• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Kodak EK share price

Seen in a shop in Austria last week.....current Agfa Vista 200 color negative films "Made in China".

Could we also expect to see our favorite Kodak films with this printed on their cartons, in the near future?
 
I think it's possible that this is actually *good* for film. Film is a well-defined product with a brand name that a company can crank out and sell. Right away. No need to reinvest in research etc. A company like 3M or Fuji, with good systems engineers, could probably reduce the production line to bare bones and robots and take the profit from the brand names alone.... for some years to come. Companies like Philip Morris know very well how to take good profit in a troubled sector during a declining market.

I would guess that some digital imaging technologies and algorithms are at the core of EK's hopes for patent sales. Who knows, maybe they have some good stuff for digital xray or whatnot. That should be portioned off and made viable as a separate entity, and not tied to film at all. That would be beneficial to both sides... film and digital.
 
MaximusM3 said:
I did my very best over the years..bought a ton, shot a ton, and still doing it....my conscience is at peace
Click to expand...

Same here. I used Kodachrome, Pan-X and Tri-X from the day I first picked up my first camera. Shot Kodachrome until 25 December 2010; and still have 140 rolls deep-frozen (ran out of time). I switched to E100G and E100VS with some reluctance. Tri-X is currently the only EK product I use - but for how much longer? I guess it's time I reunited PanF Plus with its family member (HP-5).
 
You may be right, the patent value on paper may not approach the sale value.

With Fuji trimming its own lines I can't see them picking up Kodak's. Why would Fuji make Kodak brand films when they have their own? I don't see it unless they somehow admit that Portra is better than 400H and 160S, Ektar better than Reala.
 
keithwms said:
I think it's possible that this is actually *good* for film. Film is a well-defined product with a brand name that a company can crank out and sell. Right away. No need to reinvest in research etc.
Click to expand...

This is not in the least bit true. Film is actually the exact opposite of this. Film is a trade secret, the knowledge is in the proper chemicals, in the proper concentrations, deposited at the correct rates on the correct base, with all the tricks that have been worked out over the last hundred years.

If you want an example of this, look at the Impossible Project: they've been trying to reverse engineer Polaroid 600 film for years now. They've had partial success, but it's an uphill battle, their product is still marginal (ahem, "experimental" ), and they've only survived by pairing up with Urban Outfitters to market it to hipsters. Admittedly, Polaroid film is probably the single most complex film available, but it's still a problem.

Not to mention, people either buy good quality film or cheap film. You can try to compete with Fuji's Reala, Acros, and slide line, which are incredible 100 speed films, and Kodak's Ektar, Tri-X, TMAX, and Portra lines, but you will have to somehow best modern products put out by companies putting serious research into this. Portra 400 and 160 are brand new. Ektar is brand new. Acros is at most a decade old. The other way is you can compete with the Lucky, Shanghai, and Fomapans of the world. Not exactly a high-margin business.


Personally, I think Kodak is mostly hanging on because of motion picture film sales at this point. Yes, they are way down from peak, but that doesn't mean they aren't making a profit and more importantly, moving (and processing) a lot of film. That's where the improvements for the New Portra films came from - backported from the Vision 500T movie film. While there are a lot of analog photographers out there, we probably don't compete with the guys who don't even hesitate to load up a couple thousand feet of film and blow through it in an afternoon, then copy their movie a thousand times to mail it to theaters all over the nation.

I really don't see people buying cheap film in a significant enough way to dent Kodak, really. People who would buy Foma, Shanghai, or Lucky because it's super cheap probably wouldn't have bought top-of-the-line film anyway, or at least wouldn't have shot as much. You can't establish some imaginary baseline and claim massive losses from your made-up number (though the RIAA/MPAA try).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So if Kodak's film operation does, heaven forbid, go away---or at least go into suspension while organizational things are being worked out---what happens to the motion picture industry? Is it likely that Fuji can pick up the slack and essentially supply the whole global movie industry, or would this be a gigantic crisis for movie-making on film?

-NT
 

Yeah so? Yes there are plenty of trade secrets but those can be written up and sold, and most of the 'magic' is in the hands-on experience of the technicians. I don't believe that any surprises will turn up with regards to film technology.

To suggest (hope?) that Kodak has some superduper secret technology in its current film products on the shelf- I don't believe that for an instant. I have it on pretty good authority that Kodak stopped doing most research in the film domain many years go (a decade or so). Things like Ektar were a long time coming. As soon as they started diverting capital to digital, something had to give, and unfortunately it was film-related research. When I inquired about film research I was told by one insider to go work for Fuji.

Also, I wouldn't compare this to polaroid at all. Totally different animal.

Anyway my point was that in principle the film ops could be parceled off and probably still turn a tidy profit. That's all. And I had cinema films in mind, not the low margin single shot stuff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is highly suspect that film can turn a profit. That's the problem. Almost no new film cameras being made and shelf presence and mini-labs disappearing. Reduced demand = hard to sell. Where's the bottom? No one knows. That's the risk.
 
keithwms said:
EK's patents are basically worthless
Click to expand...

I agree. If there is any value in them for anyone else to use them, then there should be even more value for Kodak to use them. Especially as they don't have to buy them.


Steve.
 
keithwms said:
Yeah so? Yes there are plenty of trade secrets but those can be written up and sold, and most of the 'magic' is in the hands-on experience of the technicians. I don't believe that any surprises will turn up with regards to film technology.
Click to expand...

Yes, most of the 'magic' is in the hands-on experience of the technician, but it won't be written up and sold without a major program to do specifically this. Forget Polaroids. Example: Kodak stopped making pack films years ago. Why? Their last technician who knew how to assemble them... retired. And that's just how to assemble the things, they still had the jigs for cutting and assembling the packs, the layouts for the paper pulley gizmo, and the film was still in production.

You can say "IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE" all you like, but the fact is that there are many people-centuries of institutional knowledge in a company like Kodak and most of it is not written down or recorded in sufficient detail to recreate even similar products without significantly re-engineering them. You cannot just go from a couple chemical engineers to a modern film-coating plant laying down modern emulsions without a lot of expense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul, are you saying that the Kodak labs are so terrible that they have people mixing brews and not taking good notes? That's certainly not consistent with the excellent quality control the company has been known for, year after year.

Anyway this is all beside the point. The question is whether a split-up of Kodak might possibly be good for the film market. I am going to say yes. Let's see.
 
I think the prospect of moving the production line to another location, say in SE Asia, and producing a quality product is less than 50%. This would assume Kodak was actively attempting to facilitate the transfer. Without Kodak helping after a dismantling would be like the idiotic conversations we used to have about making Kodachrome in a barn.

Much of the uphill battle for TIP has been the fact that it was junked, and they are trying to recreate it from the trash heap. They're doing far better than I ever expected.

But still, expecting a plant in Bangkok to turn out Ektar 100 is a lot more optimistic than expecting a plant in Bangkok to turn out cheap VHS cassettes.

MB
 
Where Kodak film is manufactured or how good the formulary notes are is all irrelevant if no one can see the bottom of the film market. Film manufacturing is an industrial process and there may simply not be enough demand based on the recycling of eBay and flea market cameras. Industrial film camera production is almost no more in quantities to sustain film.

Any purchaser of Kodak film has to weigh the plummeting demand before all else. Maybe cinema can sustain it, maybe not. That's changing swiftly as well. The current share price is a reflection of the future film market and the future digital market, both named Kodak. We know digital has a future. Film.………?
 
I think I misinterpreted your post to suggest that a company could recreate Kodak-level products from scratch or from Kodak's notes. If you're talking about someone picking up Kodak's film division as a whole, sure. As mentioned, it sure would be a risky buy though.
 
PaulMD said:
If you're talking about someone picking up Kodak's film division as a whole, sure. As mentioned, it sure would be a risky buy though.
Click to expand...

We need to get someone like Bill Gates to take up film photography and spend some petty cash to buy himself a little company to keep him (and us) in film!


Steve.
 
From 24/7

"First there was the rumor that Eastman Kodak was close to Chapter 11 when it hired law firm Jones Day, which has a reputation as a restructure specialist. Last Friday, Eastman Kodak’s stock dropped from $1.62 to just below $0.60 in a matter of minutes. Concerns about the company began when it took down $160 million from a credit line, which moved shares from $3.38 to $1.60. Kodak denied that it needed that money to remain financially viable. It then denied it planned a bankruptcy filing. Shares rebounded to $1.32 at Monday’s open. Credit experts said Kodak would not go under because its patent portfolio is worth $3 billion."

"It is sometimes impossible to know where rumors of bankruptcies begin. No matter what their sources, shareholders and companies can do very little to prevent the panic that drives their share prices down. Someone made a mistake, or decided to make money from a rumor, in the case of Kodak and AMR. And those persons probably never will have to make any restitution."


Overall I have bad feelings about the end of 2012 and foresee Kodak out of business. I hope not, but I feel so far that sh*t is going to hit the fan for all of us. A Republican House, Senate and Presidency will be a slash and burn spectacular. Then add in declining economies in Europe. In such an atmosphere it will be hard for many companies to survive let alone those that are wounded.
 
Steve Smith said:
We need to get someone like Bill Gates to take up film photography and spend some petty cash to buy himself a little company to keep him (and us) in film!


Steve.
Click to expand...

If Gates was into film, you could get all kinds of service, but Bill would hold the copyright to every image.
 
fstop said:
If Gates was into film, you could get all kinds of service, but Bill would hold the copyright to every image.
Click to expand...

Haha. Bill Gates' (and Steve Jobs') business model is simple and very effective. Make your own product obsolete on a periodic basis by introducing a minor new feature or two. But... you have to do so with a newer/better product that people actually want to buy. Until recently it was working very well for both. It is a business model that ultimately fails, but you make a helluva lot of money as long as you can keep it going.
 
Doesn't matter to Jobs anymore RIP Steve Jobs 1955-2011.

Kodunk obsoleted themselves and it didn't work for them like it does for confuser makers.Kodak should used as an example of what not to do.Digital didn't put Kodak out of business, Kodak put themselves out of business.
 

And some companies have kept it going for decades (without making tons of money) by introducing genuine improvements to their products. Software is a special case because each additional copy of Word, for example, costs Microsoft essentially nothing to produce. That cannot be said for any tangible product, like a Leica perhaps. Don't make the mistake of extrapolating Steel Era business parameters to the digital realm; it doesn't work.

About 2012, uplist, I have bad feelings too. If the world's economy depends on people spending money they don't have (and it does) then what happens if they decide to, or must, buy only within their means for everything except really big ticket items? 0% interest rates haven't helped Japan one bit and I doubt it will work anywhere else. There will be non-niche companies disappearing in the next few years and while that doesn't by necessity spell doom for all niche companies, like film, it makes the task of survival even more difficult.

Perhaps there will be a 'Buy a Brick' drive, like with War Bonds. (Although I'm not old enough to remember War Bonds I am old enough to remember when a brick was twenty and not 10.)

s-a
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register