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...-sell-off-imaging-and-retail-print-businesses

It says in the update:

To exit bankruptcy, Kodak needs to raise $700 million to pay creditors. The company had hoped to generate income by selling its patents but that has been unsuccessful, so far.

I think this is interesting. If $M700 is all what is needed to get out of bankruptcy that means Kodak might still manage to reach the shores of safety by selling only the patents. It seems from other information I read that they had the opportunity to sell for $500 which they refused.

So ultimately it might be that Kodak can get out of bankruptcy without selling the film division or, at least, without selling "half of it" (retaining motion picture film and selling still film).

Whether this would be good or bad news depends on the faith one has in the possibility that a convinced investor exists able to operate the film side of the Kodak business.