Kodak Axes Digicams, but keeps film

[Roger Cole]

SWAG = http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swag
I'm trying to work that into your text. Which of the meanings are you referring to?

And what does FADU stand for?

Sorry to pick on you Roger, but abbreviations are cool for the user, saving a few keystrokes, but for readers such as I, who have to look them up, it's a pain in the back.

SWAG - Scientific Wild Assed Guess.
FADU - Film and Darkroom Users Group, a UK based (but with world wide membership, though "UK-centric") forum. I've been participating in their monthly print exchange sending prints all over the world and getting them back from same. Nice folks:

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/index.php

I've been around for the decade. I thought my post was clear enough. Film popularity HAS dropped tremendously, no one can deny that. But people still do use it. But because the number of users and amount used has dropped so much, there's WAY more used gear in serviceable condition than demanded by same. Once that gear starts wearing out and breaking in numbers large enough to shrink the pool significantly, especially if film continues popular as an art medium, there may be a new damned for some film cameras. Witness the fact that new turntables and new vinyl LPs can still be purchased.

One can disagree, but if that's clear enough the reader just can't read or doesn't want to understand.

 

[removed account4]

who cares if someone is making new cameras
there are a billions of working cameras
floating around which cost 35$ to get fixed and working again.

the problem with K is they were cooking for 500000 for so long
they forgot how to coat a handful of plates in the kitchen like in the old days ...

i hope they pull this restructuring thing off ...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

SWAG - Scientific Wild Assed Guess.
FADU - Film and Darkroom Users Group, a UK based (but with world wide membership, though "UK-centric") forum. I've been participating in their monthly print exchange sending prints all over the world and getting them back from same. Nice folks:

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/index.php

I've been around for the decade. I thought my post was clear enough. Film popularity HAS dropped tremendously, no one can deny that. But people still do use it. But because the number of users and amount used has dropped so much, there's WAY more used gear in serviceable condition than demanded by same. Once that gear starts wearing out and breaking in numbers large enough to shrink the pool significantly, especially if film continues popular as an art medium, there may be a new damned for some film cameras. Witness the fact that new turntables and new vinyl LPs can still be purchased.

One can disagree, but if that's clear enough the reader just can't read or doesn't want to understand.

Your post was pretty clear, actually. Just a couple of frustrating abbreviations, that's all. Thanks for clarifying. It's perfectly clear now.

 

[Steve Smith]

SWAG - Scientific Wild Assed Guess.

That one is new to me.


Steve.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

who cares if someone is making new cameras
there are a billions of working cameras
floating around which cost 35$ to get fixed and working again.

the problem with K is they were cooking for 500000 for so long
they forgot how to coat a handful of plates in the kitchen like in the old days ...

i hope they pull this restructuring thing off ...

I think there's a lot of truth in what you're saying, John. My Pentax KX cameras are several decades old, as is the M2 and Rollei 35. My Hasselblad is coming up on 50 years old, and my 5x7 is about 100 years old. They all work just fine, and there are people knowledgeable and willing to service and repair them. I hope that continues, and have a feeling it will, especially if used cameras are going to be the 99.9% source of cameras for film shooters.

With that said, where there's demand there's a market. I think it's just up to us to keep up demand and the cameras will be there. I doubt the law of supply and demand will cease to work in this particular matter.
Since you can even make your own cameras, I wouldn't be too worried about it either.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That one is new to me.


Steve.

To me it has always meant: Stuff We All Get - promotional items.

 

[Steve Smith]

In England it usually means this:

2 [mass noun] informal money or goods taken by a thief or burglar:
garden machinery is the most popular swag

When I was a child, every burglar depicted in a children's comic wore a striped jumper and face mask and carried a bag marked 'SWAG'.

http://www.altham.com/assets/images/BurglarPoliceman72dpi.jpg


Steve.

 

[Toffle]

Your post was pretty clear, actually. Just a couple of frustrating abbreviations, that's all. Thanks for clarifying. It's perfectly clear now.

I'm fairly active on the Alfa Romeo forum, where they have a whole new set of technical terms and abbreviations that can make your head spin. (but at least they have things you can fix with a hammer... ) One that had me scratching my bald pate was "PO bodge", but wikipedia helped with that one.

Getting back to APUG... man I love this place, but there is getting to be such a negative funk stinking the place up. With "the sky is falling", anything Kodak, Lomo "hipster chum slick" and whatever else, it seems some supposedly passionate analog photographers are taking delight in wishing for the end of film. I wish they would climb down off their horses, step away from their computers and put as much time and energy to actually use some film as they do pissing on it.

 

[Aristophanes]

Getting back to APUG... man I love this place, but there is getting to be such a negative funk stinking the place up. With "the sky is falling", anything Kodak, Lomo "hipster chum slick" and whatever else, it seems some supposedly passionate analog photographers are taking delight in wishing for the end of film. I wish they would climb down off their horses, step away from their computers and put as much time and energy to actually use some film as they do pissing on it.

I have never wished for the end of film, nor do I pizz on it.

Mr. Freestyle says that film production increased by 20% but Kodak's balance sheet says otherwise. Someone has been feeding him, and the BJP, a load of horsehooey, so this isn't about getting off high horses.

You cannot have a discussion about analog photography and where Kodak is in that discussion without tackling the issue of real data absent emotion and hyperbole. I try and see where Kodak is from the eyes of a creditor and not a consumer because that is how one makes the business case for analog film.

I have 9 film cameras and shoot regularly. I carry a Pentax ME Super in my briefcase all the time. I've posted some of my snaps here.

 

[Stephen Prunier]

To me it has always meant: Stuff We All Get - promotional items.

That's what I thought too. Love those free Tshirts and stuff :munch:

 

[CGW]

Getting back to APUG... man I love this place, but there is getting to be such a negative funk stinking the place up. With "the sky is falling", anything Kodak, Lomo "hipster chum slick" and whatever else, it seems some supposedly passionate analog photographers are taking delight in wishing for the end of film. I wish they would climb down off their horses, step away from their computers and put as much time and energy to actually use some film as they do pissing on it.

What? Like Aristophanes, your other fave punching bag, I like my reality straight, no chaser. Silvano, once one of the GTA's busiest pro labs, folded last week. I watched it sink like a stone over the last 5 years. I'm in a city of just over 6 million, the biggest in Ontario, where el cheapo C-41 dev/print has almost vanished, film availability is limited, and my go-to local small pro lab reluctantly dropped all film services a year ago and film scanning recently for proofs and prints. I'm now shopping for a scanner as my first step toward analog survivalism. Frankly, I'm thinking your problem is a lack of reality checks, Tom.

 

[Stephen Prunier]

I have never wished for the end of film, nor do I pizz on it.

Mr. Freestyle says that film production increased by 20% but Kodak's balance sheet says otherwise. Someone has been feeding him, and the BJP, a load of horsehooey, so this isn't about getting off high horses.

You cannot have a discussion about analog photography and where Kodak is in that discussion without tackling the issue of real data absent emotion and hyperbole. I try and see where Kodak is from the eyes of a creditor and not a consumer because that is how one makes the business case for analog film.

I have 9 film cameras and shoot regularly. I carry a Pentax ME Super in my briefcase all the time. I've posted some of my snaps here.

I'm so glad your not a Doctor! I can see it now. You enter the dark room as your making your rounds. Your patient struggles to lift his head high enough for you to hear him. He manages to say "I think I'm dying" You look at him with a smile and say "I told you so"

Life is what it is. Some of us, try to enjoy the little things as much as we can. While others get there inner joy, from a life of pissing on everyone else when ever they can. When I don't agree with something I may, or may not, let my feelings known. But if I feel like I'm beating a dead dog, or I have nothing that will change the view of others, I chose to leave it be, and not continue to add my 2 cents. I don't look at it as quitting, but as knowing when to refocus my efforts. It's kind of sad that you feel the continuing need to just post what you do. I read a lot of your posts and I don't feel you have ever made a "positive post" . It's a beautiful thing that we all have the freedom to speak what we feel, but to me, it's taking away the joy of a companies possible survival that is important to me, and others. If we were to all except your views, there would no longer be a need for this site.

It's not always Black or White. Sometimes we have to except the GRAY area too :munch:

 

[CGW]

I'm so glad your not a Doctor! I can see it now. You enter the dark room as your making your rounds. Your patient struggles to lift his head high enough for you to hear him. He manages to say "I think I'm dying" You look at him with a smile and say "I told you so"

Life is what it is. Some of us, try to enjoy the little things as much as we can. While others get there inner joy, from a life of pissing on everyone else when ever they can. When I don't agree with something I may, or may not, let my feelings known. But if I feel like I'm beating a dead dog, or I have nothing that will change the view of others, I chose to leave it be, and not continue to add my 2 cents. I don't look at it as quitting, but as knowing when to refocus my efforts. It's kind of sad that you feel the continuing need to just post what you do. I read a lot of your posts and I don't feel you have ever made a "positive post" . It's a beautiful thing that we all have the freedom to speak what we feel, but to me, it's taking away the joy of a companies possible survival that is important to me, and others. If we were to all except your views, there would no longer be a need for this site.

It's not always Black or White. Sometimes we have to except the GRAY area too :munch:

There's nothing conjectural about Aristophanes' summaries of Kodak's financial reporting. Private opinions are one thing but private facts seem to be the basis of your denial of a serious situation for EK. That you don't like the news or don't get what's behind it changes nothing, your faith in the power of "positive" thinking notwithstanding.

 

[Tim Gray]

There's nothing conjectural about Aristophanes' summaries of Kodak's financial reporting. Private opinions are one thing but private facts seem to be the basis of your denial of a serious situation for EK. That you don't like the news or don't get what's behind it changes nothing.

Frankly, there's a lot of conjecture in his analysis and interpretation of those numbers. Hell, he said that Hollywood will be 99:1 digital:film origination in two years. Maybe he's right; who knows? I do know that I've been hearing essentially that same thing for the last 10 years and it hasn't come true, yet.

Kodak (and their film) are either going to make it, or they won't. The endless bickering of armchair CEO's isn't going to change anything. If you want them to survive, go shoot some film, and convince someone else that they should try film too.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Some people crave facts and hard data, while others are more driven by emotions, and then there are all people in between that have a component of both.

I think it's important to be respectful of all types of humans, and not laying down your opinion as some sort of law of being the only correct viewpoint. It's not a competition of who is right and who is wrong. Consider your motives of being on the APUG forum first. Is it for love of darkroom based photography, and associating with other people with a similar passion?

If it is, then consider the diversity of people and their viewpoints and respect them the same way you want respect in return.

If not, why are you here?

 

[Toffle]

Some people crave facts and hard data, while others are more driven by emotions, and then there are all people in between that have a component of both.

I think it's important to be respectful of all types of humans, and not laying down your opinion as some sort of law of being the only correct viewpoint. It's not a competition of who is right and who is wrong. Consider your motives of being on the APUG forum first. Is it for love of darkroom based photography, and associating with other people with a similar passion?

If it is, then consider the diversity of people and their viewpoints and respect them the same way you want respect in return.

If not, why are you here?

What he said.

 

[Stephen Prunier]

Some people crave facts and hard data, while others are more driven by emotions, and then there are all people in between that have a component of both.

I think it's important to be respectful of all types of humans, and not laying down your opinion as some sort of law of being the only correct viewpoint. It's not a competition of who is right and who is wrong. Consider your motives of being on the APUG forum first. Is it for love of darkroom based photography, and associating with other people with a similar passion?

If it is, then consider the diversity of people and their viewpoints and respect them the same way you want respect in return.

If not, why are you here?

AWESOME!!!! That's exactly how I feel.

 

[Aristophanes]

Frankly, there's a lot of conjecture in his analysis and interpretation of those numbers.

Again, straight from Kodak, no interpretation:

"Due to changes in technology and customer preferences, the market for traditional film and paper products and services is in decline. Our success depends in part on our ability to manage the decline of the market for these traditional products by continuing to reduce our cost structure to maintain profitability."

Total net sales of Kodak FPEG:

2008 = $ 2,987
2009 = $ 2,257
2010 = $ 1,767
2011 = $ 1,131 (to Q3 only)

-----

The ONLY conjecture one could add to that is that Kodak will turn film around or something to that effect. But Kodak is specifically NOT saying that.

There is nothing in Kodak's literature stating they expect anything BUT secular decline.

It is not me saying film is still declining, not increasing by some contestable 20%: it is Kodak.

Jettisoning digicams because Kodak does not make smartphones will not increase the demand for film. If that was the case, Kodak would make that case in their financials. They do not.

My point is that to save Kodak film products, you need to get film out of Kodak. New shareholders from Ch. 11 will not tolerate the word "decline" in their share value.

If you don't like the facts, don't read them.

 

[kb3lms]

Some people crave facts and hard ... If not, why are you here?

Thank you for putting that out there: much better than I could have said it.

I think we all understand that Kodak is peering over the edge with at least one foot in the grave. Things suck for them right now and I have to feel for the people that still try to work there. Rochester can't be a very happy place right now. But much of it is the corporate managements own fault. I worked there in the glorius film heydays of the 1980's and it was the same story with Kodak management then - they didn't "get it.". That's one of the big reasons why I moved on many years ago - although, personally, Kodak was VERY good to me. But that kind of largess is well in the past for them and one of the myraid of reasons why they are where they are.

Just stop banging on it for goodness sake. We get it already.

 

[kb3lms]

Kodak axing digicams drives up used camera prices!

Well, not really. But, somebody has got to be interested in film. I just watched a nothing special K-1000 close out on eBay for $62.00. They days of picking them up for $15 sure seem to be over.

 

[Tim Gray]

Again, straight from Kodak, no interpretation:

"Due to changes in technology and customer preferences, the market for traditional film and paper products and services is in decline. Our success depends in part on our ability to manage the decline of the market for these traditional products by continuing to reduce our cost structure to maintain profitability."

Total net sales of Kodak FPEG:

2008 = $ 2,987
2009 = $ 2,257
2010 = $ 1,767
2011 = $ 1,131 (to Q3 only)

And just leave it at that. The rest IS your interpretation. It might be right, but it's still an interpretation. Need I quote this?

Within 24 months the cinema industry will have switched from about 70/30 film/digital to 99/1 digital film (yes...the transition is happening that fast).

That's not a fact, again, it's your conjecture. We all know Kodak is in trouble. Companies in good health don't file for Ch. 11. I'm all for facts. When you interject stuff like the second quote, it gets real tiresome, especially when you go around saying, 'If you don't like the facts, don't read them.'

 

[mr rusty]

Analysis by armchair CEOs is pointless. Re Aristophenes

Total net sales of Kodak FPEG

, Key word here is NET. Its quite possible that unit sales volume is up, gross sales are up (and Freestyle are correct) and net sales are decreasing. All can be correct simultaneously as NET is GROSS less COSTS. But What costs? How can any of us know how Kodak decide to chop up their operating costs into the various groups? Accountants can move costs around within a company so the analysis is irrelevant. I know, because I work for a multinational, and they choose where in the group the profits are shown, and which parts of the group barely break even. All it takes is a change to some inter-company accounting and costs can be moved from one place to another within the group.

The only things that matter is the number of feet that walk through the camera shops, or people who buy film products and that some enterprising people continue to think they can make a living by extracting some profit from a film business. As has been said earlier, Fuji, Ilford, Foma etc seem to be doing OK, so there is enough potential business to keep a small industry not only going, but increasing to the point that investment is realistic. As to film cameras, you CAN still buy new film cameras of many different types. Its a microscopic market at the moment as the market is flooded with perfectly useable second handers - certainly in 35mm. However, the doomongers should take heed of the success e.g. of Ilfords pinhole camera. I think a few people have been somewhat surprised by the take up, and methinks that the tooling costs will be amortized somewhat faster than anticipated, if they haven't been already! And, how great it is to see Ilford sponsoring a "Pinhole Festival" in Edinburgh in the coming month.

During the festival over 300 children from local Edinburgh primary schools will take part in pinhole photography workshops with photographer, Kenny Bean. The workshops will be held each morning at the Festival Base in the Fletcher Building.

That's Kids + Real Film Cameras. Bring It On!

 

[LarryP]

Grrr ever consider both sides might be right? kodak sales can be down while overall film sales are up . Kodak is not the only maufacturer if film stock. I myself shoot foma and some fuji but no kodak.

 

[removed account4]

...

 

[removed account4]

Grrr ever consider both sides might be right? kodak sales can be down while overall film sales are up . Kodak is not the only maufacturer if film stock. I myself shoot foma and some fuji but no kodak.

what larryp said ...

... kodak isn't the only analog "player" out there