Kodak's financial woes

[CGW]

GCW - mid 90's?? Heck, I gave up on Kodachrome twenty years before that, and so did a lot of other
serious shooters due to unreliable processing. Velvia didn't even exist then, and no E-6 film had anywhere near the neutrality orfine grain as Kodachrome. If you wanted to do it right, you shot sheet film anyway (I still do).

Kodachrome sheet film was killed in the early 50s and 120 was available between '86-'96.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Try this: http://nightowltrader.blogspot.com/2011/09/rise-and-fall-of-eastman-kodak.html

 

[Aristophanes]

Try this: http://nightowltrader.blogspot.com/2011/09/rise-and-fall-of-eastman-kodak.html

Brilliant analysis. Kodak is almost certainly going to be forced by creditors into bankruptcy, in part to change management. Whether the subsequent breakup will mean the end of roll film production is a big question. Clearly the current folks are not capable of salvaging the film legacy as a biz. But some middle managers must be capable; the same guys who lobbied for Portra 160/400 to be a main, consolidated product.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Try this: http://nightowltrader.blogspot.com/2011/09/rise-and-fall-of-eastman-kodak.html

All kidding around aside Ron, I can't even imagine how sad and probably angry this situation must make you feel at times...



Ken

 

[Photo Engineer]

You have no idea, Ken.

PE

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You have no idea, Ken.

PE

It's so sad, R. Can't imagine what must be going through your mind.

Reading the blog entry you linked above just makes me mad that nobody can bring it to the table of completely shaking up management. Where is the board of directors? Were they all hand picked by Perez? How can they let this go on? It's completely unfathomable.

 

[waynecrider]

After reading the article above you would have to think that the original intention was to dismantle the company so let's believe it is corporate espionage, as that's the only thing that makes sense. I know people with only high school educations that are smarter and wouldn't make those mistakes; Their just dumb ass stupid.

I suppose next they'll sell the film division. Want to chip in?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have my thoughts on what is going on behind the scenes, but I don't want to put it in writing. I think all of you are smart enough to puzzle it out.

And NO, I would never want to manage the film division at EK. I think Bob Shanebrook would though. He used to do that kind of thing! Read his book to get a perspective of the operation.

PE

 

[railwayman3]

A very interesting and apparently authoratative article. I wasn't aware of a lot of the deals and facts quoted.

The Kodak factory at Annesley, near Nottingham, was about 8 miles from where I live in the UK. It opening in 1992 and was awarded "Factory of the Year":-

http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/ne...-Factory-Year-Winner---Kodak/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH

It closed in 2004 and was ripped down...the news report said it yielded 2000 tons of scrap and 30,000 tons of rubble. And 350 people out of their jobs.

Every time I went on the main M1 Motorway, there were Kodak trucks to be seen going to and from the Harrow works with film to be finished at Annesley; I still have Ektachrome cartons printed "Film made in the UK, finished and packed at Annesley, Nottingham, England, by Kodak Ltd."

Oddly the Kodak website still seems to show the factory as working!

http://wwwuk.kodak.com/UK/en/corp/manufacture.jhtml?id=0.1.4.16&lc=en

 

[Photo Engineer]

The article said it celebrated its 25th anniversary. Are you sure it opened in 1992?

PE

 

[railwayman3]

The article said it celebrated its 25th anniversary. Are you sure it opened in 1992?

PE

Sorry, I missed some words...I meant to say it opened in 1980, and in 1992 it was awarded "factory of the year". I think that the doors were finally closed and locked for the last time in autumn 2005, so it probably just made the 25th Anniversary.

I wasn't making any particular point, just historic interest...certainly 1980 was a time when the film and analog markets were at their height, whereas by 2005 I can fully accept that times really had changed and that a factory of that size had served its purpose. I know the Unions protested at the closure, but I think that the local authorities, etc., in the area understood and accepted the decision.

I remember that the original opening was greatly welcomed in the area as, at that time, the main staple industries around Nottingham were coal mining and textiles. These almost totally disappeared in the late 70's and early 80's, so there was a great amount of unemployment at that time.

I don't know if Harrow continued film coating, or took over the finishing and packing when Annesley closed; all films in recent years seem to have been labelled as Made in USA, with some also "finished and packed in Mexico".

 

[Photo Engineer]

Harrow, to my knowledge, is still coating Endura paper. That's it! They also finish and pack it.

My concern for the date was to show that Kodak did open this plant at a time when they were producing a lot of products and needed a lot of capacity. In fact, the article commented on the 65,000 employees WW which was actually low for the 80s. It was more like 120,000 then.

Well, the point being that Kodak did open it in a time of need and was kept in action until everything imploded. The plant had a lifetime of 25 years.

And, they helped the area recover for the time that they were in production there.

PE

 

[artonpaper]

It seems that Kodak went from a photographic company that cared about its products, customers, and employees, to just another corporate entity that cared for little more than the bottom line. Their films have been my favorites, but I'll survive without them. Berrger and Efke, assuming they survive make OK films, preferable to Ilford's, IMHO.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

It seems that Kodak went from a photographic company that cared about its products, customers, and employees, to just another corporate entity that cared for little more than the bottom line. Their films have been my favorites, but I'll survive without them. Berrger and Efke, assuming they survive make OK films, preferable to Ilford's, IMHO.

Bergger is not a manufacturer. They are a re-packager and have OEM films made for them by others. I believe that Ilford/Harman is one such OEM manufacturer for Bergger.

 

[georg16nik]

We have to stay positive. All film businesses need Kodak to be alive and kicking!
The market might be small but it ain't going to evaporate just like that.
PE and his colleagues all over the world should stay healthy and in good spirit.

 

[railwayman3]

Well, the point being that Kodak did open it in a time of need and was kept in action until everything imploded. The plant had a lifetime of 25 years.

And, they helped the area recover for the time that they were in production there.

PE

That is entirely true, the factory certainly gave employment at a time of need, and, although it has gone, the area has been redeveloped for smaller industry of various kinds. The need for the closure was largely accepted locally, and I think that even the Union resistance was something of a token gesture.

Interestingly, some lakes which were part of the landscaping still remain and are used for fishing....and know locally as the "Kodak Lakes".
http://www.nottinghamanglers.co.uk/kodak-lakes-annesley.html

 

[railwayman3]

It seems that Kodak went from a photographic company that cared about its products, customers, and employees, to just another corporate entity that cared for little more than the bottom line. Their films have been my favorites, but I'll survive without them. Berrger and Efke, assuming they survive make OK films, preferable to Ilford's, IMHO.

That's a bit harsh and simplistic, IMHO. I've been the first to criticise Kodak in the last couple of years, but, with the further knowledge and information, I think that it's become obvious that the problem is a loss of direction at the top rather than a deliberate change in attitude by the rest of the company.

I don't know Berrger products, but I've used Efke and, while they make interesting films which are useful at times for artistic and particular "old-fashioned" effects, I always go back to Ilford and Kodak for consistent and reliable "modern" quality. (For some reason, I also never quite seem to be able to settle comfortably with Fuji films. No doubt down to my preferences and way of working than any question of "better or worse films".)

 

[Photo Engineer]

Very nice scenery. Thanks.

PE

 

[CGW]

The Kodak Canada ruins weren't as picturesque:

http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/07/the_end_of_kodachrome_and_the_death_of_kodak_heights/

 

[OzJohn]

On the subject of lakes but nothing to do with Kodak, is it true that to this day there is a Lake Agfa in NY state somewhere close to Binghampton? I thought I read somewhere that it was developed as a recreation reserve for employees of Ansco when that company was owned by Agfa/IG Farben and before the US government seized it as an enemy asset during WW2. OzJohn

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Kodak tries again...

Kodak Wants to Print Your Facebook Pictures for Free
By Zachary Sniderman, Mashable, via Yahoo! News, October 21, 2011

"Kodak's promotion, which runs until Oct. 23, is also part of the legendary photo company's attempt to stay relevant in the digital era."

Not sure that free is going to help. Not sure their target demographic would accept anything less. If you think about it, that really does sum up the dilemma.

Ken