• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

The end for Kodak?

I have no idea what this will mean for Kodak products and I don't dare speculate. I do know that this can not be good for Rochester, having lived there I know what Kodak means to that town, going way beyond the employment numbers. Beyond that it can not be good for Kodak retirees who are sure to see a loss in their pensions. When a corporation (or a Trump) declares bankruptcy it is seen as a smart business move, but when an individual is forced to do so it is seen as a personal moral failing. Many people will be hurt by this move on Kodak's part, maybe even our own PE. I will be sad if I can no longer get TMY but that seems pretty small by comparison.
 
Since your former and current president didn't have a problem with saving GMC, AIG, several Banks because they were supposedly important for the economy and the state he could save Kodak in order to save Rochester and several thousand employees but then again they aren't banksters or heavy contributors to presidential campaigns. Mr. Obama please save this important american heritage, please save Kodak.

Dominik
 

Worse, Kodak volumes subsidized the entire supply and distribution chain related to emulsion products. When Kodak declares Ch. 11, then there will considerable creditor (not just investor) scrutiny of anything to do with film as it is technically a "credit event". This will result in more upwards cost pressure, not just for Kodak. Especially hard hit will be MP Film industry where reliance on financing is endemic, so a move to the less risky digital may be be an outcome. Films scheduled to be shot on Kodak film now may not be. While money and artistry collide regularly, this will tilt the ball even further towards digital production. The Kodak financial information demonstrates the sad but spectacular fall of film from common use worldwide both in MP Film and for analog photography. The concept of small volume film production is itself threatened by unproven demand and no floor in sight for plummeting film sales.

At home with the flu and it being -10 C out, it's more fun re-imagining the business case for roll and cartridge film than it is reading boring muni bond prospectus'
 
Michael R 1974 said:
...because the quality stinks. And it's old outdated stuff.
Click to expand...

Do you base that judgement on personal experience, and can you post any examples to prove the point (I only ask because I'd be interested to know)?
 
Michael R 1974 said:
...because the quality stinks. And it's old outdated stuff.
Click to expand...

Really? All of the emulsions? Great. Now what am I going do with my 4x5 boxes of Efke 25? Before I knew this I was making some pretty decent images. ;-)
 
What a load of "§$%&. Ilford does not overproduce, has an excellent palette of B&W film stock yet their rolls don't cost much more than Kodak's, in some countries even less.
Click to expand...

Of course it overproduces. At least HP5. What do you think explains the 2-for-1 and 3-for-2 fire-sales? Over stock. So big, IMO, that there was serious fear of having unsold stocks reaching their expiry date. That's really bad for business.
Besides, Ilford products are more expensive then Kodak's in Canada and even in the UK, some people have reported.

Film prices have gone up substantially for US folks yet the demand for photographic film stays flat - and that in the face of a double dip recession.
Click to expand...

It was up, then down and will slowly go up again. Especially if a mass-producer like Kodak stops producing.
And how do you know that demand is flat? The demand for film is the most well kept secret and you know it is flat? Just by Ilford's recent fire-sales you have to realize that the demand is pretty low unless you drop the price like crazy.
In other words: Low price=high demand for a short period of time, people will stock up and stop demand. High price=low demand. High price for a longer period of time=dead market.
 
I wonder how the owner of the site feels about this ongoing thread practically owned by Aristophanes and his never ending call for doom, practically calling out for the death of the site as well?

Since first posting on this thread, I have shot a roll of Tri-X for a magazine article, sold two images for a book and had two meetings with this well funded art center in regards to bringing a darkroom workshop into the fray for at risk kids: http://thirdstreetcenter.net/

I just can't effing believe how ineffective this site is in the promotion of both great images made in the analog medium and being a true champion for getting the word out about film. This is beyond frustrating and because of people like the aforementioned, this site is just not worth being a part of anymore in terms of dialog. I will just come hear like many do, find a quick tech solution, not post and just get out and make great photographs happen, regardless of medium.
 
Dan, this is a thread about the death of Kodak. It's in the title.
 

+1, DB!
 
So why don't you guys start a thread entitled, "The bright future of Kodak" and present the other side of the story?
 
I think a thread entitled "The end for Kodak" is not going to be a source of positive promotion for analog film any way you spin it. If you don't like to hear analyses about the impact Kodak's impending bankruptcy may have on the film industry, then don't read it.

And not once have I called for the "death of the site [APUG]". In fact, I clearly laid out a market space business case for the continuance of film as an alternative medium to the dominance of digital. In order to support what may come out of the impending, ultimate Kodak moment, it helps to have some reflective criticism of what led to film's rapid demise in the eyes of the public as the medium of choice and not make those errors again.
 
Pkm-25 congratulations tor your successes unfortunately I believe that most people on this site use film as hobbyist and not as professionals some people on this site don't have a big income either so they can only buy little amounts of film. APUG is ineffective in promoting film use for a very specific reason, the digi crowd or the average person with a digicam isn't really interested in film or analogue photography and therefore doesn't frequent this site except for some misguided trolls who come to this site to declare that film is dead. I still believe that a lot of members of this site try to promote the use of film Gandolfi comes to mind and you of course, I personaly try to promote the advantages of film use whenever I can both to both amateurs and pros. Unfortunately I haven't shot any film this week since I am lying in bed due to a disc hernia. Maybe we should start a thread on how to promote film use?

Dominik
 
I'm interested in all of the discussion, both optomistic and pessimistic. One of them will eventually be correct.
 
Seems like some of the folks here get downright giddy at the thought of Kodak film disappearing. Rather odd given the nature of the forum. Wonder if they have some ulterior motive.

I'm a commercial banker myself (which means nothing BTW), and not at all convinced that color film production is doomed.
 
PKM-25 said:
I will just come hear like many do, find a quick tech solution, not post and just get out and make great photographs happen, regardless of medium.
Click to expand...

If you are able to come here, get a solution to your photographic problem, then go out and make great photographs, APUG has succeeded at some level, has it not?

Ken
 
I've never thought that APUG's purpose was to promote film use. I thought it was to support those who choose to use film. Promotion is a byproduct.
 
And this reminds me exactly how all the digital camera makers went belly up once the Olympus balance fraud got public. Oh, I'm wrong, I meant to say how the whole electric power plant industry went bust after the Enron scandal broke loose. Oh, wrong again, but the demise of Kodak will most certainly kill off all other US companies making photographic film. All zero of them. And since Kodak has turned into an inkjet printer company lately, this whole mess is certainly going to put Lexmark and HP out of business. Please educate us how exactly the financial troubles of Kodak are going to impact Ilford, Efke, Foma and Fuji, or the film business in general.
The decline may have been from decline in photographic film use initially but now it's mostly from decline in movie film use. Kodak has recently stated that photographic film sales have been flat last year. Kodaks production facilities may not be feasible if movie film is no longer used, but this doesn't automatically harm other makers of photographic film, especially those who don't make movie film. And someone may take over Kodak's color film know how and run their process in smaller scale, financing for this could well come from the movie industry which still depends on material being produced right now.

Like CGWs postings, your postings remind me a lot of the "*BSD is dying" meme. You both like to draw doom&gloom scenarios from a few cherry picked facts obtained through a quick online search and ignore the fact that despite all these "handwritings on the wall", film and cameras are still being made by several companies spread out over several continents. I'd be more concerned that a new economic crash ends our ability to afford photographic products (analog and digital) than that there will be no film&paper&chems available in the next couple of years.

PKM-25 said:
I wonder how the owner of the site feels about this ongoing thread practically owned by Aristophanes and his never ending call for doom, practically calling out for the death of the site as well?
Click to expand...
We may not agree with CGW and Aristophanes but we should by all means defend their ability to state their opinion here. The owner of this site would be very ill advised if he censored the postings to only include cheerful and optimistic views about the future of film.

Hatchetman said:
Seems like some of the folks here get downright giddy at the thought of Kodak film disappearing. Rather odd given the nature of the forum. Wonder if they have some ulterior motive.
Click to expand...
Waiting for CGW to write: "I'm just realistic there's no point in blind optimism" 3 ....... 2....... 1.......
 
Hatchetman said:
Seems like some of the folks here get downright giddy at the thought of Kodak film disappearing. Rather odd given the nature of the forum. Wonder if they have some ulterior motive.
Click to expand...

Caught. I'm shorting EK stock and buying out the remaining supplies of Tri-X, T-Max, Ektar and Portra. You will all have to go through me for your Kodak stock
 
1) Olympus' scandal has little impact on a high-growth industry. Others can step in. Kodak's demise puts a giant question market on exactly how much demand there is for film of any kind, especially in the long term. In the ugliness of asset divestiture through Ch. 11, this fact will be forefront. So if you think I'm a doomsayer, wait until the real vultures step in. The ones with bags of money.

2) Enron did blow up the power market. Certainly in California. I am a bond analyst. That was downright ugly, and the lawsuits are still ongoing at enormous cost to all ratepayers in many states. Enron's demise and lack of diligence all around exacted a huge toll on consumers, and still does.

3) Kodak going south means that extending credit to all other film suppliers becomes an issue because the central point is the enormous erosion of demand for emulsion products worldwide. Instead of credit and financing being offered mostly on the financials of the supplier, analysts will be looking at the underlying customer base of the product. This could apply to the company making parts for Fuji processing machines to suppliers of emulsion chemicals to distribution wholesalers. If Kodak has to pay cash up front to get its film products on the shelf, then that could very well spread to everyone in the market.

4) Yes, the whole question about the survival of roll and cartridge film will reside with the ability to manage small volumes with adequate QC.

5) Doom and gloom is a function of economics and business. Where there's risk, there's doom.

6) My major concern when looking at film production and the transfer of assets to someone other than Kodak is the entropy in the camera market. Basically any takeover of the Kodak's operations is like taking over a car part manufacturer for 1980's vehicles. This applies to Ilford as well as Fuji. At a certain point--when it is not known--the suppliers of credit and financing are going to ask where the new customers are, and where they are getting their equipment to load your emulsion product in. Like all creditors they may need more certainty that eBay sales volumes and flea markets. No supply of cameras could lead to a contraction ins the supply of credit and operational funds for film manufacturers. Prices rise, more customer leave as a result, and so on. That's the threat.

You asked for an analysis. There ya go. Forever optimists should not have read the above. It makes them cranky.

Personally, I think the future for film will be in going back tot he Eastman system of making film and cameras and doing processing by mail, all in-house. I think that's the only way the market can rationalize enough to survive. Frankly, I think that's a positive vision. Others may not. Your choice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's highly unlikely it's an end for Kodak's products many of us use or have used in the past.

It's the parent corporate company that's in trouble due 100% to poor management and even poorer leadership, when they needeed to be innovative and forward thinking they cut their research budget drastically closing entire facilities. This was at a time the company still had huge cash resevrves and assets.

The US movie film industry is dependant on Kodak, also film companies are seen as important strategic resources by governments. This is why Agfa still make film and also Ferrania.

So is this the end of Kodak or rather the probable liberation of the coating division from the greedy directors who've milked the company over the past few years under Peres leadership.

Ian
 
Film prices have gone up substantially for US folks yet the demand for photographic film stays flat - and that in the face of a double dip recession.

Film prices have gone up due to a dramatic rise in the price of silver. And while its unpleasant to have to pay more, it reflects a sound business decision and somewhat stable demand, since Kodak did not feel the need to squeeze its profit margins or take an additional loss to maintain sales volume. Sometimes price increases are the clearest indicators of good business opportunity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register