Would Kodak Sell Film Division?

Regarding Kodak's Film Division if sold. Do you believe it can survive and prosper?

  • Yes and I would you put my savings in it.

    Votes: 8 7.4%

  • Yes and I would you work for that new company.

    Votes: 10 9.3%

  • Yes and I would like to be part of the management team.

    Votes: 6 5.6%

  • Yes and I will commit to buying 160 square inches (2-rolls), of new stock, every week.

    Votes: 42 38.9%

  • No

    Votes: 42 38.9%
  • Total voters
    108

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
GAF film and paper coating equipment for consumer use was apparently demolished and sold in the early 80s by GAF as they entered the Linoleum business. They sold a lot of diverse plastics and flooring products for a while.

PE
 

MikeSeb

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
1,104
Location
Denver, CO
Format
Medium Format
Ian Grant said:
....because the management would be more rational and committed to our needs.

Ian
Click to expand...

With the humblest respect, I would ask how you can know Kodak's management is acting irrationally. Not doing what you might want them to is not irrationality per se. You can't say that until you have the same information they have,and the same responsibilities they have.

It's not management's job to be committed to OUR needs. They are agents for their shareholders, with a fiduciary duty to look after THEM. Sure, looking after customers well usually results indirectly in better results for shareholders. But knowing how to connect the one with the other is not always easy or obvious.

Not picking on you here personally, Ian . But I think this misunderstanding underlies a lot of needless frustration among photographers.

If you like it, BUY it and try to convince your friends to do the same. Markets, which ARE (mostly) rational, will do the rest.
 

MikeSeb

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
1,104
Location
Denver, CO
Format
Medium Format
Steve Smith said:
It may add to the speed of the demise of Kodak's film production. This would put Ilford and Fujifilm in a stronger position though.
Click to expand...

Wow. So out of the right corner of the mouth we castigate Kodak for dropping 320TXP in medium format. Meanwhile, out of the left, we voice hope on the largest analog-only web forum in the world that worldwide film production (a declining industry) will be further concentrated among fewer producers, each with a fraction of Kodak's resources (even in their current diminished state.)

Kodak could be forgiven for saying, "F--k this, why bother? We improved Portra and TMY, gave them Ektar, and they're still not happy. Let's just sell printers and digicams and those ingrate film users can choke on Provia and HP5+."

Reason has left the building, it seems. Not picking on Steve personally here, only the shared attitudes that the quote speaks to.
 

MikeSeb

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
1,104
Location
Denver, CO
Format
Medium Format
benjiboy said:
What I meant was Kodak films demise, if they knew so much about films future how did they allow themselves to get into to current situation ?
Click to expand...

Exactly. And until its critics can provide a better answer to this question that can Kodak's own management, they might oughta leave off giving Kodak advice.

Not spanking you benjiboy, just expanding on a point you may have unwittingly made.
 

Steve Smith

Member
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
9,109
Location
Ryde, Isle o
Format
Medium Format
The problem Kodak management have is that they can't predict the future. They cannot be sure which products will continue to sell and which will diminish. In the current situation their best hope is to just keep going and that means maintaining production of anything which is making a profit, however small.

The current financial state of the world is not one to make radical changes of direction in.


Steve.
 

Steve Smith

Member
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
9,109
Location
Ryde, Isle o
Format
Medium Format

I don't think I expressed any hope in that statement.


Steve.
 

rhmimac

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
283
Location
Antwerp
Format
35mm
When separating Agfa into Agfaphoto and mother Agfa a lot of cash went down the drain and the result was zero,nill,niente plus the disapearing of one of the nicest B&W photoproducts in Europe.
It can be a lesson for all: when money is involved, customers come 2nd place. It's not about us dear apugers, it's all about making cash and flow.
My grandfather spent his entire working life in the agfa company. I was brought up with the reddy orange Agfa signs and karton boxes all over the place. The poor man would turn over in his grave knowing film would be gone and forgotten.

rhmimac
 

Christopher Walrath

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
7,175
Location
Milton, DE USA
Format
Analog
Not voting in the poll. I agree with Ian that the film business would prosper more, perhaps, being run by people with a vision for film. Not voting because my option is not there and that would have been a simple 'yes'. I sell spark plugs and will for the rest of my life. I'm happy with that. I couldn't even dream of investing. And my life savings are the three bucks I carry over each week to the next paycheck. And my 401K.
 
OP
OP

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format

I agree.
 
OP
OP

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
Christopher Walrath said:
Not voting because my option is not there and that would have been a simple 'yes'.
Click to expand...

There was actually method to my madness in asking the questions the way I did.

Basically, it's a test of importance and belief.

I don't want to pick on you Chris because you in the majority here, so far non-voters outnumber voters by about 1000:1. You are also an active promoter of film.

The point I want to make here is that YES, by itself, isn't enough.

We have a vested interest in seeing Kodak and Ilford and Fuji and ... survive.
 

T42

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
127
Location
Georgia, USA
Format
35mm
Hello Forum.

I respectfully suggest that the poll title and the poll options belong to two different polls. I didn't vote either because of the disconnect.

Regarding Kodak's Film Division if sold. Do you believe it can survive and prosper?
This is a yes/no question. It could be embellished with some options about why one might believe it might prosper or not prosper in the current environment and thereafter.

One idea for a more fitting question, more relevant to the options presented might be:
Regarding the possible loss of Kodak as a film source, how much would YOU be willing to do to help Kodak survive?
Then the options that make sense within that context should follow.

As presented, two of the five options presented are grammatically confusing. They could stand a bit of touching up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

SchwinnParamount

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,774
Location
Tacoma, WA
Format
4x5 Format

Agreed. My vote would have been a simple "Yes"... except that we weren't given that choice. The alternate affirmative poll choices were kind of stupid.
 

AlexG

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
97
Location
Sacramento,
Format
Medium Format
I just think that Kodak needs to cut back on the size of the master rolls (I guess this can't be done?), and I think if the film devision was re-structured to be more focused on niche markets, and offered a full line up of "boutique" films (somewhat like Ilford), they're business would be much more successful.

IMO, It just seems like Kodak is using the same marketing model on film that they were using in the 90's when film was still a big thing. Now, instead of making fewer rolls of film because there is a decline in sales, they just cut the product from the line up. This method is absolutely rubbish.


I don't know, but if the film division declared independence from Kodak (Maybe the American Film Corporation?) and became smaller, more focused on niche markets, they would be more sucessful.


Unfortunately, I doubt any of this stuff discussed in this topic will ever happen. As weak and small the still picture film market is for Kodak, it's too valuable for them to let go. Kodak is film.
 

SchwinnParamount

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,774
Location
Tacoma, WA
Format
4x5 Format
P.E. made a point which may be under-valued unless you stop to consider. The KP location is poisoned by bad chemicals and the liability associated with the clean up makes the land and facilities far less than worthless.

Kodak can only continue to wring the last pennies out of the film busines to minimize the loss associated with closing the facility and facing the cost of cleaning up the mess.

I live in the Tacoma area. Home of the Aasarco copper smelter. Even 40 years after closing the business, the Aasarco (sp.?) company is STILL on the hook for the clean-up costs involved in removing arsenic and other chemicals from the top soil for miles and miles around the site. This cost runs into the hundreds of millions.
 

Steve Smith

Member
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
9,109
Location
Ryde, Isle o
Format
Medium Format
David A. Goldfarb said:
The sorts of investors who could even consider something like buying Kodak's film division, like the ones who bought Polaroid, aren't likely to do it for the sake of preserving the Kodak legacy or traditional photography.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we could get Bill Gates and Richard Branson interested in film photography!

Steve
 

eclarke

Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
1,950
Location
New Berlin,
Format
ULarge Format
When today's children are adults, they will be looking at film photography artifacts in the museum and making images of them with their 50 megapixel video cell phones. They will wonder why anybody ever put up with all the darkroom mess just to make a still photograph...No long term hope for Kodak, Ilford or Fuji film...EC
 
OP
OP

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
Steve Smith said:
Perhaps we could get Bill Gates and Richard Branson interested in film photography!

Steve
Click to expand...

Why not?

All they need is a good reason to think they can make money.
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,970
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
MikeSeb said:
Exactly. And until its critics can provide a better answer to this question that can Kodak's own management, they might oughta leave off giving Kodak advice.

Not spanking you benjiboy, just expanding on a point you may have unwittingly made.
Click to expand...
I agree Mike, and I think that nobody on this forum has the same access to the facts to pass an informed judgement on as Kodak s management, this is all conjecture .
 

Simon R Galley

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
2,034
Location
Cheshire UK
Format
Medium Format
Dear eclarke

I am not entirely convinced.......why ?... just this morning was the monthly scheduled coating of glass plates here at HARMAN technology...something we at ILFORD Photo have been doing for 131 years...

Kind regards

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
 

viridari

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
347
Location
Raleigh, NC
Format
Hybrid

A 50 megapixel camera would still lack the resolution of a scanned negative from a medium format camera with good glass and a modern T-grained film, properly developed. And with a very wide margin, at that.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
the problem is that sometimes it is hard to see the forest through the trees, and large oldfashioned companies
are set in their ways a lot of the time .. i think they refer to it as their "culture ".
i am amazed that ilford has pulled it off, and i think it is great they are keeping with the plates,
from what i understand it is the original thing that mr. harman made back in the day
 

mikebarger

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
1,937
Location
ottawa kansas
Format
Multi Format
I like playing with pre 1948 cars, but I'm not planning on driving one everyday. We will always hobbyist in film and old cars. When someone asks me if I can still get film for the camera (hassy or 4x5) I don't hear them saying they want to start using film, I hear the surprise someone still makes film.

It's just like the surprise they have when you tell them yes I can still get parts for a 1946 Plymouth. Doesn't mean they want to run out and buy one, film camera or car.

Mike
 

DanielStone

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
3,114
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Multi Format


Simon,

are the plates for still-camera use, or for specialized industries, such as electron microscopy? I remember a friend telling me that they used glass plates due to the high temperatures in the 'scope, where glass wouldn't flex, but film would surely bend, crack and not last long under high heat.

I'm interested in finding out some more if possible as to what markets are sitll using dry plates.

thanks

-Dan
 

eclarke

Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
1,950
Location
New Berlin,
Format
ULarge Format

It's not a conviction for me but rather a suspicion. I just think that we are seeing the first generation of people who were born since mainstream digital photography, and for them it's the conventional method. I also think that Ilford is the shining hope for film and paper and I hope I am gone before you are!! God bless HP5 and MGWTFB!!..EC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…