Kodak Axes Digicams, but keeps film

PKM-25 · Feb 19, 2012

RattyMouse said:
It must be very worrying for Kodak to not know where the bottom is with film. The drop just hasnt reached an equilibrium yet.

This is it, the totality of what is to actually happen to film in a nutshell. There is no doubt that demand will continue to fall, especially considering cinema's exit from film as a majority of use medium. That one coating machine at Rochester is a marvel to behold, the robot in the center pouring conveyor belt fed components into the mix, the enormous foundation of concrete to negate vibrations. I *must* be mistaken, but I recall Garrett Kokx of Kodak telling us that production capacities are not limited to large runs...PE, is that right?

CGW · Feb 19, 2012

Ian Grant said:
Just because you don't know anyone doesn't mean there aren't professional photographers still shooting film.

Your mistake is to assume that it's an either or situation, it hasn't been for over a decade. The way many photograpgers see it capture choice whether B&W, Colour negative, Colour Transparency, Polaroid or Digital is made to suit the required assignment. While there's been an overwhelming swing towards digital many still use film for specific projects or because it's the best way to meet the clients requirements.

Perhaps something you've missed is that many photographers who have only used digital professionally are exploring the use of film.

Ian

That's going to be an implausibly large number to make any difference for Kodak.

Ian Grant · Feb 19, 2012

CGW said:
That's going to be an implausibly large number to make any difference for Kodak.

Why do you post on APUG when you're so clearly anti-film ?

Ian

PKM-25 · Feb 19, 2012

Look, I think we all know that these threads serve a basis for insight and annoying as it may be to hear CGW and Aristophanes continually spout out these scenarios or numbers, the truth is that this has not all played out yet, so nothing is written in stone.

So it matters only to a point what they say, what matters most is what you, the film users do with the information. In terms of film, call it a battle cry or call it quits, do what you want, but don't place all of your wants and desires for the medium on what they say. What they say does not change what any film maker does. Maybe a few of us like me have spent more in the past weeks on film and related supplies, but maybe some who came here as just a read-only as many do have figured if it is all headed down, then why bother which is a shame.

The only thing I know for sure is that I am protecting my future in the medium by investing time and money now, right when it matters. Take what they say with a grain of salt, expect more of the same, expect more films to disappear, more uncertainty to befall the craft. And expect more film users including us pros to just not give a crap and keep making images, selling and promoting art of real photography: Film.

I just don't care about these threads anymore, they are no more productive than any other speculation thread, great if you have nothing else to do, bad if you actually get out and shoot a lot and live life...

Ian Grant · Feb 19, 2012

PKM-25 said:
The only thing I know for sure is that I am protecting my future in the medium by investing time and money now, right when it matters. Take what they say with a grain of salt, expect more of the same, expect more films to disappear, more uncertainty to befall the craft. And expect more film users including us pros to just not give a crap and keep making images, selling and promoting art of real photography: Film.

I've thought for a few years no that we need to see some films disappear to consolidate and make what remains more economic.

I'd like to see both Kodak & Ilford bring out a new generation of B&W films combining the best of both conventional & T-grain (or similar) technology. Back to the simpler choices we had a few years ago.

Ian

CGW · Feb 19, 2012

MattKing said:
CGW is dealing with an important problem - he is in "the centre of the universe!".

(That reference will probably only make sense to Canadians).

On a slightly more serious note, it is interesting to me that the market for film and film related products seems to be a lot more healthy here on the west coast of Canada than it does in the GTA.

We here have choices for film supplies and choices for pro labs (including two that have moved to larger, new premises) and a decent number of one hour lab choices too.

There may be cultural differences, but I expect that it is an issue of self-fulfilling prophecies as well.

It may be very important to recognize that film markets may be best served if they become geographically localized - support and enhance them where they are still strong, and depend on the mail and couriers elsewhere.

It may be that the best thing we can do to support our "local" resource is to assist those internet resources who serve our needs in becoming more local. I think of B & H's relatively recent addition of Canada friendly shipping as an example.

The spin around the drain for film really picked up about 5 years ago around the GTA and only accelerated. Pro labs around 2007 either began restricting film service--daily processing runs to 3 days/week to weekly, no E6, no b&w--or abruptly ended it. Others just closed, while survivors killed affordable scanning services and ended proofing and inexpensive print service.Cheap C-41 Noritsu/Frontier labs at Costco, Walmart and grocery chains began vanishing in 2008-09.Toronto's oldest lab, Silvano, once the lab for portrait and wedding shooters, quickly closed earlier this month after almost 60 years in business. It was painful watching this shop fade but the quality of their film work tanked as volume shrank to a trickle several years ago. Now the only film-friendly quality pro lab in TO is Burtynsky's Toronto Image Works(TIW). Business overall and volume at the film end there appear strong. It's my go-to for processing but I'm still in the lurch for proofing and inexpensive prints--something my local pro lab offered until a few weeks ago.

B&H is great for film, especially when the C$ is at or above par. Still, in an urban area over 6 million, it's been disturbing to see the film "ecosystem" collapse in a city where photography is especially popular.

Have to admit that the closing of Kodak.ca in 2005 and the leveling of the factory site put the writing on the wall for many here.

keithwms · Feb 19, 2012

Ian Grant said:
I'd like to see both Kodak & Ilford bring out a new generation of B&W films combining the best of both conventional & T-grain (or similar) technology. Back to the simpler choices we had a few years ago.

Ian

Agreed. Which is a big part of why the simple models assumed by some make no sense. As I said many times before, and as certain people chose to ignore, you need look no further than the cigarette companies to see how to make enormous profit even in the midst of a dramatic market decrease. Nobody ever solves the long term sustainability problem. With very few exceptions, most of our products will not be around in identical form for very long. It's not particularly insightful to point that out.

CGW · Feb 19, 2012

Ian Grant said:
Why do you post on APUG when you're so clearly anti-film ?

Ian

Perhaps something you've missed is that many photographers who have only used digital professionally are exploring the use of film.

Sorry but I'm just not a fan of soothing fictions like this, particularly when the numbers necessary to make a difference aren't in evidence.

Wayne · Feb 19, 2012

PKM-25 said:
Look, I think we all know that these threads serve a basis for insight and annoying as it may be to hear CGW and Aristophanes continually spout out these scenarios or numbers, the truth is that this has not all played out yet, so nothing is written in stone.

Didn't I say that about 2, 5 and 10 pages ago?

PKM-25 said:
So it matters only to a point what they say, what matters most is what you, the film users do with the information. In terms of film, call it a battle cry or call it quits, do what you want, but don't place all of your wants and desires for the medium on what they say. What they say does not change what any film maker does. Maybe a few of us like me have spent more in the past weeks on film and related supplies, but maybe some who came here as just a read-only as many do have figured if it is all headed down, then why bother which is a shame.

The only thing I know for sure is that I am protecting my future in the medium by investing time and money now, right when it matters. Take what they say with a grain of salt, expect more of the same, expect more films to disappear, more uncertainty to befall the craft. And expect more film users including us pros to just not give a crap and keep making images, selling and promoting art of real photography: Film.

I just don't care about these threads anymore, they are no more productive than any other speculation thread, great if you have nothing else to do, bad if you actually get out and shoot a lot and live life...

I don't think anyone is actually paying attention to the people arguing the same things incessantly, except for the people arguing the same things incessantly. They have to be right so they can't stop, but its just the train wreck mentality that keeps other people reading it. Although I should say, I'm not reading their posts anymore as they've said it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over already.

Photo Engineer · Feb 19, 2012

PKM-25 said:
This is it, the totality of what is to actually happen to film in a nutshell. There is no doubt that demand will continue to fall, especially considering cinema's exit from film as a majority of use medium. That one coating machine at Rochester is a marvel to behold, the robot in the center pouring conveyor belt fed components into the mix, the enormous foundation of concrete to negate vibrations. I *must* be mistaken, but I recall Garrett Kokx of Kodak telling us that production capacities are not limited to large runs...PE, is that right?

Dan;

That is right but a bit misleading in this sense. As scale goes down, overhead stays constant and thus cost per unit produced goes up. Also, for some products, as scale goes down so does quality unless the product is redesigned for that scale / speed. This costs money as well.

As I understand it, there is a smaller machine still there and there are some in KRL that could be used with some pain. IDK what exists any more and what costs are involved.

I can say this. At the present time, with good management, there is room for Kodak, Fuji and Ilford along with the smaller European companies. The operative phrase is "with good management" which Kodak has apparently not had under Perez.

PE

zsas · Feb 19, 2012

KRL?

KRL Khan Research Laboratories (Pakistan)
KRL Knight Resources Ltd. (Canada)
KRL Kochi Refineries Ltd (India)
KRL Kereta Rel Listrik (Indonesian: electric train)
KRL Klamath River Lodge (Orleans, CA)
KRL King's Rugby League

Photo Engineer · Feb 19, 2012

Kodak Research Labs (at one time and collectively Rochester, Harrow, Chalon etc.... now only Rochester)

And of course, you knew the answer.

And the coating machines in KRL at one time: P1, P3 (trough), SC1, SC4, SC5, J4, J5, J6 (Extrusion aqueous and solvent depending), J8 (Extrusion and Slide) and J9 (Slide and Curtain up to ~12" width all others being ~5" width) IDK which still exist and IDK if any could be adapted to any sort of production.

PE

zsas · Feb 19, 2012

Thanks PE, actually I didnt know KRL was Kodak Resarch Labs! Neat info! I sure hope this works itself out so one of those keeps coating!

DREW WILEY · Feb 19, 2012

GCW apparently doesn't know that many photographers, period.

Prof_Pixel · Feb 19, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
The operative phrase is "with good management" which Kodak has apparently not had under Perez.

Perez just thinks he can beat HP in the inkjet business.

pbromaghin · Feb 19, 2012

In the chance conversation I had with an HP exec that Tom Bertillson mentioned 15 pages ago, or so, he said that Perez really didn't do much for HP, that he mostly benefited from the efforts of his predecessors.

Aristophanes · Feb 19, 2012

keithwms said:
Agreed. Which is a big part of why the simple models assumed by some make no sense. As I said many times before, and as certain people chose to ignore, you need look no further than the cigarette companies to see how to make enormous profit even in the midst of a dramatic market decrease. Nobody ever solves the long term sustainability problem. With very few exceptions, most of our products will not be around in identical form for very long. It's not particularly insightful to point that out.

The point I have been making is that Kodak in Ch. 11 cannot make that effort. The new shareholders and the judge will not accept that loss of equity measured through perpetual declines in revenues. The only way to accurately value EK's total value would be to assume a major less on film down the road balanced by corresponding gains in the other, larger segments of operations. Kodak is now primarily a printing company. Their graphics division will come to dominate in both revenues and profits and has a #1-2 position in its fields. Kodak buying Creo was an astute move. Their personal inkjet move as a counter to film's decline has not panned out. Poor call.

Film will either be sold, or will be an internal write-down with zero support save for turning on the lights, firing up the machine for a run, then distribution. If a key technician or engineer or distributor balks or walks, the lights go out. It does not have to be this way. This is a management decision that spurns other stakeholders. Concepts like vertical integration or spin-offs die in corporate environments like this. That just adds to the tragedy, because Kodak can do with its production facilities what no other manufacturer can.

Film is not physically addictive save as a disposable income crutch. The major reason why cigarette companies made killer profits in declining markets is because they no longer had to advertise to the last 10% who were not yet smokers, so they freed up cash for going after the hardcore to smoke more (lovely flavours). They also wrung huge concessions from farmers, passing the losses down the line to the guy in the dirt (like Walmart with its suppliers). Most importantly, the tobacco industry wedged much higher margins out of significant price increases, and were given cover due to tax increases on the product to cover healthcare losses.

None of that applies to film. Nor to Kodak.

keithwms · Feb 19, 2012

pbromaghin said:
In the chance conversation I had with an HP exec that Tom Bertillson mentioned 15 pages ago, or so, he said that Perez really didn't do much for HP, that he mostly benefited from the efforts of his predecessors.

Perez definitely can't be feeling much love now

But he's certainly not the only problem Kodak has had... many issues predate Perez. As I said somewhere in this thread, a departed friend of mine who had a long research association with Kodak considered them to be basically done in the early 90s. The stakes are just too high to half-ass anything in today's market, and unfortunately they've been half-assing a lot of things for more than a decade.

It'll be interesting to see what becomes of the "Arista" products now.

Dinesh · Feb 20, 2012

CGW said:
Let me try this again. I know no one working now as a professional photographer(commercial/editorial/PJ/portrait/creative) in my area who shoots anything other than digital. Several have never shot film professionally.YMMV but shooting film is not the hallmark of "professional" photography in 2012

I think this "pro" uses film

http://www.acurator.com/#/2/132/0

Perhaps you need to expand your "area".

DREW WILEY · Feb 20, 2012

No commercial photographer is going to survive for very long if he can't develop some special look to his work that differentiates him from the competition, esp in this area where studio leases and real estate are astronomical. I'm supposed to meet with one of these guys pretty soon to teach him LF traditional film usage. He is making money now, but figures
there's now way forward in the portrait market without upping the quality,
and that equates to film, even if it gets printed hybrid. A simple view camera is also a very sensible investment in quality compared to repurchasing expensive digital MF backs every five or ten years, or trying to keep up with constant software issues. Every kid on the block with a DLSR now assumes they're a web or wedding or portfolio photographer.
Someone needs to own some heavier artillery if they're actually trying to
support a family doing this kind of work. Having digital capacity alone is like walking on one leg. Who would want to hire someone with so little
versatility or real-world experience? Even the graphics students know that
and are looking for coaching in film. Either differentiate yourself from the
crowd or expect to be delivering pizza for the next decade.

CGW · Feb 20, 2012

DREW WILEY said:
No commercial photographer is going to survive for very long if he can't develop some special look to his work that differentiates him from the competition, esp in this area where studio leases and real estate are astronomical. I'm supposed to meet with one of these guys pretty soon to teach him LF traditional film usage. He is making money now, but figures
there's now way forward in the portrait market without upping the quality,
and that equates to film, even if it gets printed hybrid. A simple view camera is also a very sensible investment in quality compared to repurchasing expensive digital MF backs every five or ten years, or trying to keep up with constant software issues. Every kid on the block with a DLSR now assumes they're a web or wedding or portfolio photographer.
Someone needs to own some heavier artillery if they're actually trying to
support a family doing this kind of work. Having digital capacity alone is like walking on one leg. Who would want to hire someone with so little
versatility or real-world experience? Even the graphics students know that
and are looking for coaching in film. Either differentiate yourself from the
crowd or expect to be delivering pizza for the next decade.

So it follows, then, that shooting film always magically trumps talent, creativity and imagination regardless of the capture medium?

wblynch · Feb 20, 2012

Drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain...

Rudeofus · Feb 20, 2012

Aristophanes said:
The point I have been making is that Kodak in Ch. 11 cannot make that effort. The new shareholders and the judge will not accept that loss of equity measured through perpetual declines in revenues. The only way to accurately value EK's total value would be to assume a major less on film down the road balanced by corresponding gains in the other, larger segments of operations. Kodak is now primarily a printing company. Their graphics division will come to dominate in both revenues and profits and has a #1-2 position in its fields. Kodak buying Creo was an astute move. Their personal inkjet move as a counter to film's decline has not panned out. Poor call.

Aristophanes, you have made a number of predictions in this and related threads which didn't exactly pan out either:

First you predicted the immediate collapse of world wide film production if Kodak ever declared chapter 11. "Analogue Rapture" as I called it back then. Well, chapter 11 was filed and nothing happened for Ilford, Fuji, Foma, Efke, Adox, ... absolutely nothing changed.
As chapter 11 was filed, you predicted that Kodaks declining film market is a major source of losses with no future. Instead Kodak killed its digicam division and still holds on to film. They lay of some people right now but no word about shutting down FPEG.
Later you predicted that all lines of credit will be frozen immediately which will force Kodak to shut down its film production. Wrong again, from reading here they just got a new line of credit.

You compare yourself to Nouriel Roubini and the comparison fits better than you may think. Roubini is famous for predicting doom&gloom for everyone and makes a lot of noise whenever he happens to be right. Media love his predictions (right or wrong), especially since the dot com bubble burst and even more since 2007 because doom&gloom attracts readers. Yet he was wrong many times and is barely taken seriously here in Europe. Being right in a few unusual cases doesn't make up for being wrong 99 out of 100 times. Are you really sure this is the role you want to play here? Your level of expertise in the field of economy, restructuring and financing should warrant you a more relevant role here on APUG than the cliché role of Dr. Doom.

michaelbsc · Feb 20, 2012

wblynch said:
Drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain...

Yes. Seems to me that a certain mid 20th century politician was able to use this effect quite judiciously.

Aristophanes · Feb 20, 2012

Rudeofus said:
Aristophanes, you have made a number of predictions in this and related threads which didn't exactly pan out either:

First you predicted the immediate collapse of world wide film production if Kodak ever declared chapter 11. "Analogue Rapture" as I called it back then. Well, chapter 11 was filed and nothing happened for Ilford, Fuji, Foma, Efke, Adox, ... absolutely nothing changed.

As chapter 11 was filed, you predicted that Kodaks declining film market is a major source of losses with no future. Instead Kodak killed its digicam division and still holds on to film. They lay of some people right now but no word about shutting down FPEG.

Later you predicted that all lines of credit will be frozen immediately which will force Kodak to shut down its film production. Wrong again, from reading here they just got a new line of credit.

You compare yourself to Nouriel Roubini and the comparison fits better than you may think. Roubini is famous for predicting doom&gloom for everyone and makes a lot of noise whenever he happens to be right. Media love his predictions (right or wrong), especially since the dot com bubble burst and even more since 2007 because doom&gloom attracts readers. Yet he was wrong many times and is barely taken seriously here in Europe. Being right in a few unusual cases doesn't make up for being wrong 99 out of 100 times. Are you really sure this is the role you want to play here? Your level of expertise in the field of economy, restructuring and financing should warrant you a more relevant role here on APUG than the cliché role of Dr. Doom.

I never said "immediate". And I never said when Kodak declares Ch. 11. this will happen.

I said that if Kodak contracts the film market it will cause contractions of credit and raw materials all around. This will take time, but it actually accelerates the market problems with film (access to product, loss of product lines, loss of labs, quality control, key personnel leave).

There are two scenarios when a competitor leaves a market

1) all the other pick up the customers and the market resumes its natural growth or equilibrium

2) all the others suffer a net loss and find themselves under the same kinds of pressures the competitor did

The first is usually a business cycle problem; the second is structural.

What is happening to film is structural. It's like a virus that will manifest itself in the other suppliers. The reason why is because there is no consolidation of supply to match the consolidation of demand. The best producer with the most efficient and capable equipment (Kodak) is the one in trouble. So not only is the market over-supplied and robbing itself of reinvestment revenues, the most efficient means of supply is on the ropes. That is classic mis-allocation of capital. In abstract terms, you DON'T want Ilford to survive because their B/W monoline market, quite old machines, and history dogged by bankruptcy, is the supplier least able to keep broad market appeal necessary for film to thrive. Film is a mass manufactured industrial-scale product that does not scale well (nor affordably) to niches.

Kodak Axes Digicams, but keeps film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency