Kodak on 10 Brands that will Disappear in 2010 List

[Keith]

What a depressing prospect ... and ultimately the only thing that could ever convert me to digital! 🙁

 

[bmattock]

Who cares, Kodak sucks, let them die.

(There Bill.. now you can officially say that you were right) 😀

Dave

Why thank you! 🙂

 

[nikku]

I'm not panicking, but I'm selling any and all film-related cameras that I do not use often and which will almost certainly have no value soon. It is time to wrap these things up in an orderly fashion. I will retain some medium format and large format as well as anything that also has utility with digital camera bodies.

Sweet, hopefully there are a lot more people out there thinking along the same lines. I'm an opportunist, and if the price is right, I will buy into a dead system. Just because film is disappearing doesn't mean that film cameras cease to give a quality product. The entire reason why I started shooting film to begin with was the ability to get excellent quality with relatively little fiscal investment. The way things are going in the digital realm, only film cameras, not lenses, will be obsolete. I have never spent more than $100 on a film camera body (usually closer to $50). So even if the production of film ceased tomorrow, I would be out maybe $300 at most. But I still have a freezer full of film, and the means to develop at home, so I would still be able to shoot for the next year at least.

 

[Matus]

Ilford gains a lot if Kodak goes under, and Ilford has stated many times they are in it for the long haul. Being much more nimble, and owned by the employees Ilford seems positioned to be the last man standing. ...

May well be true, but the list of color films from Ilford is way too short ...

 

[dcsang]

No, it isn't. As I predicted several years ago, most emerging nations are engaging in technology jumping, whereby they skip older technologies that they never had and go straight to the latest, greatest. Thus, many emerging nations aren't bothering installing infrastructure for land-line phones, but instead are just going right to cell phones. No glass TV screens, but straight to LCD. No VCR, but straight to DVD and now Blu-Ray. And they're skipping film cameras and going right to digital. Sorry, half the world is not using film, in fact, they're ignoring it.

I'd like to see numbers from both sides on this.
I would suspect that Bill is probably more "correct" than btgc is but still it's sweeping statements like that (without numbers to back it up) that always make me say "Hmmmmm"

Cheers,
Dave

 

[nikku]

One thing that would suck however--I have to spend a lot of time in front of the computer processing RAW files to get them looking right. With film, I know exactly what films to use to achieve a certain look. Film is actually a shortcut for me (weird, I know).

 

[Jamie123]

No, it isn't. As I predicted several years ago, most emerging nations are engaging in technology jumping, whereby they skip older technologies that they never had and go straight to the latest, greatest. Thus, many emerging nations aren't bothering installing infrastructure for land-line phones, but instead are just going right to cell phones. No glass TV screens, but straight to LCD. No VCR, but straight to DVD and now Blu-Ray. And they're skipping film cameras and going right to digital. Sorry, half the world is not using film, in fact, they're ignoring it.

True but I still wonder whether or not the analogies really fit. With all those technologies no one, not even the most nostalgic of people, actually proclaim the superiority of the older technology over the newer. I've never heard anyone say "Those VHS cassettes were just better than this DVD crap".
I do believe that film still has a strong following in some markets and in some fields of photography like fine art where photographers actually pay around $25 for a shot of 8x10.
I think as long as the people who say they love film actually use film we can remain a bit optimistic. It only gets really bad when it's like it was with Polaroid where everyone says they love it but no one actually uses it. Anyways, I think we have some time left until film is gone. But this unfortunately this doesn't mean that the same goes for Kodak so I repeat my statement: If/when Kodak goes I'm going full digital.

 

[Kristopher]

Take it easy....

Each year, in the last 5 years, people told me that there won't be film next year...

And guess what? There is still plenty of it.

It's been 5 years since the downfall of Agfa and the bankrupsy of Ilford...

Digital already took all the market share it could have. The only remaining users are dedicated to film, or are just gearhead that shoot film cameras because of the camera, not of the film.

Well, it they can be satisfied by putting 50mm summicron on a micro 4/3 camera, making it a 100mm, well thats their choice.

Peace.

 

[bmattock]

Sweet, hopefully there are a lot more people out there thinking along the same lines. I'm an opportunist, and if the price is right, I will buy into a dead system. Just because film is disappearing doesn't mean that film cameras cease to give a quality product. The entire reason why I started shooting film to begin with was the ability to get excellent quality with relatively little fiscal investment. The way things are going in the digital realm, only film cameras, not lenses, will be obsolete. I have never spent more than $100 on a film camera body (usually closer to $50). So even if the production of film ceased tomorrow, I would be out maybe $300 at most. But I still have a freezer full of film, and the means to develop at home, so I would still be able to shoot for the next year at least.

Being able to shoot for the next year does not make my hundreds of old cameras any more useful to me. Making the rational decision to winnow the herd down to the few cameras that actually interest me is not in any way an indicator that I think badly of film quality. This isn't about isms, it's simple practicality. I'm glad there will be buyers for my stuff in the short term. I don't want to be the guy without a chair when the music stops.

 

[bmattock]

I'd like to see numbers from both sides on this.
I would suspect that Bill is probably more "correct" than btgc is but still it's sweeping statements like that (without numbers to back it up) that always make me say "Hmmmmm"

Cheers,
Dave

On previous similar threads, I have spent hours doing research and posting numbers and cites to stats, news articles, industry analysis that supports my claims, only to have it either ignored or made the subject of boneheaded comments like "Oh, that's such and such newspaper. I never believe anything they say."

I'll do some light digging, but I've gone way out of my way before, and not much come of it because you can lead a horse to water, but beating the crap out of him if he's too stupid to drink is illegal.

 

[bmattock]

True but I still wonder whether or not the analogies really fit. With all those technologies no one, not even the most nostalgic of people, actually proclaim the superiority of the older technology over the newer.

Unfortunately, the argument that film is better than digital, while true, is irrelevant because we who care about quality are not the market. The average Joe Nose-Picker is the market, and Joe doesn't give two figs about quality; he cares about price, convenience, and wow-factor, more or less in that order. Superior quality means nothing when the major market factors choose based on other criteria.

 

[Roger Hicks]

May well be true, but the list of color films from Ilford is way too short ...

No, looks pretty rational to me...

Cheers,

R.

 

[photogdave]

All I have to say is who cares? Kodak sucks so let them die! I don't think they will, however, because in fact they are making money on film. Their losses are only coming from their foolish ventures into digital imaging. Seriously, all of Hollywood is still shooting on Kodak film so it must, and therefore will, survive! It's a basic supply and demand issue after all.

 

[Al Patterson]

I was surprised Blockbuster wasn't on the list. And only Newsweek? Most weekly news rags are on life support. I suppose Time can hold out being part of a larger organization, but dead tree media isn't long for this world. I do expect Kodak to outlive dead tree media, but I may yet outlive Kodak...

 

[btgc]

Bill, I agree on markets skipping some steps of technology, that's fact. I don't have numbers so I don't insist I'm right, any way.

Also, in my world theory Kodak isn't only company making film. So while I haven't invested too much into film gear, I'm sleeping well.

 

[antiquark]

I'll do some light digging, but I've gone way out of my way before, and not much come of it because you can lead a horse to water, but beating the crap out of him if he's too stupid to drink is illegal.

I hope you're not implying that you'd like to beat the crap out of any of the fine members of RFF here. Hopefully it's just an analogy.

I could argue, but really, I would just be repeating all the points I made earlier. It's not that I've decided that film is indeed dead, it's just that arguing ad infinitum and ad nauseum isn't that much fun.

 

[dfoo]

I don't have Kodak at all. I use their film, I use their chemicals. They produce excellent stuff!

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Whether they are making money on film isn't the point. There is the tipping point where it is no longer profitable overall for the company. The demise of film from Kodak will be sudden and without real warning. Someone in accounting will say it just isn't worth it anymore, and that will be the end. Of course, if Kodak fails completely, then it's a mute point. Film will go with it.

 

[bmattock]

I hope you're not implying that you'd like to beat the crap out of any of the fine members of RFF here. Hopefully it's just an analogy.

Of course.

What I mean is that when someone challenges you to 'prove it' so you spend a few hours digging through the rubble to pick out the gems that do indeed prove it, post them, and the person who made the challenge then either refuses to respond or simply sniffs that they don't like the source you used, so they reject the entire thing, it can make one a tad...irritated.

I'm one of the only people here who consistently backs up my claims with facts - or at least facts as I see them. Some others just post whatever rattles around in their punkin heads and 'prove' their points by simply repeating them over and over.

I could argue, but really, I would just be repeating all the points I made earlier. It's not that I've decided that film is indeed dead, it's just that arguing ad infinitum and ad nauseum isn't that much fun.

When you get right down to it, there's only about fifty or so discussions that can be had on RFF, and once you've taken part in all of them, the rest are just repeats.

 

[tbarker13]

I was surprised Blockbuster wasn't on the list. And only Newsweek? Most weekly news rags are on life support. I suppose Time can hold out being part of a larger organization, but dead tree media isn't long for this world. I do expect Kodak to outlive dead tree media, but I may yet outlive Kodak...

Actually Blockbuster came in right after Borders. I agree, that would have been strange to not see them there. I can't remember the last time I actually went into one of those video stores. Isn't it odd how quickly that common life experience just sort of disappeared for most people?