Rochester news about Kodak

[Q.G.]

I have two.

<<Sigh>>

I liked it better when the air was clean and words were dirty!
<</Sigh>>

Steve

Then get rid of the extra freezer, and learn to enjoy the delights of fresh stuff again.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have two.

<<Sigh>>

I liked it better when the air was clean and words were dirty!
<</Sigh>>

Steve

Then get rid of the extra freezer, and learn to enjoy the delights of fresh stuff again.

This I would not be able to buy up deleted films so that I could keep those films from the hoarders. Also, I would not have deleted films to use. [In case you missed the point.]

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have two.

<<Sigh>>

I liked it better when the air was clean and words were dirty!
<</Sigh>>

Steve

There freezers are 3,000 miles [5,000 Km] apart so that I have a good film supply where ever I am.

 

[nickrapak]

I think that the real problem is that Kodak is turning into a glorified licensing company. Up until the 1990s, almost everything that Kodak made was made in Kodak factories to Kodak specs; the notable exception being the Retina rangefinders. Now, the only thing that is really manufactured under the watchful eye of Rochester is film. Everything else is made in China and has the Kodak namebadge slapped on right before it leaves port. I have already seen Kodak branded batteries; how long is it going to be until we see Kodak TVs, DVD players, and lightbulbs?

 

[Rudeofus]

I would like to state a few things, please correct me if I am wrong:

• As it appears, consumer film use has declined by way over 95% during the last 20 years, which means at the moment consumer film use is irrelevant for Kodak's bottom line regarding film.
• Kodak make the vast majority of their film sales with cine film, which has started to decline rapidly a short time ago, mostly driven by the movie theater's drive towards digital projection, which is expected to grow stronger as digital by now seems to be good enough for the typical Hollywood film audience. Another factor in Kodak's declining cine film sales seems to be the cheaper Fuji cine films.
• Both consumer film and all of Kodak's digital products have so far leeched off the cine film business. Consumer film, because it co-used film making equipment and research results with cine film, Kodak's digital products on the other side weren't profitable for the longest time, whatever the reason.
• Instead of pumping profits from film sales into investments in lower volume production equipment and technology, these profits were eaten up by an ill fated drive into digital products, which were seen as more future oriented. Now the money is gone, film is no longer profitable because the old equipment can't be operated profitably at those low volumes, new equipment more suitable for lower volumes can't be afforded, and the digital branch is still not profitable enough to make the company's future certain.

There are a few things I would like to know:

• PE claims that color film is an extremely sophisticated product requiring the most peculiar chemicals which aren't always available. This may be an explanation why there are basically only two makers left, Kodak and Fuji. Yet quite a lot of companies make color film dev kits, and these kits do deviate from the formulations used by Kodak, so they are not just cheap rip offs. Is E6 developer so much easier to make than decent E6 film? How easy would it be for Tetenal or Arista to make color film?
• One of Kodak's film branches biggest problem seems to be their inability to deal with low volume production. Is this because of their investment in high volume machinery which can't be converted to low volume or is there some inherent problem with low volume color film production? Note that B&W film can be made in low volume and turn out a profit.
• Can Kodak even sell its film business? Not because nobody would want it's film business, but because Kodak's digital business alone would be even less desireable? Note that Kodak's film business has made a loss this one quarter, but Kodak's digital business, while generating a lot of business, has made losses for most of the time during the last 20 years, and there seems little reason to believe this would change.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Well, Alan has it right. Ray, I doubt if you have had the production experience to judge this well. Sorry.

And now the air and words are dirty!

PE

That was an uncalled for low blow...
I said I did not dissagree with what Alan said.
So, What is your point?

What was it that prompted you to judge my comments
by your assesment of my production experience
rather than the content of what I said?

Before you pick on the background of the little guy,
go back and review the mistakes in you glossry!

(Give me a holler if you need a hint)
-----------------------------------------------

Clean Air Clean Words to follow...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ray, your comment that is was the same to make one sheet of paper as make a roll was so absurd that it more than proved your lack of understanding production.

 

[Ray Rogers]

How so?

My

the fact that KODAK is so huge is in large part a decesion...
made out greed, not necessity.

For example, paper can be made by the sheet as well as by the mile.

simply meant that Kodak did not have to get so big,
and that being big did not mean they had to stay big.

Being big was their CHOICE

 

[M.A.Longmore]

.
What would happen if Kodak actually advertised Film, and other analog photographic products ?

Remember; Like they did in The Good Olde Days ...

Would That Help ?

 

[Moopheus]

How so?

My

the fact that KODAK is so huge is in large part a decesion...
made out greed, not necessity.

For example, paper can be made by the sheet as well as by the mile.

simply meant that Kodak did not have to get so big.

No, I suppose they didn't "have" to get so big; they were unfortunately saddled at one time with products that people actually wanted to buy. They could have decided, to restrain themselves. They could have said, Gee, you know, in the future, we won't be able to sell as much film and paper as we do today, so we'd better not build that new coating machine. We'll just tell people to buy Fuji instead.

 

[Photo Engineer]

That was an uncalled for low blow...
I said I did not dissagree with what Alan said.
So, What is your point?

What was it that prompted you to judge my comments
by your assesment of my production experience
rather than the content of what I said?

Before you pick on the background of the little guy,
go back and review the mistakes in you glossry!

(Give me a holler if you need a hint)
-----------------------------------------------

Clean Air Clean Words to follow...

Ray, as Sirius said above, your post quoted there was what made it rather obvious that you didn't have any experience in manufacturing processes and the costs involved at various scales.

BTW, whatever did you mean by "the mistakes in you glossry"?

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

No, I suppose they didn't "have" to get so big; they were unfortunately saddled at one time with products that people actually wanted to buy. They could have decided, to restrain themselves. They could have said, Gee, you know, in the future, we won't be able to sell as much film and paper as we do today, so we'd better not build that new coating machine. We'll just tell people to buy Fuji instead.

You make it sound like Kodak were the Beatles!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Rudeofus;

No, the chemical companies that make kits are NOT equipped to coat film or paper. There is absolutely no crossover in either production facilities or coating.

PE

 

[lns]

How so?

My

the fact that KODAK is so huge is in large part a decesion...
made out greed, not necessity.

For example, paper can be made by the sheet as well as by the mile.

simply meant that Kodak did not have to get so big,
and that being big did not mean they had to stay big.

Very true, and I understood your point at the time. Fear not: probably a lot of other people did too.

I think you're right. But to me, that's water under the bridge. When Kodak expanded, the future looked bright and expansion seemed a good economic choice. It is fair to say that a lot of businesses have been blindsided by change.

When it became clear that film was starting a major decline in sales, Ilford chose to restructure, get smaller and concentrate on black and white film. While Kodak chose to use the cash from film operations to try to turn into a digital company. Ilford's parent has a division that sells printer paper, by way, so it isn't film only either. Again, water under the bridge. Both were legitimate strategies. I prefer one but understand the other.

I still maintain that there's too much panic in threads like this. We'll go crazy if we post about every negative prediction from every obscure stock tout or committed digital evangelist or negative nellie. I've been reading about the imminent death of film for five years now, and it's still here. I don't know about anybody else, but I bought some film from Kodak and Ilford this week, not to stick in a freezer, but to use. I'm shooting some of the new Portra 400 this weekend, and I can't wait to see the results.

-Laura

 

[IloveTLRs]

I will truly be bummed when TriX is gone

I will promptly slit my wrists

 

[Diapositivo]

To oversimplify a bit, consider the following. A business typically has fixed costs and costs that vary with production. If sales dip below fixed costs then profits become negative, even if the the variable costs drop to zero. If a business is geared to run profitably at a sales volume of. let us say $10 billion, then fixed costs are probably fairly high, let us say for the sake of argument $500 million. If sales drop to $200 million (and assuming that production levels are well aligned with sales, i.e. neither over nor under production) the operation goes into the red.

Also, for some types of business production is run in batches, and batches may have a minimum size. The product may also have a limited shelf life. I understand that film satisfies all these conditions. If the minimum batch size is relatively large, as would be typical of an operation designed for a high production rate, and if the sales rate drops too low then there will be waste as the unsold product expires on the shelf. The wasted product eats into profits, and in the worst case can cause the operation to go into the red.

Although I agree regarding the different weight of certain costs on smaller production volume, when we - or Kodak - talk about "operating" profits they are not taking into account an important part of "fixed" costs, i.e. the cost of the plant.

The cost of plant, machinery, buildings etc. is a multi-year investment the cost of which is detracted yearly as "amortization" (and depreciation, if any). The typical definition of operating income is income before depreciation, amortization, interest and taxes.

Basically "operating" income it is not a real income, it just measure the revenues against variable costs or "fixed" costs that have to be repeated every year (such as insurance premiums, maintenance costs, surveillance etc).

I am not an expert about coating, but I imagine that coating machines last for decades so, for the case of film, "operating" income is "more meaningful" than usual, if we are querying it to have answers about the sustainability of the operation.

I don't write this to be nitpicking, only to show that operating income having into its belly mostly "variable" voices of cost it is easily "scalable", hence the fact that Kodak decreased production of film so much and kept operating income positive so long.

Fabrizio

 

[JayGannon]

Im happy that color production will be around for many years to come due to cine production even if it is in a spin off company, its B&W production that Im worried about.

A quick napkin math puts me at 120,000 dollars to fund my film addiction for the rest of my natural life, might start making some investments in that soon.

 

[Photo Engineer]

All of you armchair economists have forgotten taxes which are higher in NYS than just about anywhere in the US, and here in Monroe county they are just about higher than anywhere in NYS. So, Kodak bears a HUGE burden in taxes and in fact, this was the reason that they were literally forced to demolish buildings that could have been renovated and rented out as office, lab or manufacturing space. It was less expensive to turn those buildings into grassy areas.

As for the earlier comment about one sheet being as easy to coat as a mile, this is a very poor argument. The methods used to coat single sheets increase labor costs and defects. In fact, as you go from 1 mile to 1/2 mile, the costs are the same using the same equipment, but the idle time increases burden as the plant and machine must be kept tempered even when idle. So there are two ends to this train of scaling, the low end which is impossible on a production scale and the high end which is near impossible as you scale it back due to hidden costs.

PE

 

[Diapositivo]

Regarding scalability, we should not forget that Kodak, even if it is an ill elephant, still is an elephant, and can carry a lot of weight with little effort.

If one day they have to scale for a film production that is only 5% of current production, they will build new coating machines and, in the Kodak grand scheme of things, the cost will be a fly poo on the windscreen. So they can keep film production "forever" or until they are interested in having a presence in this sector (for future opportunities, that is).

The problems are probably different:

- Will it be possible to coat present emulsions on different machines? The change in scale might mean that some products have to go;
- Will the big machines be scrapped? If yes, that means making harder the possibility of a resurgence of film in much bigger quantities, the firm should make a new investment in coating machines and that would mean being REALLY convinced the investment is going to repay in the next decades.

From what I read, coating machines can be used, and are actually already used, for the production of certain digital goods (touchscreens or something like that). This is very nice to know because it means that there is a "return path" available in film production scale.

Fabrizio

 

[Photo Engineer]

Fabrizio, your arguments are totally wrong. It is a fact that Kodak (and Fuji AAMOF) are sick elephants and that scaling is not trivial nor inexpensive. It is also a fact that Kodak got rid of all of the old coating machines in order to make the high quality films we get today. It is a fallacy that you can coat one day and go idle for 6, as who keeps the machines hot and ready to go, how much does it cost etc. And, a machine can only run so slow with any degree of accuracy.

It is like slowing down in an airplane. Eventually, you reach stalling speed! Then you fall!

PE

 

[Diapositivo]

PE, can't you have a smaller machine, and keep it operating at its normal speed, without stalling?

Ferrania produces colour film. I don't know its relative size in respect to Kodak or Fuji. You tell me. Is it 20 times smaller? 200 times smaller? They seem to coat colour negative film to this day. Actually they produce film in two plants: one in Italy and the other in the US (the same Solaris 100 ISO*). Go figure.

My point is: if Kodak has to make a coating machine such as the one Ferrania is using, they would keep their film operation alive (supposing they have a strategic interest in this) and keep it profitable just like Ferrania is profitable (or you bet they would have stopped producing long ago).

And the other point is: if Kodak has to make a small coating machine and reduce production volumes, it can make the investment and it will be a very small one if compared with the firm scale.

If what you say were true, there could be no Ferrania or no other small colour film producer around.

Fabrizio

* My father is just beginning again taking pictures, and with film. We went last Thursday to the optician round the corner. I thought he would have no film at all. He had several colour negatives, and several B&W film. We asked for a short roll of 12 shots to check light leakage of the camera. He gave us a Ferrania Solaris 100 Iso. The box said that the film was made in the US or in Italy depending on whether the plant was indicated with B or A. I forgot to check where it was made, but it seems that that same emulsion, Solaris ISO 100, can be made in two different plants, each of them several "orders of magnitude" smaller than Kodak, unless the US film is actually manufactured by Kodak, which I don't think is likely at all.

EDIT I am aware that Ferrania colour products might use an older technology, and that Kodak built the new machine in order to use a better technology maybe, so scaling back might mean reverting to an older technology, that's what I mentioned in my previous "totally wrong" post.

 

[BetterSense]

duplicate

 

[BetterSense]

What would happen if Kodak actually advertised Film, and other analog photographic products ?

I've wondered this myself. I know advertising isn't free, but it's like they don't even try. People ask me all the time if you can even buy film anymore. You'd think Kodak would try to educate them that yes, you can still buy film, and Kodak is still selling it.

 

[removed account4]

i have been wondering that for about 11 years

 

[Diapositivo]

Just out of curiosity about this Ferrania thing, I went again to their site (ferraniait.com) and saw that they actually produce four films (ISO 100, 200, 400 and 800) in 135 format, ISO 200 in APS format, and some disposable cameras (didn't check which ISO). What's more important, they don't seem to produce film for the cinema industry (which was once probably their main client).

That means that a small colour producer can survive producing colour film, in several versions, in relatively small volumes, without relying at all on cinema. So the minimum size for production of colour film seems to be much smaller than generally feared on this forum.

Fabrizio