Kodak Axes Digicams, but keeps film

[keithwms]

"It's the labs, stupid" should become the marching song for APUG.

I empathize with your own situation but I don't agree with that. I don't think that's a good fire line to work on. Lab overhead, the equipment cost, the personnel cost and idle time, the shipping issues... I think we'd be much better off educating people on how easy it is to do their processing at home. Like it or not, processing labs will be gone long before the film and chemicals are.

 

[Aristophanes]

I empathize with your own situation but I don't agree with that. I don't think that's a good fire line to work on. Lab overhead, the equipment cost, the personnel cost and idle time, the shipping issues... I think we'd be much better off educating people on how easy it is to do their processing at home. Like it or not, processing labs will be gone long before the film and chemicals are.

You don't get it.

The home processing and printing market alone cannot sustain Kodak or the other suppliers. The amount of home processing alone would only keep a coating system going for a few days per year. The factory would then be so inefficient it could not operate.

The industry's costs are based on mass production. Home developing is not mass consumption. The economic existence of roll and cartridge film as George Eastman knew is entirely dependent on large scale industrial processing.

Labs are cheap if they can process at a ratio that is far faster than 1 person to 1 Patterson tank. And you still have to get the neg into a display format. The darkroom has always been an esoteric hobby or professional biz that only existed because of the subsidy brought on by the mass production/consumption dynamic.

No labs, no film.

 

[CGW]

I empathize with your own situation but I don't agree with that. I don't think that's a good fire line to work on. Lab overhead, the equipment cost, the personnel cost and idle time, the shipping issues... I think we'd be much better off educating people on how easy it is to do their processing at home. Like it or not, processing labs will be gone long before the film and chemicals are.

If you're trying to widen and increase film use, then I'd say no dice to this. A lab offering process and scan service is what will encourage film use. DIY processing won't. It's 2012 and new film users aren't likely to see much convenience in futzing around with tanks, reels and chemistry.Scold all you like but many just won't bother with DIY processing, much less home printing. To deny this is just digging the grave faster for film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I think this would be a wonderful time for niche labs. Whether one is talking about mfg, labs, or studios, getting back to basics, rethinking the
long-term sustainable opportunities, not getting greedy, and realistically reigning in overhead are the ways it is done. Certainly a few old school big do-everything labs should be able to survive in certain large urban markets. But not like before. Now it's time to get creative, and a number of folks already have. Smaller specialized labs with defined niches and low
overhead team up with complementary services with their own financial independence and low overhead. It's certainly working around here. Home darkroom and lab services are coexisting, just as darkroom and digital are. I'd say the effect is even complementary. Probably 90% of the
film usage of its heyday could collapse and there would still be strong business opportunities left behind if entrepreneurs are smart and willing to rethink the game plan and how to streamline expenses. I'll bet Kodak is
doing just that right now.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think there are two types of film users.
1. Those who do everything on their own, because they want to, for lots of different reasons, like liking the results better, or enjoying the process, etc.
2. Those who simply like the results, and it's for these people the convenience of a quality lab is important.

I believe the future market will be made up of both types, and Kodak will be faced with the trouble of trying to serve both.

 

[keithwms]

No Aristophanes, you are the one who doesn't get it.

You keep asserting conditions A+B+C+D+ etc ad nauseum to keep film production alive. Gotta have motion pictures, gotta have labs, gotta have lots of new cameras, gotta have mass marketing, gotta have mass produced chemicals etc. ... gotta have Kodak!!! ....or else the whole industry will just go *poof* and vanish entirely . Nonsense. This is an entirely new kind of market, post Kodak as we know it, and most of us have already adapted ourselves to that many years ago. And the remaining companies that adapt to that will turn a handsome profit. You keep trying to press a square peg into a round hole- to make the future market the same as the past. Of course that won't work. Isn't that stating the freakin' obvious? :confused: But that does not mean that film will vanish. It means that end-user costs will rise, that there will be fewer suppliers and fewer varieties of film (so what), but those of us who know the value of the products will continue to produce photographs and enjoy ourselves. But at the same time, we shall see the value of our work go up, not down. People who understand that and embrace it will see their film work increase in value.

Obviously, we have 40 pages of you wanting one thing to happen, and most of the rest of us scratching our heads wondering why you keep insisting that we all need to follow you on some incredibly narrow and tortuous slalom down a very steep hill towards the eventual demise of film. If your motive is to say that and make it clear that you think it's an impossible mission and cry about it, haven't you accomplished that already? I mean, has it ever once crossed your mind that we've heard it all before... years ago? And that if you offered one, just one creative idea then perhaps people might be more willing to listen?

If we all need to take fewer shots, then let's make 'em count. Let's print, let's help people understand the worth of what we do, and let's not try to play CEO of a bankrupt company, okay? Plenty of ways we can increase the value of analogue output. Getting teary eyed over every lab that goes belly-up will not help anyone. If I need convenience or speed, I use the other technology. If I need one of a kind output and I want to own every step of the process, I shoot film. Guess what, the vast majority of us do that. Surprise.

 

[Aristophanes]

No Aristophanes, you are the one who doesn't get it.

You keep asserting conditions A+B+C+D+ etc ad nauseum to keep film production alive. Gotta have motion pictures, gotta have labs, gotta have lots of new cameras, gotta have mass marketing, gotta have mass produced chemicals etc. ... gotta have Kodak!!! ....or else the whole industry will just go *poof* and vanish entirely . Nonsense. This is an entirely new kind of market, post Kodak as we know it, and most of us have already adapted ourselves to that many years ago. And the remaining companies that adapt to that will turn a handsome profit. You keep trying to press a square peg into a round hole- to make the future market the same as the past. Of course that won't work. Isn't that stating the freakin' obvious? :confused: But that does not mean that film will vanish. It means that end-user costs will rise, that there will be fewer suppliers and fewer varieties of film (so what), but those of us who know the value of the products will continue to produce photographs and enjoy ourselves. But at the same time, we shall see the value of our work go up, not down. People who understand that and embrace it will see their film work increase in value.

Obviously, we have 40 pages of you wanting one thing to happen, and most of the rest of us scratching our heads wondering why you keep insisting that we all need to follow you on some incredibly narrow and tortuous slalom down a very steep hill towards the eventual demise of film. If your motive is to say that and make it clear that you think it's an impossible mission and cry about it, haven't you accomplished that already? I mean, has it ever once crossed your mind that we've heard it all before... years ago? And that if you offered one, just one creative idea then perhaps people might be more willing to listen?

If we all need to take fewer shots, then let's make 'em count. Let's print, let's help people understand the worth of what we do, and let's not try to play CEO of a bankrupt company, okay? Plenty of ways we can increase the value of analogue output. Getting teary eyed over every lab that goes belly-up will not help anyone. If I need convenience or speed, I use the other technology. If I need one of a kind output and I want to own every step of the process, I shoot film. Guess what, the vast majority of us do that. Surprise.

You did not rebut the economic argument. No labs = no film production. There are minimum economies of scale required to keep the factories going (even just one) and the current pace of decline has no marketing plan nor business leadership to stop be bleeding. And yes, film can vanish precisely because the volume cannot be sustained economically without labs. B&W film depends on C-41 mass lab processing, and both B&W and C-41 depend on MP film volumes. It's all about volume which is measured in revenues on the fiscal side. Factories don;t shut down when the last customer is walking out the door; they shut down well before that based on a critics mass leaving many customers in the lurch.

If your costs go up, your value goes down. That's basic math and a staple of economics. That's what is obvious. That is exactly why Kodak is in Ch. 11. The value of its film division died. The higher the cost of film rolls, the less people will buy of accelerating the volumes downward, creating a vicious cycle. Will it find bottom an equilibrium? Only with labs and mass processing.

And I do believe I offered some creative ideas a few posts ago.

 

[Aristophanes]

I think there are two types of film users.
1. Those who do everything on their own, because they want to, for lots of different reasons, like liking the results better, or enjoying the process, etc.
2. Those who simply like the results, and it's for these people the convenience of a quality lab is important.

I believe the future market will be made up of both types, and Kodak will be faced with the trouble of trying to serve both.

#1 is dependent economically on #2.

This is why the Kodak motto included "...we do the rest."

If #2 goes poof due to a critical mass loss, then #1 is coating plates at home.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The trouble is that Kodak has all but abandoned the people who wish to do their own color in their own labs. No more cut sheet paper and no more small color kits. Fuji still has cut sheet paper but no small kits.

Other MFGrs have ripoff kits but do not offer the proprietary chemistry that is shared by the Fuji and Kodak kits. Until a small MFGr starts offering authentic Kodak kits in small size, home color will cease to be a reality.

If Kodak abandons small kits of B&W chemistry then the handwriting is on the wall for that as well.

On to another matter though. One must remember that Eastman and others began mass producing film and dong processing due to pressure from below from the two types of people that Thomas has noted in his post. In other words, the type 2 people and pros of type 1 who wanted pro labs caused a groundswell of labs to pop up. This can work in revers as the market shrinks, but it will take a canny company to achieve this and it will take some fancy footwork.

PE

 

[keithwms]

Ron, I suspect that there is still considerable value in some of Kodak's chemistry and hence it will be sold as part of the restructuring. Anything of value will be sold off... it has to be. Creditors simply won't take no for an answer. You'll get to see Perez's undies on fleabay, just watch and wait.

Aristophanes, there's nothing to rebut. You've locked yourself into the old-Kodak business model that requires scaled-up production of consumer and MP film and "convenient" processing to compete with digital. That's your problem! And you're asking people to solve an impossible problem of your own invention and then implying that film production at other companies will grind to a halt if Kodak doesn't solve their own internal problems i.e. legacy costs. Will you ever see this point? If not then I simply see no reason to continue discussing this with you.

Look, Kodak's current leadership wouldn't hire George Eastman himself if we were back in 1892. They are clueless. We get that. Everybody gets that. It's not worth anybody's time to belabor the point and try to solve their current structure- we don't have all the inside facts and figures. We do know that they'll have to spin film production out from under their other deadweight or it'll die under their current direction. If and when their film production does go under, Ilford and Fuji and others will get a nice little bump. Good for them, they earned it.

 

[CGW]

Ron, I suspect that there is still considerable value in some of Kodak's chemistry and hence it will be sold as part of the restructuring. Anything of value will be sold off... it has to be. Creditors simply won't take no for an answer. You'll get to see Perez's undies on fleabay, just watch and wait.

Aristophanes, there's nothing to rebut. You've locked yourself into the old-Kodak business model that requires scaled-up production of consumer and MP film and "convenient" processing to compete with digital. That's your problem! And you're asking people to solve an impossible problem of your own invention and then implying that film production at other companies will grind to a halt if Kodak doesn't solve their own internal problems i.e. legacy costs. Will you ever see this point? If not then I simply see no reason to continue discussing this with you.

Look, Kodak's current leadership wouldn't hire George Eastman himself if we were back in 1892. They are clueless. We get that. Everybody gets that. It's not worth anybody's time to belabor the point and try to solve their current structure- we don't have all the inside facts and figures. We do know that they'll have to spin film production out from under their other deadweight or it'll die under their current direction. If and when their film production does go under, Ilford and Fuji and others will get a nice little bump. Good for them, they earned it.

It's all about demand and factors shaping it. Why the sustained incomprehension of the irrefutable direction in demand?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

#1 is dependent economically on #2.

This is why the Kodak motto included "...we do the rest."

If #2 goes poof due to a critical mass loss, then #1 is coating plates at home.

#1 is already a portion where some are coating glass plates at home, along with the black paw club and those coating their own papers.
Also consider that businesses like Fotokemika (Efke), Foma, Ilford, and Slavich make only black and white materials. I don't know how many labs actually do any black and white processing, or even printing, any more, but their business model is possibly a little different from Kodak. It seems to me they are focusing more on enthusiasts, artists, and others, due to the nature of black and white being used so sparingly in the professional world anymore. And, it would be interesting to see their balance sheets.

To me, color film/processing/printing, is the really sensitive area that's seeing most of the trouble.

I'm really curious to see what Kodak actually ends up doing.

 

[keithwms]

It's all about demand and factors shaping it. Why the sustained incomprehension of the irrefutable direction in demand?

Because it's moot! It's blazingly obvious to those of us who shoot film and digital what the strengths and weaknesses are. People who grumble and argue to try to wind back the clock are... well, they're going to get their clocks cleaned. This isn't about bringing back a mass market for consumer products, or convenience, or cost per print; it hasn't been for a decade or more. It's about the value of the final product.

Moreover, regarding the market left in Kodak's wake: you guys keep implying that Kodak's current problems = problems for other manufacturers = demise of film. It's as if you are completely oblivious to the fact that Kodak's mismanagement got them into this spot. Fuji is not bankrupt; Ilford is not bankrupt, and neither of them has all of Kodak's high-priced dead weight. So now you're going to argue that because you can't make the numbers work out for Kodak... after they clearly effed themselves over for a decades or more... that the rest of us need to accept that the end is near? lol

Look, this is what chapter 11 does, is separates the wheat from the chaff. It won't happen overnight, and it isn't something you can do in a forum thread using public domain info from google. But it'll be clear soon enough where the core value of the company was, and if there's any left after Perez.

 

[clayne]

I find it curious that the most fervent of those on the doom-and-gloom side have the least amount of photography for which to show for themselves. Telling, isn't it?

 

[CGW]

Because it's moot! It's blazingly obvious to those of us who shoot film and digital what the strengths and weaknesses are. People who grumble and argue to try to wind back the clock are... well, they're going to get their clocks cleaned. This isn't about bringing back a mass market for consumer products, or convenience, or cost per print; it hasn't been for a decade or more. It's about the value of the final product.

Moreover, regarding the market left in Kodak's wake: you guys keep implying that Kodak's current problems = problems for other manufacturers = demise of film. It's as if you are completely oblivious to the fact that Kodak's mismanagement got them into this spot. Fuji is not bankrupt; Ilford is not bankrupt, and neither of them has all of Kodak's high-priced dead weight. So now you're going to argue that because you can't make the numbers work out for Kodak... after they clearly effed themselves over for a decades or more... that the rest of us need to accept that the end is near? lol

Look, this is what chapter 11 does, is separates the wheat from the chaff. It won't happen overnight, and it isn't something you can do in a forum thread using public domain info from google. But it'll be clear soon enough where the core value of the company was, and if there's any left after Perez.

The decade-long collapse of demand for all film materials isn't debatable or speculative. Value of the final product? I know no pros now who make a living any longer--if ever--from film-based photography. Shrinking demand for film materials isn't obviously restricted to Kodak--Fuji is apparently axing Reala and possibly E6 products in the future. Shifting consumer preferences mortally wounded Kodak film products.

 

[RattyMouse]

Does anyone know how many plants world wide Kodak has still producing film?

 

[clayne]

Value of the final product? I know no pros now who make a living any longer--if ever--from film-based photography.

This is nonsense and complete hearsay.

 

[michaelbsc]

Does anyone know how many plants world wide Kodak has still producing film?

One. And the world wide demand can apparently be met with about 35-50% of its capacity, but that demand is shrinking rapidly.

But I think it also makes paper, so there's other demand. Irrespective, there's no place left to cut production. At least that's how I understand it. Ron probably knows better.

 

[RattyMouse]

One. And the world wide demand can apparently be met with about 35-50% of its capacity, but that demand is shrinking rapidly.

But I think it also makes paper, so there's other demand. Irrespective, there's no place left to cut production. At least that's how I understand it. Ron probably knows better.

Wow.....I didnt know that Kodak was down to one plant. That does not bode well if they are at less than half capacity. It must be very worrying for Kodak to not know where the bottom is with film. The drop just hasnt reached an equilibrium yet.

 

[CGW]

This is nonsense and complete hearsay.

That's what I've heard them say to me for the last 5-8 years--yup, hearsay. Some never shot film for commercial/editorial work at all. What's so surprising about that?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak has one plant producing film and 2 plants producing color paper. The film plant is in Rochester, and has 2 coating machines, one of which is shut down and in mothballs.

As for professionals making a living from film photography, there are thousands world wide doing so and this does not include film cinematographers. Kodak's entire professional lineup of sheet films in B&W and Color is geared to the professional. I knew quite a few personally and that over a span of 60+ years. And it was not hearsay, it was personal 1:1 conversation with professionals, sometimes at the PPA meetings. (Professional Photographers of America) for those here who are clueless. I was a member for many many years.

PE

 

[clayne]

That's what I've heard them say to me for the last 5-8 years--yup, hearsay. Some never shot film for commercial/editorial work at all. What's so surprising about that?

Hilarious, this is exactly what hearsay is - what you've heard them say to you. You cannot possibly know every pro photographer in all encompassing styles.

As for professionals making a living from film photography, there are thousands world wide doing so and this does not include film cinematographers. Kodak's entire professional lineup of sheet films in B&W and Color is geared to the professional. I knew quite a few personally and that over a span of 60+ years. And it was not hearsay, it was personal 1:1 conversation with professionals, sometimes at the PPA meetings. (Professional Photographers of America) for those here who are clueless. I was a member for many many years.

Thank you.

 

[CGW]

Hilarious, this is exactly what hearsay is - what you've heard them say to you. You cannot possibly know every pro photographer in all encompassing styles.

Think the joke's on you. Can only speak for those I know and none shoot film as part of their business--hardly unusual in 2012.

 

[OzJohn]

No doubt there are thousands of pros still using film but the roadblock for Kodak et al is that for every thousand film users there are tens of thousands using the alternative. BTW it is perfectly reasonable for CGW to assert that many pros have never used film - there are still many young people seeking a career in photography who have had zero exposure to film and they do not all come out of colleges where they have been obliged to use sheet film in a view camera in order to get a diploma. If they have, most will not use film again once they graduate. How do I know that? A couple have told me but then that's only heresay - one of the major currencies on this thread. OzJohn

 

[clayne]

Hilarious, this is exactly what hearsay is - what you've heard them say to you. You cannot possibly know every pro photographer in all encompassing styles.

Think the joke's on you. Can only speak for those I know and none shoot film as part of their business--hardly unusual in 2012.

The problem is that you're speaking as if that group of people represent the utmost truth and landscape. Are you aware that there are entire fields of photography that are still relegated to large and medium format as the way? This is not even taking into account cinema whatsoever.