Irresponsible conflation of Kodak and Ilford

Photo_Smith said:
The Polaroid/Agfa gutted factories are defunct, gone, no more churning out those brands; Ilford on the other hand are a financial success story–and one he doesn't wish to show.
Click to expand...

To be accurate, Ilford went through a bankruptcy and restructuring to even get where they are now. They could not be a success now without visiting pain on past investors and employees first. Their loss is the only reason why Ilford is still operating.
 
My neighbor has a dog that has cancer, and that dog just keeps on, keeping on. Yesterday she said "I've been waiting on that damn dog to die for over 2 years now!"

That's how some people seem to feel about film, although most people are pretty sure its dead anyway. For maybe, what?, 10 years now, I've been hearing about film being dead? I've read countless articles online about it. Even more years ago, I heard that acrylic paints would make oil paints obsolete.

What I have come to see is that articles like these are either hot button issues that are put together to get lots of online hits (which means their ads get lots of exposure), or are just written by uninformed writers that parrot the views of the public, for whom film may as well be dead, for all practical purposes.
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134621

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134621

Magazines and newspapers have never reported accurate news..
There are always vested interests..
I use film. I use B/W film.
When everybody went to color(C-41) i still shot B/W.
Sure i did color, mainly Kodachrome, esp. for pro jobs.
I use digital but only in Point and shoot cameras.
Last week i bought 100' of Kentmere 400.
 
I don't see the big problem with these articles. In the "mainstream use"-sense of the word, then yes, film is dead, why is it so hard to accept. It used to be the mainstream medium for everyone to use in their cameras, it isn't anymore, so in that sense digital killed it - it is dead.

But it is surely not dead in the true sense of the word as obviously some of us are still using, and enjoying it. And because we are, it means we can still get our hands on it if we want. So when an article declaring the death of film is published, why should anyone even care? The mainstream already moved on, and the rest of us still get our film..

What is the problem here?
 
Roger Hicks said:
Google "Fisher" and "Motorola". Carl Kohrt was the alternative choice (not taken) in 2001 or thereabours. Unlike Fisher, then Karp and then Perez (salesmen all), Carl was a Kodak engineer who understood the film business and knew what he was talking about.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Dear Roger,

I don't think the term 'salesman' really applies, I think they go by 'marketer'.

A 'salesman' is more likely to have brains.

Randy
 
The article's underlying premise is that film is dead becuase the old, large multinational firms can't be in it as they were in the past. But this is a pretty limited view.

Yes, film use has declined 98% over the last 15 years so it is not a business that supports large multinational firms like Kodak and Fuji as it used to. But film is obviously still used; an estimate I read in 2012 is 2 million rolls a year (down from the peak of a billion in 1999), with a slight increase in sales recently. Assuming $4-5 per roll, it is maybe an $80-100 million per year business, which can be a nice business for a few smaller companies (e.g., Ilford) or smaller divisons within large companies. So the real and more interesting story is how this transition will unfold (who will be in the business, what films will be produced), not the death of film.
 
mwoenv said:
The article's underlying premise is that film is dead becuase the old, large multinational firms can't be in it as they were in the past. But this is a pretty limited view.

Yes, film use has declined 98% over the last 15 years so it is not a business that supports large multinational firms like Kodak and Fuji as it used to. But film is obviously still used; an estimate I read in 2012 is 2 million rolls a year (down from the peak of a billion in 1999), with a slight increase in sales recently. Assuming $4-5 per roll, it is maybe an $80-100 million per year business, which can be a nice business for a few smaller companies (e.g., Ilford) or smaller divisons within large companies. So the real and more interesting story is how this transition will unfold (who will be in the business, what films will be produced), not the death of film.
Click to expand...

It should be understood that 2 million rolls (135, 120) can be produced in the Kodak and Fuji plants in only a few days of operations. These are purporse-built machines and even buildings that cannot be transitioned to other use, nor can it be scaled down.
 
Aristophanes said:
It should be understood that 2 million rolls (135, 120) can be produced in the Kodak and Fuji plants in only a few days of operations. These are purporse-built machines and even buildings that cannot be transitioned to other use, nor can it be scaled down.
Click to expand...

This is the general assertion and while it has been largely well placed, there is no certainty that it still applies, speaks to at least Kodak's inability to adapt their machinery to another purpose. In other words, no one here knows for *sure* that is still the case so it's best to not state it as a fact that you know by sitting on the board and having signed NDA's.

I bet they are trying to adapt more than you think:

http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/rochester/the-park-and-resurrection/Content?oid=2275951

Save the facts for the experts folks, unless you need something, anything to distract you from actually going out and making photos...
 
KM-25 said:
This is the general assertion and while it has been largely well placed, there is no certainty that it still applies, speaks to at least Kodak's inability to adapt their machinery to another purpose. In other words, no one here knows for *sure* that is still the case so it's best to not state it as a fact that you know by sitting on the board and having signed NDA's.

I bet they are trying to adapt more than you think:

http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/rochester/the-park-and-resurrection/Content?oid=2275951

Save the facts for the experts folks, unless you need something, anything to distract you from actually going out and making photos...
Click to expand...

Actually, the bankruptcy hearings did state that Building 38 was a single purpose film coating plant. That was the industrial engineering consensus accepted by the court. That came both from EK and creditors. The building was preserved only because of the land value and the cinema film output being still done in volumes enough to keep the lights on for months at a time.

It's the other facilities and processes that the Rochester article speaks. Roll film comes from a single facility. Te bigger issue is re-purposing is usually a one-way street. We do not want that. The unavoidable reality is that Kodak's output could swallow the worldwide production...any maybe should.
 
Yes, film use has declined 98% over the last 15 years so it is not a business that supports large multinational firms like Kodak and Fuji as it used to. But film is obviously still used; an estimate I read in 2012 is 2 million rolls a year (down from the peak of a billion in 1999), with a slight increase in sales recently.
Click to expand...
This estimate is off by a factor of 15 to 100.
US Americans alone bought more than 30Mil. rolls in 2012, which is more than a slight increase (75% !) from 2011. IIRC Ilford estimates the global demand for film to be about 200Mil. rolls/year.
Film might be a niche, but the future is certainly not as dark as some people pretend it to be.

As for downscaling production: Film coating machine in a garage
 
Ahh, you ruined it.

That sounded so pat and perfect.

98% reduction.

1 Billion rolls at peak.

2 million now.

It is so nice when the numbers work out.
 
Aristophanes said:
Actually, the bankruptcy hearings did state that Building 38 was a single purpose film coating plant. That was the industrial engineering consensus accepted by the court. That came both from EK and creditors. The building was preserved only because of the land value and the cinema film output being still done in volumes enough to keep the lights on for months at a time.

It's the other facilities and processes that the Rochester article speaks. Roll film comes from a single facility. Te bigger issue is re-purposing is usually a one-way street. We do not want that. The unavoidable reality is that Kodak's output could swallow the worldwide production...any maybe should.
Click to expand...

We'll just have to wait and see what happens, until I hear otherwise, I am moving forward with stocking up on, using and counting on Kodak film products. The only reality that matters right now is that Kodak is still selling film, everything else is just a distraction from using some of the best film ever made...
 
kennylovrin said:
I don't see the big problem with these articles. In the "mainstream use"-sense of the word, then yes, film is dead, why is it so hard to accept. It used to be the mainstream medium for everyone to use in their cameras, it isn't anymore, so in that sense digital killed it - it is dead.

But it is surely not dead in the true sense of the word as obviously some of us are still using, and enjoying it. And because we are, it means we can still get our hands on it if we want. So when an article declaring the death of film is published, why should anyone even care? The mainstream already moved on, and the rest of us still get our film..

What is the problem here?
Click to expand...

Aaaah - now it's clear. Film is dead, but it's also not dead.

So in fact film is the Schrödinger's cat of our times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom