Didn't Kodak make lots and lots of money from x-ray film? When that went digital I think it had a big impact on their bottom line.
What did Fuji do? A lot of discussions here focus on grain size, sharpness, sensitivity, chemical reactions and coating procedures, but what most films are really about are their wonderful palettes of colors and/or tones. Fuji built cameras which were built like Nikons but instead of accurate colors Fuji focused on beautiful colors, which is what they were and are still very good at.What could they have done to remain as relevant as they were? They certainly could not have stayed the same size and there is no arguing there but, in this digital world, what's going to make them different and relevant?
I should emphasize that I don't think that Kodak can reinvent themselves in the photography business. It's my belief that they have to break new ground and get into other technologies if they wish to survive. That's what I meant by reinventing themselves; sorry if I was unclear.
As Max states above, most everything in photography has been reinvented enough times that nobody cares how many megapixels the sensors are anymore. What else is there? Pictures with scent? Pictures with an attached donut? Nobody needs a camera to do anything else than what's already on them.
If you think about what something like an iPhone has done for photography. Every dumbass that owns one, and that knows nothing about photography, can download applications to their device and just play with the pictures until they have something they like. It's intuitive, easy to do, and you can make an 8x10 print that looks pretty good if you really wanted to. 99% of photographers are probably no more discerning than that.
So what has really changed? Pictures are stored on Flickr, on memory sticks, on hard drives, or Facebook. Fewer prints are being made, and people are NOT stuffing shoeboxes full of them to store in the attic. Making it easy for folks mean they can take decent pictures, that they are happy with, with a device that is also their phone, and they pay nothing for every picture they take other than the power to charge their devices. It's bloody brilliant, if you're selling iPhones. But if you rely on selling point and shoot digital cameras, look out... How do you compete with that? You don't.
So you look elsewhere, check out micro and macro trends in the economy, figure out what future problems are going to be, and start producing solutions to those problems. In my opinion that's what Kodak needs to do.
What did Fuji do? A lot of discussions here focus on grain size, sharpness, sensitivity, chemical reactions and coating procedures, but what most films are really about are their wonderful palettes of colors and/or tones. Fuji built cameras which were built like Nikons but instead of accurate colors Fuji focused on beautiful colors, which is what they were and are still very good at.
Fuji just released a digital camera which supposedly lets you emulate the characteristics of many film emulsions out of the box. I wonder how many people will try this and ask themselves at some point: "why not try the real thing?" Kodak on the other side just wanted everyone to forget as fast as possible that they had anything to do with film, ever.
The situation with the film division looks pretty grave...
Originally Posted by zsas
I think I have an answer to the above questions related to earnings of the Film Division. I found it in the quarterly report. I believe I calculate a 94% decline in earnings ($2 million 2Q11 earnings vs $36 million 2Q10 earnings). I sure hope they can continue to make profits in our Film Division!!!
"Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group second-quarter sales were $396 million, a 14% decline from the year-ago quarter, driven by continuing industry-related volume declines. Second-quarter earnings from operations for the segment were $2 million, compared with earnings of $36 million in the year-ago period. This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by significantly increased raw material costs, particularly silver, and industry-related declines in volumes, partially offset by cost reductions and price actions across the segment."
per Kodak's 2nd Quarter 2011 Results
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTAwOTk5fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1
Well you never know. It's one way where digital may help instead of cannibalize analog.1) How many people will want to try "the real thing"? Enough to make it worth their wile and keep a company in business? Doubt it.
Getting film and processing is really not hard if you know how to navigate the internet.2) What's the point of wanting to try the real thing when you can't buy film AND there are no labs to process it?
...big, successful, innovative companies like Apple...
Getting film and processing is really not hard if you know how to navigate the internet.
BTW: As PE already posted, forget the 2M number for earnings. Money was shifted from their profitable film business to their loss making digital business to save taxes.
Apple is successful because of marketing. The innovation is spurred only to get people to lust after a device, repeatedly. And marketing (and branding) is the big persuader. The iPad 2 is freakin' magical. Think of it as a Harry Potter you can own. Until the iPad 3 comes out. And then the iPad 2 ain't so magical anymore.
In short, Kodak needs better Kool-Aid. Another Harry Potter reference, the newspapers or photos. They move. I want my prints to do that! And not on an iPad.
SNIP
it is a pain in the neck and expensive, and in a raging world wide depression/ recession
i don't think people have the $$$ to keep buying film at $5 / pop
and having 36exposures processed + printed + burned to a cd for 9-10$ / pop + SHIPPING ...
drug stores don't do send out much anymore, and it isn't cheap
mini-labs / mom+pops are nearly out of business ..
qualex / kodak labs is gone
fujilabs is small, and doesn't service most drug stores &C ..
and sending out to someplace far away seems to be a waste of time
especially when you can do everything with your phone
and it's "good enough"
Kodak should go into making color-wrap film for Automobiles. It will replace sprayed paint as we know it. The market will be huge and there will be tremendous opportunity for color changes and refreshes over the life of the cars.
As we move towards smaller electric and alternate fuel cars, they will become more like Smart cars with easily swapped panels.
Film wrapping cars will cut down on pollution and drastically reduce auto collision repair costs.
There are definitely future markets for Kodak. They just need to get more imaginative.
Not sure I'm willing to turn photography into a survivalist strategy.
I hadn't quite thought about in those terms, but that's the position that I came to several years ago.
I didn't use the survivalist term to describe it. I didn't have a term to describe it.
But "survivalistist mode" is an excellent description of where I expect to be in several more years when I start coating my own glass plates.
I just hope it is later rather than sooner.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?