Still, I'd like to hold out some hope that we may flatten out entirely (lambda = 0) before it becomes impossible for any maker to produce film and paper profitably.
Kodak hints at sale of film unit...
-
A
- Thread starter aldevo
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Still, I'd like to hold out some hope that we may flatten out entirely (lambda = 0) before it becomes impossible for any maker to produce film and paper profitably.
This is somewhat off-topic, but it sorts of strikes me that Perez has an axe to grind:
a) He's a former HP exec who...
b) Is about to enter the inkject market where HP is a major player
c) And is expected to announce a deal to market said printers with Dell (which just happens to be HP-Compaq's largest competitor in PC's)
See a pattern there?
I'm not a Perez fan (I don't really understand the drive forEK to enter the home inkjet market - because that's slowing in sales and "generic inks" are really curtailing the available profits). Ultimately, Kodak might be jumping out of one declining market - only to enter another.
That said, I don't think any comments of his (which are often out of context) will affect the value of the film unit.
Ultimately, the financial statements and forecasts for the film/paper market will determine what it's worth to a perspective buyer.
Kodak selling inkjet printers does not affect their film business. Why would it? The only thing affecting their film business is volume of film sales. They are not going to stop selling film, just to sell inkjet printers. They will stop selling film when sales get to the point where manufacture is unprofitable. Kodak selling inkjet printers in an already crowded market is not going to make more people stop using film. You can make nice prints on many inkjet printers from scanned film.particularly in color.
Would this R&D be related to still film, or would it (more likely) be related to motion picture film stocks?
I agree. I don't believe I did insinuate that ink jet printers would affect film sales, actually.
I don't wholly agree with your statement about when Kodak will stop selling film. I think that Kodak would try to find a buyer for the unit before it becomes unprofitable because if the unit becomes unprofitable it would be hard to find a buyer. Naturally, there are circumstances (e.g. huge run up in silver prices) that could cause a very sudden change. Most likely, that would have a detrimental impact on all film/paper manufacturers.
Kodak did find a buyer for its medical imaging division, however Kodak did not attempt to find a buyer for its black and white paper production, and just simply closed it down.
True. I don't claim to know, though, whether the unit was profitable or not. They had a relatively new facility in Brazil that was coating it, though I believe the finishing was still being done in either Rochester or Canada. At least that's what an old empty box of Polycontrast IV RC (a short-lived paper that finally got Kodak to parity with Ilford in the RC market, IMO) that I saved states.
Kodak has generally been #1 or #2 in its film and paper markets. I don't know what their market position was in B&W paper. I do know that they had recently discontinued their production of paper support for these products right after they opened the facility in Brazil.
I guess it's forever destined to remain a mystery.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 858
- Format
- Multi Format
. . . and still no disclosure from Aldevo. Just what is your agenda posting on APUG? I have trouble finding anything you have posted beyond doom and gloom connected to film production. Perhaps you are a day trader hoping to generate some activity.
Now to stop the lunacy a bit, some history, which I should add is in the past Annual Reports and SEC reports that can be downloaded by anyone. Kodak decided to get more into the commercial printing business prior to Perez becoming CEO. One of the first companies purchased was in San Diego a company known as Encad, who produced plotters and wide format inkjet. You will never find such a printer in CompUSA, nor Best Buy, nor Office Depot. This move was to place them more into commercial graphic arts supplies, though that business community did not highly regard Encad printers. Next step was to get a portion of printing technology from Heidelberg, who had a desire to leave part of the market segment. After that was the recent purchase of Creo . . . and suddenly Kodak went from a small player barely in commercial printing and graphic arts supplies, into about the largest player in the industry. All these company purchases cost a ton of money, which relates directly to many of the charges filed in those EK SEC reports. The idea of all this was that the consumer market would not provide the bulk of revenues and profits, and also that emerging markets around the world have been experiencing a greater demand for printed materials.
Okay, so none of that directly relates to consumer films, consumer inkjet printers, nor consumer compact digital cameras. Kodak's early investment in digital imaging was bleeding money, though their were two hopes tied to the investment. The first was that people shooting a higher volume of images would be printing a higher volume of images. This was the prediction from numerous PMAI reports, and from big predictors like Gartner Group. What actually happened was that few of these new technology camera owners actually printed anything, so the idea of profits from printing to offset losses from the cameras did not happen. Then came the kiosk idea, including an EK purchase of some interesting technology, and again the amount of usage of these kiosks did not offset losses. Almost coinciding with that was the idea of home printing of images, and as maybe should have been expected, sales were low and few people took up this route, so no high profit inks and papers to offset digital imaging losses. The other idea was that once a company got enough market share, they could then raise prices to generate a profit; so far this has not worked for any players in this market other than Nikon (and yes, Canon offset losses through their business and office printing division), though I should point out that is from 2005 figures, so maybe a slight change (though again, that is more than six years losses for any company in this market segment).
Onwards to Kodak Polychrome Graphics (KPG), now mostly under the GCG. At one point, KPG was remarketing a printer using mostly HP parts (DesignJet series, not consumer printers). While the quality was better than their Encad offerings, I would imagine Kodak wanted their own solution (Perez was CEO at this point). The offerings were towards the business and professional markets.
Then came a reorganization of divisions within Kodak, and how those divisions were reported in the SEC reports. When losses from one division might be cause for concern, then lump them into another division that is still generating a profit. Thus digital imaging got lumped with consumer films into consumer imaging, and a slight profit was shown. Finding out the internal numbers, detailed breakdowns, product specific earning, et al. are not required in SEC reports; so comments on those aspects could only be speculation.
Another item not often mentioned is Kodak investing heavily into Lucky Film in China. As part of that agreement a few years ago, Kodak signed a 20 year funding promiss to Lucky Film. Kodak have at least 16 years left on that agreement. The downside on the agreement was that Kodak wanted a larger share of ownership of Lucky Film, though the Chinese government limited that part of the agreement. However, Kodak has a foot in the Chinese market, and can see some profits from this (mostly film based) investment.
So in conclusion, consumer film profits prop up consumer digital losses at Kodak. Without another redistribution and change in structure on SEC reports, to get rid of consumer films would mean EK would need to show losses in consumer imaging. A more likely occurance is Kodak subcontracting compact digital camera construction, or selling off that division, while retaining the profitable chip making group. Another possibility is moving more production to China, though unless the Chinese government changes their foreign ownership stance, it might be quite a while until that happens, if ever. In other words, several things need to happen at Kodak prior to anything happening with consumer films.
Note: I have a stack of SEC reports on EK just over 2' high sitting in my office. There is no way practical for me to type out that much, to give even more detail. I encourage anyone to read the SEC reports of the last eight years. Those even more interested in this should read the last six years PMAI reports, and consider paying for a couple Gartner Group reports on the consumer imaging and photofinishing markets.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed
Now to stop the lunacy a bit, some history, which I should add is in the past Annual Reports and SEC reports that can be downloaded by anyone. Kodak decided to get more into the commercial printing business prior to Perez becoming CEO. One of the first companies purchased was in San Diego a company known as Encad, who produced plotters and wide format inkjet. You will never find such a printer in CompUSA, nor Best Buy, nor Office Depot. This move was to place them more into commercial graphic arts supplies, though that business community did not highly regard Encad printers. Next step was to get a portion of printing technology from Heidelberg, who had a desire to leave part of the market segment. After that was the recent purchase of Creo . . . and suddenly Kodak went from a small player barely in commercial printing and graphic arts supplies, into about the largest player in the industry. All these company purchases cost a ton of money, which relates directly to many of the charges filed in those EK SEC reports. The idea of all this was that the consumer market would not provide the bulk of revenues and profits, and also that emerging markets around the world have been experiencing a greater demand for printed materials.
Okay, so none of that directly relates to consumer films, consumer inkjet printers, nor consumer compact digital cameras. Kodak's early investment in digital imaging was bleeding money, though their were two hopes tied to the investment. The first was that people shooting a higher volume of images would be printing a higher volume of images. This was the prediction from numerous PMAI reports, and from big predictors like Gartner Group. What actually happened was that few of these new technology camera owners actually printed anything, so the idea of profits from printing to offset losses from the cameras did not happen. Then came the kiosk idea, including an EK purchase of some interesting technology, and again the amount of usage of these kiosks did not offset losses. Almost coinciding with that was the idea of home printing of images, and as maybe should have been expected, sales were low and few people took up this route, so no high profit inks and papers to offset digital imaging losses. The other idea was that once a company got enough market share, they could then raise prices to generate a profit; so far this has not worked for any players in this market other than Nikon (and yes, Canon offset losses through their business and office printing division), though I should point out that is from 2005 figures, so maybe a slight change (though again, that is more than six years losses for any company in this market segment).
Onwards to Kodak Polychrome Graphics (KPG), now mostly under the GCG. At one point, KPG was remarketing a printer using mostly HP parts (DesignJet series, not consumer printers). While the quality was better than their Encad offerings, I would imagine Kodak wanted their own solution (Perez was CEO at this point). The offerings were towards the business and professional markets.
Then came a reorganization of divisions within Kodak, and how those divisions were reported in the SEC reports. When losses from one division might be cause for concern, then lump them into another division that is still generating a profit. Thus digital imaging got lumped with consumer films into consumer imaging, and a slight profit was shown. Finding out the internal numbers, detailed breakdowns, product specific earning, et al. are not required in SEC reports; so comments on those aspects could only be speculation.
Another item not often mentioned is Kodak investing heavily into Lucky Film in China. As part of that agreement a few years ago, Kodak signed a 20 year funding promiss to Lucky Film. Kodak have at least 16 years left on that agreement. The downside on the agreement was that Kodak wanted a larger share of ownership of Lucky Film, though the Chinese government limited that part of the agreement. However, Kodak has a foot in the Chinese market, and can see some profits from this (mostly film based) investment.
So in conclusion, consumer film profits prop up consumer digital losses at Kodak. Without another redistribution and change in structure on SEC reports, to get rid of consumer films would mean EK would need to show losses in consumer imaging. A more likely occurance is Kodak subcontracting compact digital camera construction, or selling off that division, while retaining the profitable chip making group. Another possibility is moving more production to China, though unless the Chinese government changes their foreign ownership stance, it might be quite a while until that happens, if ever. In other words, several things need to happen at Kodak prior to anything happening with consumer films.
Note: I have a stack of SEC reports on EK just over 2' high sitting in my office. There is no way practical for me to type out that much, to give even more detail. I encourage anyone to read the SEC reports of the last eight years. Those even more interested in this should read the last six years PMAI reports, and consider paying for a couple Gartner Group reports on the consumer imaging and photofinishing markets.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed
Last edited by a moderator:
I can say that their b/w paper was never really available in Germany. 10 - 20 years ago, you could buy Agfa, Labaphot, Ilford and maybe some Kentmere paper, but Kodak paper was never seen in any stores; I think it wasn't distributed by Kodak in Germany at all.
I don't see it mentioned on this thread, but Kodak did just sell it's X-ray imaging division to some Candadian company last month. I sincerely hope they don't sell of their film division. It's important to keep objective and realize that Kodak is doing as much as it can without bankrupting itself to keep its film business alive. Sustaining profitability, as painful as most of you make that out to be, is the best strategy for ensuring that Kodak continues to offer the best line of films possible. Sorry, but B&W took a huge plunge when papers went digital. I wish it weren't so, but it is. A forum full of diehard film shooters here couldn't save Kodak's line of papers. In fact a lot of people knocked them even after Polycontrast IV came out, so I find it quite puzzling that a group so critical of Kodak's line of papers can treat it so harshly for taking action based in part on the B&W community abandoning Kodak's B&W products. As always, actions (buying) speak louder than words. I hope Ilford takes this to heart.
I agree with your post. Ultimately, when wedding photography went digital - the writing was on the wall. But I don't think EK really set themselves up to succeed in the B&W paper market - yes, they had Azo which nobody else really had - but they created serious gaps in their B&W paper lineup.
Given Simon Galley's involvement - I think Ilford is doing everything it can to try to sustain interest in analog B&W. Which, naturally, makes a great deal of sense for them to do
Disclosure of what?...EK hasn't announced they're going to do anything where the film division is concerned. I never said they did.
Btw: You'll not that I made serveral other posts on different topics during the past week.
Umm, I must have missed the memo at the studio mandating that all future weddings must be shot with digital. Maybe you mean a different type of wedding photography other than the type I do? Newspapers are virtually 100% digital (I'm probably one of maybe a dozen photojournalists using film for college papers, and that's because I lie about it, scan it, de-grain it, and down res it to the point that only a skilled observer can even tell that it is film); frankly weddings are probably one of the last bastions with maybe 40-50% of the market (I mean pro wedding photographers too, not Uncle Bobs) still shooting film. Informal tally of other wedding photographers I see while I'm shooting a wedding of my own says it's virtually 50-50 in my neck of the woods. Compared with school photography, which is 90% digital according to a lab that would know, 40% is pretty damned good. Think of the countless 100 foot rolls of 70mm school studios are no longer buying. I take a roll of B&W film along to almost every wedding I shoot. Even if I load it in its own Mamiya RB back, it has *never* gotten used due to "time constraints". Everyone is rush rush rush on their wedding days and most people are too bothered to consider doing pictures a few days beforehand to take some of the pressure off. So B&W, except for the high-end photographers with couples willing to take time off for a private session, has been replaced by "Panalure B&W" in my line of work for quite some time now. We have weddings going back to the '60s that are all color.
B&W was only around in papers because it was cheap, easy to develop under a wide range of conditions, and because a lot of papers were almost entirely B&W until the turn of the century. Remember when only the front page was in color, and usually only for special events? Even in the '90s, some figures I saw indicated that color negative film constituted over 90% of all film shot (as opposed to E6 and B&W), with most of that volume being generated by amateurs.
All the Photo I students in the world, 6x7cm Playboy nipple shots, and National Geographic photo correspondance, and newspaper football pictures in the world only made a maybe 5% dent in overall film consumption. When amateurs started to abandon film in favor of digital, it's no wonder that Kodak took notice that the other 90+% of its market was moving its monies elsewhere. The only thing that is keeping film alive right now is Hollywood's massive 9 billion foot/year film consumption. Frankly, it's charity for them to keep making anything in B&W or E6, when C-41 and movie films are the only two lines still making them money.
Sorry, but I really can't fathom how people think that the few hundred or few thousand feet of film they buy every year is significant compared with the billions of feet amateurs are no longer buying. How can pro photographers be so oblivous to the amateur machine that was and hopefully still will continue to fuel film coating?
I think the movie film industry is actually funding film coating. The trend in recent years is to release films all over the country at once, necessitating thousands of prints of every movie. This used to not be so. 35mm film runs at 90ft minute, so you can see that an average length feature can use up 10,000 ft. of film x 2400 prints= huge, huge film requirements. yep, it must be movies, even with the sloooooow adoption of digital projection, that is still providing the profit picture.
Well, I was talking about just still photography in the last paragraph of my post. I think still film consumption last year was "only" one or two billion feet of 35mm, don't remember OTOH.
Digital hasn't even caught on for television yet, and theatres, which make sometimes 0% of the profit the first week a film hits screens, are expected to sink a few hundred thousand in digital projectors. Riiiiiight. . . I'm just glad that Hollywood cinematographers aren't a bunch of cost-cutting scum, like the still photographers who think the only thing that makes a picture "better" is if it costs less to make. There's a group that actually care about the integrity of their images, even if they have to shoot such drivel as "Jason XCIX". At least they're well-lit, thoughtfully composed shots of gore and violence and implausible events.
Digital hasn't even caught on for television yet, and theatres, which make sometimes 0% of the profit the first week a film hits screens, are expected to sink a few hundred thousand in digital projectors. Riiiiiight. . . I'm just glad that Hollywood cinematographers aren't a bunch of cost-cutting scum, like the still photographers who think the only thing that makes a picture "better" is if it costs less to make. There's a group that actually care about the integrity of their images, even if they have to shoot such drivel as "Jason XCIX". At least they're well-lit, thoughtfully composed shots of gore and violence and implausible events.
Good points!
Around my neck of the woods, though, wedding photography is about 80/20 digital. You still do see some Mamiya RZ stuff around shooting film. Most wedding photographers in my area demand (and get) a 50% advance for the wedding and the customers demand to see proofs immediately.
That 80/20 ratio pretty much applies to the students as well.
Anyhow, there's no way I can challenge the statement that amatuers shoot far more film than pros do. I'd be interested in knowing where the ratios are skewed for pros vs amatuers on black and white, though.
If anybody's interested (and I don't want to presume too much) I can post a link that shows that although photographic use of silver has dropped from its peak level - it hasn't dropped anywhere near the extent you might suspect given the big drop in the use of still, pictorial film. There are obviously signficant uses for film beyond still picture, pictorial applications and they are holding up better.
There's a story I recall about Sofia Coppola having a conversation with her father about the shooting of "Lost in Translation". Francis Ford advised her that she had enough to worry about and that she should shoot it in DV.
She resisted, favoring the softer look of film. Very appropriate and undoubtedly the right decision. I think Lance Acord set back the Indie Posers and their Digital Video aspirations 10 years with that one film...
If I'm paying $9.50 for a movie ticket I think you'd better give me "the look of the light"...
DV still screams low budget as far as I'm concerned.
I was told this by someone who should be and seemed to be in the know.
The Kodak report is not surprising, but just disappointing.
People such as myself (who shoot almost exclusively transparencies) have been little or no help to Kodak because we have long ago switched over to Fuji Transparency fillms. Kodak still makes a very high quality transparency product and they have tried to bring many of us that are/were pros back into the fold.
I hope that they stay in this business because not only for their importance and long history, but I would like to have some competition and alternatives for Fuji Film transparency products. We need to have at least 2 main players to keep the other honest and to keep pricing from running wild and unchecked. I just hope that there is and will remain enough of an audience to keep both Giants going and running relatively smoothly for a long time to come.
Rich
People such as myself (who shoot almost exclusively transparencies) have been little or no help to Kodak because we have long ago switched over to Fuji Transparency fillms. Kodak still makes a very high quality transparency product and they have tried to bring many of us that are/were pros back into the fold.
I hope that they stay in this business because not only for their importance and long history, but I would like to have some competition and alternatives for Fuji Film transparency products. We need to have at least 2 main players to keep the other honest and to keep pricing from running wild and unchecked. I just hope that there is and will remain enough of an audience to keep both Giants going and running relatively smoothly for a long time to come.
Rich
See my post elsewhere. If Kodak divests itself of the film division the film unit will be better and stronger than ever.
PE
PE
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 858
- Format
- Multi Format
Your disclosure, not EK. What are your reasons for posting this, including why you are speculating so much on EK?
Your posting efforts are more prolific towards gloom and doom topics. If you are simply seriously over-worried about current conditions, then I can understand some anxiety. However, it does not seem that way to me, hence why I wonder about your posting efforts. If I am wrong, I apologize in advance.
I have to admit it - I blew it on this one.
No need to apologize. I agree I ran amok and veered of the road into speculation. It won't happen again.
I have nothing against Kodak. I do use quite a bit of Tri-X
Gloom and doom? That may be going a bit far, but I really think the continued availability of film and paper faces some very serious doubts. And I do think there are others with some fairly deep knowledge on this board that would share those concerns.
I dabbled in digital photography in 2001 and 2002 but have returned - almost exclusively - to traditional silver photography in early 2003. Since then I have used 6 films and 6 different papers extensively - never more than 2 or 3 of each at a time. And every one of those products - except for Kodak 400TX has been discontinued (e.g. Agfa APX 100/400, Kodak PolyContrast IV, and now Forte and Berrger) or faces that immediate prospect.
It's been very frustrating for me. I have put substantial time and effort into learning these different materials only to have to start over. Admittedly, I've learned enough now to make this easier but each of the discontinued products had something to offer me that has been difficult or impossible to replace.
It's difficult to make progress in your craft when this happens and it does reduce the enjoyment I derive from it. I know I'm not the only person who has faced these challenges.
Even so, I agree that I've gone a little too far. I think you'll find future posts from me are more constructive.
I was wrong here and I'm moving on. My thanks to everybody who pointed out my transgression here. I'm looking forward to being a more useful part of the community.
No need to apologize. I agree I ran amok and veered of the road into speculation. It won't happen again.
I have nothing against Kodak. I do use quite a bit of Tri-X
Gloom and doom? That may be going a bit far, but I really think the continued availability of film and paper faces some very serious doubts. And I do think there are others with some fairly deep knowledge on this board that would share those concerns.
I dabbled in digital photography in 2001 and 2002 but have returned - almost exclusively - to traditional silver photography in early 2003. Since then I have used 6 films and 6 different papers extensively - never more than 2 or 3 of each at a time. And every one of those products - except for Kodak 400TX has been discontinued (e.g. Agfa APX 100/400, Kodak PolyContrast IV, and now Forte and Berrger) or faces that immediate prospect.
It's been very frustrating for me. I have put substantial time and effort into learning these different materials only to have to start over. Admittedly, I've learned enough now to make this easier but each of the discontinued products had something to offer me that has been difficult or impossible to replace.
It's difficult to make progress in your craft when this happens and it does reduce the enjoyment I derive from it. I know I'm not the only person who has faced these challenges.
Even so, I agree that I've gone a little too far. I think you'll find future posts from me are more constructive.
I was wrong here and I'm moving on. My thanks to everybody who pointed out my transgression here. I'm looking forward to being a more useful part of the community.
I don't think Bergger is gone. Since they sub-contract out the manufacture of their products, they are in a position to find another source, and probably will. (Bergger had Forte make products for them).
It's probably a little early to completely write off Forte and Bergger but it doesn't look great.
There's a thread on largeformatphotography.info about Forte where a poster has contacted Bergger and been told that they are attempting to rescue Forte.
As PhotoEngineer and others have pointed out, it's very difficult to take emulsion coating recipes from Company X and transfer them to Company Y. I'm a little dubious about the "lore" of Bergger because Forte had products in its catalog before Bergger came along that seem awfully close to what is packaged under the Bergger label today.
But Forte was rescued once. Perhaps they are like a cat...
There's a thread on largeformatphotography.info about Forte where a poster has contacted Bergger and been told that they are attempting to rescue Forte.
As PhotoEngineer and others have pointed out, it's very difficult to take emulsion coating recipes from Company X and transfer them to Company Y. I'm a little dubious about the "lore" of Bergger because Forte had products in its catalog before Bergger came along that seem awfully close to what is packaged under the Bergger label today.
But Forte was rescued once. Perhaps they are like a cat...
| 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:  |