Kodak Bets On FILM ""You come back in 10 years, there will be a film business here"

"More than half the professional photography market still uses camera film occasionally..."

Yes, I use taxicabs 'occasionally'. Like once every couple years. Not a very convincing metric, really. Sounds good, though. What does it mean? Nobody knows.

Like I said in the 'other' thread referring to this news story...I find it interesting that when Kodak CEO Perez said that film would be gone in two years, he was wrong. When Kodak says it will be around after all, they're right.

Apparently, when they say what we want to hear, they are prescient, intelligent, and correct. When they say what we do not want to hear, they're wrong, stupid, and ought to be out of business.

It wasn't that long ago on RFF that various members were urging everyone to boycott Kodak for their stupid abandonment of film. Now we love them long time again?

Okey-dokey.
 
Interesting - the article's title is "Kodak clings to Film" which is a bit of a different skew than "Kodak bets on Film".

That said, you'll also note this from the article:
Democrat And Chronicle said:
Polaroid Corp. announced in 2008 it was ending its instant film manufacturing. According to Polaroid, its film products will be available on shelves until, at the latest, fall 2009.

And last month drug store chain Rite Aid Corp., in announcing its third-quarter 2009 earnings, said its photo developing business was hurting from a continuing decline in one-hour photo developing. Rite Aid, the dominant drug store chain in the Rochester area, signed an exclusive deal with Fujifilm in 2008, with Rite Aids now offering only Fujifilm photos products and services.
Click to expand...

I think painting a realistic picture is important.

Dave
 
I'd be more inclined to believe this if there were even ONE store in Madison that carries the Ektar 100 film. A city of a half million and I can't buy it? Yeah, right Kodak. Thankfully I think that Fuji & the seven dwarfs will still be making film after you've pulled the plug in a 2 or 3 years.

William
 
Double Negative said:
The local camera store barely carries Tri-X anymore! The high school is set to go all digital in the photography courses this year, so there's little sense to stock it going forward. Sad. And it's not just Kodak film that's missing off the shelves.
Click to expand...

There's still "plenty" of film here but the amount has shrunk, and you're right, it's not just Kodak that's going the way of the dodo - retail outlets realize that film is no longer "viable" if you plan on making money from your business. Printing, if it's done right and done inexpensively, still brings in some money but there are fewer and fewer film users.

I always stock up a bit when I see some that I know is "hard to come by" - but there's still plenty of "Silvertone" (aka Agfa APX) around here luckily.

Dave
 
this has been the topic of discussions on a few boards and nearly everyone is missing the fine print. If Ilford or Efke was speaking like this, it would be a big deal. But its not for Kodak or Fuji as both service the motion picture industry. The average person outside the industry has no conception of the amount of film that we burn on a daily basis. The bottom line is that every still photographer could drop dead tomorrow and be buried with every still camera ever made and kodak wouldnt notice for a very long time.

I shoot more 35mm film than almost everyone I know and Im positive I shot less than 3000 feet of film this year. I recently did the math on the show that I work on and every single day, five days a week, seven or eight months a year we shoot the equivalent of a minimum of 500 rolls of still film. You get about 72 rolls out of a 400' roll of film, 10 minutes in a film camera at 4 perf is 1000 feet. There are many days where we shoot much much more than that and there are days where there are multiple units on (we shoot 10 days in 7) where we can shoot multiple times that. Saving a long discussion on the logistics of how production works (Im willing to get into it if anyone really cares) you dont ever get anywhere near 10 minutes of usable (editable) time out of a 1000' mag. The amount of film we expose is incredible. The amount of film we throw away is equally incredible. It is very rare that you will load a 50 ft. short end. It's less than a minute, you cant use it for any sych work. Miles and miles and miles of film for a season. And this is one 23 minute sitcom.

This is also just concerning production. Movies are still distributed on film prints (although this is likely to end sooner than later) and many studio films (not all by any stretch but still) still print dailies for projection every day when you are on a job with an older DP.

24 hours a day in the United States alone there is film being pulled through the gate of a movie camera. There are digital alternatives but the debate there is nothing like what you have in still land when it comes to film vs. video. For the most part any decision to use video is a creative one, the savings are really not what one would think when you look at the accounting. Anyhow, so long as the motion picture industry is shooting film, which it will continue to do for at least another generation regardless of what technology becomes available, kodak will have a booming business and have the confidence to make the statements they are currently making about film. I would love to know the actual percentage that the still market makes up for their sales but whatever it is, I cant imagine them selling more film to the still world all year then the motion picture industry uses in a few days or if you want to be really safe about it, a few weeks.

Still photography for a company like kodak is wholly irrelevant. Its amazing that they have come out with new film stocks. Totally awesome but I think its just them being really cool.

The real test of what film is doing is with companies like Efke and Ilford, companies that dont have (so far as I know) a gorged cash cow on the side which allows for their still product. The still product is their primary source of revenue. When you see those companies suffer, thats the real barometer. Kodak and Fuji in my estimation, are not good places to judge the tide. When Kodak says "Film" even if its in an article and in reference to still photography, I think its a little pedestrian to not look at the larger picture for that corporation. If the still market makes up for more than a single digit percentage of their gross, it definitely has to be less than %20.

Anyhow, this is major food for thought hopefully for some folks. Im obviously a staunch film supporter but I also feel that clearly there is some background that needs to be stated in regards to kodak's confidence on the subject. The still market is just not relevant in any way shape or form to their survival as a profitable corporation providing they continue to service the motion picture industry in the capacity they do.
 
How does that help us who shoot film in our Leicas? It's not the same film or made on the same lines. If they stop making consumer film, it doesn't matter if they make motion picture film for another 100 years. Maybe I misunderstood your post.
 
Yvette said:
How does that help us who shoot film in our Leicas? It's not the same film or made on the same lines.
Click to expand...

wasnt suggesting that it would help. I shoot probably %90 motion picture stock in my leicas but I have no illusions about the fact that Im in the minority. There have been several articles that I have seen online in the last month where kodak has been boasting about the health of the company, which is fantastic, but the tone of the articles and the discussions they have spawned online kind of brews this very "see digital isnt effecting things" bit of discussion. All Im pointing out is that there is a much larger picture to kodak's viability as a corporation producing "film" that extends far beyond what we as still photographers could ever consume. thats all.

Im waiting for the day when they discontinue the bw movie film, that has to be on the horizon, I havent been on a job in ten years where Ive seen that stuff. I'll be really crushed when that goes away. But like I was trying to suggest, at the highest ratio I could possibly shoot at, for what one movie would shoot, I could not shoot for the rest of my life if I shot rolls and rolls every single day and Im still a young guy.
 
antiquark said:
AFAIK, you can actually use movie film in 35mm cameras. The width and sprocket holes are the same.
Click to expand...


yes of course, several people here do, search out the 5222 thread, there's a ton of great info, probably actually the best source of info on the web if you want to use that film.

the color stock is a different story as they put a backer on it which serves as a lubricant in the mags, and this needs to be removed so its not straight forward C41 process, if you bulk load the color and run it c41, it works, but the grain gets really wacky, you really need to process it correctly. The black and white is just like processing tri-x.

the only diference between a still camera and a motion picture camera in regards to 35mm is the direction of the frame. Our still cameras the long edge of the frame runs horizontally with the sprockets, on a film camera the long edge runs between the sprockets. Other than that its all the same stuff.
 
Yvette said:
How does that help us who shoot film in our Leicas? It's not the same film or made on the same lines. If they stop making consumer film, it doesn't matter if they make motion picture film for another 100 years. Maybe I misunderstood your post.
Click to expand...

I think his point is well-taken. While film for motion pictures is not the same as film for still cameras, it is made using some of the same equipment, raw materials, and employees (or it could be if it is not now). In other words, when a company produces a lot of milk, making buttermilk is not so difficult as a sideline - they're already set up for it and making a profit in that area.

For companies that do not have a significant profitable base making cine film, they have to rely 100% on still camera sales - there is no profitable 'big brother business' in which to hide losses. Ilford, or perhaps more to the point, Efke, will sink or swim on sale of film for still cameras alone.

Kodak is a study in contrasts. They invented the digital still camera, then abandoned it to others as a toy with no commercial value. When they saw the industry begin to move towards digital technology, they dug in their heels and fought it, pretended it did not exist, and then, when the writing was on the wall, they invested billions in the Far East with hopes of making huge market share in a segment that they felt would go to film cameras before digital as they began to develop their own middle class (China). Instead, China went straight to digital and ignored film, and Kodak ate billions in losses there too. Finally, Kodak's board of directors jettisoned the dinosaurs who refused to see what was happening, and hired people who knew digital, like CEO Perez.

Kodak's engineers have always been first-rate, top-notch, and film and digital both. Kodak is one of the top-ten patent filers in the USA, even today. They innovate like crazy, they own the large sensor market for cameras like the Leica M8 and M8.2, the big medium format cameras from Hasselblad and Leaf and so on. All the space missions with digital cameras have Kodak sensors in them. Kodak rules when it comes to technology.

However, their marketing remained idiotic, haphazard, and hit-and-miss, showing they did not understand their market, and worse, they remained entrenched in a "We're Kodak, if we build it, they will buy" mentality in their management, most of whom should be horse-whipped. Now, at long last, they are awakening, turning, reaching for success - and they have bet it all on digital technology. Will they make it? I don't know. They sure started turning that boat late in the game.

Despite protestations to the contrary, Kodak did not make a mistake by getting into the digital game. They had no choice if they wished to survive. Their mistake was doing it so late and so badly from a marketing point of view. If Kodak had refused to do digital, it would not exist today as a company (my opinion, I have no proof of that).

I wish Kodak well. I wish film well. But I don't get excited when I read press statements that reaffirm Kodak's commitment to photographic film. If I had just rewritten my amortization rules to keep my aging equipment for another five years when it is already at 'end of life', I'd talk it up too.
 
I've shot plenty of "short ends" of motion picture film over the years loaded into standard cassettes. Right now I have my Leica M3 sporting my 21/3.4 Super-Angulon and its belly is stuffed with Eastman Double-X 5222, which is ISO 250 in D-76 or HC-110 and ISO 400 in Diafine. Somebody else must be using it also because it's listed on The Massive Developing Chart.
 
bmattock said:
In other words, when a company produces a lot of milk, making buttermilk is not so difficult as a sideline - they're already set up for it and making a profit in that area.

For companies that do not have a significant profitable base making cine film, they have to rely 100% on still camera sales - there is no profitable 'big brother business' in which to hide losses. Ilford, or perhaps more to the point, Efke, will sink or swim on sale of film for still cameras alone.
Click to expand...

yes, this is my point exactly. thanks bill!
 
So what happens when Kodak stops producing b&w motion picture film? Is that the end of B&W consumer film from Kodak?
 
Yvette said:
So what happens when Kodak stops producing b&w motion picture film? Is that the end of B&W consumer film from Kodak?
Click to expand...

certainly didnt mean to make that suggestion. The two likely dont have anything to do with each other. If I had to guess I would think they sell more black and white film to the still market than the motion picture market currently.
 
Last edited:
...the color stock is a different story as they put a backer on it which serves as a lubricant in the mags, and this needs to be removed so its not straight forward C41 process...
Click to expand...

If you send color motion picture film to a conventional C-41 lab, the backer will ruin their chemicals. :angel:

Nice post, BTW. I worked on music videos right out of school and I simply couldn't believe that productions would give away short ends under 100ft. That was, like, $25 worth of film! :D Every DP, 1st and 2nd AC had all the short ends their freezer could hold. I had a friend who cross-processed Vision 500T when it first came out and got some great looks with it.
 
Kodak has dumped huge sums of money into their consumer digital imaging division. They finally turned a modest profit. The profit from their declining film division was over three times that of their digital imaging division, and devoured far less resources.

Net sales for the film division were slightly lower than for the digital imaging group for the third quarter of 2008, but higher for the year so far. Profits were higher. Year to date, Kodak has essentialy been using film to pay for the digital sensor business.

The film division is *by far* their most profitable division. I don't know what some of you know about business, but I cannot see any logical reason for Kodak management to kill the only real profit center they have. Given the fact that it makes them more money than any other market, and they have stated their intentions to stay in the business, it would seem to me that anyone insisting it's all a deception/delusion needs to take off the tinfoil hat and get some fresh air.

If I ran Kodak, I'd be spending far more money promoting film. Advertising drives sales - I learned that delivering pizza. But that's just me :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom