Kodak Axes Digicams, but keeps film

[Aristophanes]

Sorry Aristophanes, that's wrong. Lucky is not the 3rd largest film manufacturer, Agfa-Gevaert (Belgium) is in that position.
They are producing lots of different film products, e.g. aerial films, surveillance films, microfilms, moviefilms, sound films, PCB films.
In 2010 they made a press release concerning their PCB film production in which they said that they coat 1 million m² of different film products each day.

I will not further comment on your other statements, because they clearly show again that you have not understand what I have written. On such basis a discussion makes no sense.

Best regards,
Henning

Lucky has 4 coating machines, but 3 are either shutting down or being re-purposed.

You made a statement that the developing word was a market for traditional film. The evidence is that traditional film products are on their way out of those markets at a faster pace than in nations with higher disposable incomes per capita. Digital is cheaper and far more pervasive. That's what the market data says. You said otherwise.

I got the Lucky as #3 from a Shanghai news source. Maybe that's per roll for consumers, I don't know. The average roll of film Lucky sells retails in China for less than US$1/roll. They were probably referring to the Chinese market only.

The question here is not about other industrial film applications, but about Kodak and the traditional analog photographic film market.

What doesn't make sense are unsubstantiated arguments with no verifiable facts coming from your side. I've been on tours of many factories and spoken with managers. It does't mean what I heard there is correct. That's why the balance sheet and market analysis is necessary.

Free cameras and free darkrooms are everywhere now, but still film use declines. Your answer is advertising and plastic lenses.

 

[Aristophanes]

Indeed. That's not all photo film and the release pertains to what seems to be mostly non-photo materials.

http://www.agfa.com/global/en/main/news_events/2011/CO_20111116_Q3_results_UK.jsp

Know what PCB film is?

The Q3/11 is here:

http://www.agfa.com/global/en/main/news_events/2011/CO_20111116_Q3_results_UK.jsp

"Film" as a product isn't just something to shove into a Spotmatic.

Well...Agfa is bleeding cash at a ferocious rate caused in part by the significant "decline" in film sales and the consequent "manufacturing inefficiencies".

There is no mention of traditional photo film products. Do they even make any?

All of Agfa is about 1/2 the size of Kodak's FPEG group alone.

 

[CGW]

Well...Agfa is bleeding cash at a ferocious rate caused in part by the significant "decline" in film sales and the consequent "manufacturing inefficiencies".

There is no mention of traditional photo film products. Do they even make any?

All of Agfa is about 1/2 the size of Kodak's FPEG group alone.

Think this is what Henning was excited about:

http://www.agfa.com/sp/global/en/internet/main/solutions/aerialphotography/index.jsp

http://www.agfa.com/sp/global/en/internet/main/solutions/trafficandsurveillance/index.jsp

The only Agfa film I've seen recently is some out-of-date APX100 120 in the freezer of my beer fridge.

 

[Aristophanes]

Think this is what Henning was excited about:

http://www.agfa.com/sp/global/en/internet/main/solutions/aerialphotography/index.jsp

http://www.agfa.com/sp/global/en/internet/main/solutions/trafficandsurveillance/index.jsp

The only Agfa film I've seen recently is some out-of-date APX100 120 in the freezer of my beer fridge.

When it comes to photographic film, the company Agfa-Gevaert (Belgium) actually denies it makes products for the photography market:

http://www.agfa.com/co/global/en/internet/main/faq/index.jsp#11

What is the relationship between the Agfa-Gevaert Group and AgfaPhoto?
Agfa-Gevaert sold its worldwide “Consumer Imaging” business group in 2004 to the AgfaPhoto group of companies (not affiliated with Agfa-Gevaert). In connection with that sale, a Trademark License Agreement, dated November 2, 2004, was entered into between Agfa-Gevaert NV and Agfa-Gevaert NV & Co. KG, as Licensors, and AgfaPhoto Holding GmbH, as Licensee, giving AgfaPhoto Holding GmbH, a German company having its registered office in Cologne, Germany, the right to use and to sublicense the trademark “AgfaPhoto” for products having a photographic application, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Trademark License Agreement. Agfa-Gevaert declines any liability whatsoever with respect to or in connection with any “AgfaPhoto”-product. Agfa-Gevaert does not manufacture, market, distribute or sell any “AgfaPhoto”-products. Agfa-Gevaert does not provide any service, any support or any product warranty with respect to any “AgfaPhoto”-product. Any request for support or information regarding “AgfaPhoto”-products should be addressed to AgfaPhoto Holding GmbH, www.agfaphoto.com

Agfa-Gevaert has absolutely nothing to do with traditional photographic film products, at least not with relation to APUG or a discussion of Kodak.

Bizarre.

 

[Photo Engineer]

More layoffs at EK in the Motion Picture and Entertainment Division!

PE

 

[clayne]

Yeah, as to be expected. No division will be immune to layoffs. Even HR and other depts are being hit with layoffs.

 

[zsas]

I suppose staff were told today?

 

[Photo Engineer]

IDK. The news was not public at our 6 PM news on Thursday, but it was on the 11 PM news as a news flash.

PE

 

[ciocc]

snip---->but still film use declines.<-----snip

"...precipitous secular decline..." "...at a rate of 40% per year." according to Mr. Perez. This was for Kodak consumer film.

I don't know how anyone can argue there is a growth market for film.

I built a 4x5 and 8x10 Bender camera. I recently visited Mr. Bender's website just to see if there was anything new. He closed down: "...digital photography has indeed killed film and film cameras like this one".

 

[DREW WILEY]

What a crock of BS. Something like a Bender kit cannot survive because any number of people are
customizing personal large format cameras with more innovative designs, then you've got half a dozen small fabricators turning out really really nice field cameras, then you've got all kinds of Sinar
etc avail used on the mkt, then you've got cult mentality types who will spend six or seven grand
for a used Phillips 8x10 (which I paid $800 for brand new). I've got a whole backlog of wannabee
large format photographers who want coaching. Some amateur, some pro who want to differentiate
themselves with something beyond digital. Some have already spent a ton of money on gear. Maybe
amateur film is slowly dying in certain markets (not here), but with all the artsy types it is appealing
and probably even growing in use. I know any number of aspiring photographers who graduated from
digital to film, often in the sense that a digital cam is now for snapshots, film for personal work.

 

[MaximusM3]

What a crock of BS. Something like a Bender kit cannot survive because any number of people are
customizing personal large format cameras with more innovative designs, then you've got half a dozen small fabricators turning out really really nice field cameras, then you've got all kinds of Sinar
etc avail used on the mkt, then you've got cult mentality types who will spend six or seven grand
for a used Phillips 8x10 (which I paid $800 for brand new). I've got a whole backlog of wannabee
large format photographers who want coaching. Some amateur, some pro who want to differentiate
themselves with something beyond digital. Some have already spent a ton of money on gear. Maybe
amateur film is slowly dying in certain markets (not here), but with all the artsy types it is appealing
and probably even growing in use. I know any number of aspiring photographers who graduated from
digital to film, often in the sense that a digital cam is now for snapshots, film for personal work.

I hate this thread but I think you are right
The way it should be worded is that digital photography killed Mr. Bender's very specialized business. That's not to say that all is alive and well, but his statement is not correct either.

 

[fotch]

Companies, big and small, go out of business in good times or bad. Who knows, Bender might of retired.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

I built a 4x5 and 8x10 Bender camera. I recently visited Mr. Bender's website just to see if there was anything new. He closed down: "...digital photography has indeed killed film and film cameras like this one".

Bender Cameras

Here's what Jay says:

This page is posted for friends and family so you can see the web site that used to be on the internet when I was manufacturing and selling Bender View Camera Kits throughout the world. For thirty years of my adult life, this is how I made my living. It was a great business, supported me well, and allowed me a lot of free time to pursue many other interests. But, as you may know, digital photography has indeed killed film, and film based cameras like this. I can not complain that I did not know the end would come.

He's designing homes now.

 

[Steve Smith]

Looks like Jay Bender is back in business!

Looks more like he isn't.

This is only available as a way of telling the story of a company that does not exist any more. If you have found your way here via search engines or other old links, please understand that these cameras are no longer available (sorry).

EDIT: That's right, edit your post to make mine look stupid!!!


Steve.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

Yeah, I edited my post after I read his dense first paragraph.

Edit: Sorry! Actually, I didn't see your post when I edited mine. It was sitting there, and then I reread his first page.

*sigh* I had hoped for a moment that he was making the cameras in a small back shed, just a little hobby thing...

 

[Aristophanes]

Overall demand for all film is down which affects all third party suppliers, some more than and earlier than others.

The question is how to preserve enough demand to keep mass production going because the affordability and accessibility requires on a minimum threshold of consumption. The coating machines are of a scale that they cannot just run to order, they have to run efficiently to scale.

Kodak is letting bankruptcy figure that out.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I commend Mr Bender for supplying a do-it-yourself camera kit over the years, but nowadays when CNC
machinery is so common and all kinds of specialized laminates including carbon fiber, a skilled shop craftsman could easily make a pretty sophisticated field camera on any scale. If I wanted a 16X20 or 20X24 for example,
it would be cheaper to buy the equipment than an already made camera. But I've already done more of my fair share of shop projects over the years. But in terms of new field cameras, at the moment you've got Canham and
Deardorff redux in operation here, Ebony in Japan, Lotus in Europe, and in China Chamonix, Shen Hao, and Wilderness, plus several current manufacturers of specialized large format gear, and that's not counting the
remaining big name makers of studio monorails. That's just large format. Then you've got jillions of well-made
film DLSR's laying around in drawers all over the world, which someone is going to inherit and wonder what to
do with, especially since they look a lot more serious than the cell phone or digital point n' shoot they got
free inside a Cracker Jacks box. But there is a glut of pro used gear is not due to the fact that film interest is
dead, but because certain segments are no longer competing with certain other segments of true film usage.
The doom of big studio monorails for example, is only partially due to digital (many of them can be used with
digital backs too) - more often it's that much more ergonomic and lightweight field camera using newer material
science have replaced them in the same functional niche. The used prices alone will tell you that much.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Aristophanes - since you seem to be the resident prophet of doom, at least look at the broader demographic
variable and not just the usual digital versus film diatribe. If film is to continue in a healthy mode, the younger
generation has to get hooked on it. But in many developed countries at the moment, including here, it is very
difficult for the younger generation to find a decent job at all, let alone has enough money to buy a house, let
alone have extra space and cash to build a darkroom. Some do improvise. I know ones who shoot medium format, use a changing bag to load developing tanks, then scan the film to view and edit the keeper for hopeful
darkroom printing in the future (and desktop printing in the meantime). Others go out and buy an 8x10 camera
and learn to contact print, but then can't afford the film on the long haul. They don't go back to digital but go
to the art store and buy canvas and pigments. The local pro art academy doesn't teach film anymore, so the
students run around trying to learn it on their own, or cram into the few reamining rental darkrooms, becuause
even they recognize the superior quality of many film images. The local university and community colleges teach
film including large format, but once someone graduates, they again face the real estate crunch. So a lot of this,
at least from my limited personal perspective, will gradually improve as the economy does. But if Kodak's own
momentum in film is doomed, why would those who actually know the inside story be solid financing it at this
moment? A new equilibrium plateau will be reached, but once this is on a sustainable profit basis (as is generally
the case in restructuring) rather than market share BS, it just doesn't make sense unless this is perceived as a
viable market for the long haul.

 

[Steve Smith]

Well, I commend Mr Bender for supplying a do-it-yourself camera kit over the years, but nowadays when CNC machinery is so common and all kinds of specialized laminates including carbon fiber, a skilled shop craftsman could easily make a pretty sophisticated field camera on any scale.

A skilled craftsman could make one with hand tools. It's people like me who cheat and use CNC to make perfect woodworking joints.


Steve.

 

[Aristophanes]

Aristophanes - since you seem to be the resident prophet of doom, at least look at the broader demographic
variable and not just the usual digital versus film diatribe. If film is to continue in a healthy mode, the younger
generation has to get hooked on it. But in many developed countries at the moment, including here, it is very
difficult for the younger generation to find a decent job at all, let alone has enough money to buy a house, let
alone have extra space and cash to build a darkroom. Some do improvise. I know ones who shoot medium format, use a changing bag to load developing tanks, then scan the film to view and edit the keeper for hopeful
darkroom printing in the future (and desktop printing in the meantime). Others go out and buy an 8x10 camera
and learn to contact print, but then can't afford the film on the long haul. They don't go back to digital but go
to the art store and buy canvas and pigments. The local pro art academy doesn't teach film anymore, so the
students run around trying to learn it on their own, or cram into the few reamining rental darkrooms, becuause
even they recognize the superior quality of many film images. The local university and community colleges teach
film including large format, but once someone graduates, they again face the real estate crunch. So a lot of this,
at least from my limited personal perspective, will gradually improve as the economy does. But if Kodak's own
momentum in film is doomed, why would those who actually know the inside story be solid financing it at this
moment? A new equilibrium plateau will be reached, but once this is on a sustainable profit basis (as is generally
the case in restructuring) rather than market share BS, it just doesn't make sense unless this is perceived as a
viable market for the long haul.

I do agree with this.

Almost the entire market for film will have to come from keen photographers who are mostly digital but want to experience another medium. Digital will facilitate film use.

Kodak needs volume. Not home darkrooms and not large format. They (and Fuji, and probably Ilford) require solid 135 and 120 sales. I find it increasingly hard to build a business case for brand new film in scrounged cameras of increasingly questionable reliability with difficult repairs. It's a disconnect.

Sure, I'm the Nouriel Roubini here. Someone usually is. In my take, the ability to keep up demand will reside primarily with motion picture film. If that does not happen, C41 is in trouble and if that goes away, then B&W will experience sky-high price increases.

Ideally, when Kodak was making 70% margins per roll and the knew digital was coming, they should have secured some capture facility, such as purchasing major stakes in Arri and/or Pana on the MP side, and made licensing deals with Nikon or Pentax or Olympus on still photo side to keep cameras in the pipe. If I was in Kodak marketing and they gave me money I'd even consider buying Lomo out. I'd try and swing a deal with Flickr. Above all I'd tackle the lab situation and invest in high-speed, high-quality scanning so film photography joins the sharing stream far easier than now. Photos should go to a lab and then straight online for picks, prints, and on to Facebook or wherever. Mail back the negs. I'd also consider that Kodak film be sold mail order only, maybe through Amazon. I'd probably look at licensing or acquiring the expertise at Dwayne's and Richard Photo Lab and Digital Silver or others who are keeping the flame going, and use them as the go-to organizers of mass processing.

A handshake with Fuji might also be in order. Carve the market. No one regulatory will care.

But that's not possible with Ch. 11. That's why I see the need for a new company to do these things.

 

[ciocc]

snip---->but nowadays when CNC
machinery is so common and all kinds of specialized laminates including carbon fiber, a skilled shop craftsman could easily make a pretty sophisticated field camera on any scale.<------snip

I'm not a skilled craftsman and I have 2 left thumbs. That's why I bought Mr. Bender's kit.

I thought about deleting that quote from Mr. Bender's site, as it really isn't needed for this discussion.

Correction: not his site but from my post

 

[ciocc]

snip---->But if Kodak's own
momentum in film is doomed, why would those who actually know the inside story be solid financing it at this
moment?<-----snip

Because those who are providing the financing buy into Kodak's claim of a future in their "...most valuable business lines.". That's why I'm trying to find the document that PE mentioned. I'd like to know if film is identified as one of those "...valuable business lines.".

 

[Photo Engineer]

It is on page 11 of the filed report. It is in Power Point format.

And, film is "blended" in with other departments and not singled out as important or unimportant. I read it as implying that film is important (as long as it makes a profit).

PE

 

[CGW]

I do agree with this.

Almost the entire market for film will have to come from keen photographers who are mostly digital but want to experience another medium. Digital will facilitate film use.

Kodak needs volume. Not home darkrooms and not large format. They (and Fuji, and probably Ilford) require solid 135 and 120 sales. I find it increasingly hard to build a business case for brand new film in scrounged cameras of increasingly questionable reliability with difficult repairs. It's a disconnect.

Sure, I'm the Nouriel Roubini here. Someone usually is. In my take, the ability to keep up demand will reside primarily with motion picture film. If that does not happen, C41 is in trouble and if that goes away, then B&W will experience sky-high price increases.

Ideally, when Kodak was making 70% margins per roll and the knew digital was coming, they should have secured some capture facility, such as purchasing major stakes in Arri and/or Pana on the MP side, and made licensing deals with Nikon or Pentax or Olympus on still photo side to keep cameras in the pipe. If I was in Kodak marketing and they gave me money I'd even consider buying Lomo out. I'd try and swing a deal with Flickr. Above all I'd tackle the lab situation and invest in high-speed, high-quality scanning so film photography joins the sharing stream far easier than now. Photos should go to a lab and then straight online for picks, prints, and on to Facebook or wherever. Mail back the negs. I'd also consider that Kodak film be sold mail order only, maybe through Amazon. I'd probably look at licensing or acquiring the expertise at Dwayne's and Richard Photo Lab and Digital Silver or others who are keeping the flame going, and use them as the go-to organizers of mass processing.

A handshake with Fuji might also be in order. Carve the market. No one regulatory will care.

But that's not possible with Ch. 11. That's why I see the need for a new company to do these things.

Roubini had/has a firm grasp of the obvious--what's wrong with that? Besides there's nothing stated here I'd regard as contrarian. "It's the labs, stupid" should become the marching song for APUG. Few labs "got" the need for affordable, efficient hybrid workflow. It's all worth saving but a new type of lab service package appears to be crucial now.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Having done quite a bit of business with certain manufacturers actually under restructruing (even as recently as the past week), I can probably state a few generalities. They are under close scrutiny and can't just do any will-nilly thing they want at mgt whim. The money trail is closely followed and a realistic return expected. It makes perfect sense for Kodak
to keep making film and paper. It's a niche they have held for a long time,
and it wouldn't make any sense at all form them to get into yet another
food fight with a mob of outfits involved in consumer electronics (the profit
margins are low and the competition overwhelming). Kodak is being solidly financed to be Kodak. It will be a vastly scaled down Kodak, but
perhaps a much more healthy corporation in the long run. Doing things to
please Wall St and doing them to please a tight set of investors of a legal
system of review is a totally different game. This doesn't assure success,
but certainly limits the BS coefficient. So I'm guardedly optimistic.