Kodak Files for Bankruptcy Protection 1/18/2012

[Scott_Sheppard]

I hate to say it but Aristophanes and PE are 100% correct.

Look at the split of the film group before the BK. Consumer film in one group and professional in another.

I would bet money that the single use cameras make way more money than all professional still film sales. Why would EK break the film groups apart ??

Do you really trust what BJP posted on their web site ?? Come on now !!

No matter what brand of film you love, we all need as many options as we can get.

Let's hope they can pull this off...

Go buy some film and shoot it !!

 

[CGW]

You have already been shown a number of makers of new cameras, and if you head over to DPUG you'll see that 2 new dedicated scanners for 120 roll film have just been announced. Nikon 120 capable scanners sell for 30-100% more in the use dmarket than they sold for when they were still made.

You love talking about "facts" and how you "uphold the facts" yet you spout nothing but malevolent conjecture at us who you hope don't bother to inform themselves. It really gets boring by now.

As you have tried to ignore for so long, Kodak has made a profit with film during the last 10 years. You love to quote Ron Mowrey in full text whenever something he writes supports your doom&gloom attitude, so you might as well trust him if he writes about the profitability of Kodak's film business.

Private opinions are one thing, but private facts? Where's the "malevolent conjecture" in quoting financial data from public documents? What's so imponderable about the widely-documented collapse of demand for consumer and professional still film materials?

 

[Vonder]

Go buy some film and shoot it !!

I'd love to buy more, but I did a reality check last weekend. I have somewhere in the neighborhood of three hundred rolls of film on hand plus 2 hundred-foot rolls. I think I'm good. If I didn't have 75+ cameras I'd buy a camera instead.

I guess I'll have to shoot some!

That's what it all comes down to, shooting. Film is fun (for most apugers at least) and digital is fun too. Shoot what you want. Gods, it isn't religion. It isn't politics. It's not even marriage. Kodak will blow up or stay in the film business. Film, either is, or isn't, here to stay. If it does go away and you still want to play with silver you can, it's called emulsion making, wet plates, and coating.

Me? I'm gonna stock up on xtol.

 

[benjiboy]

It's interesting how recent events World wide have blown holes in very widely held twentieth century economic theory s that companys and institutions are " too big to fail".

 

[Rudeofus]

Private opinions are one thing, but private facts? Where's the "malevolent conjecture" in quoting financial data from public documents? What's so imponderable about the widely-documented collapse of demand for consumer and professional still film materials?

Aristophanes claims he reports objective and verifiable facts yet he intentionally chooses to report them so selectively that a wrong picture is bound to emerge. His claim about dedicated film scanners was just one prominent example. He inserts full text quotes of PE to support his doom&gloom yet completely ignores or brushes him aside when he doesn't support his crackpot theories of imminent and sudden cascading failure of world wide film business as a result of Kodak's chapter 11 filing.

Mr. Inside Analog: PE and Aristophanes can't both be 100% correct because PE contradicts Aristophanes in quite a few points, and especially in those points Aristophanes claims to have so much expertise in (profitability of film business). Given your poor fact checking on record here I don't know why we should trust you more than BJP.

We're all used to this kind of polemic when elections are near, but at least in this forum you should expect to be called on them.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

http://www.economist.com/node/21542796

 

[Scott_Sheppard]

Given your poor fact checking on record here I don't know why we should trust you more than BJP.

I could care less if you trust me or not.

I have the same email from Kodak that said the same thing that the BJP posted. All they did was to post a email message from Kodak PR.

I hope Kodak pulls out of this like the rest of you do.

But you really need to read the SEC doc's and the BK doc's and make your own mind up.

The film group could do very well I would bet if it was a new company and not under the control of the current CEO that does not give a sh*t about film.

Think what you want !!

 

[CGW]

Aristophanes claims he reports objective and verifiable facts yet he intentionally chooses to report them so selectively that a wrong picture is bound to emerge. His claim about dedicated film scanners was just one prominent example. He inserts full text quotes of PE to support his doom&gloom yet completely ignores or brushes him aside when he doesn't support his crackpot theories of imminent and sudden cascading failure of world wide film business as a result of Kodak's chapter 11 filing.

Mr. Inside Analog: PE and Aristophanes can't both be 100% correct because PE contradicts Aristophanes in quite a few points, and especially in those points Aristophanes claims to have so much expertise in (profitability of film business). Given your poor fact checking on record here I don't know why we should trust you more than BJP.

We're all used to this kind of polemic when elections are near, but at least in this forum you should expect to be called on them.

You're plainly convinced posters here are behind a conspiracy to misrepresent published, public documents. What's up with that? Can't grasp the basis of your sustained refusal to accept that a decade of falling demand for film and its support services hasn't put us all in this current predicament.

 

[isaacc7]

It's interesting how recent events World wide have blown holes in very widely held twentieth century economic theory s that companys and institutions are " too big to fail".

That's not an economic theory, but a political one. Economics dictates that when a company is no longer viable it goes out of business. Politics dictates that if too many people will lose their jobs or have an immediate negative experience from a company folding, then it must be bailed out regardless of the costs involved or the long term consequences.

I'd be shocked if Kodak is able to continue film production for much longer but I am quite willing to be surprised. It isn't just how much film is being bought, the entire infrastructure of the labs is going away too. Color film photography is where the money used to be and I can't see how it can be a viable business any longer. Can they really make a go at the B&W hobbiest market? Can two companies do it? I wonder if it wouldn't be better long term for B&W shooters if Kodak goes away so that Ilford can reap the lions share of the profits to be had in the B&W market. With such a rapidly shrinking market, I think that consolidation is essential. Let's keep our fingers crossed and keep shooting.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think I see what Scott is saying and what is going on here.

Basically, depending on POV, both Aristophanes and I are right. Kodak is obfuscating the data by sending the film profits to digital to sustain it, and the reorganization is, in a sense, helping that funds transfer. This is not illegal by any means, but to us it can be very difficult to gain a clear picture.

Just a guess OTOMH.

PE

 

[Rudeofus]

You're plainly convinced posters here are behind a conspiracy to misrepresent published, public documents. What's up with that? Can't grasp the basis of your sustained refusal to accept that a decade of falling demand for film and its support services hasn't put us all in this current predicament.

No, I don't see a conspiracy here. What I do see is a crackpot theory predicting a cascading demise of film based business which is repeated over and over here in the hopes that it might gain credibility somehow, sort of like Harold Camping's announcement of the rapture last year.

The film group could do very well I would bet if it was a new company and not under the control of the current CEO that does not give a sh*t about film.

This conforms 100% with PE's postings about this topic throughout the last couple of months and flies completely in the face of Aristophanes' analogue rapture theory. Compare this to your "Aristophanes and PE are 100% correct" statement. PE has the technical experience to back up his claims about impossibility of technology transfer (which Aristophanes loves to quote full text) and he also has the business inside knowledge to judge the viability of Kodak's film business. Aristophanes, on the other side lacks both and relies on cherry picked sections of public documents to construct his own little theory of the imminent demise of all analogue film business.

 

[railwayman3]

That's not an economic theory, but a political one. Economics dictates that when a company is no longer viable it goes out of business. Politics dictates that if too many people will lose their jobs or have an immediate negative experience from a company folding, then it must be bailed out regardless of the costs involved or the long term consequences.

Excellent point.

And your second sentance is pertinant...Kodak, in its present form, is no longer viable at this time, so it goes out of business (at this stage, it doesn't actually matter how, or by who's fault, it has become unviable).

The Chap 11 proceedings are the one hope for the best realisation of assets in an orderly manner (not a grab-everything-for-nothing-garage-sale), and, in the process, we hope that the ongoing manufacture of film will be something which it proves profitable for someone, be it the re-organised Kodak or another party.

 

[CGW]

No, I don't see a conspiracy here. What I do see is a crackpot theory predicting a cascading demise of film based business which is repeated over and over here in the hopes that it might gain credibility somehow, sort of like Harold Camping's announcement of the rapture last year.


This conforms 100% with PE's postings about this topic throughout the last couple of months and flies completely in the face of Aristophanes' analogue rapture theory. Compare this to your "Aristophanes and PE are 100% correct" statement. PE has the technical experience to back up his claims about impossibility of technology transfer (which Aristophanes loves to quote full text) and he also has the business inside knowledge to judge the viability of Kodak's film business. Aristophanes, on the other side lacks both and relies on cherry picked sections of public documents to construct his own little theory of the imminent demise of all analogue film business.

I'm guessing that, for whatever reasons, you just won't bother with reasonable explanations of complex realities. Instead, you're working a grudge that's really just the product of not accepting Kodak's current predicament.

 

[Rudeofus]

I'm guessing that, for whatever reasons, you just won't bother with reasonable explanations of complex realities. Instead, you're working a grudge that's really just the product of not accepting Kodak's current predicament.

I'm a big fan of reasonable explanations and love complex realities. Everyone here is aware of the financial problems Kodak faces. But discussing with Aristophanes here feels like discussing religion with sect members. We all saw the shift to digital between 2000 and 2005, we saw Kodak filing for chapter 11 protection, yet I still don't subscribe to Aristophanes' analogue rapture theory which he tries to peddle in multiple threads all over APUG.

 

[Aristophanes]

Aristophanes claims he reports objective and verifiable facts yet he intentionally chooses to report them so selectively that a wrong picture is bound to emerge. His claim about dedicated film scanners was just one prominent example. He inserts full text quotes of PE to support his doom&gloom yet completely ignores or brushes him aside when he doesn't support his crackpot theories of imminent and sudden cascading failure of world wide film business as a result of Kodak's chapter 11 filing.

Mr. Inside Analog: PE and Aristophanes can't both be 100% correct because PE contradicts Aristophanes in quite a few points, and especially in those points Aristophanes claims to have so much expertise in (profitability of film business). Given your poor fact checking on record here I don't know why we should trust you more than BJP.

We're all used to this kind of polemic when elections are near, but at least in this forum you should expect to be called on them.

From Kodak's SEC filed AR:

"Due to changes in technology and customer preferences, the market for traditional film and paper products and services is in decline. Our success depends in part on our ability to manage the decline of the market for these traditional products by continuing to reduce our cost structure to maintain profitability."

Total net sales of Kodak FPEG:

2008 = $ 2,987
2009 = $ 2,257
2010 = $ 1,767
2011 = $ 1,131 (to Q3 only)

Kodak realize restructuring and rationalization charges across the company, but then weight them towards each of the 3 groups. FPEG's share always exceeds its profits. Always.

For example, the depreciation expenses for FPEG compared to the other segments is 60-100% higher. If you amortize the pension costs across film equitably to the other segments, you find that film's revenues cannot sustain those obligations and operations.

The kicker is the constant decline in revenues. I don't listen to PR. I read their fiduciary filings. Those are a legal obligation of accountability.

Kodak is going bankrupt because film revenues keep falling with no end in sight. Both shareholders and creditors expect revenue growth. That's why Kodak will sell FPEG. No creditor will take preferred shares in a company that cannot stem the loss of revenues. They'll carve it out.

What I care about is where it goes. At this rate of revenue loss a vulture fund is a possibility, but I hope that someone from the motion picture side takes an interest. New capital cannot come from Kodak (they are all digital now). So it has to come from outside the company. That means new ownership. The task there is to find a bottom for demand and restructure around that number.

As for other players, Fuji is no doubt seeing the same revenue declines. How long they can keep selling film when almost all new camera manufacture is gone is an internal financial question for Fuji. They stuck it out for instant film, but I have read that lab processing in Japan is in a very steep decline with rising prices also an issue.

With Kodak and Fuji drawing less product, the entire emulsion economy of scale becomes a concern as raw material and related costs will rise due to lessened buying power. This will negatively affect Ilford and others, and the spotlight on a declining customer base will no doubt impact their credit, especially since some have already been through bankruptcy precisely due to falling film demand. All this overhead gets passed on to the net consumer, and basic Econ theory says that if prices rise, more customers leave.

 

[benjiboy]

That's not an economic theory, but a political one. Economics dictates that when a company is no longer viable it goes out of business. Politics dictates that if too many people will lose their jobs or have an immediate negative experience from a company folding, then it must be bailed out regardless of the costs involved or the long term consequences.

I'd be shocked if Kodak is able to continue film production for much longer but I am quite willing to be surprised. It isn't just how much film is being bought, the entire infrastructure of the labs is going away too. Color film photography is where the money used to be and I can't see how it can be a viable business any longer. Can they really make a go at the B&W hobbiest market? Can two companies do it? I wonder if it wouldn't be better long term for B&W shooters if Kodak goes away so that Ilford can reap the lions share of the profits to be had in the B&W market. With such a rapidly shrinking market, I think that consolidation is essential. Let's keep our fingers crossed and keep shooting.

So are you saying that the US Government should have let General Motors, Boeing several other major corporations and half the banks in the US and probably the whole economy to collapse?.

 

[CGW]

We all saw the shift to digital between 2000 and 2005...

Right. Problem is, the "shift" and the corresponding drop in film consumption kept rolling even faster down to the present. Still not sure why you're clinging to your fact-free arguments.

 

[PKM-25]

Just got back from shooting in the bay area, more Portra 400 and more Tri-X, good stuff. While I was there, I really promoted film use, it was fairly easy with a 501CM that had a "You are Not a Photographer" sticker on the prism. I even handed out a couple of rolls of 120 Tri-X to keen young shooters. But I also sat in Phil's Coffee on 24th Street one afternoon and shared this thread with people in order to get an opinion from them while engaged in conversation.

People who read even part of it all said the same thing, it was depressing, pointless since none of the people posting ARE Kodak and above all, was exactly the opposite of what would actually be considered productive in the promotion of using film.

The so called facts have been stated, there is enough information to make a somewhat educated guess, but beyond that, it is truly a waste of time and frankly, a disgraceful use of Sean's site. In the past two weeks, I have shot hundreds of frames on Portra and Tri-X and promoted film use, handed the stuff out. I have PAID out of my own pocket for this and will continue to do so.

I went round and round and round in trying to meet up with a person in this thread so we could talk in person about Kodak and the promotion of film use in going forward...it never happened.

So keep talking, keep speculating and keep arguing, I'll keep shooting and promoting which is the right thing to do. The rest is truly out of our hands...

 

[MaximusM3]

Just got back from shooting in the bay area, more Portra 400 and more Tri-X, good stuff. While I was there, I really promoted film use, it was fairly easy with a 501CM that had a "You are Not a Photographer" sticker on the prism. I even handed out a couple of rolls of 120 Tri-X to keen young shooters. But I also sat in Phil's Coffee on 24th Street one afternoon and shared this thread with people in order to get an opinion from them while engaged in conversation.

People who read even part of it all said the same thing, it was depressing, pointless since none of the people posting ARE Kodak and above all, was exactly the opposite of what would actually be considered productive in the promotion of using film.

The so called facts have been stated, there is enough information to make a somewhat educated guess, but beyond that, it is truly a waste of time and frankly, a disgraceful use of Sean's site. In the past two weeks, I have shot hundreds of frames on Portra and Tri-X and promoted film use, handed the stuff out. I have PAID out of my own pocket for this and will continue to do so.

I went round and round and round in trying to meet up with a person in this thread so we could talk in person about Kodak and the promotion of film use in going forward...it never happened.

So keep talking, keep speculating and keep arguing, I'll keep shooting and promoting which is the right thing to do. The rest is truly out of our hands...

You mean stop being armchair quarterbacks and actually get a life? That would go against the very premise and raison d'être of an internet forum!

 

[CGW]

Just got back from shooting in the bay area, more Portra 400 and more Tri-X, good stuff. While I was there, I really promoted film use, it was fairly easy with a 501CM that had a "You are Not a Photographer" sticker on the prism. I even handed out a couple of rolls of 120 Tri-X to keen young shooters. But I also sat in Phil's Coffee on 24th Street one afternoon and shared this thread with people in order to get an opinion from them while engaged in conversation.

People who read even part of it all said the same thing, it was depressing, pointless since none of the people posting ARE Kodak and above all, was exactly the opposite of what would actually be considered productive in the promotion of using film.

The so called facts have been stated, there is enough information to make a somewhat educated guess, but beyond that, it is truly a waste of time and frankly, a disgraceful use of Sean's site. In the past two weeks, I have shot hundreds of frames on Portra and Tri-X and promoted film use, handed the stuff out. I have PAID out of my own pocket for this and will continue to do so.

I went round and round and round in trying to meet up with a person in this thread so we could talk in person about Kodak and the promotion of film use in going forward...it never happened.

So keep talking, keep speculating and keep arguing, I'll keep shooting and promoting which is the right thing to do. The rest is truly out of our hands...

At it again, eh? Just more self-congratulatory spew without any clue as to what anyone else does or has done for the cause.

 

[PKM-25]

At it again, eh? Just more self-congratulatory spew without any clue as to what anyone else does or has done for the cause.

Sorry if it offends you, but I really do think that this kind of discussion with incessant dominance by certain people is really doing more harm than good at this point. I don't know what else to add other than what I have.

How about I spare you and everyone else by logging off and not coming back, how does that sound?

 

[zsas]

When discussing the viability of a company, there will be bulls and bears and some that dont care. All points are relevant

 

[CGW]

Sorry if it offends you, but I really do think that this kind of discussion with incessant dominance by certain people is really doing more harm than good at this point. I don't know what else to add other than what I have.

How about I spare you and everyone else by logging off and not coming back, how does that sound?

Didn't you threaten us with that about 30 min. ago in another thread? So needy.

 

[keithwms]

Seldom have so many argued so extensively and so speculatively about that of which so little is known.

 

[nickrapak]

Seldom have so many argued so extensively and so speculatively about that of which so little is known.

I believe that it is human nature to try and fill in the blanks to their satisfaction whenever there is a story in which not all the details are known. I can think of at least one other ongoing issue that has the same problem (people being tight-lipped, not giving out anything but the most basic info), and the same reaction (People taking one of two sides, with very few trying to agree). I have to confess that in this "other" issue, I have chosen a side, and it's going to be tough as hell to get me to switch, even if the truth swings to the other side.