brbo
Well-known
I agree .
pschauss
Well-known
After reading all of this, I went online and ordered another 400' of Double-X. That way, if Kodak really does bail out of the film business I will have four years to find a replacement for my favorite film.
traveler_101
American abroad
I have been preparing for the eventual end of Kodak as we have know it since 2012 when it announced bankruptcy. I had been buying all of my film from Kodak and began then to diversify my buying habits.
Reading through this thread again, I still think what I wrote earlier is accurate: Kodak's film production facility is geared to a scale that cannot be sustained. While there appears to be steady demand for film for still cameras, we will probably see the end of mass production. We can't be sure of this assessment but it appears to me to be a logical conclusion from what we do know.
To finish my thought: the consequence will be that prices will rise and the commitment to film will be tested. Still, innovation in cutting edge film technology by the remaining producers and a greater commitment by consumers, including perhaps institutional consumers such as schools, to film shooting and home processing as a desirable experience should keep up demand for film. We will probably have film for decades to come, albeit at a higher price. Stocking up is not a bad idea if you have storage space.
Corran
Well-known
If 100' of 35mm film is all you shoot in a year (that equates to about one roll every two weeks or so) then perhaps consider shooting more, if you want Kodak or anyone else to stick around. That's an abysmally small amount of film.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Quality not quantity?
Corran
Well-known
That's always been a stupid saying, in the context of anything that takes practice. Unless you magically learned and improved without shooting any film, and every click is perfect? Doubt it.
Regardless, in the context of Kodak (and everyone else) staying alive, we must encourage people to shoot more film. I've seen too many people whine about Kodak but only shoot a roll of film a few times a year. Pathetic.
Regardless, in the context of Kodak (and everyone else) staying alive, we must encourage people to shoot more film. I've seen too many people whine about Kodak but only shoot a roll of film a few times a year. Pathetic.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
So would you say you are of the monkey with a typewriter school?
Corran
Well-known
I'm of the school that spent over a decade practicing a musical instrument 6-8 hours a day. I bring a similar level of commitment to photography now. You literally cannot learn and grow as a photographer without making images (this is the primary cited benefit to digital you know - no cost for practicing). I immediately notice that my skills have dipped if I go a couple of weeks without shooting.
If you think one does not need to practice seeing and making photographs, then I must conclude you are not a photographer.
If you think one does not need to practice seeing and making photographs, then I must conclude you are not a photographer.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
A LF photographer likely exposes fewer frames in a year than a MF photographer, who in turn likely exposes fewer frames than a 35mm photographer. Does that mean that 35mm photographers are better than MF and LF photographers solely by virtue of the number of frames they expose? Based on anecdotal information about the number of frames digital shooters make, maybe they are the best photographers of all. Perhaps I just take a more thoughtful approach to practicing.
Corran
Well-known
I shoot mostly LF actually. In the context of using more film, LF uses more film per frame so it all balances out, mostly. My point stands - practice is important. Not the topic of this thread though I suppose. I can be just as thoughtful in my practice and shoot a lot as well.
css9450
Veteran
ptpdprinter
Veteran
So now it is the number of square mm of film you expose not the number of images you make. The goal posts keep shifting.
Corran
Well-known
Quit putting words in my mouth. Practice is important, period.
Skiff
Well-known
You are permanently demonstrating here your complete lack of economic knowledge.
The creditors would never agree to a contract which forces EK to produce for a customer with severe losses. The creditors would shoot in their own foot by agreeing to that.
Your blind believe that KA could force EK to produce for them without regard to profitability is just ridiculous.
And it is fact that such a stupid contract does not exist. I'll say it again: I've talked with both (EK and KA), and both confirmed that such an agreement does not exist.
Without profitability at EK there will be no film for KA.
That is obvious for eyeryone:
1. The film supply for the Hollywood studios.
2. EK changed their mind concerning the long term perspective: They are more optimistic to keep film production alive in the long run.
But the topic of this thread is: Will the severe problems of EK in their main business industrial printing affect film production in a negative way? What would happen to film production if EK faces another insolvency?
So far the financial results of Q4 2017 have not published yet. We have to wait and see......
Skiff
Well-known
As for "mass production" of film:
Sometimes things happen no one would have thought that they could happen:
Only ten years ago all the market experts said that instant film will be the first film type that will be completely killed by digital.
But the complete opposite happened:
Instant film is now a mass volume product again!
Fujifilm is producing more than 30 million instax film packs p.a.!!
That is more film than the combined photo film production of Kodak and Ilford together.
jge1421
Newbie
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
These comments are just flippant at best and meant to instigate conflict at worst. Regardless, they are going to get some folks heated, many of whom have more photographic experience than you do as a congregation of living cells.
If you truly want to shoot film like you say folks should, then you'd be exposing motion picture film. I'll go through more 16mm film in a half hour of footage, collected over a few days than you will shoot in 6 months of large format. And I'm just beginning in this format. If I had the budget, I'd shoot 35mm but I'm not rich, don't have plans to make a professional movie and don't feel like wasting upwards of $200 on a single can if a single mistake is made. That's 400' in just under 4 minutes, by the way.
This discussion is largely a collection of opinions by armchair economists. That, I am not but I have known that what keeps EK running is not the production and sales of still camera stock. Those are almost a courtesy from building 38 but we all know when that production stops, folks will just get their still film from one of the other smaller scale manufacturers and life will go on. The motion picture film will either have to be picked up by someone else, ORWO or who knows, or even just die a sad death.
Regardless of all that, don't be an elitist within a group of folks that all have the same goal, to make images. If you expose more silver, good for you, that doesn't make you any better than the folks who expose a few rolls a year.
Phil Forrest
Corran
Well-known
Putting aside the usage of film for video - which yes, uses a lot more film than still photography - my point was that those who want Kodak (or any of the few companies left) to succeed and thrive should put their money where their mouth is, or where their camera is anyway. The film ain't gonna shoot itself. It's not about who is "better" - my further posts were in response to the flippant BS about quantity vs. quality, as if shooting more film is somehow worse. I'm tired of hearing complaints about Kodak from those who don't even support them monetarily.
brbo
Well-known
I've explained in detail the situation when producing film even with a loss might be beneficial. It was explained in a was that even someone with no background in economics would understand. Even then you didn't understand and yet you have the guts to call on my knowledge of economics. Absurd.
Now your sources tell you that there is no supply agreement between KA and EK?! I have to tell you, your sources know nothing. And you obviously have no grasp on how much influence a $3bln creditor can have on a $1bln business.
Except you, obviously.
In 2014 they saw a dwindling (yet still profitable for some years) demand and they wanted to stop producing film while it was still highly profitable?! Not even Kodak is crazy enough not to take $200m from the table. Yet, you still believe some PR bu****** over simple business logic...
Talking sense to you is futile.
