Kodak's statement regarding its B/W film

[André E.C.]

To that extent no company can ever be trusted. This means that we as customers must always evaluate the likelihood that any company will fulfill our needs present and future. When we make that evaluation, we have to buy accordingly. None of this is personal; it's just commercial reality....

I agree with this!

Cheers

André

 

[Michael Kadillak]

I find the attitude to dish Kodak highly problematic and miopic because of the simple fact that we desperately need every existing company to survive simply because it makes sense to have a diverse and competitive marketplace of photographic products and services to carry us successfully into the future. I completely understand anyone that feels abandoned by poor management decisions at Kodak but please, look at the bigger picture and let it go. Propagating ill feelings for any company is counterproductive for anyone truly interesting in promoting analog photography for the benefit of all users.

Can you imagine if Kodak were to fold how expensive Ilford film would quickly become and how much additional risk we as consumers would be faced with as to the future of sheet film? We would then have only one major manufacturer producing a modern emulsion and all of our eggs in essentially one basket.

Buy whatever film, photo products or chemicals you chose and promote photography to as many new people as possible. Additional photographers coming into the mix consume materials and that is the most important issue with the future of film. If I were new to photography and reading some of these truly negative comments I must tell you I would be questioning my willingness to enter this domain and that is not a good thing.

Smile - We are truly in a very good place.....

 

[Daniel Lawton]

I don't get that impression either. Steve has expressed his opinion, nothing more nothing less.

To be honest I think some, not all, photographers in the US have difficulty being objective when it comes to Kodak, because Kodak is their home company. I would probably be the same if Ilford were behaving as Kodak currently are.

Andy I respect your opinion and I know you are a smart fellow but is it necessary to drag this anti- U.S./nationalistic antagonism into every thread? I stated that I prefer mostly Ilford products for B+W. I'm not defending Kodak on the basis of being my "home company" but rather looking at it with a sense towards economics and realizing that Kodak is responding in a nearly identical manner as other large international photographic manufacturers who are feeling the pain. The only difference is that Perez is too dumb to understand the importance of consumer confidence and isn't doing nearly as good of a job sugarcoating the situation compared to some other companies. Every time a foreign manufacturer kills something off or goes under we hear nothing more than mourning and condolences, but when Kodak does something along the same lines its as if someone came along and killed our firstborn. I'll admit I'm guilty of not exactly having a rosy view towards Kodak when they killed paper but after cooling off my rational side took over and I realize that the analog community as a whole is better with Kodak, even in a reduced state.

 

[Andy K]

Daniel, what I said is not the least bit 'anti-US', you have not understood what I said. I simply stated a fact: some, (note that, SOME) US photographers find it difficult to be objective regarding Kodak because they (Kodak) are the 'home' film manufacturer for the US. I also said 'I would probably be the same if Ilford were behaving as Kodak currently are.' Meaning I would probably find it difficult to be objective if Ilford were doing the same as Kodak, because Ilford are my 'home' film manufacturer.

I can't spell it out any simpler than that.

 

[Daniel Lawton]

Andy, for all intents and purposes your post was directed at me so I felt obliged to respond. I know you can point to the literal meaning of your words and and use them in an ambigous manner but I really don't think that was your original intention. I take no offense but I felt I should clarify things. Nobody had mentioned anything about Americans and Kodak vs. Brits and Ilford but you seem to be a fan of rallying around this sort of thing.

 

[Andy K]

My words mean exactly what they say. The literal meaning is exactly that. You have obviously read what I have said in other threads. What makes you think I would now choose to be ambiguous? if I have something to say I will say it clearly and directly, I will not dress it up in ambiguities.

You can take what I have said in this thread as literal. I leave politics in the Soapbox. Period.

 

[johndeere]

I have no problems with what Steve stated as his opinion. I have worked to long in corporate America to believe any retired executive of any corporation. I have felt for some time now that Kodak did not have film customers in their long-term business plan. They are simply milking us for what they can get in the short run.

I only know what I like and I find that Kodak films do not give me the results that I want. Does this make them inferior? I am not going to go that far because I simply didn’t test beyond the results that were in front of me when compared with Ilford. To me Ilford was producing better and consistent results with my style and techniques of development.

While I have not phased out Kodak from my line up I have increase my use of Ilford products above 75%. I am still hooked on Kodak chemicals however after my current stockpile is used I will be switching. My long-term goal is to phase out Kodak by the end of the year.

I do believe it may be good for the analog crowd if we do loose a company such as Kodak. It will shift the customer base to the other markets making them stronger. By making these companies stronger we can help to earn additional resources that will be spent in developing improvements in the analog area. This will result in additional and better choices in the future.

Kodak has tagged their future on digital; Ilford & Fuji have tagged their future on us. It only makes good clear business sense that we do the same. Failing to understand this will only assure us that we may loose everything we want. Remember we must at times act like a business and do what is good for us.

Let Kodak go digital and the sooner the better for us all.

 

[srs5694]

That's the essence of business... especially large public corporations. Every large business has the dilemma of trying to please multiple constituencies.

Yes, but my point is that Kodak's spin for the different audiences is hugely different -- clockwise vs. counterclockwise, as it were. This difference is larger than I suspect is common. Certainly I can't think of any other examples that are as great ("film is dead" vs. "we're committed to film"), although I admit I'm not a corporate-watcher. Maybe I'm just out of touch with current corporate spin, though.

 

[srs5694]

I do believe it may be good for the analog crowd if we do loose a company such as Kodak. It will shift the customer base to the other markets making them stronger. By making these companies stronger we can help to earn additional resources that will be spent in developing improvements in the analog area. This will result in additional and better choices in the future.

Some numbers on all of this might be informative. What is the current worldwide market in film, paper, and chemicals, for both B&W and color? How has this changed over the past decade or two and what are the projections for how it will change in the future? How much market share does each of the players have? What are the manufacturing capacities of the various players, and at least as important, what is the minimum output that will keep their operations profitable?

I don't really expect answers to most of these questions to be posted here, or at most to a few of them, but if anybody's got pointers to hard data, I'd be interested in seeing them. These issues must be at the core of understanding the business side of the rapidly changing photographic market. My hunch is that the sum of the current minimum profitable operations of all the players is well over the near-future demand for worldwide analog photographic supplies, which means somebody else will have to exit the field. The question is how far the market will drop, and what possible combination of survivors will there be? Perhaps only the complete exit of another big player (I'd assume Kodak qualifies) will leave room for much in the way of competition and choice of materials -- or perhaps not, and future markets could sustain Kodak plus several competitors. I just don't know.

 

[waynecrider]

Ever notice the little blurbs of truth that come out every now and then from company spokespeople who did not have their brain engaged when speaking. It's almost like no matter what, the truth will come out in one way or another, and there's nothing they can do about it. I think this is what happened to Perez, and I believe him. Film is dead to them for whatever reason, (OK) except that is, as a revenue source till it peters out, and in the meantime the revenue will finance their debt, wages and real R&D. They'll also use the income to further promote their real business plan and I don't think it concerns film all that much, but who knows, I don't, it's just a feeling. And as so many have noted already, it is an economics thing, plain and simple. I agree with them 100%. It's the way business is; Too bad. It sucks, but it is, the way it is. Now I believe Kodak took that Tmax order for only one reason and that was to produce income, not to help out LF and ULF photographers. Cause if they really gave a dam about us they would have all along been asking alot more questions about what they could do to do so. So in the end they are a company that produces a product that hopefully will meet the needs of their customer base and will sell. If it doesn't they stop producing it and hopefully will have anticipated the market in order to have the next product available. No problem there for me cause it's just economics. But the companies, or stores, that show me that they actually give a rats ass about me as a consumer and are interested in what I say, and need, I'll support. Is it Kodak, Ilford, Fuji...who is it?

 

[esanford]

Yes, but my point is that Kodak's spin for the different audiences is hugely different -- clockwise vs. counterclockwise, as it were. This difference is larger than I suspect is common. Certainly I can't think of any other examples that are as great ("film is dead" vs. "we're committed to film"), although I admit I'm not a corporate-watcher. Maybe I'm just out of touch with current corporate spin, though.

You're just tied to film.... emotionally.... This is no different then any other company. Corporations don't exist to build loyalty. They exist to make profits. The growth of digital is huge beyond our collective imaginations. Kodak's CEO was providing assurances to those that are concerned about its ability to adapt to digital... plain and simple. Those are the ones that are going to spend the dollars. From an overall profitability standpoint, film is dead. That doesn't mean that Kodak won't keep making it. However, in the scheme of things... film is dead. You and I want film because it meets our needs. To the collective marketplace, film means virtually nothing. If Kodak doesn't adapt to digital, then it will fail in the eyes of the collective marketplace that is spending billions of "new dollars". It is those new dollars that will keep Kodak viable... not film.... sorry....

 

[MattKing]

It is true that corporations don't exist to build loyalty, but instead to build profits, but loyalty often results in profits too.

I best re-state my prejudices. As I have said before, I am a Kodak "brat". My father worked for Kodak Canada for 36 years, and it is his Kodak pension that allows my parents to enjoy a comfortable retirement.

I have near infant memories of wandering through a Kodak lab, after hours, while my father attended to some after hours task that might be expected of a middle level Kodak manager.

I have used Kodak products since I was 8 (more than 40 years). I have also used and appreciated Ilford products, and probably some others as well in the mists of time (Edwal FG7 and Rodinal come to mind).

My overwhelming impression of my father, and many of those who he worked with and who I had the good fortune to associate with, was that they cared about the Kodak products they represented, and cared about the customers whose interests they served.

Kodak is going through difficult, changing times, and in order to appease the capital market interests that they need to serve, they are saying things, and doing things, that make many of us who use some of the more traditional materials unhappy.

But even with that in mind, they are still a very large and important source of analogue photographic materials.

I would suggest, that rather than helping the likes of Ilford, Efke, Fuji et al, if Kodak's involvement in analogue photography disappears, then the blow to that industry will be crippling.

Competition with Kodak is good for Ilford, Efke, Fuji et al, because it helps keep the industry in the public eye.

There used to be tens or hundreds of millions of people shooting film. Huge numbers have left, for digital. Large numbers have remained, and new users are joining too.

If the numbers stabilize, and money can be made, it will not be long before the CEO of Kodak will be referring to that smaller, but still profitable film/analogue division as a source of revenue, profits and confidence, and pointing to the huge R & D advantage that that (smaller) division will still enjoy. Advertising of film/analogue products will resume/increase and all of Ilford, Efke, Fuji et al will benefit.

If the numbers do not stabilize, and the market continues to spiral down to a tiny, niche market, Kodak will leave, many if not most of the others will fail, and the doom and gloom prophesies will come true.

I would suggest that, if there are Kodak products you like to use, don't leave them because you don't like the corporation's spin on certain issues. Instead, continue to use them, and try to get someone new or returning to try them out too.

Supporting stability or growth in analogue photography will assist our needs. IMHO, advocating the abandonment of one of the largest players in the industry will not assist.

Matt

 

[haris]

"We" against "them"...

It comes to my mind one small car manufacturer, name "Morgan". They manufacture theire cars by order, hand made, very exclusive cars. And they are in business for very long time, over 70 years. On the other hand we have large companies like Ford or GM or Daimler or any other, which make different type of cars, and who know what else beside of cars. Difference is that that small company has very small production, manufacture very specific product for very small market, but they do theire job for long time. On the other hand those large manufacturers in first sign of loosing profit, or not loosing but if profit this years is smaller then profit of year before they fire tenth of thousands workers, close plants etc... and abandon theire "traditional" products. Not best comparation car manufacturing with photography product manufacturing, but maybe to show difference of small vs. big companies and theire commitment to customers vr. commitment to profit...

What I want to say. Kodak can, if they want, to continue to make paper, films, chamistry. Maybe with less profit, but they can. Question is if they want. In example of paper it is clear that they don't want. So, if they choose that increasing of profit is more important than loyality to customers, customers have one option. Me, as customer don't have to know what one company think, what they plan to do, theire media strategy, etc... For me only result is important. And if result is stopping of manufacturing product I use and buy, then why should I give a damn about that company. If I chose to stay loyal to that company, and start to use theire new product, they will abandon me again, and make me fool again. Learned from history of that company, if they fool me once, they will do that again. So, why should I care?Simple as that.

You can make fool of all people some time, or of some people all the time. But you can not make fool of all people all the time Sorry, couldn't ressist...

 

[esanford]

You can make fool of all people some time, or of some people all the time. But you can not make fool of all people all the time Sorry, couldn't ressist...

Although you may feel like a fool, Kodak did not make a fool of you. Kodak is responding to the market forces. You have a choice from whom to buy. You should buy from suppliers that you like and who meet your requirements.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I will say it again:

Film and paper is best made at high speed in huge volume. I can make B&W paper and film a little at a time in my DR and it is quite good. I cannot make color.

It is NOT like building a car. If the analog film market falls below a certain level, and given products vanish, they will be gone forever. Plants like EFKE have no chance of making a reputable color film for years, if ever, and even Ilford has refrained from entering that market.

If you count on analog products being around for the next 20 years, you may be dissapointed. IDK. I know that the situation is very grim in the traditional market.

PE

 

[eumenius]

Oh yeah, Kodak has a long record of direct shameless spitting on its customers... remember their great innovation, a disk film?

 

[haris]

I talked in general. I don't use Kodak products, so Kodak didn't make me fool...

 

[Photo Engineer]

Oh yeah, Kodak has a long record of direct shameless spitting on its customers... remember their great innovation, a disk film?

I agree that the disk camera was a piece of crap, but the consumer market ate it up for a while. It finally died when APS and disposable cameras came along and you see how much 'better' they are.

In defense of APS and the disposable camera though, all mfgrs have / had embraced those products, not just Kodak.

You cannot equate what the consumer wants with what we want, and that is another common error on this forum. The average consumer drives the photo market and probably loved Mr. Perez's comments. The average consumer probably didn't care one way or another about Fuji's comments. They certainly didn't care about Nikon leaving the conventional market, the demise of Bronica and etc etc etc.

Your point, while totally valid from one perspective, fails from another just showing that all things are related to the individuals POV.

PE

 

[Dinesh]

"Kodak is going through difficult, changing times, and in order to appease the capital market interests that they need to serve"

Agreed. Don't hate the playa, hate the game!

 

[MattKing]

I agree that the disk camera was a piece of crap, but the consumer market ate it up for a while. PE

PE:
Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the requirements of the disk camera one of the major impetuses for a fair amount of improvement in colour film technology?

Matt

 

[eumenius]

Yes, I cannot disagree with you - everything changes, and maybe people even loved their disk cameras... it was a real money deal for Kodak to make all these disk processors (with some kind of special rapid C-41, right?) and minilabs for disk films, and when the whole thing was abandoned that were the customers who paid well for all this cloud of yellow steam

I agree that the disk camera was a piece of crap, but the consumer market ate it up for a while. It finally died when APS and disposable cameras came along and you see how much 'better' they are.

Your point, while totally valid from one perspective, fails from another just showing that all things are related to the individuals POV.

PE

 

[Dave Parker]

I loved my Edsel to, but Ford dropped that like a hot potato, companies bring things out based on market research, sometimes it pans out for a while, then the public changes its mind, sometimes the test group ends up having entirly ideas than the actual market place does...I have bot alot of stuff in my life, that technology changed and it was no longer available, I bought big into the Laser Disk market, and it has been virtually abandoned here in the states and I had to wait until DVD burners became available to reduce my money loss on those!.

And what is really funny, is you can introduce something with superior qualities and it seems like almost every single time, the market with go for the inferior product!

Go Figure

Dave

 

[Photo Engineer]

PE:
Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the requirements of the disk camera one of the major impetuses for a fair amount of improvement in colour film technology?

Matt

Yes, the drive for improved disk pictures drove a lot of the newest film technology that Kodak had at the time. It caused significant innovation in both C41 and E6 films.

If good t-grain technology had existed, then we might not have seen disk die so quickly.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, I cannot disagree with you - everything changes, and maybe people even loved their disk cameras... it was a real money deal for Kodak to make all these disk processors (with some kind of special rapid C-41, right?) and minilabs for disk films, and when the whole thing was abandoned that were the customers who paid well for all this cloud of yellow steam

Well, several points here.

1. My kids loved the disk camera. The film was inexpensive and the prints were 'up to their standards' and I didn't have to buy an expensive camera for them either. They were representative of 'consumers'. My father-in-law loved 110 format, and the pictures he got with a top of the line camera were pretty good.

2. The photofinishers made a profit from disk film. It lasted more than long enough for them to amortize the costs of any changes they had to make, BUT please note this. Disk film was easily processed in any existing machine if you just added the special reel or rack, not by buying a whole new processor. You also needed one attachment for spinning the disks dry IIRC. As far as printing, you needed the masks and holders for both disk and 110 film.

You can probably still find 110 and disk equipment in the Jobo catalogs. They were one of the major suppliers of the processing equipment and dryers, along with Kodak. So, quite a few companies profited from this including Fuji.

Your claim that only Kodak made a profit is rather amusing. The entire photofinishing industry profited.

PE

 

[Samuel B]

FWIW I thought I might add some comments about this. I have spent the past 20 years working in various labs, mostly 1-hour mini-labs so I have seen first hand the decline in film. A year ago I would have said there would still be a reasonable amount of film still being used by the average consumer. But I now see that I was wrong in that judgement. In the past year the take up of digital cameras has just accelerated, and it doesn’t look like slowing down. Film consumption hasn’t stabilised yet, it continues to nose dive. Photographers of all levels have abandoned film. Film is going to be a much smaller market than it was. That’s the reality. It doesn’t matter how good your product is, if people don’t need it any more, it won’t sell. It’s a big challenge for all the film manufacturers to find a way forward.