Kodak's financial woes

BradleyK · Oct 9, 2011

lensworker said:
I was extremely discouraged to hear that Kodak appears to be on its last legs financially and may not survive as a company.

It was bad enough when Kodak ditched Tech Pan - and it was a tragedy when Kodachrome fell by the wayside. Now Tri-X and the entire Kodak product line of film, chemicals and paper appears to be in peril of extinction, along with the entire Kodak company.

How Kodak could go from a worth of $30 billion to today's estimate of $200 million is simply incomprehensible. Not all of that can be blamed on the advent of digital, it would seem. In a world where new emulsions are hitting the market and large format sheet film can still be found in a reasonable variety of sizes and emulsions, how is it possible that Tri-X is in danger of disappearing??

I'm just wondering what others who shoot Tri-X are going to do for film if Tri-X goes extinct.

Over to HP-5 in a heartbeat! I confess that Tri-X has been a favorite since time immemorial (it was the film we shot way back when in my student days), but, at least in part, much of the reason for the film's popularity had to be the availability of EK films. They were everywhere back in the day! I made the switch to Pan-F Plus and FP-4 as my medium format films of choice several years ago; adding HP-5 for my Leica food will be no great sacrifice...

benjiboy · Oct 9, 2011

The way the whole World's economy s are going on a downward spiral at the moment and no individuals or governments seem powerless to do anything about it is much more worrying to me than the state of Kodak's financial situation, because if it carry s on there will be many thousands of big companys going the same way.

lensworker · Oct 9, 2011

fstop said:
Not going to lose Kodak, there is too much money to be made from film,paper, etc sales.

I hope you are right - I'd hate for Tri-X to become extinct.

A couple of years back, I attended a workshop taught by a well known Magnum photographer. I asked him what he regarded as the best B&W film for street & documentary photography. His reply was "Kodak Tri-X is the best B&W film of all time."

Given the undoubted millions of images this gent has made in his 60+ years of making photographs, his Magnum membership and the books he's had published, his evaluation of Tri-X made an impression on me.

I've been shooting Tri-X ever since and have yet to regret that choice.

Photo Engineer · Oct 9, 2011

I hope that you realize that the film division at EK is doing well. If you abandon a working enterprise, you only push them into problems. So, do what you wish, but I hope you realize that you, and you alone are saying things that for the most part will end up furthering the woes at EK.

If your actions help "kill" Kodak, that just reduces the actors in the field by 1, and it will be a major player gone!

Good luck for the future.

PE

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 9, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
I hope that you realize that the film division at EK is doing well. If you abandon a working enterprise, you only push them into problems.

[...]

If your actions help "kill" Kodak...

By design I have been not substantively posting to this thread topic, as have many other longer time members after the last major Kodak eruption. No need to rehash my personal viewpoints on the subject that most of those members have already heard, and which have not changed.

That said, however, I can't let this pass without asking in good faith...

For years now we have heard that the film operations at Kodak are in dire - if not deathly - straits. Consumer film is almost extinct. Film distribution of motion pictures is almost extinct, or trending in that direction. Medical and scientific use of film is almost exinct.

We've also been told that this seismic (disruptive technology) shift figuratively occurred in near milliseconds. Film sales dropped a gazillion percent in only a few hours in 2008. No one could have forseen it. All film manufacturers suffered deeply because of it. And the condition never subsequently mitigated. It's now the new normal. It's never going to be like it was, or even anything remotely similar.

And one of the more prominent voices behind these viewpoints has been, well, you know who...

Now you're telling us that "...the film division at EK is doing well." And that if we "abandon a working enterprise, [we] only push them into problems."

Say what?

I'm now more than a little confused. We've heard for years that we remaining film consumers are pretty much inconsequential to Kodak's bottom line, and by extension to its (digital) future. So how can our actions one way or the other "help 'kill' Kodak..."

The understanding has been that consumer film users are mere gnats on Kodak's balance sheets. And that we gnats should just suck it up, quit tilting at windmills, and recognize that fact.

Can these seeingly opposing viewpoints on Kodak's current film condition possibly be reconciled?

Ken

tomalophicon · Oct 9, 2011

We must be making them money. they don't stuff T-max or Portra into cine cameras as far as I know. And definitely not rolls or sheet film.

semi-ambivalent · Oct 9, 2011

tomalophicon said:
...they don't stuff T-max or Portra into cine cameras as far as I know. And definitely not rolls or sheet film.

Correct. But cine film is still a roll, is still an emulsion coated stock and not a CMOS or a CCD, so it uses the "same" plant. There was a link posted here to some conference that interviewed some directors who were very big on film, on film's "look" in their productions. Their use of any type of film produced by Kodak improves the chances for the continued availability of, e.g., 35mm Tri-X. I don't see improvements in CMOS technology helping me as much, and if so then only indirectly.

I'd rather know how small a coating plant can be that still produces just enough film to satisfy the demand for its output, and if a plant that size can be run profitably. If that can be satisfied then I say spin it off as Eastman Kodak and run it 24/7. Let the digital side be run through the same calculus and spin it off as Kodak-whatever Inc. Film gets dibs on all the yellow stuff.

As a monolithic block the Kodak board can move money around to pay bills here and there and hide debt there and here. That's useful so I don't think any real clarity will come out of the whole mess for some time yet.

s-a

georg16nik · Oct 9, 2011

I have the greatest respect for PE humble way of keep communicating with APUG members, despite their under-exposed and under-developed attitude.
Kodak film is going to stay, so chill out folks, have some faith and buy some of that film.

tomalophicon · Oct 9, 2011

semi-ambivalent said:
Correct. But cine film is still a roll, is still an emulsion coated stock and not a CMOS or a CCD, so it uses the "same" plant. There was a link posted here to some conference that interviewed some directors who were very big on film, on film's "look" in their productions. Their use of any type of film produced by Kodak improves the chances for the continued availability of, e.g., 35mm Tri-X. I don't see improvements in CMOS technology helping me as much, and if so then only indirectly.

I'd rather know how small a coating plant can be that still produces just enough film to satisfy the demand for its output, and if a plant that size can be run profitably. If that can be satisfied then I say spin it off as Eastman Kodak and run it 24/7. Let the digital side be run through the same calculus and spin it off as Kodak-whatever Inc. Film gets dibs on all the yellow stuff.

As a monolithic block the Kodak board can move money around to pay bills here and there and hide debt there and here. That's useful so I don't think any real clarity will come out of the whole mess for some time yet.

s-a

Understood.

Photo Engineer · Oct 9, 2011

Ken Nadvornick said:
By design I have been not substantively posting to this thread topic, as have many other longer time members after the last major Kodak eruption. No need to rehash my personal viewpoints on the subject that most of those members have already heard, and which have not changed.

That said, however, I can't let this pass without asking in good faith...

For years now we have heard that the film operations at Kodak are in dire - if not deathly - straits. Consumer film is almost extinct. Film distribution of motion pictures is almost extinct, or trending in that direction. Medical and scientific use of film is almost exinct.

We've also been told that this seismic (disruptive technology) shift figuratively occurred in near milliseconds. Film sales dropped a gazillion percent in only a few hours in 2008. No one could have forseen it. All film manufacturers suffered deeply because of it. And the condition never subsequently mitigated. It's now the new normal. It's never going to be like it was, or even anything remotely similar.

And one of the more prominent voices behind these viewpoints has been, well, you know who...

Now you're telling us that "...the film division at EK is doing well." And that if we "abandon a working enterprise, [we] only push them into problems."

Say what?

I'm now more than a little confused. We've heard for years that we remaining film consumers are pretty much inconsequential to Kodak's bottom line, and by extension to its (digital) future. So how can our actions one way or the other "help 'kill' Kodak..."

The understanding has been that consumer film users are mere gnats on Kodak's balance sheets. And that we gnats should just suck it up, quit tilting at windmills, and recognize that fact.

Can these seeingly opposing viewpoints on Kodak's current film condition possibly be reconciled?

Ken

Interesting comments Ken;

I'm going to humbly reply (a la Georg! )

The Kodak film division is still selling film and making a profit. This is in spite of the economy and the rest of EK. There has been a big drop in sales, but in the end there is still a profit. It all goes to digital, not back into the film division!

So, we have a problem here. The albatross of digital is hanging around the neck of the film division making things more dire than they need to be in the current situation, and you all are going to jump ship! This will only make things worse.

So, in the first quarter of 2005, film sales dropped 35%. This is more than was predicted for the entire year. Agfa failed and Ilford had to reorganize. Kodak dropped paper products and had some layoffs. In 2008, the MP industry started going to digital, and the entire economy WW went sour. EK had another drop, a rather large one.

I think that in retrospect, the film division was doing well despite all of the impediments, but OTOH, they were doing poorly because of digital. Every year the demand for film goes down and down.

So Ken, this is a replay of several posts to explain what your gazillion in 2008 really amounted to and what years that took place in. It also explains (I hope) that all things are relative.

For example, I feel great today, for my age, but if I felt this way 50 years ago, I would check into a hospital!!!!! Understand?

PE

CGW · Oct 9, 2011

For example, I feel great today, for my age, but if I felt this way 50 years ago, I would check into a hospital!!!!! Understand?

Eubie Blake once said had he known he would live so long he would have taken better care of himself.

semi-ambivalent · Oct 9, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
I think that in retrospect, the film division was doing well despite all of the impediments, but OTOH, they were doing poorly because of digital.

Along this line (and the ship might have already sailed on this one) it might help film or EK in general if EK hired an ad firm (like Chiat Day?) that did campaigns for Apple or Volkswagen. Somebody really creative. Big Box retail in general and the likes of Walmart have for years driven home the idea that quality is irrelevant; price and convenience are the only criteria. Film is not only cool and neat and fun but, within its constructs, it is superlative to digital. If Kodak does not press the message here then it stands to lose those (re-)discovering film, cine and still. If film is profitable then EK needs those profits more than ever for elsewhere in the ledger.

I'm shutting up now on this topic.

s-a

CGW · Oct 9, 2011

semi-ambivalent said:
Along this line (and the ship might have already sailed on this one) it might help film or EK in general if EK hired an ad firm (like Chiat Day?) that did campaigns for Apple or Volkswagen. Somebody really creative. Big Box retail in general and the likes of Walmart have for years driven home the idea that quality is irrelevant; price and convenience are the only criteria. Film is not only cool and neat and fun but, within its constructs, it is superlative to digital. If Kodak does not press the message here then it stands to lose those (re-)discovering film, cine and still. If film is profitable then EK needs those profits more than ever for elsewhere in the ledger.

I'm shutting up now on this topic.

s-a

It's not cool to lose money. The jury's in. Film isn't selling because demand tanked. The "field of dreams" scheme just doesn't hunt. Rows of film on hooks where none hung for several years wouldn't suddenly vanish with cries for more. C'mon.

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 9, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
The Kodak film division is still selling film and making a profit.

CGW said:
The jury's in. Film isn't selling because demand tanked.

I absolutely must stop right here. My photo therapist is already going to be furious with me for posting about this. She successfully had me all the way down the list to that final step of resignation and acceptance regarding Kodak.

Now look what I've gone and done. Regressed. Fallen off the wagon. Caught with the needle in my arm.

She pleaded with me to stop trying to apply logic and common sense to the Kodak situation. She warned me that to continue to do so would only mean falling back into that endless hell of trying to reconcile statements like the above. And that meant more and more Kodak posts until my life was a living nightmare once again.

It no longer matters about Kodak, she said. It's OK. Let it go. Ilford is your friend, she told me over and over. Your very good friend. Go towards that light, Ken. Go...

I absolutely must stop right here..

Ken

tomalophicon · Oct 9, 2011

We need a reality show where some idiot with big boobies shoots lots of Kodak film on the beach while muscle-bound footy heads show off for the camera. Then film will really start selling well.

Aristophanes · Oct 9, 2011

Kodak's film problem is share price and bankruptcy. Spinning off film is a problem as there is a demand measure lacking. There are virtually no new film cameras manufactured or selling. Future demand for film is unknown, but with no new delivery system, it must be assumed that it's potential return is zero. So an investment or spin-off venture capital may not be forthcoming save in vulture form. Even profitable product lines can have the plug pulled early. That's the worry.

tomalophicon · Oct 9, 2011

Aristophanes said:
Kodak's film problem is share price and bankruptcy. Spinning off film is a problem as there is a demand measure lacking. There are virtually no new film cameras manufactured or selling. Future demand for film is unknown, but with no new delivery system, it must be assumed that it's potential return is zero. So an investment or spin-off venture capital may not be forthcoming save in vulture form. Even profitable product lines can have the plug pulled early. That's the worry.

Do you have concrete figures?

I wonder how many Leicas, Voigtlanders (Zeiss Ikon), Fujis, Holgas and Dianas (not to mention all the rest) are selling, around the world, on a daily basis. I reckon there would be a very LARGE number of them moving.

MattKing · Oct 9, 2011

I was talking to the counter-person at my lab (ABC Photocolour) in Vancouver last week. We were talking about the revamp they were planning as a result of their coming move and new ownership. No worry there about reduction of analogue services but they were looking at updating their website, including and emphasizing more digital and hybrid services and "bundling" more services together.

We were talking about the idea of package prices for develop, proof and scans for 120 and 35mm (I hate scanning, but sometimes need both prints and scans). The ABC person said that it wouldn't work well for a lot of 120 work, because so much of what they were receiving originated on Holga or other toy cameras, and the customers preferred to be able to reject the majority of the shots in favour of the 1-3 that sort of worked out.

????

Photo Engineer · Oct 9, 2011

Ken Nadvornick said:
I absolutely must stop right here. My photo therapist is already going to be furious with me for posting about this. She successfully had me all the way down the list to that final step of resignation and acceptance regarding Kodak.

Now look what I've gone and done. Regressed. Fallen off the wagon. Caught with the needle in my arm.

She pleaded with me to stop trying to apply logic and common sense to the Kodak situation. She warned me that to continue to do so would only mean falling back into that endless hell of trying to reconcile statements like the above. And that meant more and more Kodak posts until my life was a living nightmare once again.

It no longer matters about Kodak, she said. It's OK. Let it go. Ilford is your friend, she told me over and over. Your very good friend. Go towards that light, Ken. Go...

I absolutely must stop right here..

Ken

Ken;

My therapist said not to answer you!

Now look what you have done!

PE

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 9, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
Ken;

My therapist said not to answer you!

Now look what you have done!

PE

Yeah, Ron. We're like a couple of junkies huddling together on a freezing rainy night under the freeway overpass. Furtively posting opposing views about Kodak on stolen digital gizmo thingies. Hoping the cops don't show up with flashights. Hoping our wives and kids don't come looking for us. And hoping most of all that our therapists don't happen to drive by. God, what would we say? What could we say?

Kodak has made each of our lives into that feared living hell - albeit in very different ways. It wasn't supposed to end up like this. I'm so glad Mom never lived to see it...

Ken

jun · Oct 9, 2011

tomalophicon said:
Do you have concrete figures?

I wonder how many Leicas, Voigtlanders (Zeiss Ikon), Fujis, Holgas and Dianas (not to mention all the rest) are selling, around the world, on a daily basis. I reckon there would be a very LARGE number of them moving.

Well, actually it should be very low for a new film camera(not including toy cameras).
Only have a info for film cameras made in Japan in January 2008, since CIPA quit taking statistics of film camera after Jan 2008, saying it is insignificant.

Total of all film cameras produced in the month of January 2008 is 1580 ea

http://www.cipa.jp/data/pdf/s_200801.pdf

So today?

Well there is lot of very good old but great used cameras right?

tomalophicon · Oct 9, 2011

Jun, thanks. It's a pita CIPA stopped taking notice.

Toy cameras would sell a lot more than that.

fstop · Oct 10, 2011

Its looking like the industry quit the film business, not that users quit using film.They drove themselves to this point.Want to know why there are so many mini vans and SUVs blocking the highways? The car makers drove (no pun intended) the market as much if not more, than following it, through advertising.

This is like a car company that stopped production on a model because it was only selling 120,000 units a year with a gross revenue of over 2 billion because there was not enough money in it.

tomalophicon · Oct 10, 2011

fstop said:
Its looking like the industry quit the film business, not that users quit using film.They drove themselves to this point.Want to know why there are so many mini vans and SUVs blocking the highways? The car makers drove (no pun intended) the market as much if not more, than following it, through advertising.

This is like a car company that stopped production on a model because it was only selling 120,000 units a year with a gross revenue of over 2 billion because there was not enough money in it.

Huh? Who's quit the film business now?

railwayman3 · Oct 10, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
I hope that you realize that the film division at EK is doing well. If you abandon a working enterprise, you only push them into problems. So, do what you wish, but I hope you realize that you, and you alone are saying things that for the most part will end up furthering the woes at EK.

If your actions help "kill" Kodak, that just reduces the actors in the field by 1, and it will be a major player gone!

Good luck for the future.

PE

I thought it would be our fault in the end.

After all, we're the customers...I have used Kodak films and papers (as my Dad and Grandad did since the 1940's), and have continued to buy as much as I needed and can afford up until now. These products have gradually been withdrawn from the market one-by-one....we're concerned by the loss of these, and we discuss what might be available from other manufacturers to replace them. And we're sad to see a great World company struggling.

Ah, well, there you go.

Kodak's financial woes

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency