Skiff
Well-known
This thread is about the progress Adox is making. It is not about Kodak.
Whether on photrio as "Ratty Mouse" or here as "Ted Striker" you regularly spam threads with your doom and gloom praying and leaving the original topic.
For 15 years now we hear from people like you that instant film will die, that E6 will die, that RA-4 paper and photofinishing will die, that only one last man standing BW company will survive and that in the end we will have to coat glassplates by ourselves. For 15 years always the same stories. But nothing of that had happened. In several segments already the exact opposite has happened instead. And no one could so far explain to me why it should happen now, when the interest in film is increasing again especially by the young photographers.
Last year Eastman Kodak hired about 5% additional personal in film production to satisfy demand. They have re-introduced T-Max 3200, are in the process of re-introducing Ektachrome, have introduced Pro Image 100 in Europe. No matter how the restructuring at Kodak will go, I am convinced that film production will continue. Because they have realised that film has a future.
As almost all other companies in the business: I've talked to a market analyst some weeks ago. He said that about 90% of the companies in the film photography industry are preparing for future stable or increasing business. The companies have the data, they see the demand for their products. I trust those who have the facts and data. And show their commitment with new products or services. And not the doom and gloom fundamentalists. They don't have any data.
End of story.
Back to the topic: Adox.
Ted Striker
Well-known
You miss the point completely.
In today's world, film does not provide Kodak's financial strength.
In other words, the survival of Kodak depends on a lot more than film.
How much revenue does film provide Kodak? If we assume their consumer film division is 80% film ( the rest is inkjet printing and licensing) then using the most recent numbers film is a whopping 11% of Kodak's revenues.
89% of the rest of the company is non film. THAT is the dominate factor and THAT is what is causing Kodak's problem with the market.
It has nothing to do with film.
So you can state all these things that are going great with film, and I'll agree with all of them (except the hiring more people part; Kodak's own documents show 325 layoffs, not new hires).
But the point remains, and has not been invalidated with any substantial evidence, is that Kodak the company, is in VERY serious trouble, with their future in doubt.
Skiff
Well-known
Exactly. That is what I was pointing at.
So if even the worst case happens, that Eastman Kodak would face another chapter 11 situation, then in this case the film division will most probably be separated and spun off. And I think that would be the best solution for it, being independent from the rest. In a best case scenario we perhaps even see a merger of this division with Kodak Alaris: Production and distribution again under the same roof, as it should be.
The lay-off was in other divisions, not in film production.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Wow. My point got through. What a great way to start off the day. I am impressed.
I hope now it can be seen that any "negative" news I report on Kodak is not in any way an active disdain for their films. It's simply a statement of facts regarding their current financial situation.
One cannot determine with any degree of certainty whether or not Kodak's film division would be profitable as a stand alone business. The published financial data is not complete enough to support that supposition. Of course, we can hope this is true and if it were, Kodak is free to spin this division off any time they want to. A lot of companies spin off parts of themselves for financial gain. Eastman Kodak did that with Eastman Chemical, spun it off into its own company.
That Kodak has not done this is a strong data point that it's not possible. It is very possible, even likely, that the reason Kodak's film division is said to be "profitable" is due to a whole host of accounting strategies that consolidate losses across the company. This would not be possible as a stand alone company hence the reason why it has not been spun off.
Finally, should Kodak suffer another bankruptcy, it is likely to be the liquidation form of this rather than reorganization. In order for the courts to allow for another reorganization, there has to be some belief that the company will be successful upon emergence of bankruptcy. Kodak failed as a film company with the first bankruptcy and may possibly fail as a printing company with the second. What will be the nature of the business upon emerging from a second bankruptcy? That's hard to imagine.
The idea of Kodak Alaris purchasing the film component from Eastman is a tantalizing thought and clearly the best scenario one can imagine. I join you and everyone else in hoping this comes to pass. But why was Alaris set up without the film manufacturing part of Kodak to begin with?
Alaris is quite a different company than most in one particular way: it exists to provide pensions for retirees.
Because of this, it is a very conservative company. I suggest that taking on Eastman's film division is too radical a move for Alaris to take. Why? Because Alaris is more than a marketeer for film. They have several other product lines and divisions selling products and services totally unrelated to film.
It would seem to me that the financial need to keep selling film is not strong enough to push them towards such a risky move.
That's my amateur take on the current situation. As always, I'll modify my views based on real time news and information as it appears.
Skiff
Well-known
No. It has been the opposite for many years: The profits made with film were burnt in the other (digital, printing) divisions of Kodak. One of the reasons why Eastman Kodak has not sold the film division so far. They don't want to sell a cash cow.
I've discussed that topic with Kodak Alaris staff in my country. They told me that Alaris wanted the film production, too, but Eastman Kodak didn't want to sell it (reason for that see above).
But now, finally, let's keep on the original topic in this thread: Adox.
miha
Established
True but after Adox dropped their pilot 400 ISO emulsion based on these arguments, Berrger and Foma Bohemia released their 400 and 320 ISO films nevertheless.
Skiff
Well-known
Yes, but the situation at Bergger and Foma has been quite different:
- Bergger has just picked up a film which was already long finished in design by Inoviscoat in Germany, so no R&D costs for Bergger
- Foma is a relatively big company (bigger than Ilford by the way) and this film was probably also already finished for quite some time; and for a company like Foma with a well working international distribution chain it is much easier to implement an additional film in the market. And Retropan Soft is a very special film, filling a small market gap - "for big grain lovers"
.miha
Established
Yes, but the situation at Bergger and Foma has been quite different:
- Bergger has just picked up a film which was already long finished in design by Inoviscoat in Germany, so no R&D costs for Bergger
- Foma is a relatively big company (bigger than Ilford by the way) and this film was probably also already finished for quite some time; and for a company like Foma with a well working international distribution chain it is much easier to implement an additional film in the market. And Retropan Soft is a very special film, filling a small market gap - "for big grain lovers"
These are quite different arguments to those in your previous post. I won't argue the Foma part - their distribution channels are indeed well established, covering all continents which I find remarkable but the Bergger part not so. Adox tried to re-release the already known APX 400 emulsion - a fast film with most beautiful tonality imo, even released a couple of hundred / thousand (?) rolls to the market but only made a single run of it.
Skiff
Well-known
It was in fact a new emulsion. They tried to make it finer grained, but with the spectral sensivity of former APX 400. I've seen prints of it, as a friend of mine was one of the Beta testers at that time.
But at that time Adox was not completely independant in R&D and production. Now they are. They had a partner at that time, which was in a stronger position than Adox.
The market has also changed since that time. Now they have to invest all the new R&D by their own.
I am sure we will see an Adox ISO 400 film. But not in short or mid term. There are more attractive market gaps in other market segments.