Wonderful news from Ilford for us film shooters!

lawrence said:
In the UK even private companies have to release their annual figures, which are filed at Companies House.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I did not know that. Perhaps it does motivate the news they release, how they release it.

Cheers
 
The original post was a news release from Ilford, but this was taken to mean an industry wide observation. Perhaps the release was poorly worded, but I believe they meant within their context. I would give Ilford different consideration regarding their future, versus the rest of the industry. The Ilford-Harman incarnation has been around a few years now, a good sign. In that time they introduced some new chemicals, and bought out Kentmere (I just started using Kentmere paper, very very nice stuff) and kept the brand name I might add, a good move imo. This probably isn't an exhaustive list of what they've been up to, but it sure seems like they are doing things right.

I'm sure theirs is a niche business and film is today a niche within the photo industry. So what? There's nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't mean their existence is doomed. BTW, I'm typing this on a niche computer (Apple) and drive a niche car (Ferrari).

Cheers
Steven

(Ok, I was joking about the car).
 
Well, if the big companies drop out of film bussines, which may happen with managers axing their own company for "shareholder value", cottage industrys can join in. Fotoimpex already brought us AGFAs defunct MCC and MCP back - in really nice quality, made on the original machines and with the technicians being out of job because of the insolvence of AGFA. They said they will bring AGFAs APX back once the old stock is been sold.

I think thats good news and really a modell for the future of film-based photography. I hate beeing dependend on some big corporations which just got their sharehoder value in mind, and no social and cultural responsibility!

cheers,
Michael
 
Kodak will be one of the last standers in the film business because what most of you don't apparently realise is Kodak's film is made for the hollywood motion picture film industry. Colleges & Technical Institutes offering classes to students wishing to learn the trade of cinema photography. Indy films are growing by leaps & bounds. Young producers are putting some great stuff out in the markets. Their budgets are low so they don't shoot digital "too expensive" they shoot film. Guess what people! Your consumer 35mm & 120 film is cut off from much of this film because its run in sheets.
 
I'm not even sure if it would work well in a motion picture camera. The perforations and spacing are very slightly different. Plus-X isn't the same as the Plus-X we use. It's ISO 80. Then there's Double-X 5222 at ISO 250. They feed fine through still cameras but we're not crankin' it through at a blistering 24 FPS. Kodak discontinued 4X Pan ISO 500 a few years ago, as well as XT Pan ISO 25.
 
Last edited:
Tri-X isn't because it's reversal film in motion picture and might not be offered in 35mm anyway. Many students in film schools start off with Tri-X for that same reason, in 16mm. 35mm negative B&W stocks are Plus-X and Double-X. Some movies do use them. Schindler's List and Clerks are good examples (not exactly super recent though). Memento did some scenes in B&W. The most recent movie I'm aware of that used real B&W stock was Casino Royale. There might be others, it's not something I keep up on.
 
Roger Vadim said:
Well, if the big companies drop out of film bussines, which may happen with managers axing their own company for "shareholder value", cottage industrys can join in.
Click to expand...

One factor favoring that wasn't present not so many years ago, and that's the fact that these smaller firms would not necessarily need to establish a distribution network. They can sell online.

I hate beeing dependend on some big corporations which just got their sharehoder value in mind, and no social and cultural responsibility!
Click to expand...

I've been known to express similar sentiments. However, rather a lot of us are shareholders, even if we don't know it, via our retirement schemes. What's happened recently is that managers are willing to break a company to produce windfall gains.
 
jarski said:
interesting. is this same Kodak that has just produced full frame imaging sensor for worlds smallest pro-camera ?
Click to expand...

True. But, then, GM makes the Corvette.

My rustbelt comment was meant to suggest that Kodak, an old-line firm in a northern industrial city, might share some of the problems of many other old-line firms in that region: Aging and high-cost physical infrastructure, aging and high cost workforce, large obligations to its retirees, a management tradition unaccustomed to agile decisions, etc.

There's no doubt Kodak can make excellent products of great technical capability. But that really doesn't carry much weight in the market. Neither does OME'ing sensors for a niche camera inside a niche market.
 
Tom A said:
Digital is, to some extent, shooting themselves in the proverbial foot! By changing models, sensors, software every 6-8 month the do "scare" of the consumer camera customer ( their "profit center).
Click to expand...

This is so true. A blog I follow of a wedding photographer, retained by Canon, has moved from recommending, and shooting, the IDII to the IDsIII then to the 5DII now is getting a IDIV pre-release which already is touted as "this could be the model that completely redefines the way that I shoot" and that is in 18 months or so. Some follow his choice as they expect to then produce shots of his quality :rolleyes: Look at the M series digital yet the MP soldiers on and sells well we are told, well being very relative. How long will the gullible follow this path of throwing money away ? That shot seems to miss the foot on a consistent basis.
 
wgerrard said:
I have no real way of knowing this, but I suspect neither Kodak or Fuji are putting any significant new investment in their film infrastructure. Probably Ilford, too. As such, so long as their film lines continue to produce some kind of profit, there's very little reason for the facilities to be shut down. The tricky part is predicting demand and keeping the raw material costs in bounds.

Obviously, however, there is a threshold below which film sales can't support such a legacy operation.
Click to expand...

Kodak continues to make R&D investments in film. Certainly not to the extent they used to, but given the size of the market, I'll take something rather than nothing.
 
bmattock said:
My local camera store is the only one left. There were five major stores in Detroit, now there is one small one. And it is generally nearly empty.
Click to expand...
Bill, that proves more about the Detroit economy than film specifically or photography generally. Don't quit your day job ... OK, that was sarcastic. :p
 
wgerrard said:
True. But, then, GM makes the Corvette.

My rustbelt comment was meant to suggest that Kodak, an old-line firm in a northern industrial city, might share some of the problems of many other old-line firms in that region: Aging and high-cost physical infrastructure, aging and high cost workforce, large obligations to its retirees, a management tradition unaccustomed to agile decisions, etc.

There's no doubt Kodak can make excellent products of great technical capability. But that really doesn't carry much weight in the market. Neither does OME'ing sensors for a niche camera inside a niche market.
Click to expand...

A lot of their infrastructure is paid for. A lot of it is not that old by the standards of manufacturing. As Tom pointed out, they built a new SOTA film plant, partly because they consolidated nearly all (if not 100%) of film production in Rochester.

The retirement benefits remain a burden, but just the other day in the local paper was an article about Kodak retirees being faced with a reduction in benefits or increase in costs such as health care deductibles.

So they have dealt with a lot of what you mentioned, and very deftly in many cases. A lot of the excess real estate holdings have been prepared for sale, and there is interest in addition to some recent commitments. The global economy downturn has probably affected the pace of real estate disposition, but that is not unique to Kodak or Rochester.

In short, a lot of the costs of Kodak's attempt to transform to a a digital company have been sunk. The last quarter was not great, but again given the economy I'm not surprised. The upcoming quarter is historically their best, so we shall see. (Interesting note: They seem to be hitting the target with their inkjet multi-function devices. Having gotten disgusted with the Epson/HP inkjet scam, Kodak is the only brand I would consider if I decided to try that technology again.)

I agree with Bill completely that the attitude of "punishing" Kodak for their dropping certain chemical-based products by not buying anything from them is a form of insanity.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
I guess my point is that the movie industry isn't going to save the film we actually shoot.
Click to expand...

But it's the same production facility and equipment. The raw materials are a very small part of the cost.

Plus, the amount of XX Tom shoots could in itself save the Kodak film group! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom