Kodak Warning + Later Clarification

[pbromaghin]

Now what?
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/08/12/business/kodak-survival-warning

{Moderator Note: we have updated the thread title, based on later clarifications|

 

[BrianShaw]

That news is both a surprise and not a surprise all at the same time. Will be interesting to watch. Not unlike Polaroid in some ways…

 

[Alex Benjamin]

We let it die. This company has been plagued for quite a while now with such a huge lack of leadership and vision, as well as with a propensity towards pure improvisation — KodakCoin and Kodak Pharmaceuticals... Yeah, right — that, despite its history, it doesn't deserve to be kept artificially alive.

And it should sell all its film-related patents to another company that will take better care of them.

 

[koraks]

And it should sell all its film-related patents to another company that will take better care of them.

But patents don't produce film. People and physical infrastructure do.

 

[chuckroast]

But patents don't produce film. People and physical infrastructure do.

Judging from what I am seeing with SHD100, Lucky might be a worth heir.

 

[halfaman]

It is not the first time Kodak faces similar obligations.of similar ammount in the last 10 years, so it is not the first time I read this "the end is coming" type of news. Let's see this one...

 

[Alex Benjamin]

But patents don't produce film. People and physical infrastructure do.

That's what I meant. Let other people produce the stuff.

 

[koraks]

That's what I meant. Let other people produce the stuff.

I understand what you meant. I pointed towards industrial reality. Knowledge transfer doesn't consist of putting patents into a box and shipping them halfway across the globe.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Knowledge transfer doesn't consist of putting patents into a box and shipping them halfway across the globe.

And of course I know that.

But since this whole subject lives in that wonderful realm where hypothesis, assumption, presumption and presupposition all meet for one big "Let's Guess the Future" party, I knew it was OK to take a massive shortcut to get from A to B .

More fun than the alternative, which is us all sitting around the Kodak funeral pyre, holding hands and singing:

 

[warden]

I doubt they will ever be able to dig out from under this pension plan obligation given the amount of film that sells today. Perhaps the best thing is to cease operations and hope that a collection of Hollywood moguls like Quentin Tarantino and friends can purchase the assets but not the obligations and resume operations in Rochester somehow.

Unlikely, I know. But I’m really going to miss them if they go. They make the good stuff.

 

[koraks]

But since this whole subject lives in that wonderful realm where hypothesis, assumption, presumption and presupposition all meet for one big "Let's Guess the Future" party, I knew it was OK to take a massive shortcut to get from A to B

And I understand that. Then again, if I make a remark about, let's say art history, you're bound to correct me if I'm too haphazard. Since your remark now happens to be in my field of work, well, I thought I'd at least point out that A and B aren't really linked with recognizable line. Without wanting to write a thesis on it. Oh no, not again.

 

[pentaxuser]

I understand what you meant. I pointed towards industrial reality. Knowledge transfer doesn't consist of putting patents into a box and shipping them halfway across the globe.

Yes if it did then I suspect Harman might be further forward with its Phoenix film. If Kodak were to fold I really wonder how long we might wait for comparable C41 production As things stand I fear the answer might be "forever"

pentaxuser

 

[albireo]

Unlikely, I know. But I’m really going to miss them if they go. They make the good stuff.

They really do. I just happen to have recently discovered their Tri-X film. The hype is justified. What an exceptional product.

 

[Milpool]

Great. Well that would/will be the official end of film/darkroom for me. Time to finally make the digital transition, I guess.

 

[chuckroast]

Great. Well that would/will be the official end of this hobby for me. Time to finally make the digital transition.

With respect, this may be a bit premature because ...

• As someone pointed out, Kodak goes through this cycle periodically to restructure its debt.
  
  
• They can declare bankruptcy and get out from under their pension obligations. I watched this happen at United Airlines with friends of mine. What happens is that the government steps in to run the pension program and the company in question is off the hook behind the bankruptcy. The big downside of this is that the employees to not get anything near the full pension promised. Well that, and the taxpayers have to eat the costs, at least in part.
  
  
• Kodak hasn't made paper in years so there is no further loss there.
  
  
• Film is widely available from global sources.
  
  
• Most monochrome chemistry can easily be found from other vendors and/or mixed in your own darkroom with a minimal investment in safety and mixing equipment. Kodak's chemical quality control problems had me moving that way anyway.
  
  
• The only real loss here would be Tmax and Tri-X for monochrome shooters, and the various C-41, E6 emulsions still made by Kodak. While I know the colour films have a faithful following, realistically, digital has pretty much replaced what they do and the scale of users for these films appear to me to be far smaller than for monochrome.
  
  
• Hollyweird may come to the rescue on the film front, you never know.
  
  
• Note that high end camera brands like Leica have a vested interest in having people continue to buy their toys. You never know what they might do. Leica Eastman, anyone? Note that they are already partnering with Adox (?) to sell Leica branded film.

The end is not nigh.

P.S. As to digital, you can buy a LOT of non-Kodak film and paper (even if you are in the US paying tariffs) for the cost of an a good digital camera, monitor, colorimeter, and printer ...

 

[warden]

Great. Well that would/will be the official end of film/darkroom for me. Time to finally make the digital transition, I guess.

Noooooooooo!

 

[albireo]

Can someone remind me again about the Kodak Alaris/Kodak Eastman difference? Who actually manufactures, markets and distributes their film, and is the film-side of their larger business likely to be impacted by the above?

 

[BrianShaw]

Can someone remind me again about the Kodak Alaris/Kodak Eastman difference? Who actually manufactures, markets and distributes their film, and is the film-side of their larger business likely to be impacted by the above?

Search results for query: kodak alaris

www.photrio.com

 

[koraks]

Time to finally make the digital transition, I guess.

Come on over to the dark side. We've got cookies and whatnot.

Can someone remind me again about the Kodak Alaris/Kodak Eastman difference?

Eastman makes film - all of it. Alaris makes none. Alaris distributes the still film. Eastman distributes the cine film.
Both companies do loads of other things and have film as a minor part of their respective revenue streams.

 

[KyleMika]

Maybe I can hope that Harman would acquire the film business for cheap, but that is probably just wishful thinking.

 

[koraks]

Maybe I can hope that Harman would acquire the film business for cheap, but that is probably just wishful thinking.

When someone says something like this, I always have to picture a gigantic excavator that picks up the Kodak film coating line including the bedrock several dozens of feet down below floor level and cart it over to another continent. Then drop it into place in the outskirts of Mobberley as some blokes pop into the nearest pub to pick up some workers and hand out blue and white lab coats left and right and hey presto - film is reborn!

That's of course kind of facetious - although I find it mostly an amusing mental picture. A more realistic scenario that could play out is that if Eastman folds, it'll be split up into a couple of parts that roughly align to certain activities. The inkjet business can become a business and everything related to film and other thin media manufacturing and coating could become a business as well. That film-business (which would revolve only in part around photographic film) would then be acquired by a suitable candidate. Harman is evidently far too small. There's an off chance that someone might be able to recombine Alaris and the film part of Eastman into a single business. Most likely, a similar venture capitalist to the present owners of Harman and Alaris would grab up the Eastman film business and try to milk it as best as they can. The short-term impact of such a scenario could well be relatively little change for us. In the long term, of course, as always, all bets are off.

That's still a frighteningly short line from A to a possible B, btw.

 

[chuckroast]

When someone says something like this, I always have to picture a gigantic excavator that picks up the Kodak film coating line including the bedrock several dozens of feet down below floor level and cart it over to another continent. Then drop it into place in the outskirts of Mobberley as some blokes pop into the nearest pub to pick up some workers and hand out blue and white lab coats left and right and hey presto - film is reborn!

That's of course kind of facetious - although I find it mostly an amusing mental picture. A more realistic scenario that could play out is that if Eastman folds, it'll be split up into a couple of parts that roughly align to certain activities. The inkjet business can become a business and everything related to film and other thin media manufacturing and coating could become a business as well. That film-business (which would revolve only in part around photographic film) would then be acquired by a suitable candidate. Harman is evidently far too small. There's an off chance that someone might be able to recombine Alaris and the film part of Eastman into a single business. Most likely, a similar venture capitalist to the present owners of Harman and Alaris would grab up the Eastman film business and try to milk it as best as they can. The short-term impact of such a scenario could well be relatively little change for us. In the long term, of course, as always, all bets are off.

That's still a frighteningly short line from A to a possible B, btw.

As much as I approve of quaffing pub bitter, I rather think the more likely line would be your second scenario

Harmon, Adox, Foma, et al could get together to do some kind of Private Equity buyout, sharing the profits (if any), but more importantly, the coating technology and lab spaces.

 

[Milpool]

With respect, this may be a bit premature because ...

• As someone pointed out, Kodak goes through this cycle periodically to restructure its debt.
  
  
• They can declare bankruptcy and get out from under their pension obligations. I watched this happen at United Airlines with friends of mine. What happens is that the government steps in to run the pension program and the company in question is off the hook behind the bankruptcy. The big downside of this is that the employees to not get anything near the full pension promised. Well that, and the taxpayers have to eat the costs, at least in part.
  
  
• Kodak hasn't made paper in years so there is no further loss there.
  
  
• Film is widely available from global sources.
  
  
• Most monochrome chemistry can easily be found from other vendors and/or mixed in your own darkroom with a minimal investment in safety and mixing equipment. Kodak's chemical quality control problems had me moving that way anyway.
  
  
• The only real loss here would be Tmax and Tri-X for monochrome shooters, and the various C-41, E6 emulsions still made by Kodak. While I know the colour films have a faithful following, realistically, digital has pretty much replaced what they do and the scale of users for these films appear to me to be far smaller than for monochrome.
  
  
• Hollyweird may come to the rescue on the film front, you never know.
  
  
• Note that high end camera brands like Leica have a vested interest in having people continue to buy their toys. You never know what they might do. Leica Eastman, anyone? Note that they are already partnering with Adox (?) to sell Leica branded film.

The end is not nigh.

P.S. As to digital, you can buy a LOT of non-Kodak film and paper (even if you are in the US paying tariffs) for the cost of an a good digital camera, monitor, colorimeter, and printer ...

I hope you are right on the first point.

The chemicals are not an issue for me and EK doesn’t make those anyway. It would certainly be the end of colour film for me although I should have transitioned to digital colour anyway. I’ve hung on this long because I’m a very low volume shooter so I’ve been able to stomach the high prices, sort of. B&W film, Kodak is my favourite for both LF and 35mm. I could use Delta 100 but I think if EK goes down all things considered I’m probably done. With the price of Ilford paper and everything this would be the final depressing kick in the 4ss I need to get into digital / inkjet.

 

[Milpool]

Can someone remind me again about the Kodak Alaris/Kodak Eastman difference? Who actually manufactures, markets and distributes their film, and is the film-side of their larger business likely to be impacted by the above?

Eastman Kodak makes all the film.

 

[ChrisGalway]

....

• The only real loss here would be Tmax and Tri-X for monochrome shooters, and the various C-41, E6 emulsions still made by Kodak. While I know the colour films have a faithful following, realistically, digital has pretty much replaced what they do and the scale of users for these films appear to me to be far smaller than for monochrome.
  
  
• ...

"scale of users for these films appear to me to be far smaller than for monochrome." Is this true? Yes, colour slides are a very niche area, but I thought colour negatives were big ... that was part of the motivation for the Harman activity. Any one got any numbers?