Rochester news about Kodak

railwayman3 · Feb 7, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
Today, for the first time, Kodak announced that film sales had fallen into the red. This was a featured segment on the local news along with a speech by Perez at the stockholders meeting in NYC about the bright hope in other areas.

A local analyst stated that this indicates that the end is probably near unless the economy turns around. He speculated that someone would step in and keep the equipment, buildings and people intact and continue some level of production.

Not doom and gloom, just reality. The prediction is for EK to make it or break it in 2012.

PE

TBH, I think that this is just the reality which has been plainly obvious to many people, particulary investors, for some considerable time.

hrst · Feb 7, 2011

AFAIK there is also Plant Y in Europe that has much more modern equipment than Plant X .

Diapositivo · Feb 7, 2011

I am left wondering which firm Plant X would belong to. But from what I gather, Plant X employs technologies of the 1920s and it cannot produce colour film.

In Europe it seems we still have two small producers, Agfa (branded as Rollei) and Ferrania, which do produce colour film. The production scale of those two firms is probably many hundreds or thousand times smaller than Kodak or Fuji, as Kodak and Fuji produce film also for cinema, whereas Ferrania and Agfa do not.

The idea I gather from this is that Kodak could afford many hundred times to build the machinery that Ferrania or Agfa are using, and so that if the film consumption continues to shrink, Kodak can scale down by making a new coating machines without any financial effort.

I thought for a moment that by Plant-X PE was referring to Ferrania, as PE cited as if in response to a post of mine.

Fabrizio

EDIT I have probably exaggerated in the proportions. Let's say Ferrania or Agfa have production volumes many tenths of times smaller than Kodak or Fuji.

chriscrawfordphoto · Feb 7, 2011

Diapositivo said:
I am left wondering which firm Plant X would belong to. But from what I gather, Plant X employs technologies of the 1920s and it cannot produce colour film.

In Europe it seems we still have two small producers, Agfa (branded as Rollei) and Ferrania, which do produce colour film. The production scale of those two firms is probably many hundreds or thousand times smaller than Kodak or Fuji, as Kodak and Fuji produce film also for cinema, whereas Ferrania and Agfa do not.

You are forgetting Efke in Croatia and Foma in the Czech Republic, both of them smaller than Kodak and Fuji and possibly smaller than Ilford.

Diapositivo · Feb 7, 2011

chriscrawfordphoto said:
You are forgetting Efke in Croatia and Foma in the Czech Republic, both of them smaller than Kodak and Fuji and possibly smaller than Ilford.

I was referring to firms producing colour film, which because of its complexity would require a higher investment in machinery and a higher production volume to justify the investment and the running costs.

Fabrizio

removed account4 · Feb 7, 2011

who cares what company x is ... is it really that important to publicly "out" them.

eclarke · Feb 7, 2011

The reason film got to be a major product is because movies (which everybody went to see), printers, medical imaging, graphic arts and individuals looking for an easy way to make snapshots all needed film. None of this is true anymore. There is a bigger issue than coating, and that is gelatin production and emulsions. Read the first 100 pages or so of the Haist book ( I believe PE is credited in the acknowledgement) and think about the ramifications of gelatin technology being lost..it won't matter if you can coat..EC

Photo Engineer · Feb 7, 2011

I have to make some comments here:

First, I have not divulged the company name, and I have left out enough information that you do not know all of the details. So, I hope that no-one is harmed by this. Neither side of this are revealed in my post, nor can you guess who it is (or was) unless you could have visited the plant.

Second, I tried to show the lowest end of what I have been exposed to and that you might still encounter in your purchases. I could add that examination of that sample I posted showed dust, lint and debris in the gelatin as well as Silver Halide.

Third, Trough coaters can give high quality if done correctly, but require a different formulation as explained earlier, and it might lead to exclusion of certain formulas we take for granted today such as high speed hard films. It would probably exclude most forms of color.

Fourth, Yes, photograde gelatin is a critical item and its vanishing would really hurt us.

PE

JayGannon · Feb 7, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
First, I have not divulged the company name, and I have left out enough information that you do not know all of the details. So, I hope that no-one is harmed by this. Neither side of this are revealed in my post, nor can you guess who it is (or was) unless you could have visited the plant.

PE

I don't see how anyone could be harmed by the example of Plant X's system, the people who run Plant X know the limitations of their systems and seem to be perfectly fine with that. I just hope their also interested in continuing investment in the area.

Photo Engineer · Feb 7, 2011

Actually Jay, from the information I have, no one is very interested in investing in any form of analog photography.

PE

Rudeofus · Feb 7, 2011

railwayman3 said:
Absolutely! The sooner we support Ilford and the smaller makers, the better.
I really don't see why we need spend any more time on Kodak. Sorry.

Maybe ... maybe ... because Kodak is one of the only two makers of color film?

donbga · Feb 7, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
Actually Jay, from the information I have, no one is very interested in investing in any form of analog photography.

PE

Exactly. And if Kodak film is in trouble so is Foma, Ilford, Fuji, and who ever else is out there producing film. The whole industry has diminished in the past 20 years.

JayGannon · Feb 7, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
Actually Jay, from the information I have, no one is very interested in investing in any form of analog photography.

PE

Unfortunately that was my impression also. (Context: I spoke to the people who own what i think is plant x is relation to motion picture production. But they ended with a "maybe one day" but nothing that led me to believe that day was coming...)

voceumana · Feb 7, 2011

From Kodak's website, 2010 had $1.767 BILLION in revenue from film, photofinishing, and entertainment group. Although down 22% from 2009, that's still a lot of revenue, and I don't think Kodak is likely to 'throw away' those kinds of sales without figuring out how to keep it profitable.

Photo Engineer · Feb 7, 2011

Go back about 10 - 15 years and plot revenues to the present!

PE

ntenny · Feb 7, 2011

donbga said:
Exactly. And if Kodak film is in trouble so is Foma, Ilford, Fuji, and who ever else is out there producing film. The whole industry has diminished in the past 20 years.

Diminished for sure, but as has been discussed here ad nauseam, Kodak's difficulties are in some ways unique to them (or perhaps shared only with Fuji). Foma, Ilford, and Efke are all apparently geared to much smaller production scales with a better chance of being sustainable at lower revenues. (Also, if I'm not mistaken, they're all privately held and therefore have different pressures on them as compared to a public company.)

That smaller scale means there are some limitations, e.g., it's difficult to justify large capital investments. Ilford already have modern facilities and good quality control, but Foma and Efke, and I suppose Lucky and Ferrania as well as any other producers I'm not thinking of, would need to make some investments to update equipment and procedures, and it's hard to see where that money would come from in a small-volume market.

I think this was PE's point earlier: if disappointing results like this one eventually take Kodak and Fuji out of the film business, we might find that the companies on whom we have to rely for materials can continue to exist, but can't update their processes to improve their product lines, and/or can't start producing colour films, and/or can't make certain products like fast films with modern hardeners. "Can't" not because there wouldn't be a market, necessarily, but because the barrier to entry is prohibitive given the size of the market. That seems like a perfectly reasonable point.

-NT

Photo Engineer · Feb 7, 2011

Nathan, you are correct. And you did leave out a few companies that are in the business, but as you say, the capital to modernize is not there.

PE

JOSarff · Feb 7, 2011

IMHO it will end like Kodachrome. Aproductionrun of two or three minutes will supply the B&W shooters for a yyear or more until the wasteage from the run is more than the sales.

Joe

Photo Engineer · Feb 7, 2011

For those of you who are questioning my integrity and honesty over this statement that I made, "I know exactly where and how this piece of film was coated It was sent to me in confidence for diagnosis with all added information needed to respond."

I would like to respond in public.

First: The agreement has expired! It was quite a few years ago that this took place. I would never divulge a confidential piece of information that was covered by an existing agreement (see below) and this goes for Kodak information as well.

Second: I can say that one or both of these companies has vanished so the point is quite moot.

Third: Except for the coating example the rest of the information is still disguised for the purpose of protecting both companies.

Fourth: I viewed the posting of this as being valuable to the discussion and to the APUG membership.

Fifth: I've posted this information before without any comment from readers. And, pretty much in the same context as here. The agreement had lapsed back then as well.

So yes, you can trust me and yes, I am being honest about these posts. Lets not go overboard people. And yes, this is a real example. I have the sheet of film in a roll here beside me. And, what prompted my original post several years ago was due to the fact that people had posted similar examples from more than one company. So, this type of problem can be endemiic in the industry if the machines develop wear and the pumps and drive motors develop minor tuning problems.

Kodak takes such fine care of their machines that a friend told me that Kodak engineers once observed this "coating noise" problem and could not determine the source. Someone scanned it with an optical scanner to determine the frequency and just happened to play it back through an audio system. They could hear the sounds of the voices of the coaters! So, not only are Kodak products coated in the dark, now they are coated in silence.

PE

Perry Way · Feb 7, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak takes such fine care of their machines that a friend told me that Kodak engineers once observed this "coating noise" problem and could not determine the source. Someone scanned it with an optical scanner to determine the frequency and just happened to play it back through an audio system. They could hear the sounds of the voices of the coaters! So, not only are Kodak products coated in the dark, now they are coated in silence.

PE

Ron, that's quite a story there! Kind of reminds me in a way of a scene in [the movie] "The Hunt For Red October".

jsouther · Feb 7, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak takes such fine care of their machines that a friend told me that Kodak engineers once observed this "coating noise" problem and could not determine the source. Someone scanned it with an optical scanner to determine the frequency and just happened to play it back through an audio system. They could hear the sounds of the voices of the coaters! So, not only are Kodak products coated in the dark, now they are coated in silence.

PE

Wow - Thats pretty cool!

georg16nik · Feb 7, 2011

Perry Way said:
Ron, that's quite a story there! Kind of reminds me in a way of a scene in [the movie] "The Hunt For Red October".

Ron as Sean Connery

alanrockwood · Feb 7, 2011

That's an amazing story about voices recorded in the film!

Photo Engineer · Feb 7, 2011

georg16nik said:
Ron as Sean Connery

About his age, without his looks and overweight!

PE

georg16nik · Feb 7, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
About his age, without his looks and overweight!

PE

age, looks and overweight doesn't matter when You are a Man of honor
Seriously, people here should have great respect for the input You give to the community.

Rochester news about Kodak

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency