Kodak hints at sale of film unit...

Petzi · Feb 14, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Color transparency will probably be the first color film to bite the dust. Sales are falling fast.

I wonder why. I understand that professional studios have switched from LF and MF transparency to digital, but they did that in the past, not now, and the rest of the market (amateurs, enthusiasts, artists etc.) should be relatively stable. Or is it because projection of digital images at 1 Megapixel resolution is good enough for people?

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 14, 2007

Yes, people seem to prefer to project the 1 Mpix image on a projector that costs a couple of thousand dollars than to project a higher quality 35mm slide on a projector that costs a couple of hundred dollars.

Okay, I can see the attraction of PowerPoint when you're doing something that might otherwise require a multi-projector setup or when you want to mix media, but just for a straight slide show I'll take slides any day.

jstraw · Feb 14, 2007

Is there no linkage between Kodak's commitment to motion picture film and the production of still, transparency films?

Photo Engineer · Feb 14, 2007

jstraw said:
Is there no linkage between Kodak's commitment to motion picture film and the production of still, transparency films?

Digital photography has affected reversal film sales more than negative film sales. This trend started though before digital, as customers more and more wanted high quality prints.

Virtually all motion picture film is color negative. The two films, negative and reversal, take entirely different emulsions and couplers, not to mention their processes.

PE

jstraw · Feb 14, 2007

Oh, duh. Sorry...I knew that films are shot on negative film...brain fart.

PHOTOTONE · Feb 14, 2007

The problem with us professional photographers that would prefer to shoot medium-format or large format transparency film, is getting the client to accept it. They want digital. They want digital. I have had some success with a new client that needed great big files, to let me shoot 4x5 transparencys and scan them in house and deliver to him very large scans on DVD, as well as the transparencies. Clients want photos on CD or DVD, and the art directors still working that know how to handle film are thinning out. It is really a shame.

aldevo · Feb 14, 2007

Ultimately, many corporate clients do not trust people they consider to be "creative sorts". Perhaps wrongfully, most professional photographers are lumped into this category.

As a result of this almost inherent lack of trust, any technology that enables the work to be proofed earlier is going to be attractive to clients. And digital, unquestionably, has an advantage there.

I'm not sure if the bias is digital so much as it is "show me what the $%@%! I just paid you half in advance for!".

This goes double for wedding photography in the Boston, MA area, at least.

PHOTOTONE · Feb 14, 2007

I had one client several years ago (long established relationship, doing their catalog photos for years) tell me that They were going digital..if I wanted to equip my studio with digital capture they would continue to use me, otherwise they would go where they could get digital, period, no argument. Whats a photographer to do? I got digital. This is a client I used to do lovely 8x10 color transparencies for.

HerrBremerhaven · Feb 14, 2007

Seriously, it is not that bad in the world of advertising and commercial photography. I attended a seminar a couple weeks ago put on by a prominent advertising photographer. Many in the audience were surprised that he is not very technical, and uses a Crown Graphic and Readyloads for most of his shots. In fact his only other camera is a Sinar, mostly because it has a greater range of movements. As might be expected, he delivers by FTP, CD-R, or DVD-R to high dollar clients like Cingular.

The point is that it is possible to still use film and to have realistic deadlines. When you can match your creative vision to what a client wants, then the client would rarely ever dictate what camera or other gear they want you to use. It is only the more clueless clients, or low-balling cut throats that want digital because they think it will be cheaper for them.

As a commercial photographer, when you send out your book (portfolio) for a review, you don't list what gear you used to capture your images. Obviously there are photographers that try to market themselves based upon the gear they own, but they often have about as much relevance as a rental shop. Your images should speak of your abilities.

Wedding shooting is a completely different realm of photography. There are many other realms, and they don't all relate that well, beyond the use of some sort of camera. It is not possible to lump all professional photographers into the same situations; each of us working in these areas has different deadlines, different expectations, and different needs.

One advantage of transparency film in a commercial imaging environment is that you can see how an image should be scanned, or should later be printed. Another advantage is that editing on a light table is non-linear and makes easy random comparisons.

It seems to me that if the situation of transparency films was so dire, then Fuji and Kodak would not have introduced improved nor new emulsions in the last couple years. Maybe I am wrong and they did not have business ideas in mind with those introductions, but somehow I figure that if they put forward the R&D on them, then they somehow expected some profits. To be fair, on the recent Fuji announcements, products released to the market are awaiting a depletion of existing stocks. I can imagine our transparency film choices becoming smaller in the future, but I think we are more than eight years away from no transparency films.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

PHOTOTONE · Feb 14, 2007

HerrBremerhaven said:
It seems to me that if the situation of transparency films was so dire, then Fuji and Kodak would not have introduced improved nor new emulsions in the last couple years. Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

Well, Kodak has not introduced any new transparency films in large format in many years.their only new film products are in color negative. Fuji, however has introduced a couple, but they are not here yet. While I agree with you on almost every point you made above, one of the main reasons many clients insist on digital is that they do not have to pay a service bureau for scans, which can add up in a big catalog shoot. Now, even if the photographer provides scans in-house, there is still a charge to the client.

PHOTOTONE · Feb 14, 2007

The general public has ALWAYS picked convenience over quality. ALWAYS. Digital photography is CONVENIENT for the client, regardless of how the photographer feels. I am not referring to the very high-end art-type commercial work, but the bread-and-butter work most of us do.

HerrBremerhaven · Feb 14, 2007

Catalogue shooting is another completely different realm, mostly like product photography. It is often heavily volume based work, often for clients that are near the photographers studio. Oddly enough, with lots of manufacturing happening in China, I have read about more product and catalogue shooting happening there. The other development is CGI images of products being dropped into scenes as part of post processing; often the photographer might never see the actual product.

Catalogues present products as realistically as possible, without brand imagery. Brochures present products in a brand context which gives the reader all the brand values. When you consider how catalogues are used, catalogue/product photography almost seems like a commodity item. I wish you luck in that market; I certainly have no desire to be in that realm.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

eddym · Feb 14, 2007

For several years, I've been shooting the cover art for a local tourism magazine. They always use a painting by a local artist for the cover, and I have been shooting 4x5 transparencies of the paintings for them.
In 2005, they decided they wanted to try digital instead of film. So I shot the painting on digital, converted the raw file, and sent them the file. They called me back, saying the colors were not right. I went to their office with my laptop and tried to adjust the colors to what they thought they should be, but I could not make them match. At last we all agreed to do a reshoot - on film. I shot EPN 4x5 again, and they were happy.
In 2006 they asked for the transparencies again. I was happy too, except that now I have to send them to Duggal in NYC for processing. Nobody here on the island has a dip & dunk machine any more. Still, I can shoot the job and have the shots to them within a week.

jstraw · Feb 14, 2007

If I were publishing *anything*, my workflow would be primarily digital. That said, I wouldn't care if an image file was a digital capture or a scan from an analog capture as long as a) my workflow was not compromized and b) it met my quality standards. I'd damn sure own a decent scanner and know how to use it or employ someone that did. I'd gladly do the digitizing myself before I'd put a desire for an image file I can import into Quark to allow me to suffer with poor scans from good photographers. If you're shooting digital for me...know how...if you're shooting analog...know how to scan or let me do it. I would not penalize anyone for presenting me with transparencies. The convenience of editing from a monitor is not so great that I'd object to needing a light table and a loupe. I *assume* that only photographers and skilled picture editors ever could edit from negatives...as time passes, fewer and fewer can. But positive transparencies? What's the big deal? As I say, only workflow and editing benefit from a file over a slide. The former isn't worth accepting lousy files for and the latter is secondary.

r-s · Feb 17, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
The bottom line to me is this.

Lets assume the conventional photography line beomes independant some way or other, spun off, sold or it mutinies (don't laugh).

OK, you got my attention.

I'm not laughing.

Now, tell me what kind of mutiny you're envisioning (or hearing about?)

Photo Engineer · Feb 17, 2007

I have heard nothing, but I would not be surprised if the film unit were to perform a buyout from the rest of Kodak. I suppose it is possible. Not very probable though.

PE

HerrBremerhaven · Feb 17, 2007

Sounds too much like AGFAPhoto coming from AGFA parent company. Unfortunately the principals in charge hindered the potential of AGFAPhoto nearly from the start.

The reason I don't imagine it happening is that coating facilities can be repurposed to uses other than making film. With Kodak entering the commercial printing and graphic arts markets in a big way, it is not too much of a stretch to see them entering the paper market. Perhaps they might challenge International Paper in the future.

Other technology includes LCD display manufacturing materials, and substrate for OLED displays. Fujifilm are also involved in these markets. The demand for OLED displays is predicted to grow exponentially in the next three years (Gartner Group, TrendWatch, et al).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

Photo Engineer · Feb 17, 2007

Kodak just shut down its paper mill. It no longer produces paper anywhere.

Kodak is one of the largest producers of OLEDs and the organic chemicals used in them.

PE

Dave Wooten · Feb 17, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak just shut down its paper mill. It no longer produces paper anywhere.

Kodak is one of the largest producers of OLEDs and the organic chemicals used in them.

PE

Ron are other producers reliant on these organic chemicals?:confused:

Photo Engineer · Feb 17, 2007

Kodak has several 'deals' with companies here in the US and in Japan for making OLED screens as well as their own facilities.

So, AFAIK, there are quite a few people using Kodak OLED chemistry.

PE

3Dfan · Feb 17, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Color transparency will probably be the first color film to bite the dust. Sales are falling fast.

PE

Since people occasionally cross-process negatives as slides with moderately functional results, could a person use E-6 chemicals and tweak the process to get better slides using negative film? I realize there is a mask but with that new maskless film for scanning it seems that it would be possible.

PHOTOTONE · Feb 17, 2007

3Dfan said:
Since people occasionally cross-process negatives as slides with moderately functional results, could a person use E-6 chemicals and tweak the process to get better slides using negative film? I realize there is a mask but with that new maskless film for scanning it seems that it would be possible.

The new maskless film for scanning actually is (AFAIK) more related to color slide film than it is to color neg film. It might work quite well in E-6.

HerrBremerhaven · Feb 18, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak just shut down its paper mill. It no longer produces paper anywhere.

Kodak is one of the largest producers of OLEDs and the organic chemicals used in them.

PE

So who is making the Encad inkjet papers, and other Kodak (branded) papers for graphic arts usage? I hope you didn't think I meant photographic (chemical) papers.

Anyway, my point is that coating facilities can be used for other purposes, such as OLED materials. Maybe they won't produce photographic films out of the coating facilities, and simply convert the facilities for other products. Paper is only one such product, though not necessarily the best, nor only choice; merely a suggestion I throw into this wild speculation about Kodak.
:rolleyes:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

Photo Engineer · Feb 18, 2007

Gordon;

There is a difference between making the paper itself and coating on it. Kodak did both at one time. Now, all paper is purchased uncoated from Schoeller in Germany. This was posted here and elsewhere nearly 2 years ago.

OLEDs are not coated in the same way as film or paper.

PE

MikeM1977 · Feb 18, 2007

fparnold said:
Well, to inject a note of pointless optimism, years ago I worked for Allied-Signal. They had some underperforming units which they spun off as the "Henley Group". Once free of Allied-Signal's sociopathic management, they did quite well, some of them actually becoming stronger (Fisher Scientific coming to mind).

Maybe a spun-off film unit can do the same, without having the challenge of meeting the required numbers for the behemoth that is Kodak. This of course is just whistling in the dark, but we can dream. Pity nobody managed to save Agfapan 100 when they could, so I wish Kodak's film division, even with a reduced portfolio, the best of luck and skill

I think a spin-off can indeed do much better. I used to work at Motorola. Their semiconductor division "underperformed" for years until they were finally spun off as Freescale (in 2002 I think). Over the next 4 years, Freescale doubled in value until they were recently purchased by a defense conglomorate.

Also its interesting that Wall Street demanded Motorola get rid of semiconductor and that their CEO at the time was arguably forced out because he balked.

Kodak hints at sale of film unit...

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency