That is most likely in response to the newest tranche of lay-offs and the negative outlook in the forward estimates. All spin and whip with nothing to show after all this time.
Shares taking another pounding today, -5.5%.
...If other posters are correct, Kodak's fall will take the rest of the industry with it. Surely thats not the case?
If Kodak falls I doubt Kodak will take the rest of the industry with it. However, it might be a severe blow to some segments of the industry
I dont see how you can say that. There was a nearly 30 million dollar swing to the negative for Kodak's Consumer and Film division.
AgX said 'Print Film'. Your agenda seems incapable of understanding that perhaps Kodak is very well aware of the major decline in the distribution of cinema films as physical prints from the hundreds of thousands or more per annum to perhaps a couple of hundred for special/ early releases. It's likely that 2383/ 3383 are now being made in smaller batches perhaps a couple of times a year. Maybe, just maybe they had planned for this scaled reduction & executed it and that this is a large part of the shrinkage you seem obsessed with.
Cool. Listening to it right now. So far (12 minutes in) it's good background and interesting basic chatter on photography in general. Typical podcast for the nontechnical and relatively inexperienced audience. Well produced for what it is. I sure hope it gets into some of the technical details and challenges... and schedule... and expected pricing... andThe podcast is now online!
Dead Link Removed
If Ektachrome comes back, it is a suicide move, so the sky is falling. If it does not come back, it means Kodak is at the end, so the sky is falling. It seems there is no escape from the doom.
If Kodak falls I doubt Kodak will take the rest of the industry with it. However, it might be a severe blow to some segments of the industry
My thinking is that it will be Fujifilm that exits before Kodak.
Whenever we talk about Kodak, usually in terms of gloom and doom, someone or indeed several parties talk of its inability to downsize and thus its difficulties to cut costs vis a vis the lower demand. The best example of this is the argument promulgated to justify the cost of its bulk rolls v its cassette film. Put simply, I believe the argument says it is the way it produces bulk rolls that prevents it from lowering cost enough to make it possible to compete in price with its same films in the form of cassettes.
I wonder at what point Kodak will either have to decide to try and downsize close to or closer to the size of Ilford to survive or decide that the cost of downsizing outweighs the revenue from that lower demand and therefore stop film production.
pentaxuser
While they have to sell off the film before it goes out of spec, which might come into play, I understood from the podcast that it is the capital outlay that is too high when it takes too long to sell the complete (too large) batch.it would seem likely that previous withdrawals had to do with scaling/ redesigning being too expensive or that demand had dropped below a minimum of one master roll per 18-24 months or whatever length of time Kodak feel is OK before fogging becomes sensitometrically unacceptable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?