Future Kodak film supplies

[zeos 386sx]

I was reading Kodak’s 2004 annual report today. In it Kodak states that in 2004 it “eliminated approximately 9,600 positions” associated with its film production and that “Facility and employment reductions will continue”.

However, despite the bleak outlook, I get the impression that Kodak intends to continue production of its film products while a market exists. It intends to keep the film end of its business profitable through its world wide facility/employee reductions.

 

[ch1]

I was reading Kodak’s 2004 annual report today. In it Kodak states that in 2004 it “eliminated approximately 9,600 positions” associated with its film production and that “Facility and employment reductions will continue”.

However, despite the bleak outlook, I get the impression that Kodak intends to continue production of its film products while a market exists. It intends to keep the film end of its business profitable through its world wide facility/employee reductions.

And your point is....?

Film is (has) become a specialty product and requires relatively few personnel to produce supply sufficient to meet current and medium-term projected market demand. It's up to you, I and other film users to supply that demand.

I would suggest to you that the greater challenge is going to be preserving reasonably easy access to film processing. If such access becomes harder and harder to find it will further downwardly pressure the demand side of the film supply/demand equation.

My (hopeful) guess is that the downward slope of film demand will moderate and (really hopefully) essentially "plateau" at a sustainable level. My main reason for hope has to do with the fact that casual shapshooters will content themselves with cellphone cameras and "soccer mom" shooters will balk at upgrading their Coolpix every year or two - thus "dampening" the "rush to digital".

That said, the future of film photography is problemattical at best and if it survives it will do so as a "niche" "retro" market.*

Here's hoping because I have a lot of film gear!

*And it will only survive if somehow it becomes "hip" for young photographers to use film for at least some of their work. That is going to be a very tough sell.

 

[wlewisiii]

They'll keep it up for quite awhile, I think, simply because of the huge investment in the new film plant that no one is likely to buy from them. I've been told by the manager of my FLCS that his Kodak rep said that the papers were profitable enough but they would have needed to make a similar level of investment in a new plant and that wasn't going to happen.

Personally I expect the last product will be Tri-X in about 10 years.

William

 

[zeos 386sx]

Personally I expect the last product will be Tri-X in about 10 years.

You might be right. Kodak, in its report, anticipates film production to at least the end of this decade but says nothing about it after that.

 

[x-ray]

Kodak has a long history of dumping products. Two years ago they were in a joint project with HP developing in store inkjet printing keosks. Kodak dumped the project after investing over 50 million. HP continued with developement. I can give you a list a page long of products like view cameras and lenses to their latest dud the 14N digital pro cameras and pro backs. Kodaks policy is to get out if they don't dominate the market. In reality koday has never come to grips with not being the great yellow father anymore. When Fuji and Ilford entered the market in the 80's they kicked the pants off Kodak and they just have not been able to adjust. Now with digital they are having the same problem becaus the digital cameras they made were in the $17,000-30,000 price range. Nikon came in with a more advanced, smaller, lighter , faster and much cheaper camera and destroyed kodaks limited market.

I seriously do not expect kodak to be in B&W film business for more than two years.

 

[x-ray]

one more thought

one more thought

One more thought. I recently read that Ilford is making more large to ultra large B&W film than ever before. Also the amall eastern european and french emulsion coaters are picking up old emulsions and developing new. These are small companies that can easilu survive on a fraction of the film production of either, kodak, fuji or ilford. (B&W). In addition these emulsions are excellent and in my opinion will continue to be made for many years. The aret B&W market is small but growing and will be strong untill my baby boom generation is gone.

Just my observation.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

 

[ch1]

You might be right. Kodak, in its report, anticipates film production to at least the end of this decade but says nothing about it after that.

While the thread started by dealing with Kodak - the real concern is the overall future of film.

As enumerated here, Kodak has, and continues, to make serious marketing mistakes. This is, in fact, exacerbated by the film issue because for years Kodak's once successful business model was based on supplying the "tools of the trade" (i.e. film and paper) just as Gillette made its money on blades, not razors!

Years ago, all I used was Kodak. Now, I prefer Fuji for some purposes and relatively indifferent overall. I've shied away from Ilford in the past because of the very "processing problem" that I think is the greater issue. At least a couple of decades ago (i.e. when Kodak was "king") it was a challenge to find someone who would process Ilford B&W - even here in NYC!

Probably different now, and I should try it.

But I do think that the critical factor as to the future of film is going to be relative ease of availability of film processing. As more and more of those once ubiquitous one-hour kiosks etc. disappear thoughout the land using film will become increasingly burdensome. And even if you or I prefer more "professional processing" those kiosks were the lifeblood supporting overall film demand.

Hopefully, as I said eariier, we will somehow reach a sustainable "plateau" of film demand sufficent to ensure a profitable level of reasonably-accessible processing availability. That has to be the holy grail.

But it probably won't be your Dad's Walgreen's anymore. Then again, I'm still using "mailers" for slide processing. Perhaps this old school approach will be the salvation for a "niche" market? 🙂

 

[david b]

No matter the reason, I have converted all of my photographic supplies over to Ilford products. I want to support a company that is supporting me.

Ilford is not marketing a new picture phone are they?

 

[wlewisiii]

Eh, I'm finding myself very fond of Foma 100 of late. FP4+ is OK, but Delta doesn't play well with Diafine so I'll stay away from it. I suppose I should get a box of HP5+ to start trying to find a decent handhold film for when Tri-X does go the way of Verichrome Pan...

I do think that for things like E6, a handfull of labs will survive and everyone still shooting it will be doing the mailer thing.

And, if worst case comes, I can always modify my sheet film holders to hold wet plates and make albumen POP.

William

 

[Trius]

copake_ham: As far as b&w goes, easily available (and high qulity) processing of traditional (non-C-41) b&w film has been problematic for some time. Each to his own, but I have never understood traditional b&w processing by a lab. Traditional b&w film, IMO, requires custom processing for all serious work. I think I've only had 1 or 2 rolls of b&w ever processed by someone other than myself, and that was when I was just starting out. (And the results were poor.)

I don't think the lack of processing facilities will deter b&w, but color (and C-41 monochrome) is a different story. Mailer-based would be a disappointment for me, but I would still use chrome films. Right now I use them for Kodachrome, my favourite slide film. For E-6 I would simply do my own, as I have done this in the past and it's no big deal except for time. I don't do a lot of C-41, but if I did, I could do that myself, too. But I would not be too happy, since neither E-6 nor C-41 require custom treatment in the vast majority of applications.

Trius

 

[ch1]

No matter the reason, I have converted all of my photographic supplies over to Ilford products. I want to support a company that is supporting me.

Ilford is not marketing a new picture phone are they?

Good point - although I do not know the full Ilford corporate structure to be able to definitively answer your query. Subsidiaries and joint ventures may show otherwise.

Perhaps it's worth looking at the annual report on their website to determine overall company profile.

But I agree, if they are proactively committed to preserving film product as an alternative, they are worthy of support.

Once I run down my current supply of Kodak and Fuji I will definitely get some Ilford.

Thanks.

 

[GeneW]

I seriously do not expect kodak to be in B&W film business for more than two years.

I agree that Kodak has made many blunders in the past few years, but one thing I think they got right was when they consolidated all their B&W film manufacture into a single, modern plant. They also issued a new emulsion of Tri-X along with this. I think your prediction is pessimistic. They should be able to run that one plant for a long time if there is a demand for the film.

Gene

 

[ch1]

I agree that Kodak has made many blunders in the past few years, but one thing I think they got right was when they consolidated all their B&W film manufacture into a single, modern plant. They also issued a new emulsion of Tri-X along with this. I think your prediction is pessimistic. They should be able to run that one plant for a long time if there is a demand for the film.

Gene

Gene,

Excellent, my point exactly. The future of film (B&W or color) is based on demand for the product. Kodak's continuing cutbacks are a rational and necessary response to falling demand for film products.

My fear is that as film demand declines, it will become increasing uneconomic to provide film processing thus resulting in a downward "death spiral" in the demand/supply equation.

As I said earlier, hopefully, there we will reach a new, albeit much lower, level of equilibrium in the supply/demand equation that will ensure a future for film. But that will likely be dependent on developing (pun intended) a stable level of processing availability such that using film doesn't become a burdensome endeavor.

At the end of the day this is classical economics - nothing more nor less.

 

[david b]

To William, I have been using HP5+ and ID-11 and have been having terrific results.

 

[zeos 386sx]

And, if worst case comes, I can always modify my sheet film holders to hold wet plates and make albumen POP.

Some of those old processes produce amazing results. I recently saw some modern platinum prints that were truly wonderful. It might be fun to explore some of the older methods..

 

[ikiru]

I find this all very interesting! Along with being into film based photography, I like analog recording tape. The last major company making professional analog tape recently shut down the line. The community went crazy! Tape price rocketed! and as of september the line is back in business.....

I think we are in a pretty good position in terms of 35mm film... we have many choices still....

 

[hugivza]

Kodak has a tremendous investment in film production. They manufacture the fundamental chemicals like ethylene which are used to produce plastics for film itself. Their plant at Longview in Texas for example is big, and represents a significant investment which is unlikely to be written off in the near future. As their staffing costs are probably their biggest single cost; reducing staffing numbers to stay competitive with others makes sense. I agree that like Zeiss before them, they have perhaps been too diversified in their product range, but they are still in business. I think that film will see out my lifetime (OK so I am not that young!), which given my recent GAS attacks is probably to the good.

 

[Hektor]

I read somewhere that Ilford based their recent corporate rebirth on a business plan that assumed a 7% annual contraction of film usage.

I reckon their secret agenda was to outperform their business plan by picking up market share from other makers who fall by the wayside and to be the last man standing !

maybe 20 yrs ?

 

[Hektor]

I suppose, although I don't use it much myself, that life without Tri-X is unthinkable !

There are probably enough users world wide to buy the factory and get their annual ration of film free !!!!

 

[x-ray]

As a long time user of tri-x I was disappointed at the current remake of tri-x. No longer do I find tri-x a quality emulsion but just a name from the past.