Kodak Concedes Difficulty in Drawing Lead Bidder for Patents

[RattyMouse]

Fred, if this is a trial balloon, the Von Hindenberg came to mind right off!

PE

That's not what we want to hear PE!!!!

 

[Roger Cole]

Noted.....20 more 5 liter packs of Xtol in my B&H basket.

You can readily get other brands of "Xtol in all but name" anyway.

There's almost nothing sold under the Kodak brand of chemicals any more that isn't available virtually the same elsewhere. The only exception I can think of is HC110.

 

[EdSawyer]

Kodak RA-R/T RA-4 chemistry is pretty unique... not completely, but I don't know of a similiar easy-to-get source of something identical... (e.g. Fuji ? who else makes RA-4 chems? Does Champion sell direct? Trebla?)

Agreed about X-tol though.

 

[Terry Christian]

Actually, Roger, Freestyle markets a Legacy Pro brand product, L110, which is a copycat of HC-110. I haven't used it so I can't attest to its worth, but:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/10190-LegacyPro-L110-BandW-Liquid-Film-Developer-to-Make-2-Gallons

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...In my experience with corporate deals, very little is done by "rolling the dice."...

Kodak's executive management has been running the company via dice rolling for quite some time.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Roger - one thing that keeps me loyal to the Kodak chemistry brand is the very consistent qualtity.
I prefer their RA4 chemistry to the various do-it-yourself kits (though Fuji/Hunt may be equally good,
and I haven't tried any Arista private label product yet). HC-110 is fairly complicated to replicate,
though this too has been allegedly done. But why bother? Hopefully, this will be true of film as well.
Someone else will own the business and run it with the attention it deserves, but otherwise, the
quality will be kept intact. But I do agree that manufacturing buyouts are a roll of the dice - more
often than not the purchasers are idiots with a bunch of MBA consultants whose only real world experience is behind a Starbucks counter. But I do know a number of positive stories too, where a
bankrupt company or division came out much better in the long run.

 

[lxdude]

I do know a number of positive stories too, where a
bankrupt company or division came out much better in the long run.

Like say...Ilford!

 

[PKM-25]

You can readily get other brands of "Xtol in all but name" anyway.

There's almost nothing sold under the Kodak brand of chemicals any more that isn't available virtually the same elsewhere. The only exception I can think of is HC110.

Yeah, just as easy to order Xtol now and not have to think about it for awhile. I now have a total of 30 x 5L packs, should be good for quite some time.

 

[Roger Cole]

Actually, Roger, Freestyle markets a Legacy Pro brand product, L110, which is a copycat of HC-110. I haven't used it so I can't attest to its worth, but:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/10190-LegacyPro-L110-BandW-Liquid-Film-Developer-to-Make-2-Gallons

I know about it. I use Legacy Pro brown toner because Kodak only sells it in some huge jug for $300, and I use LP rapid fix because I can get it in 5 gallons which is cheaper than the Kodak 1 gallon and not as ridiculously huge as the Kodak 25 gallon size. But people who know HC 110 say that L110 is more different from the real thing than many other LP chems. Many are the identical formula but some apparently are not.

I wasn't thinking in terms of color but there's Fuji and then Tetenal, in sizes and convenient kits more suited to most hobbyists anyway. Not identical though, granted.

 

[SilverGlow]

Steve Jobs didn't step in at the 11th hour and bring Apple out of bankruptcy, with Apple's sales at a miscule percentage of what they once were. Jobs didn't reinvigorate Apple computer products, he expanded Apple into a market which needed improvement. Phones and music players weren't what Apple was known for, but Apple could manufacture them. Apple did not invent anything new, they simply looked at existing markets and products where an improvement would be an amazing jump.

I'm sure that there are Jobs-like people in Kodak. But there is the basic concept of "too little, too late." When the ship has already smacked into the iceberg, a company needs Superman, not a screaming and bullying CEO. Kodak needs to take the blinders off, jettison everything that doesn't turn a profit, and then rebuild. Can Kodak actually profitably compete in printers? For consumer printers, it's been no good for them, but they keep trying to stay in the market, so they keep burning cash.

Where could Kodak go where they can actually make money? As PE has said, they spun or sold off a lot of profitable divisions. So Kodak still has some chemical engineering, and coating. What can be coated? There was a mention in an article about wallpaper. How about coating smart fabrics? Would it be cool to wear a Kodak picture t-shirt? Petapixel.com had an entry about a t-shirt with display and a camera. Couldn't Kodak do better with a luminous, computing line of clothing? How about Kodak photo print decals? Slap a Kodak decal on your stuff and flash your pics.

There was a recent inovation of 100,000 DPI printing. Can Kodak get onto that? But whatever Kodak does, they are going to have to get through Chapter 11, because I doubt they'd ever get through a "Chapter 22" (repeat Chapter 11).

Brian, you obviously know nothing about Steve Jobs, nor Apple. Nearly every one of your claims about Jobs and Apple are exceedingly wrong!

 

[zsas]

Update, yesterday Kodak announced that the auction is on indefinite hold....

Dead Link Removed

 

[RattyMouse]

Update, yesterday Kodak announced that the auction is on indefinite hold....

Dead Link Removed

I doubt that the bankruptcy is on indefinite hold.

 

[Roger Cole]

Could be they have a buyer for the film division and they can pull off the re-org without the patent sale?

Ok, unrealistic optimism. It's free and makes me feel better.

 

[BrianShaw]

Wouldn't that be nice... but probably not.

 

[SkipA]

It would be nice if Kodak could do what Ilford did and just concentrate on scaled down film production. Return to its roots, as a much smaller company. Lose all the other baggage. But I don't see that happening.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Skip;

Kodak has done that already!!!!!!!!!!!

We have discussed that ad nauseum on APUG.

PE

 

[SkipA]

PE,

Sorry, but I apparently missed it. Or it could be that it is not what I'm talking about. If Kodak had done what I am referring to, it would have kept core businesses related to its strengths in analog photography, including the chemical and health care businesses. And now Kodak wants to sell off the personal imaging division? Why? So it can waste more money on technology it largely pioneered, but can't seem to capitalize on in the market? How will that help Kodak photographic film from going the way of the Dodo bird? I don't care about Kodak-branded batteries, Christmas tree lights, consumer ink jet printers, commercial printers and book publishing presses, or digital sensors, digital cameras, or digital print services. I care about Ektar, Portra, Tri-X, Plus-X, Double XX, E100 films, 64T, TP, HIE, EIR, and Kodachrome, not to mention cine films, especially the reversal films. Look how many of Kodak's great films are gone!

I have not made a study of Kodak, but from what I've read in this forum and elsewhere, Kodak has continued to make and sell film products, supporting the bottom line at a continually decreasing rate, while at the same time it squandered capital on ill-conceived, or at least poorly executed, ventures. While it treated film like a cash cow, it also stopped marketing film to the public generally, and did little to promote it against the onslaught of digital imaging.

I'm talking about turning Kodak into a much smaller company focused on its roots, analog photography (ok, maybe inkjet paper and inks too, if they'll do it right). I'm not talking about sitting on its laurels and coasting on past greatness, but actively pursuing what market remains, and working to expand it. The recent introduction of the 2332 Color Asset Protection film was a good move.

 

[Steve Smith]

I'm talking about turning Kodak into a much smaller company focused on its roots, analog photography (ok, maybe inkjet paper and inks too, if they'll do it right).

This business model works for Ilford.


Steve.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, we have talked about Kodak selling off divisions to become leaner and meaner. We have talked about Kodak scaling back on manufacturing schedules and demolishing unused buildings. We have then discussed how the divestments and closures were the wrong divisions. For example, Kodak spun off Eastman Chemicals which is doing fine, and Kodak is a chemical business at its core.

I could go on, but there are several threads and even posts here that discuss the need for Kodak to become smaller.

The fact is that they have become almost as small as they can, and they have kept spinning off the wrong divisions! They seem to be adept at spinning off the profit makers. (I guess you should use the name Perez in place of they)

PE

 

[SkipA]

I was redundant, I suppose, but I was wishing from my heart. I'm probably just getting maudlin as I age. As Steve mentioned (and what was in my mind too) is that it worked for Ilford. So why not for Kodak? You pointed out some of the reasons ... selling the wrong parts of the company is a big one. It would have to be a dramatic downsizing and refocusing, the kind that would alienate most of the current shareholders and investors.

Why do I care? Because I really like Kodak products, and I've always regarded Kodak as the finest innovator and promoter of the science, art, and pleasure of photography in the world.

I started my personal pursuit of photography with an inexpensive Kodak camera that shot 126 film. Later I bought books from Kodak to teach me how to improve my photography when I bought my first 35mm camera. Years later when I set up my first makeshift darkroom, I was inspired and informed by books from Kodak that explained how to set up a darkroom, process film, enlarge, and make prints. I used Kodak films, papers, and chemicals exclusively. This was just before the dawn of the internet and the WWW, so I got nearly all of my instruction from books, or from the owners and staff of the camera stores I frequented. This was at a time when they knew something about film, and were enthusiasts themselves. Kodak was everywhere. In all stores of any kind that sold film, Kodak was always the primary featured stock, and often the only one. When I bought my first LF camera (in an actual brick and mortar camera store, not over the net), what film did I shoot exclusively? Right! Tri-X! What else?

Anyway, I'm just sorry to see Kodak struggling and perhaps foundering for good. I continue to wish for some happy ending that keeps the finest photographic films the world has ever seen still in production.

My film budget for this month will be applied toward purchase of some more Portra 160 in 220 rolls.

Hey, I'm going to buy your book too, but it may take me a while to duplicate Portra and Tri-X. lol

 

[Photo Engineer]

Skip;

Kodak could do it, but they keep plowing all "profits" from film into digital! If the film division could stand alone, it could make money just like Ilford. THAT is the real sad part of this.

PE

 

[Hatchetman]

Skip;

Kodak could do it, but they keep plowing all "profits" from film into digital! If the film division could stand alone, it could make money just like Ilford. THAT is the real sad part of this.

PE

Imagine if some of those profits were put into marketing film and building the right size manufacturing and distribution systems for it. Ugh.

 

[falotico]

Losing the work product of the Kodak labs is like burning the library at Alexandria. It would be an incalculable loss of human knowledge--and not just for film! Dr. Hanson mentioned that Kodak had synthesized thirty to forty thousand different dye couplers. Will these processes be put into the public domain, or simply lost? Again, this material is all undervalued.

 

[ambaker]

The patents will not be lost. Somebody will own them. Even if Kodak were to be dissolved and liquidated, somebody will wind up with them. The next question is will they utilize them? Or at least use them in a way that has relevance to film photographers?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

The patents will not be lost. Somebody will own them. ... Or at least use them in a way that has relevance to film photographers?

The patents they were trying to sell all relate to digital photography and NOT film photography.

Given the way patents have been written and the legal cases pending, I'm not sure how much more the patents are worth. (I suspect al the 'good' ones are already being licensed.)