Kodak in the NYT
- Thread starter Lauffray
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 21
- Views 3K
Solinar
Analog Preferred
I just viewed the video and read the article. It mentioned that at its peak Kodak had 30,000 employees producing analog film. Now that number is down to 300.
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
It boggles my mind why a company needs 30000 people for a line of products, I cannot imagine what all these people must have been doing
jloden
Established
Not a terribly encouraging article.
I sincerely hope Kodak can stay in business making film... I'd be extremely sad if I finally get into shooting film only to have my favorite film stocks disappear shortly thereafter!
I sincerely hope Kodak can stay in business making film... I'd be extremely sad if I finally get into shooting film only to have my favorite film stocks disappear shortly thereafter!
fdarnell
Well-known
Read the article and watched the videos. Hit home being a Rochester native from back in the film days. I therefore wrote a diatribe to Mr. Clarke by email, guessing at the address. It has not come back for 30 minutes as undeliverable, so maybe I guess right. If I get any answer, I'll post it. However, probably its more like: :bang:
They aren't going to make it with touch sensors. They need something cool. Bring back the old high silver emulsions and sell at high price, limited run - they'll go. Buy Portriga Rapid from Agfa, fix the cadmium problems and sell, sell, sell. Give us the proper primes for APS-C cameras adaptable to Sony, Oly, Pany and Fuji bodies - like an old Tamron Adaptall. 16mm f/2.8, 13mm f/3.5, 17mm f/2.8 in metal bodies, high quality like an old Wallensack Rapax. Partner with Cosina if necessary, build them in Rochester. Build a 30 x 40 imaging studio in Rochester, go bigger than the 20 x 24 Polaroid.
The real thing I said was they have to stop worrying about "image making" and start "Making an Image". They need to be cool.
I also said they should make "lease to own" tattoo that you can image and cure with sunshine or tanning bed. Maybe 1 year life. Nobody's done that. They know ink, emulsions, light and curing.
It's just so frustrating to see some much talent and investment lost.
[rant/off]
They aren't going to make it with touch sensors. They need something cool. Bring back the old high silver emulsions and sell at high price, limited run - they'll go. Buy Portriga Rapid from Agfa, fix the cadmium problems and sell, sell, sell. Give us the proper primes for APS-C cameras adaptable to Sony, Oly, Pany and Fuji bodies - like an old Tamron Adaptall. 16mm f/2.8, 13mm f/3.5, 17mm f/2.8 in metal bodies, high quality like an old Wallensack Rapax. Partner with Cosina if necessary, build them in Rochester. Build a 30 x 40 imaging studio in Rochester, go bigger than the 20 x 24 Polaroid.
The real thing I said was they have to stop worrying about "image making" and start "Making an Image". They need to be cool.
I also said they should make "lease to own" tattoo that you can image and cure with sunshine or tanning bed. Maybe 1 year life. Nobody's done that. They know ink, emulsions, light and curing.
It's just so frustrating to see some much talent and investment lost.
[rant/off]
CliveC
Well-known
Kodak was terribly mismanaged in the last two decades. Basically all that Kodak has left is its printing technology (digital printing, litho plate imaging, and flexo plate imaging). Even that sector is tough for them because of players such as HP and Xerox.
Printable electronics is a growth sector, but Kodak is not agile enough to fully take advantage of it. The company's management still lacks vision.
Kodak may hold thousands of patents, but it was seriously bad at capitalizing on them. Besides, they had a tough time selling those patents and they were sold for a fraction of what they wanted. They were first on the scene for digital imaging but squandered the lead because they didn't want to eat into their own film sales.
Going back to cameras, all Kodak did was make cheap, almost disposable cameras over the years. They haven't been a leader in camera technology since the 1950s. I very much doubt it can manufacture a lens today to save its life.
Kodak has not meant innovation in decades. It got big, it got fat, and it got sunk by progress. Let's just hope it can continue to manufacture film at a reasonable scale going forward.
Printable electronics is a growth sector, but Kodak is not agile enough to fully take advantage of it. The company's management still lacks vision.
Kodak may hold thousands of patents, but it was seriously bad at capitalizing on them. Besides, they had a tough time selling those patents and they were sold for a fraction of what they wanted. They were first on the scene for digital imaging but squandered the lead because they didn't want to eat into their own film sales.
Going back to cameras, all Kodak did was make cheap, almost disposable cameras over the years. They haven't been a leader in camera technology since the 1950s. I very much doubt it can manufacture a lens today to save its life.
Kodak has not meant innovation in decades. It got big, it got fat, and it got sunk by progress. Let's just hope it can continue to manufacture film at a reasonable scale going forward.
JP Owens
Well-known
I don't get from these recent articles and interviews that Kodak has the least interest in film, anymore. That makes sense; but, I don't see where the Kodak name gets them any street cred outside of film, considering how they blew off their early leadership in digital imaging.
They probably would have been better off licensing the name to Chinese companies making electric razors, and started fresh without the weight of the last 20 years of failed leadership pulling them back.
They probably would have been better off licensing the name to Chinese companies making electric razors, and started fresh without the weight of the last 20 years of failed leadership pulling them back.
Ranchu
Veteran
They're making the film for Kodak Alaris to sell to us, not to sell it to us themselves. That's why they're doing that other stuff.
JP Owens
Well-known
This is a brief moment in time for film. Kodak's future, if it has one, has nothing to do with film. The interviews I've seen appear to confirm that current management understands that. They really don't want to talk about film or Kodak's past, a past that is now an albatross around their corporate neck.
They seem determined to make a complete break. Which is why I say I don't think the name "Kodak" really has much value to them. Those of us who remember Kodak's glorious past are old and irrelevant. 🙂
They seem determined to make a complete break. Which is why I say I don't think the name "Kodak" really has much value to them. Those of us who remember Kodak's glorious past are old and irrelevant. 🙂
willie_901
Veteran
Aa far as the 30,000 employees go, Kodak had a large group of organic, inorganic, analytical and physical chemists dedicated R&D effort dedicated to constantly improving film performance. There were not 30,000 of them of course. But 3,000 here and 3,000 there and you've got 30,000 be before you know it.
I agree with the analysis Kodak was so large it became stagnant. Their management operated as though post-WW II business practices would last forever. Many large US corporations suffered similar fates. In a way I can understand how the heirarcial military model of business management would be difficult for that generation to abandon. After all, a global war was won using that management model. But rapid, dynamic evolution of new technologies required a different approach. This who did not respond were doomed.
Hindsight is always perfect.
I agree with the analysis Kodak was so large it became stagnant. Their management operated as though post-WW II business practices would last forever. Many large US corporations suffered similar fates. In a way I can understand how the heirarcial military model of business management would be difficult for that generation to abandon. After all, a global war was won using that management model. But rapid, dynamic evolution of new technologies required a different approach. This who did not respond were doomed.
Hindsight is always perfect.
Denton
Established
A personal perspective as Kodak employee
A personal perspective as Kodak employee
I worked for a Kodak subsidiary from 1989-1994, at which point we were sold to Sanofi. One of the reasons was the Polaroid law suit which required a $4 billion settlement, we were sold for about that price. I worked with Kodak scientists and can affirm that Kodak was well aware of the oncoming digital age; I believe they underestimated the speed and ability of the japanese digital technology and they were overtaken.
It is very hard to turn the mix of scientific disciplines around and out of a current path of film technology. I'm not sure any company has been able to reinvent themselves, the "winner" was Fuji, Kodak's nemesis.
Denton
A personal perspective as Kodak employee
I worked for a Kodak subsidiary from 1989-1994, at which point we were sold to Sanofi. One of the reasons was the Polaroid law suit which required a $4 billion settlement, we were sold for about that price. I worked with Kodak scientists and can affirm that Kodak was well aware of the oncoming digital age; I believe they underestimated the speed and ability of the japanese digital technology and they were overtaken.
It is very hard to turn the mix of scientific disciplines around and out of a current path of film technology. I'm not sure any company has been able to reinvent themselves, the "winner" was Fuji, Kodak's nemesis.
Denton
Ranchu
Veteran
Yet all the digital cameras you own are already outdated. Now that's a brief moment in time.
http://120studio.com/dynamic-range.htm
🙂
Skiff
Well-known
Well, at first sight this looks like bad news.
But thinking further, at second sight there is very good news:
Kodak's film production has been successfully downscaled.
And has now the right size for a sustainable future.
Kodak is now able to run its huge, modern 'Building 38' (their film production complex) with only 300 employees.
Therefore there is a good chance that film production there can be continued for a very long time.
For comparison:
Ilford has about 220-230 workers in its factory.
And not to forget:
Kodak Alaris has its own factory for silver-halide RA-4 photo paper production in Harrow, England (film was also produced there until 2004).
Prest_400
Multiformat
That's a fact I didn't look closely.
Though B38 has a huge capacity, huge installation, huge coater, huge runs. They won't be as flexible as a smaller manufacturer (Film Ferrania being in the opposite position) but it's great theat they have been able to adapt their operations around this smaller market.
It does look quite decadent though. I'd like to take a tour around the installations, everything must be huge.
Ironically, of all ventures that Kodak has dip their foot into, film keeps being a solid business.
Though in the last years, the phasing out of 35mm projection and subsequent loss of demand on print films must have been brutal for them (was there a 98% decrease figure somewhere? 😱).
Skiff
Well-known
Well, not only Film Ferrnia will be more flexible.
Currently indeed Fujifilm, Ilford and InovisCoat are much more flexible in their operations.
Fujifilm is able to make small volume niche products, like Superia 1600, Pro 160NS, FP 100C and the reversal films.
Kodak can only make higher volume products.
But nevertheless they have so successfully downscaled that they now can make these products at Building 38 with only 300 workers.
Not long ago all the self-proclaimed experts said that this will be completely impossible.
But the Kodak people managed it.
It is indeed: Get the excellent book from Robert Shanebrook, 'Making Kodak Film'. I can highly recommend it.
http://www.makingkodakfilm.com/
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
Fuji, like Kodak, nearly killed all their film lines, but unlike Kodak they did so on purpose while remaining profitable, it's a move I can't understand
Skiff
Well-known
Sorry, that is wrong.
Fujifilm is producing:
- Acros 100
- Provia 100F
- Velvia 100
- Velvia 50
- Pro 160 NS
- Pro 400H
- C200
- Superia 200
- Superia 400
- Superia 800
- Superia 1600
- Industrial 100
- Industrial 400
- FP 100c
- Instax Mini
- Instax Wide
Their film portfolio is bigger than Kodak's, and bigger than Ilford's.
No matter whether you want colour negative film, colour reversal film, BW negative film, instant peel apart film or instant integral film:
Fuji is offering it.
No other film manufacturer is doing that!!
Hsg
who dares wins
In the next five years 40% of current fortune 500 companies will be gone.
I don't know who made that prediction but if you judge by current camera sales most camera companies will be gone or assimilated in the next five years.
Kodak, imho is already a historical relic.
I don't know who made that prediction but if you judge by current camera sales most camera companies will be gone or assimilated in the next five years.
Kodak, imho is already a historical relic.
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Acros the only B&W film on that list ?
Prest_400
Multiformat
Fuji is a curious case IMHO. They went out of the MP market before, and that one is supposedly the highest volume one, compared to stills.
As of their capacity and production installations, I've never seen much or any, compared to Kodak's case, where some info permeates around.
As od Kodak itself, if it has reached a point of sustainibility in film production, that's good. I don't know how they will fare in other ventures.
The lack of mentioning might come from catering to shareholders and people of the industry. I don't know if a "We will keep making film" premise is implicit within the Hollywood deal.
They were close to closing up shop though, that would have been bad.
Thinking about it, Kodak has had two or three rounds of waves of Digital revolution. The first washed up consumer still film, the second is now with the Ciné distribution.
As a personal rant, my local theater and cinema itself looks more like a glorified streaming channel. At least many movies are still shooting film in camera. Sometimes the pure digital aesthetic doesn't add to the look and ambiance.
As of their capacity and production installations, I've never seen much or any, compared to Kodak's case, where some info permeates around.
As od Kodak itself, if it has reached a point of sustainibility in film production, that's good. I don't know how they will fare in other ventures.
The lack of mentioning might come from catering to shareholders and people of the industry. I don't know if a "We will keep making film" premise is implicit within the Hollywood deal.
They were close to closing up shop though, that would have been bad.
Thinking about it, Kodak has had two or three rounds of waves of Digital revolution. The first washed up consumer still film, the second is now with the Ciné distribution.
As a personal rant, my local theater and cinema itself looks more like a glorified streaming channel. At least many movies are still shooting film in camera. Sometimes the pure digital aesthetic doesn't add to the look and ambiance.
Similar threads
