Kodak Axes Digicams, but keeps film

[wblynch]

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

Until he skied himself right into a tree. Are we talking about the same politician?

 

[zsas]

Aristophanes - Really? Still waiting for you to comment on ADOX's business model which is entirely niche driven....

JetBlue and Soutwest are niches...

 

[keithwms]

Cigarettes are niche...

 

[zsas]

But apparently if RJR goes under they will all disappear

 

[PKM-25]

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

No, not at all, but if you are talented and are proficient in either medium, why in the hell would you jump of the digital cliff like the rest of the desperate souls when you could do yet one more thing to set you apart from the junk show?

This move is not going to pay off for everyone, because the impact of the final image in front of the client is by far, first. Want to wow them even more, shoot it on film and print it in a real darkroom....and leave your competition choking on your dust, period.

I am not up to full speed yet in terms of print production and it is already paying off big time, for me at least...

 

[keithwms]

But apparently if RJR goes under they will all disappear

Which is why they can charge whatever the hell they want Meanwhile the States mumble about raising sin taxes and the tobacco folks pretend to be annoyed.

Eureka, I've got it! This is how we will save film! We will have the federal government add mandatory labels describing mental health issues...

 

[zsas]

Btw my question was for Aristo...

 

[zsas]

Just fixed my orig....

 

[CGW]

No, not at all, but if you are talented and are proficient in either medium, why in the hell would you jump of the digital cliff like the rest of the desperate souls when you could do yet one more thing to set you apart from the junk show?

This move is not going to pay off for everyone, because the impact of the final image in front of the client is by far, first. Want to wow them even more, shoot it on film and print it in a real darkroom....and leave your competition choking on your dust, period.

I am not up to full speed yet in terms of print production and it is already paying off big time, for me at least...

It's possible if you're well-supported by pro labs and expert printers a la 1995. How many pros back then did their own processing and printing? Fine if you can reach and maintain the degree consistency in a darkroom necessary to make it fly. Is all this less a headache that time spent playing with digital workflow?

 

[Rudeofus]

It's possible if you're well-supported by pro labs and expert printers a la 1995. How many pros back then did their own processing and printing? Fine if you can reach and maintain the degree consistency in a darkroom necessary to make it fly. Is all this less a headache that time spent playing with digital workflow?

CGW, have you finally arrived at the point where you are going to tell us we should all go digital because it's easier/faster/whatever?

 

[Rudeofus]

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).

You said (there was a url link here which no longer exists), that Kodak filing for ch 11 is a "credit event", causing "considerable creditor (not just investor) scrutiny of anything to do with film".

You said (there was a url link here which no longer exists), that "Investors and creditors of emulsion production will be afraid to our good money after bad, especially where there is consumer market uncertainty."

While you certainly didn't say the exact word "immediate", predicting the demise of photographic film until the year 2512 is pointless. Let's both agree here that markets respond to risks and adverse situations very quickly and if your predictions would have come true these scenarios predicted by you would have happened within a few weeks after Kodaks ch 11 filing. Well, those weeks have passed and absolutely nothing happened.

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.

Ilford is profitable and successful because they properly responded to the fact that film has indeed become a niche market which they still supply with affordable products. While film manufacturing scales up extremely well, there is some money to be made from properly scaling it down. Kodak on the other side might have the best coating machines in the world, but if they really really really need 1 km of leader before they turn out useful product, it's obvious they'll go the way of the dinosaur in the long run if they can't get their act together.

 

[zsas]

Rudeofus - Wooohooo well said, thread solved! Can we close it now Aristophanes?! Do you agree? Can we move on? Or will you reply something about the lack of labs, new cameras and scale down of MP stock?

 

[michaelbsc]

Want to wow them even more, shoot it on film and print it in a real darkroom....and leave your competition choking on your dust, period.

If you've got the eye.

If you don't have the eye, then you've spent a lot of money for nothing.

OT, but what the digital revolution did in the pro world is lower the barrier to entry for people who thought they had the eye. And some of them did. Many didn't. So you have a lot more suck-o "pros" out there today than you do decades ago because you can go to Costco and drive home with the tools to self-pronounce that you're a "pro" now.

I'm not a pro. I'm a self-avowed hobbyist. Been posting that here and all over the internet for decades. But I've got a dark room, mostly from eBay cast offs, that would have made many pros drool in the '70s. Because the pros don't want the stuff any more.

Once in a while I'll get a real Wow'em scene. Mostly I'm just OK. But it's all film.

MB

 

[Aristophanes]

You said (there was a url link here which no longer exists), that Kodak filing for ch 11 is a "credit event", causing "considerable creditor (not just investor) scrutiny of anything to do with film".

You said (there was a url link here which no longer exists), that "Investors and creditors of emulsion production will be afraid to our good money after bad, especially where there is consumer market uncertainty."

While you certainly didn't say the exact word "immediate", predicting the demise of photographic film until the year 2512 is pointless. Let's both agree here that markets respond to risks and adverse situations very quickly and if your predictions would have come true these scenarios predicted by you would have happened within a few weeks after Kodaks ch 11 filing. Well, those weeks have passed and absolutely nothing happened.


Ilford is profitable and successful because they properly responded to the fact that film has indeed become a niche market which they still supply with affordable products. While film manufacturing scales up extremely well, there is some money to be made from properly scaling it down. Kodak on the other side might have the best coating machines in the world, but if they really really really need 1 km of leader before they turn out useful product, it's obvious they'll go the way of the dinosaur in the long run if they can't get their act together.

Right. It is a credit event for the #1 supplier. Greece has a credit event and all the other countries are scrutinized and their risk profiles rise. AIG had a credit event, and insurers suddenly had solvency issues all over.

And of course its creditors who will now scrutinize because they are the ones who losses now become adjudicated in Ch. 11. That's the process. Shareholders are wiped out. This is an industry rife with solvency problems.

I never said weeks, either.

We do not know that Ilford is profitable. They are a private company who were management rescued from insolvency. They exist on the fringes of a market defined largely by Kodak and Fuji. They are likely majority dependent on home darkroom hobbyists, an industry under considerable duress judging by the free darkrooms on the market (those people, too, have put down $ on Photoshop rather than into defunct Jobo). Where I live, no darkroom supplies are available. None. It's all mail order or nothing, and vast geographic swathes are subject to the same problems, so on the balance of facts, Ilford will eventually have problems as well. If there is more supply of darkroom than demand, then the same will happen to film. If the biggest supplier has problems in ANY industry, there is strong potential for cascading problems throughout an already stressed supply chain.

 

[Michael W]

We do not know that Ilford is profitable. They are a private company who were management rescued from insolvency.

We DO know that Ilford is profitable, as their financials have been published here a couple of times. Private firm info is available from Companies House in the UK. Sales and profit are small compared to Kodak, however that shows they are viable as a niche supplier, exactly what is needed these days.

 

[kb3lms]

... Is all this less a headache than time spent playing with digital workflow?

Yes

 

[tomalophicon]

The word 'workflow' even gives me a headache.

 

[kb3lms]

We DO know that Ilford is profitable, as their financials have been published here a couple of times. Private firm info is available from Companies House in the UK. Sales and profit are small compared to Kodak, however that shows they are viable as a niche supplier, exactly what is needed these days.

Yes, it's that simple. They are a private company that wants to be in the film business. As long as they make some money and can keep buying silver nitrate, the lights on and everyone paid, they are happy. Apparently they are not beholden to stockholders demanding more and more profit all the time no matter what.

That will be the future of the business. Just like today's makers of horse saddles - people that are in the business because they want to be and can make a living out of it. When they cannot make a living at it any longer they will shut off the lights and slam the door.

 

[kb3lms]

The word 'workflow' even gives me a headache.

Absolutely

 

[CGW]

CGW, have you finally arrived at the point where you are going to tell us we should all go digital because it's easier/faster/whatever?

Nope. Just that it's doubtful that many busy, successful pro photographers in 1995 processed and printed their own film. Isn't that what pro labs and printers did? Not sure why DIY film workflow is suddenly any more advisable now than it was back then for a busy pro. Oh, no pro lab? That is a problem, isn't it?

 

[zsas]

They [Ilford] exist on the fringes of a market defined largely by Kodak and Fuji. They are likely majority dependent on home darkroom hobbyists, an industry under considerable duress judging by the free darkrooms on the market...

Aghast the horror - consumers who are hobbyists - YUK! Were you the same person who missed the rise of Apple's iPhone and you are sitting on a boatload of RIM and MSFT stock because you thought the B2B was the only way? Same with Southwest and JetBlue. The horror of the CONSUMER defining a market that was largely led by businesses mass buying (United, RIM, MSFT, IBM (pre 1992)). The customer is always right.....Ilford appears to be doing well engaging with their customers (ala Simon hanging out here...)

 

[Photo Engineer]

Which is worse, or are they the same?

Fifty years ago this morning, I was working at Cape Canaveral on the photography for the launch of John Glenn as the US rushed to catch up with the Soviet Union in the space race. Today we in the US are dependent on Russia for manned launch capabilities. Full circle. And why? Mismanagement and the economy both? I guess so. Lack of desire? I guess so. But then, maybe not!!!!

Does this sound familiar? I guess so. Kodak is suffering from mismanagement and from the economy, they have a deficit too! Lack of desire? I guess so. But then maybe not!!!

You see, desire is based on persuasion and that is what is most in common with both scenarios here. People have been persuaded to believe that we don't need a space program, that digital is better, that chemicals and chemistry are bad for us all and etc.

Now, I have worked hard in both arenas, Kodak R&D and "field" Photography, both with professional photographers and top notch scientists and engineers of all types. And today I see the hopes and dreams and efforts of a lot of friends and myself as well, vanish. Then here, non-experts tell me that they know more about this or that when even the US Government and EK cannot tell us and that is "how do we solve this problem?" and so I see these posts and actually laugh and cry at the same time! This is the very type of persuasion that convinces us that chemistry is bad, digital is good and outsourcing is good.

If we lose our manned space capability, then we are earthbound to "spaceship earth" and if we lose our ability to make analog films we lose a big segment of the chemistry industry. Not comparable? Oh yes they are! If this keeps going, the US has lost 2 major areas of R&D as well as engineering.

Today I bought some Stainless Steel for my darkroom. Our oldest grandson and his dad who work for the company tell me that they get a lot of SS from China. Related? I think not. Our steel industry has shrunk considerably. Parts of Pittsburgh look like the area outside of Kodak Park. Empty!

All of this is interrelated to a core problem. Part of that problem, as noted above, is outsourcing!

My words to you all "Beware the future!". This includes people from all countries that see this type of sea change in industry. EK is just a small part and their management was just a bit more short sighted and worse than some others.

PE

 

[Aristophanes]

Nope. Just that it's doubtful that many busy, successful pro photographers in 1995 processed and printed their own film. Isn't that what pro labs and printers did? Not sure why DIY film workflow is suddenly any more advisable now than it was back then for a busy pro. Oh, no pro lab? That is a problem, isn't it?

The original Ilford went bankrupt when volumes in sales for the entire industry we 10x what they are now.

There are less pros now.

Less labs.

Less distribution channels.

Less darkroom supply.

Less credit.

Less investment.

Less motion picture stock.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

<sigh>
Is anybody here actually involved in photographic practice ie. using a camera, photographing, creating prints...etc.?
Or is it Kodak, Kodak, Kodak, Kodak ad nauseum of prejudiced, heretic speculation and me-too-ism?
And why drag Ilford into a discussion about its past? Let bygones by bygones. And get out there and photograph with Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, FOMA...anything else. That is how film will survive, not endless drivel on economics, management and speculation.

 

[clayne]

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.

You have got to be kidding me...