Kodak is working on a Chapter 11 bankruptcy (three threads merged)

Aristophanes said:
Photography has been riding the demand for motion picture film.

It will be very difficult to put new investor money into the industrial production of film manufacturing when your entire ROI depends on users of cameras made in the 1970's and 80's mostly, subject to the repair quality of a declining number of shops staffed by older men whose skills and knowledge are not being passed on in any substantial, meaningful way. Even for Ilford continuing to run an emulsion factory catering to a declining number of AE-1 will eventually...soon...not make sense. And creditors will make that connection before managers.
Click to expand...

Have been looking for that great B&W new movie.

Guess it is back to the roots?

Know exactly what you mean about the age of repair folks, the good ones are older than I am, and I am not exactly a spring chicken.

Well, I guess I had better get a cla on my avatar while there is someone around who knows his / her stuff.

Regards, John
 
Kodak has simply made too many bad decisions over two decades or so.
I hope they change and survive. Their IP is very valuable and, on that basis alone, the stock price is very cheap. I recently bought some shares thinking that their IP is worth about 8 times their current market cap. I could very well lose my entire small investment but I thought it was worth the risk.
There is value there and they still have a few great products. They just need good decisions at the top.
 
I really don't think it's bad decisions ultimately. They produced a product for which there was great demand but one which required a great deal of fixed assets to produce. Suddenly, there was virtually no demand due to a radical shift in technology, but the cost structure remained. End game. Demand covers up a lot of errors and makes managers and companies riding the demand wave look brilliant. Lack of demand makes everything look like an error and management look foolish.
 
Originally Posted by StevenJohn
I was always curious why Kodak never developed film scanners. In my naive opinion, a film scanner would be a product that would take advantage of their digital technology and simultaneously promote film usage.

Actually, they did. It was called PhotoCD, and the scanner was expensive, designed for a pro-level lab to own, and do low cost scans. Worked decent, but not like a high end scanner.
The weird thing was the way it was marketed when released in the early nineties.
At the time I worked for a pro lab, and was involved with the start up of this Kodak product.
Kodak somehow envisioned that people would shoot their film, get it processed, and have prints and scans done. They offered PhotoCD players that you would buy, and hook up to your TV, and view your pictures that way. Worked well, actually, but it was a real flop otherwise. Must of lost a bunch of dough on them.
They also did other marketing stuff for this, all aimed at the consumer market, which really didn't fly, and when potential customers asked about commercial applications of the scans, the pretty faces that were hired to sell it to householders, didn't have a clue.
Once we started selling the scanning service to commercial clients, for low to medium quality scans, we were kept very busy for many years!
Keith
 
From George Eastman's suicide note: "Why wait?"

6644851183_10d8d01782_b.jpg


Not the answer I would give (then or now) nor a note I would write. Perhaps ol' George Eastman gets the last word here. T'is a pity.
 
goo0h said:
I wonder if Fuji would consider buying the Kodak film devision. Though, they've been axing some of their own films, like Neopan 1600, so I doubt they'd be terribly interested in that.....
Click to expand...

... I doubt that Fuji is actually making any kind of photographic film ... selling off old stock, yes
 
I think our Brit members would call this as "being hoisted on your own petard". American would say, "They shot themselves in the head". They invented the digital camera. Too bad, but I'm using Chinese Lucky brand now.
 
Chuck Albertson said:
While you're sweating about being able to buy a roll of Tri-X, spare a thought for Kodak's retirees. Their pension benefits are the target of the anticipated Chapter 11 filing, and would be wiped out.
Click to expand...
Which would affect my in-laws. Could mean a very bumpy ride for them. Additionally, I have an acquaintance who is ex-Kodak (he helped design emulsions such as TMax, Gold 100, Ektachromes, etc.,) who was separated from the company some time ago. He ended up in phone-based technical support until his cancer forced him to quit. It's in remission now, but without his pension, who knows what will happen.

For those who say "good riddance" to Kodak due to their numerous stupidities, just remember the humans involved who did their jobs well and got caught by executive incompetence.
 
dallard said:
Holgas and other Lomo stuff.
Click to expand...

Ok, then a follow up...because I knew this would be the answer. What mainstream cameras were produced in significant numbers and sold in department stores? We'd have to see this before we'd see a significant impact on film. Lomo has not had a significant impact on film production...
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
Any actual basis for this comment, or is it just more hot air? The Acros that arrived yesterday has an August 2013 expiry date. This doesn't sound like very old stock...
Regards,
Brett
Click to expand...

Actually, that doesn't mean a thing. Could have been frozen stock produced years earlier.

Not that I know either way for Fuji, but I'm pretty sure my last rolls of Agfa APX100 were dated 2013.
 
Filmnut said:
Originally Posted by StevenJohn
I was always curious why Kodak never developed film scanners. In my naive opinion, a film scanner would be a product that would take advantage of their digital technology and simultaneously promote film usage.

Actually, they did. It was called PhotoCD, and the scanner was expensive, designed for a pro-level lab to own, and do low cost scans. Worked decent, but not like a high end scanner.
The weird thing was the way it was marketed when released in the early nineties.
At the time I worked for a pro lab, and was involved with the start up of this Kodak product.
Kodak somehow envisioned that people would shoot their film, get it processed, and have prints and scans done. They offered PhotoCD players that you would buy, and hook up to your TV, and view your pictures that way. Worked well, actually, but it was a real flop otherwise. Must of lost a bunch of dough on them.
They also did other marketing stuff for this, all aimed at the consumer market, which really didn't fly, and when potential customers asked about commercial applications of the scans, the pretty faces that were hired to sell it to householders, didn't have a clue.
Once we started selling the scanning service to commercial clients, for low to medium quality scans, we were kept very busy for many years!
Keith
Click to expand...

Anybody remember Apple's first CD-ROM unit? It was made by Philips, and PhotoCD was one of the formats it could handle. Even came with a sample disc which I suppose would have been produced by Kodak.

And of course Kodak also produced Apple's QuickTake digital cameras.

Just how Kodak, of all companies, managed to underestimate the mass appeal of digital is beyond me to comprehend.
 
buzzardkid said:
Whoops.

Guess I'm not going to stock up on Tri-X, which is nearly EUR 80 for 100ft with Macodirect in Berlin.

My other favorite Rollei Retro 400S for 100ft is close to EUR 40 😱

Question arises: is Tri-X really twice as good and expensive to produce? Don't answer that, it's apples and oranges compared I guess...

But still. No Tri-X for this puppy.
Click to expand...

Forget about bulk Tri-X, the real economical choice is Eastman 5222 Double X.

Fuji makes an excellent alternative that beats 5222 in some ways, but it is only available in Asia.
 
Trius said:
Which would affect my in-laws. Could mean a very bumpy ride for them. Additionally, I have an acquaintance who is ex-Kodak (he helped design emulsions such as TMax, Gold 100, Ektachromes, etc.,) who was separated from the company some time ago. He ended up in phone-based technical support until his cancer forced him to quit. It's in remission now, but without his pension, who knows what will happen.

For those who say "good riddance" to Kodak due to their numerous stupidities, just remember the humans involved who did their jobs well and got caught by executive incompetence.
Click to expand...

Amen. Let's also remember that "Kodak" never created a single thing - everything was made by creative people like the fellow you know. Kodak provided an environment for them to work in, and profited from their talents.

Randy
 
I'm sorry for the employee's but not the company. They were 'THE' film company. Then they cut APS much too early, and then they cut back production and evolution of their film. But the real smack in the mouth was when they brought out all those uninventive, uninspiring and underperforming digital camera's! They were never ever going to compete in the digital market selling those. To put it in a nutshell, their plan appeared to be to sack film and promote very average digital camera's. What did they think was going to happen?

I realise it is harsh, but this is one company that appeared to completely lose the plot. Having said that, I do hope that they don't go under and new management will see the benefit of concentrating on expanding their only profitable area, film. I think they are too far behind the other digital competitors, with the younger generation now really not familiar with their name. It is also widely known that the younger generation are embracing film and sales have increased last year by about 10%. Film is not dead. Maybe if film helps to turn them around they may have an opportunity to take another look at digital in the future.

Paul
 
jsrockit said:
Ok, then a follow up...because I knew this would be the answer. What mainstream cameras were produced in significant numbers and sold in department stores? We'd have to see this before we'd see a significant impact on film. Lomo has not had a significant impact on film production...
Click to expand...
I think most people who Lomo use the internet to buy camera gear. Also, if Kodak's film sales increased in 2011 then it says that there is a growing demand. Given that film cameras have a really long life span I'm not sure about film production being that badly hurt by their wearing out. I just got a perfectly good Rolleiflex recently that was made in 1961 and will probably last a while to come. So maybe cameras wearing out will have an impact a few decades from now on film but a lot can happen between now and then. If enough people just keep shooting film then suppliers will respond to the demand.
 
But kodak's film sales did not increase.......

From their Third quarter result rpt
Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group third-quarter sales were $389 million, a 10% decline from the year-ago quarter, driven by continuing industry-related volume declines. Third-quarter earnings from operations for the segment were $15 million, compared with earnings of $28 million in the year-ago period. This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by significantly increased raw material costs, particularly silver, and industry-related declines in volumes, largely offset by cost reductions and price actions across the segment.
 
sig said:
But kodak's film sales did not increase.......

From their Third quarter result rpt
Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group third-quarter sales were $389 million, a 10% decline from the year-ago quarter, driven by continuing industry-related volume declines. Third-quarter earnings from operations for the segment were $15 million, compared with earnings of $28 million in the year-ago period. This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by significantly increased raw material costs, particularly silver, and industry-related declines in volumes, largely offset by cost reductions and price actions across the segment.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.
In this interview Scott DiSabato claimed sales of professional films were increasing. Probably this means they are losing on stuff like Gold. I also doubt he's referring to movie stock.
http://soundcloud.com/film-photography-project/film-photography-podcast-2011
There's also a possibility that the increase in professional film sales was not enough to offset the raw material costs. It does prove, however, that there is an increasing demand for professional film for still photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom