Kodak done?

Flow of thoughts

D
Flow of thoughts

  • 2
  • 0
  • 41
Rouse st

A
Rouse st

  • 5
  • 3
  • 67
Plague

D
Plague

  • 0
  • 0
  • 51
Vinsey

A
Vinsey

  • 3
  • 1
  • 87

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,163
Messages
2,787,272
Members
99,829
Latest member
Taiga
Recent bookmarks
1

Paul Verizzo

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
1,645
Location
Round Rock, TX
Format
35mm

How sad. But that's capitalistic life. Once upon a time, America had dozens of auto manufacturers. It got whittled down to GM, Ford, Chrysler, and American Motors. The latter folded many years ago.

Kodak's movie film business is a dinosaur. There is no film "look." Digital can do things film can't, such as a greatly expanded subject brightness ratio, and there's the matter that movies shot in film get digitized anyway.

I love T-Max film. Ilford's Delta is good, but I admit I don't have much experience there.

As others have suggested. there are probably a number of companies that would pay handsomely for the rights to make T-Max.
 

Paul Verizzo

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
1,645
Location
Round Rock, TX
Format
35mm
Kodak isn't a charitable cause. It's a commercial concern that was fundamentally mismanaged for years. The leadership there completely missed the impact of digital until it was simply too late.

In much the same way, Sears - which started out as a mail order business - was entirely way too late to the internet/eCommerce game.

In both cases, companies that had very clear first mover advantage, market leadership, a well established reputation, and a loyal customer base, completely eviscerated their advantages because their leadership was sclerotic, lacked vision, and didn't pay attention to a changing world.

Neither Kodak nor Sears were decimated by digital or the internet respectively. They were eviscerated by a lack of leadership imagination.

This why I favor having corporate execs be paid mostly in stock options and grants. Small salary, big potential back end. When leaders are long term owners, they pay far more attention. This is why I would hope that Kodak film could somehow find ownership - at least at the controlling stock level - that cares about the product and the customer base. Harmon, Adox, Foma et al might together create a consortium ownership model that would pay attention and be able to capitalize on Kodak's film making expertise and equipment.

Amen!
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,055
Format
8x10 Format
Paul - Film can also do things digital can't. Some filmmakers apparently want a more authentic vintage look rather than the faux version. Car mfg? My Toyoto truck was made an hour away in what was at first a Ford plant; then after Numi (Toyta), it became the primary Tesla plant. Quite a few "foreign" cars are/were actually made in the US or nearby. One of the positive aspects of subcontracting a lot of auto components to northern Mexico is that, by giving well paid legit opportunities there, a lot of stress was relieved from the border. That factor seems to have been lost sight of.

I've tested Delta 100 as a substitute for TMax. The grain is somewhere between TMX100 and TMY400 in size. And you have to cut the speed down to 50 if you want Delta to approximate the long scale of TMX, way down into the shadows. It has more of a toe to it. And the spectral sensitivity is a little different, along with the filter factors, esp green filters. I'd far rather use TMX in high contrast situations; but I do have a Plan B if necessary.

Sears Slowbuck went the way of Monkey Ward. Toward the end, their desperate proposed merger with KMart was described as a sack race with two drunks in the same sack. Lack of motivation is an understatement.

Kodak didn't underestimate the impact of digital. They got in too soon. They outright bankrupted one of the biggest labs in this area. The equipment per se was excellent for its time, but they promoted it with long installment payment plans combined with mandatory expensive service contracts. After a few years, there was serious competition from less costly, yet more efficient, digital equipment makers. At that point, Kodak turned their back on their customers - they demanded continuing payments, but outright dropped their own maintenance obligation, rendering much of that gear useless. Word got around awfully fast among the photo lab trade, and nobody trusted them after that. Some of their Creo scanners are still in use.
 
Last edited:

Osmdesat

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2023
Messages
29
Location
Czechia
Format
35mm
Sounds quite funny short after Kodak kicked out film respoolers. Can it be there some coincidence?
Or is it just a threat towards their creditors, something like "You better treat us nicely, or we will break down and you get nothing"?
Just my thoughts...
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,767
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
This requires R&D (if the products would have to be meaningfully different from the present ones) as well as launching costs, as well as the incurred costs of a broader product portfolio as there would be resistance if they also axed existing products. Those combined costs would have to be recouped from the added sales of these new products, taking into account cannibalization of existing product lines. Long story short - there's very little room for frequent product launches for EK in the still film arena.

Besides, what they really need to find an alternative revenue stream for is the offset plates. That is the pressing problem for them.

Pressing problem, as in offset press 😊

As far as new films, first Eastman Kodak needs to ask their direct customers, Alaris and Cinestill what is needed. I think Alaris was a prime mover for Ektachrome.
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,767
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
Sounds quite funny short after Kodak kicked out film respoolers. Can it be there some coincidence?
Or is it just a threat towards their creditors, something like "You better treat us nicely, or we will break down and you get nothing"?
Just my thoughts...

Just good business. Selling everything to anyone was a pandemic necessity.
 

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,751
Format
35mm
Alaris is critical to Kodak. As critical as can be. Global distribution!!!

Kodak did it themselves before Alaris was around. Even if they can't dump them they should be able to sell their own line of film domestically. Eastman Films should be a thing. If I want to buy 1000 feet of cine film why can't I just ask Kodak to sell it to me? Alaris is making the mistake of 'Kodak is stealing sales from Kodak' Any film sold from Kodak is a bonus. Kodak should be cranking out as much and as cheaply as they can. You can't sell film if no one shoots film anymore because there's no film around.
 

gbroadbridge

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
523
Location
Sydney, Australia
Format
Multi Format
So much handwringing over what was nothing more than a statutory disclosure notice.

Kodak is fine, it's even made its way back to supermarket shelves and gas stations here such is the demand.
A whole new generation of photographers who want more than iphone snaps and AI.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom