The future of Kodak film

[firecracker]

Kodak built a plant in Brazil for just this reason.

Due to economic growth, the South American economy is exploding and moving directly to digital.

The Brazil plant closed about 2 years ago.

PE

Well, I guess that's it then. Africa is too poor to sustain itself, and the Middle East region is probably not a good place to have that yellow sign up...

 

[Photo Engineer]

In the midlle east, women are not allowed to use a camera.

PE

 

[film_guy]

So should I be stocking up on the Tri-X and Portra films soon?

 

[fparnold]

>>>So should I be stocking up on the Tri-X and Portra films soon?

No, but you should periodically test some alternatives, just in case.

You B&W guys seem to be set, but there aren't a lot of alternatives in color, and I'm not sure I have the patience to make 120-sized autochromes. It will be depressing when my TLR becomes a prop in a still-life, rather than an active tool.

 

[aldevo]

What products did they make in the Brazil plant?

Kodak's B&W papers were coated there at the very least.

 

[aldevo]

I believe people in richer countries use more film than that of poor countries. I think Japanese is top in film consumption. If Kodak and its brand is for sale I believe the Chinese will buy it but to sell film in the US, Europe and Australia and not so much in China, Thailand, Vietnam etc..

I doubt China will be the savior of film. That's fast becoming a niche market and I doubt the Chinese have any interest there.

China is facing pretty steep rises in wages and a growing shortage of factory labor. I can't see how they could possibly keep workers in an industry that will increasingly be obliged to use intermittent, made-to-order production.

As Photo Engineer and others have noted, Kodak actually moved some color film production out of China and back to the USA.

I suspect film will be forced to make due with the existing players...

 

[aldevo]

It seems that China, Aferica, India and South American are leapfronging to digital. The loan Indian paper company closed a few years ago as well. A computer ink jet printer and digital camera are much less expensive than a start up analog system.

Stirling Photographic didn't close per se. Rather, Tata InfoTec paid the owner a small fortune to bulldoze the plant to make room for corporate housing back in 2001.

Overall, you are correct. Developing countries have not had a lengthy dallaince with film before moving straight to digital.

I tend to doubt that a startup digital system is less expensive than an analog system. Even new.

 

[aldevo]

I've been thinking about this and discussing it with a number of people. Here is one thing that may be of interest to you all:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_08/b4022051.htm?campaign_id=yhoo

Read the last two sentences, please. The second from last has not been noted here and is very significant.

If Kodak continues in the film business, they sit on valuable property and sell a load of film and make a good income for the company. If they exit, as I stated elsewhere, we have either a 'new' film company, or a purchase by a group of investors.

In the latter two cases, we have to consider that any new company formed around the film units of Kodak or an outright purchase would have to contend with the problem outined in the sentence I refer to above.

Of course, a solely film company would have more interests in the customer but they would have some real problems.

As one wag said in the paper here, and which I quoted elsewhere, "Kodak may want to sell the film business but who would buy it".

Considering the reference above, I think this just might be true! This reporting explains one of the major reasons. Those who have commented to me either way may want to consider the words of this article carefully and especially the impact of that second from last sentence.

Kodak may or may not stay in the film business. The decision appears to be balanced on a razors edge.

PE

People may not have a grasp on how long these cleanup efforts can take. GE Plastics in Pittsfield, MA USA is on the hook for cleaning up the facility they have now abandoned. The cleanup is 55% complete having started in 1995...and it will cost GE more than $250 millon in 1995 dollars when complete. Most of that cleanup, by the way, relates to manufacturing activity before 1975.

Then again, if you consider the economic damage wrought in Pittsfield by GE's pullout - you may understand why they are not in a hurry. There is no great need for additional commercial, retail, and residential space there for the forseeable future.

I wouldn't be suprised to learn that there are EK facilities that would face the same issue. That is, the extent of EK's downsizing in certain regions has done sufficient damage to the economy to prevent the land sites from being lucrative - even if it's cleaned up. And there is no way any group would buy that land before the cleanup is completed. THAT, if nothing else, I am convinced of...

I believe that EK will sell the division or spin it off rather than close it down. I suspect the timing will have to do with how these new inkjet printers fare.

 

[P C Headland]

In the midlle east, women are not allowed to use a camera.

PE

I'm sure that was meant as a joke, but that is only true in some middle-eastern countries.

Anyway, we're all doomed. Doooooomed. Runaway, runaway !

 

[firecracker]

I'm sure that was meant as a joke, but that is only true in some middle-eastern countries.

But didn't we just go there and liberate them?

 

[isaacc7]

I'm sure that was meant as a joke, but that is only true in some middle-eastern countries.

Anyway, we're all doomed. Doooooomed. Runaway, runaway !

Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to these sorts of things because I'm an American living in Yemen, but I cringe whenever I see sweeping generalizations like the one PE made, joke or not. We (Americans) could do with a lot less talk of "them" and a lot more talk, or even interest, of the diverse nature of "the Middle East". As to PE's original comment, maybe in some Saudi town/villages, since women don't seem to be allowed to do anything, but I can't think of too many places that would have that kind of restriction. Even here in Yemen, a very conservative muslim country, people wouldn't think twice about a women using a camera...

Isaac

 

[isaacc7]

Stirling Photographic didn't close per se. Rather, Tata InfoTec paid the owner a small fortune to bulldoze the plant to make room for corporate housing back in 2001.

Overall, you are correct. Developing countries have not had a lengthy dallaince with film before moving straight to digital.

I tend to doubt that a startup digital system is less expensive than an analog system. Even new.

I love vacuum tube audio equipment. When I moved to Yemen I thought I could score some really good deals on old, obsolete equipment. Turns out that they skipped that phase all together. When the rest of the world was using vacuum tubes for electronics, there weren't any electronics in Yemen at all. They did (do) use them for their MIGs, but they don't seem too eager to let me at any of those stocks, LOL!

As far as the cost goes, I can imagine that a digital/inkjet system would be much, much cheaper than a minilab, not to mention the skills needed to run one properly. Here in Yemen, photography is general is pretty rare, not too many people can afford cameras. When people buy a new camera, it is inevitably a digital one due to the lower cost of operating it. A "lab" with a computer and good ink jet printer would most likely be able to keep up with the demand for prints locally, certainly several such places could. There are people here who know how to run computers, many many more than there are people that can understand chemistry and the photochemical process...


Isaac

 

[Photo Engineer]

Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to these sorts of things because I'm an American living in Yemen, but I cringe whenever I see sweeping generalizations like the one PE made, joke or not. We (Americans) could do with a lot less talk of "them" and a lot more talk, or even interest, of the diverse nature of "the Middle East". As to PE's original comment, maybe in some Saudi town/villages, since women don't seem to be allowed to do anything, but I can't think of too many places that would have that kind of restriction. Even here in Yemen, a very conservative muslim country, people wouldn't think twice about a women using a camera...

Isaac

I apologize for the generalization and the creation of a stereotype.

I would like to point out that in the Moslem world, women generally do not use cameras nor have their picture taken. This statistic was compiled by groups associated with the PMA doing demographics.

It is in no way demeaning or derogatory, but merely a matter of their faith.

In the rest of the world, it is a more even split between men and women using cameras, and women appearing in pictures.

PE

 

[Greg_E]

People keep saying that Kodak is entering the digital world too late. In my opinion that can't be more wrong. Kodak has had digital printers for many years with their Encad line. They also make some of the finest CCD and CMOS imagers and the market. Their involvement in machine vision (and other industrial applications) is extremely high, where I believe they have the current market share (might be wrong?). Sony will be the only serious competition to "low end" imagers for the near future. Dalsa is still the competition for the really high end imagers and they (Dalsa) are probably nearly ready to release something new to trump the current Kodak 39MP sensor in all the highest end digital imaging backs. Kodak also makes some of the finest digital dye sub printers on the market, something that they have been making for a large number of years. Their printers are very popular with the digital crowd because they will crank out prints at a very good rate. People that print onsite at events, and portrait packagers love them because of the simple use, and durable product. As far as the "new" Kodak desktop inkjet printers, time will tell, but they are starting off on a bad footing. They are making a multi-color ink cart, so that when you run out of cyan, you need to replace all the other colors too(excluding black). This is something that all the other inkjet companies have mostly abandoned, going to single color per cart designs.

I know everyone here has a distinctly film bias and that my opinions will label me as a digital heretic, but you really should look around at the other markets where Kodak does have a firm grasp before predicting certain doom. Will the film division survive is a good question, but I don't really see Kodak (as a whole) going away anytime soon.

 

[Neanderman]

Very interesting. The plant is still operational and, in fact, is still part of EK:

http://www.eastmangelatine.com/default.aspx

I'm guessing you'd have to be talking tons before they'd sell to you. ;-)

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Very interesting. The plant is still operational and, in fact, is still part of EK:

http://www.eastmangelatine.com/default.aspx

I'm guessing you'd have to be talking tons before they'd sell to you. ;-)

Yes well the gillion tons used in the manufacture of movie film would still make this viable.

 

[Chan Tran]

People keep saying that Kodak is entering the digital world too late. In my opinion that can't be more wrong. Kodak has had digital printers for many years with their Encad line. They also make some of the finest CCD and CMOS imagers and the market. Their involvement in machine vision (and other industrial applications) is extremely high, where I believe they have the current market share (might be wrong?). Sony will be the only serious competition to "low end" imagers for the near future. Dalsa is still the competition for the really high end imagers and they (Dalsa) are probably nearly ready to release something new to trump the current Kodak 39MP sensor in all the highest end digital imaging backs. Kodak also makes some of the finest digital dye sub printers on the market, something that they have been making for a large number of years. Their printers are very popular with the digital crowd because they will crank out prints at a very good rate. People that print onsite at events, and portrait packagers love them because of the simple use, and durable product. As far as the "new" Kodak desktop inkjet printers, time will tell, but they are starting off on a bad footing. They are making a multi-color ink cart, so that when you run out of cyan, you need to replace all the other colors too(excluding black). This is something that all the other inkjet companies have mostly abandoned, going to single color per cart designs.

I know everyone here has a distinctly film bias and that my opinions will label me as a digital heretic, but you really should look around at the other markets where Kodak does have a firm grasp before predicting certain doom. Will the film division survive is a good question, but I don't really see Kodak (as a whole) going away anytime soon.

I totally agree with you on this. Kodak is in fact jumped in the digital imaging field quite early. They invented the Bayer pattern and the algorithm to process the image in the 70's. They were the first to offer DSLR. They were first to have CCD in the over 1MP range. Kodak failure may be because of its own famous name.