Plus-x 35mm will be discontinued.

[MattKing]

Dear All,

A few facts to go with the speculation :

Yes, as Steven Brierley has said our film sales are up in 2011, we put this down to maintaining the range, all films and all formats and no deletions:

We never 'dump' or 'over produce' we make film every month, as much as we need.

We have ALWAYS run promotions, all over the world, these add value to our products, its called marketing and promotion, we have done it for years and we will continue to do it, on film and paper products.

Our market share for monochrome paper overtook KODAK's in the 90's long before they withdrew from the paper market.

HARMAN technology is focussed on monochrome photographic products, we are profitable and we remain profitable, whilst we are a private limited company our full accounts are always ( for a fee ) available from companies house in the UK.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Thanks Simon.

Maybe you should consider adding "A few facts to go with the speculation:" to your signature line.

 

[cmacd123]

We have ALWAYS run promotions, all over the world, these add value to our products, its called marketing and promotion, we have done it for years and we will continue to do it, on film and paper products.

An I always look forward to the promotions, they are great value. (although I am probably overstocked on 8X10 Paper because of the 40 for 25 and 2rolls of film with 25 sheets over the years.) I almost feel guilty about the quantity of the Buy one get one promotion I purchased, lets just say I will be using a LOT of HP5 over the next year. maybe enough to use up that paper. It was almost like the good old days of Buying "English Professional" without needing to get out the Bulk Loader.

Many of the Ilford promotions are slanted to getting student photographers into the Ilford camp. I certainly appreciate them.

 

[Roger Cole]

I appreciate them too, and picked up a couple rolls of 35mm HP5. I like it, but I do prefer Tri-X because I find it more versatile for shooting anywhere from 200 to 1250 or so. At box speed I don't think there's much difference.

If they offered the 2:1 promotion in 120 I'd be all over that. Maybe in 4x5 too though the fact I shoot so much less film means TMY-2 is worth paying for, for me.

 

[alanrockwood]

Does anyone know for a fact that Kodak is still coating ordinary photographic film such as tri-X, etc.? A Kodak employee very recently told me that the company has shut down some of their production lines and that these days they only coat motion picture film. It is possible that he is wrong, but given the fact that he works for the company his information should not be discounted altogether.

It is not my wish to see Kodak fail, but being realistic about this, the future does not look bright for the company.

 

[cmacd123]

Does anyone know for a fact that Kodak is still coating ordinary photographic film such as tri-X, etc.? A Kodak employee very recently told me that the company has shut down some of their production lines and that these days they only coat motion picture film. It is possible that he is wrong, but given the fact that he works for the company his information should not be discounted altogether.

The previous discussions have indicated that they are down to something like 3 places that can make film, with only one actually making film. The difference in the quantity of Motion Picture print film made, compared to almost any other product means that 99% of the time that is likely the only run scheduled. a single 120 Minute film print uses 10800 feet of film not including waste and leaders, and that puts one movie in one theatre. (The waste comes in as the labs are generally only allowed one splice per reel and depending on the length of the reels, they may have a few hundred feet that they can't use.)

New movies come out in a few hundred theatres at a time, every week or two. (which is why the switch to digital projection is killing this particular market)

Given the state of Kodak's health and Finances, I would hate to be the manager trying to get approval to make 10,000 feet of Tri-X (30 some odd 35mm wide strips at a time of course.)

 

[semi-ambivalent]

The previous discussions have indicated that they are down to something like 3 places that can make film, with only one actually making film. The difference in the quantity of Motion Picture print film made, compared to almost any other product means that 99% of the time that is likely the only run scheduled. a single 120 Minute film print uses 10800 feet of film not including waste and leaders, and that puts one movie in one theatre. (The waste comes in as the labs are generally only allowed one splice per reel and depending on the length of the reels, they may have a few hundred feet that they can't use.)

New movies come out in a few hundred theatres at a time, every week or two. (which is why the switch to digital projection is killing this particular market)

Given the state of Kodak's health and Finances, I would hate to be the manager trying to get approval to make 10,000 feet of Tri-X (30 some odd 35mm wide strips at a time of course.)

That would be what, 60,000 36 exposure rolls, give or take? Can anybody outside Kodak really say just how much film Kodak sells? What world-wide demand is? I've posted this before; just how small can a single coating facility be and remain profitable? Can Kodak remain as big as it is selling whatever it sells? It doesn't look like it. Can a Kodak-ish company remain viable running a single plant coating a couple emulsions? I'd like to think it can be done. You don't need to be all over the world; your products do. Not too long ago I Ebay-ed a Kodak lab timer from Romania and received it in less than ten days. Apple runs a supply channel at four days of inventory. If modern shipping methods can provide examples like that I think "a Kodak" could become small enough and tight enough that it could survive, assuming the debt "disappeared" in some fashion. Does it want to? Who knows. What if all it wants to sell is Kodacolor-whatever? Count me out.

Companies have in the past closed their doors one day and opened them up the next with new stock and zero debt. I have lost a little money in a company that did just that.
s-a

 

[alanrockwood]

Companies have in the past closed their doors one day and opened them up the next with new stock and zero debt. I have lost a little money in a company that did just that.
s-a

I think you are describing bankruptcy. It can be done. but generally it only works if there is a viable business model post-bankruptcy. Fruit of the Loom may be a good example (though strictly speaking Fruit didn't exactly become an operating company post-bankruptcy, though its product line and trade name did continue.)

On the other hand, do you remember TWA? It was once one of the largest airline companies. TWA declared bankruptcy three times, gradually shrinking to practically nothing before it was mercifully put out of its misery by being acquired by AMR, the parent company of American Airlines.

 

[lxdude]

On the other hand, do you remember TWA? It was once one of the largest airline companies. TWA declared bankruptcy three times, gradually shrinking to practically nothing before it was mercifully put out of its misery by being acquired by AMR, the parent company of American Airlines.

Had it kept on, it would have had to change its name to Trans-County Airlines.

 

[Tim Gray]

I think you are describing bankruptcy. It can be done. but generally it only works if there is a viable business model post-bankruptcy. Fruit of the Loom may be a good example (though strictly speaking Fruit didn't exactly become an operating company post-bankruptcy, though its product line and trade name did continue.)

Kmart is a good example. They went through bankruptcy and are still around in some form or another, still doing what they used to do. I'm unclear on the details of its merger with Sears, but still - they have discount department stores still open. I think if Kodak went through bankruptcy and emerged from the other side and the film division continued to make great films, even if someone else owned them, we would be happy.

Oh, and obviously Ilford is another good example, and a particularly relevant one at that.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Kmart is a good example. They went through bankruptcy and are still around in some form or another, still doing what they used to do. I'm unclear on the details of its merger with Sears, but still - they have discount department stores still open. I think if Kodak went through bankruptcy and emerged from the other side and the film division continued to make great films, even if someone else owned them, we would be happy.

Oh, and obviously Ilford is another good example, and a particularly relevant one at that.

I'm thinking that could happen, but Kodak's culture would die and that could be grim for the pensioner's. Film is film but there's a human side to things like this and often fairness is tended to last in the process.

s-a

 

[MattKing]

Bankruptcy would result in the Kodak shares being worthless - just a little bit sad for all those Kodak employees (and others) who hold those shares because they believe in the organization.

I know belief is a lousy investment strategy, but for a very long time it was one that made Kodak a very good place to work (and invest in).

 

[Tim Gray]

I'm thinking that could happen, but Kodak's culture would die and that could be grim for the pensioner's. Film is film but there's a human side to things like this and often fairness is tended to last in the process.

Very true, but I'm not entirely sure what I, or any of us, can do about that side of things.

 

[BrianShaw]

Bankruptcy would result in the Kodak shares being worthless - just a little bit sad for all those Kodak employees (and others) who hold those shares because they believe in the organization.

I know belief is a lousy investment strategy, but for a very long time it was one that made Kodak a very good place to work (and invest in).

I spoke with a Kodak pensioner recently who said his Kodak stock value was so low already that he cashed out and used the proceeds to buy an iPad. He didn't even seem to have enough change left over to buy a cup of coffee. He was sad about the whole affair, but pragmatic since he has other sources of income that allows him to have a nice retirement.

 

[alanrockwood]

Kodak shares have lost over 96% of their value in a little over four years (since June of 2007) and more than 98.6% of their value since since peaking 15 years ago (October of 1996). With a negative net asset value and slim profit margins, much of which are in a business sector with rapidly declining revenues, it is hard to see how Kodak can recover.

The recent sale of some of Kodak's intellectual property may or may not bode well for the long term, but a one-time sale of key technology (if that's what it was) is not a good sign for the long-term viability of the company.

 

[wblynch]

Kodak can only survive if it can expand beyond imaging. Over the years they should have been a Xerox or Konica/Minolta if they were truly an imaging company. I never understood why Kodak let Xerox do what it did without challenge.

But I think they look more like 3M with coated films and papers. There are lots of avenues that can be explored in the coated products. Tapes, industrial films, solar coatings and pvc's, automotive finishing, maybe even aerospace applications.

I can imagine advanced home wall coverings that replace paint and maybe even provide color changes throughout the day.

They started the OLED thing but where has that gone?

For all I know they already do these things but I've not heard of it.

 

[Hatchetman]

Kodak shares have lost over 96% of their value in a little over four years (since June of 2007) and more than 98.6% of their value since since peaking 15 years ago (October of 1996). With a negative net asset value and slim profit margins, much of which are in a business sector with rapidly declining revenues, it is hard to see how Kodak can recover.

The recent sale of some of Kodak's intellectual property may or may not bode well for the long term, but a one-time sale of key technology (if that's what it was) is not a good sign for the long-term viability of the company.

So when did you short the stock? With your constant drumbeat of negativity, it sounds like you might have an ulterior motive.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Kodak shares have lost over 96% of their value in a little over four years (since June of 2007) and more than 98.6% of their value since since peaking 15 years ago (October of 1996). With a negative net asset value and slim profit margins, much of which are in a business sector with rapidly declining revenues, it is hard to see how Kodak can recover.

The recent sale of some of Kodak's intellectual property may or may not bode well for the long term, but a one-time sale of key technology (if that's what it was) is not a good sign for the long-term viability of the company.

I read that Kodak is finally making enough money on their inkjet printer and ink sales that they're turning profit on it. Let's hope this is a good trend that fuels other models they have in the pipeline.

All I know is that new product introduction is the key to keep consumers and customers on their toes. It is the lifeblood of any technology related company in today's fast paced environment. You also have to select good industries to be in. How do you think Epson is doing, for example? And why is that?

 

[alanrockwood]

So when did you short the stock? With your constant drumbeat of negativity, it sounds like you might have an ulterior motive.

I am neither long nor short in Kodak stock. I have no ax to grind. In fact, from a personal point of view I would rather that Kodak remain a viable company than that it fail. However, in my opinion it does not look good for Kodak, and no amount of denial of their plight nor cheerleading for their cause is going into change a negative picture into a positive one. Furthermore, if you believe the markets have any value as an indicator of value then the prospects for kodak are, indeed, very gloomy.

I am an extremely small time investor and have not made a trade in shares of any company for several years. I did consider shorting a few Kodak shares. However, most brokers have trading rules that make it hard to short penny stocks, so I did not even seriously look into shorting Kodak.