Would Kodak get back into the instant film business?

[ezphotolessons]

I think the problem is they will have to make new cameras too since most of the originals have been turned into lamps and sold on Etsy.

 

[Hassasin]

Kodak most certainly has infrastructure and R&D capacity to produce instant film

At one time that was certainly true, what make you think Kodak still has the infranstrucre to make i? They sold the color paper plant off, it is just a shadow of what it use to be. From I understand with just one lone plant left they are at capacity making negative and slide film.

By what I said, I don't doubt Kodak could, if they so chose, go into instant film and there would be nothing stopping such a development and production. There are issues other than R&D and actuall production that are likely to keep it off the table.

Anyone remember New 55 project? They started with a "wheelbarrow" technology (pun intended) and did make a machine that would put pieces together, they would fit into Polaroid back, they would pull out of that back too, and they did peel apart producing an image. Regardless how that ended, how can anyone doubt Kodak could do it (with comparative ease) if they decided to do so?

Is there any company interested in making instant film that would be above and beyond what "Polaroid" of today is and offers? Indeed, it is doubtful. It is unlikely there is demand sufficient to cover development cost and then make effort be appreciated enough for continued production.

But then again, there is so much money buried in rich coffins, never to see the light of day, who knows.

 

[OrientPoint]

They don't. They could potentially make some of the film components and some of the processing components, but I think you are failing to understand the level of complexity involved in the systems integration and mechanical assembly steps. Impossible had the benefit of being able to strip several Polaroid factories for the process machinery needed. Fuji had the benefit of Kodak essentially selling off their entire instant system to them.

I believe it's absolutely incredible that Impossible was able to take a pile of old Polaroid process machinery, minus the supporting plants (including the Massachusetts plants producing negatives) and infrastructure, and manage to reformulate the chemistry to actually produce film that works quite well. Yeah, it takes too long to develop and the shelf life sucks and it's too expensive, but it is undeniably capable of producing gorgeous images. They deserve a lot more credit than they receive, in my opinion.

 

[koraks]

I don't think the market exists for it, not at a significant scale. Instax is well-established and it would be impossible to compete realistically with it.

Well, that's the solution and a new problem to the statement you made wrapped all into these two sentences. Evidently the market is there. Instax revenues are several hundred million $ annually. The retail price of the film packs suggests there's ample room for running a healthy profit, even under conditions of increased competition. However, the obvious issue is that to gain traction on the market, a new player (Kodak) would have to tap into the Instax ecosystem and this would result in legal problems - while the image-forming technology may be accessible, there will be problems with things like mechanical interfaces being patented by Fuji. Then there's the risk of (accidentally or quasi-purposefully) making use of image-forming technology that's also patented by someone else, so either way, there's a significant risk of litigation, especially given Fuji's deep pockets - which are a whole lot deeper than Kodak's. So ultimately, for a firm like Kodak, it would make more sense to build a parallel ecosystem next to Instax and then compete on that basis. But this requires a considerable amount of time and R&D investment, and likely partnering with external firms for complementary products.

So I'd make the nuance that it's not so much that the market doesn't exist for it, but the barriers to entry are high.

That's in the "bringing back Kodachrome" category.

With the difference that a Kodachrome transparency product would face a tiny little market and very steep technological requirements. Instant color photography has proven to be a fairly sizeable market and performance-wise, you can get away with a pretty shoddy product - look at Instax and Polaroid color fidelity and lack of archivalness. Crossover isn't a bug, it's a feature!

 

[Don_ih]

So I'd make the nuance that it's not so much that the market doesn't exist for it, but the barriers to entry are high.

True. I mostly meant that the market for something new doesn't exist, not in a way that would pay for the investment involved. Instax in entrenched - in over 100 countries worldwide - and at a price Kodak would most likely never be able to beat.
But I also meant there is no real market for something better than Instax.

 

[koraks]

Yes, yes indeed. I think you could sum it up that way.

 

[thinkbrown]

It seems like the only instant film market that isn't being addressed right now is peel apart packfilm. Unfortunately, that market is probably too small and the product too complex to justify entry by a new player.

 

[BrianShaw]

Perhaps a focus on the artist market… wouldn’t it be great to revive Type 59 and Polaroid transfer printing?

 

[Cholentpot]

Instant film, Instax specifically is the best selling film in the world currently. Fuji can't make enough of it. I believe that there's market space for Kodak to jump in on it and do very well. These are not complicated cameras. Fuji doesn't make any amazing Instax cameras. They make toys that shoot their film, they sell the camera to move film. Kodak's bread and butter since day one has been cranking out cheap cameras in order to sell more film.

It would be an investment but I think it would work well. And its future proof to a degree.

 

[Chan Tran]

My idea is to have larger format instant film. The Instax's are too small. I hope they make film to go in view camera. They can sell small digital camera with the instant film characteristic programmed in so one can do a preview before making the shot. Kind of a reverse process of taking Polaroid test shots back in the old days now taking digital test shots before taking the instant shot.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Kodak seems to be happy selling throw-away 35mm cameras.

Here's another iteration although it might be a third-party product.

Barbie x Kodak Printomatic Full-Color Instant Print Digital Camera Iconic Style

BARBIE X KODAK This fabulous, iconic BARBIE x Kodak pink camera is your ultimate sidekick for instant fun. Slip this pocket-sized Barbie gem into your bag and snap memories on the go. ONE TOUCH PHOTOGRAPHY Capture and print every moment, all on one device. The camera prints full-color print...

www.kodakphotoplus.com

 

[Chan Tran]

Kodak seems to be happy selling throw-away 35mm cameras.

Here's another iteration although it might be a third-party product.

Barbie x Kodak Printomatic Full-Color Instant Print Digital Camera Iconic Style

BARBIE X KODAK This fabulous, iconic BARBIE x Kodak pink camera is your ultimate sidekick for instant fun. Slip this pocket-sized Barbie gem into your bag and snap memories on the go. ONE TOUCH PHOTOGRAPHY Capture and print every moment, all on one device. The camera prints full-color print...

www.kodakphotoplus.com

That is not a 35mm camera and it's not throw away either. It's a digital camera with the built in printer.

 

[Don_ih]

I believe that there's market space for Kodak to jump in on it and do very well.

Kodak may not be allowed to make film for Instax cameras.

 

[Paul Howell]

By what I said, I don't doubt Kodak could, if they so chose, go into instant film and there would be nothing stopping such a development and production. There are issues other than R&D and actuall production that are likely to keep it off the table.

Anyone remember New 55 project? They started with a "wheelbarrow" technology (pun intended) and did make a machine that would put pieces together, they would fit into Polaroid back, they would pull out of that back too, and they did peel apart producing an image. Regardless how that ended, how can anyone doubt Kodak could do it (with comparative ease) if they decided to do so?

Is there any company interested in making instant film that would be above and beyond what "Polaroid" of today is and offers? Indeed, it is doubtful. It is unlikely there is demand sufficient to cover development cost and then make effort be appreciated enough for continued production.

But then again, there is so much money buried in rich coffins, never to see the light of day, who knows.

I don't think Kodak has the deep pockets to build a coating line. Kodak's R and D staff retired or were laid off, it has been close to 20 years that film market collapsed, Kodak R&D staff retired or were laid off. Project Impossible started with legacy Polaroid equipment, don't recall if they got the building as well. Fuji was set all set up to Insta Film.

 

[Cholentpot]

Kodak may not be allowed to make film for Instax cameras.

They make film for fuji already.

 

[koraks]

They make film for fuji already.

Yeah, but that's a segment Fuji evidently has little interest in. Instax is a different story. They make money in that segment.

 

[Chan Tran]

Yeah, but that's a segment Fuji evidently has little interest in. Instax is a different story. They make money in that segment.

So the instant film business is more lucrative than the ordinary film business so why not? Kodak doesn't have to make film for the Instax cameras as those are too small anyway.

 

[Cholentpot]

So the instant film business is more lucrative than the ordinary film business so why not? Kodak doesn't have to make film for the Instax cameras as those are too small anyway.

Exactly.

Instant film is lucrative and Kodak is the only one of very few companies that can make it.

 

[BrianShaw]

Isn't it fun suggesting how someone else should spend their money?

 

[MarkS]

As a former Kodak employee, who while not involved with film manufacturing, did spend a little time at Kodak Park...
None of us realize the amount of effort, at all levels, it would take to invent a new instant film and market it.
Theoretically possible? Yes. But it would take years and enormous amounts of money. Profitable? Never.
The good folks at Kodak today have far more important (and profitable) things to do to keep the company alive.

 

[ezphotolessons]

Kodak may not be allowed to make film for Instax cameras.

They should do it and in perfect KODAK form charge 4x the price of Fuji's Instax film.

 

[koraks]

So the instant film business is more lucrative than the ordinary film business

Glancing at the financial data we have from Eastman Kodak and what we can infer from Fuji, Instax is a lot more interesting than Portra.

 

[AnselMortensen]

While we're dreaming, here...why not wish for 4x5 pull-apart instant Kodachrome?

 

[Hassasin]

I don't think Kodak has the deep pockets to build a coating line. Kodak's R and D staff retired or were laid off, it has been close to 20 years that film market collapsed, Kodak R&D staff retired or were laid off. Project Impossible started with legacy Polaroid equipment, don't recall if they got the building as well. Fuji was set all set up to Insta Film.

Putting Kodak against that tiny team at New55 ? (which is what I mentioned, not Impossible).

We can go back and forth. I have no doubt making a quality instant film has nothing to do with purported complexity, but return on investment required to make it happen. And the latter is directly dependent on "is there an actual demand"? If there were money to be made, money would have found its way into convincing Kodak or someone else to make it happen.

Historical truth about everything is: scepticism kills innovation and progress.

I think most of us old ones, who grew up in analog domain, would like to see more variety in film offers, but I'm not sure if there is a way to make instant film that would actually be a quality product, yet sufficiently affordable to help it's production with scale economics.

 

[koraks]

has nothing to do with purported complexity, but return on investment required

These two things have *everything* to do with each other, of course. Especially in this case. Why do people insist on trying to smash something like this flat into a single factor? These things are never a clear cut case.