gb hill
Veteran
Greg, seriously. Rational or not, if Kodak went under, it would set off a selling frenzy. You might get what you wish for.
That would be nice! because if kodak & fuji were to go under I'll shoot that cheap shanghi, foma, stuff from Chekloslavika (however you spell it).
mwooten
light user
I just need enough film to get me most of the way through 2012.
sanmich
Veteran
Why in that order?
It seems to me that the print color film croud is the one that is moving easily to digital. If you like slides, I have the impression that digital is not there yet
but I may be wrong...
maddoc
... likes film again.
I would be more worried about the future of film when Leica announces the production stop of the MP / M7.... They are the last company producing high-quality (and high-priced) film cameras in a reasonable large series and selling film cameras without any supply of film could be tricky ....
bmattock
Veteran
Hey Bill or Pickett, I'm looking for a MF camera preferably a Hassleblad, wouldn't happen to have one would you? I'll give ya $50.00 for it. I figured that's a deal considering it will be a paperweight within a year according to you guys.
I have a pair of Bronica C's with lots of lenses and accessories.
bmattock
Veteran
Only because color print is still commonly found in single-use cameras, which are still selling in most retail locations, even the ones that have gotten rid of 35mm film or greatly reduced their stock. Slide film seems to belong to the enthusiast and pro worlds now, almost not seen amongst the consumer set. One-hour places can no longer process it, they tend to just do 35mm C41. So my thought is that slide will go first, color print last, if only due to what little low-end consumer interest remains.
brachal
Refrigerated User
Film can't go away. I just bought another Fed-2.
larmarv916
Well-known
Oct 1, 1996..Kodak stock 80.25...Kodak has been in great "Short"...the 1998 at rally was again a bear rally..lower high 76.87 July. Over the period of time until the most recent "Dead Cat" bounce of march 2009 at 2.17 a share...so a long term profit on a great short..of lets call it 78 dollars ( rounded ) from the 96 high. This again proves the free market..has been telling everyone Kodak sucks. So Kodak traded down every year for 13 years !
Now again this whole rumor about Kodak strikes the cord what bone heads Kodak management are. They have had 13 years to turn the company around. They could have spun off Kodachrome and many other programs but no. They were to smart, hey they kept telling everyone they knew it all.
SO...IF and I say Kodak gets broken up...into smaller companies..the core management will still be steering the small firms in the wrong directions...business as usual.
So...which trade matters the " I bought it at 2.17, and now it's 4.53" or the historical Short from 80.25 down to 2.17? Just think...Kodak is so smart they devalued the stock by over 95% ! These guy earned this fate for how they treated the customers who invested in the stock and purchased the products.
Now again this whole rumor about Kodak strikes the cord what bone heads Kodak management are. They have had 13 years to turn the company around. They could have spun off Kodachrome and many other programs but no. They were to smart, hey they kept telling everyone they knew it all.
SO...IF and I say Kodak gets broken up...into smaller companies..the core management will still be steering the small firms in the wrong directions...business as usual.
So...which trade matters the " I bought it at 2.17, and now it's 4.53" or the historical Short from 80.25 down to 2.17? Just think...Kodak is so smart they devalued the stock by over 95% ! These guy earned this fate for how they treated the customers who invested in the stock and purchased the products.
NickTrop
Veteran
What part of Kodak's business is losing money? Last I read the film division made a small profit.
bgb
Well-known
Must be time to give the old dry plate camera a dust off then I have some recipes for the film emulsion and plenty of glass for plates, so I'm all good.
I have some recipes for the film emulsion and plenty of glass for plates, so I'm all good.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
A clever tinkerer can make B&W film in a garage, as did George Eastman back in the day. I predict a long future for Kodak film, whether it is made on the Ridge in Rochester or some factory in China or Yugoslavia, the brand name will go on for a few more generations.
Color film and processors, chemistry, etc. are a different story. But digital seems to be better than 35mm color film these days anyway.
Color film and processors, chemistry, etc. are a different story. But digital seems to be better than 35mm color film these days anyway.
NickTrop
Veteran
From Kodak's 3rd Quarter Earnings Report:
Gross Profit was 20.3% of sales, a decline from 27.5% in the year-ago period. This decline inmargin was driven by lower intellectual property licensing royalties and unfavorable foreign exchange, partially offset by continued productivity improvements
Consumer Digital Imaging Group third-quarter sales were $535 million, a 35% decline
from the prior-year quarter, including a decrease in intellectual property royalties. Third quarter loss from operations for the segment was $89 million, compared with a profit of $24 million in the year-ago quarter.
Graphic Communications Group third-quarter 2009 sales were $674 million, an 18% decline
from the third quarter of 2008. This revenue decrease was primarily driven by a marketrelated decline of 16% in Prepress Solutions as well as associated declines in workflow. Third-quarter earnings from operations for the segment totaled $10 million
Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group third-quarter sales were $572 million, a 25%
decline from the year-ago quarter. Third-quarter earnings from operations for the segment were $47 million, compared with earnings of $77 million in the year-ago period.
8% gross profit, film division
1.4% gross profit, graphics division
Kodak lost 89 million on 535 million earned in their digital imaging division.
Revenue across all divisions was down: 35% in their digital division, 18% in Graphics, 25% in film/entertainment 3Q 2008-3Q 2008
Kodak held $1.147 billion in cash and cash equivalents as of September 30, 2009
The company’s debt level stood at $1.748 billion as of September 30, 2009
____________________________________________
"Kodak won’t cease to exit. It just may wind up in a private equity portfolio with a much leaner and meaner structure."
Judging from the above, if you were to hold on to Kodak you would:
1. Keep the film business, as it's the most profitable. Has been. Milk it until the end - whenever that is. Most of this - I'm guessing, is from the movie/release print industry with the consumer and enthusiast being a small part of the revenue (but highly profitable given what a consumer pays per frame/foot for film vs the movie industry... This may be a slow ride. Film is a cheap display medium. You got to sell a lot of popcorn to upgrade a theater to digital. You can show a movie with a projector and a screen right now and pay to replace the projection bulbs when they die. There is no business incentive whatsoever for theater owners to upgrade, especially the independents. Hollywood will still "eat" the cost of the release prints for as far as the eye can see.
2. Get the hell out of digital, concede that market, and licence your name to - I dunno, Samsung?
3. Jury still out on their other division.
That's my analysis.
Gross Profit was 20.3% of sales, a decline from 27.5% in the year-ago period. This decline inmargin was driven by lower intellectual property licensing royalties and unfavorable foreign exchange, partially offset by continued productivity improvements
Consumer Digital Imaging Group third-quarter sales were $535 million, a 35% decline
from the prior-year quarter, including a decrease in intellectual property royalties. Third quarter loss from operations for the segment was $89 million, compared with a profit of $24 million in the year-ago quarter.
Graphic Communications Group third-quarter 2009 sales were $674 million, an 18% decline
from the third quarter of 2008. This revenue decrease was primarily driven by a marketrelated decline of 16% in Prepress Solutions as well as associated declines in workflow. Third-quarter earnings from operations for the segment totaled $10 million
Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group third-quarter sales were $572 million, a 25%
decline from the year-ago quarter. Third-quarter earnings from operations for the segment were $47 million, compared with earnings of $77 million in the year-ago period.
8% gross profit, film division
1.4% gross profit, graphics division
Kodak lost 89 million on 535 million earned in their digital imaging division.
Revenue across all divisions was down: 35% in their digital division, 18% in Graphics, 25% in film/entertainment 3Q 2008-3Q 2008
Kodak held $1.147 billion in cash and cash equivalents as of September 30, 2009
The company’s debt level stood at $1.748 billion as of September 30, 2009
____________________________________________
"Kodak won’t cease to exit. It just may wind up in a private equity portfolio with a much leaner and meaner structure."
Judging from the above, if you were to hold on to Kodak you would:
1. Keep the film business, as it's the most profitable. Has been. Milk it until the end - whenever that is. Most of this - I'm guessing, is from the movie/release print industry with the consumer and enthusiast being a small part of the revenue (but highly profitable given what a consumer pays per frame/foot for film vs the movie industry... This may be a slow ride. Film is a cheap display medium. You got to sell a lot of popcorn to upgrade a theater to digital. You can show a movie with a projector and a screen right now and pay to replace the projection bulbs when they die. There is no business incentive whatsoever for theater owners to upgrade, especially the independents. Hollywood will still "eat" the cost of the release prints for as far as the eye can see.
2. Get the hell out of digital, concede that market, and licence your name to - I dunno, Samsung?
3. Jury still out on their other division.
That's my analysis.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Not a pretty story. Interesting that the decline infilm revenue was less than some other units.
bmattock
Veteran
http://www.bangkokpost.com/entertainment/movie/31060/farewell-to-celluloid
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/technology/companies/30sony.html
AMC is the second largest movie chain in the USA.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1837052320090518
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE48S0SI20080929
I like my market analysis better.
rogerchristian
Established
Polaroid is being resurrected by a guy in Europe, I think it is, a real gamble, but it may pay off. There is still a solid backing from a good segment of the population for Polaroid.
Agfa is back due to some new investors.
Ilford was not long ago sold to investors, the Harmon Group, seems pretty solid.
Fuji has the $$ (more or less) to stay in it for a while.
Kodak is a real question mark.
Freestyle is selling as much film stuff as they can get their hands on, 120 film is doing very well and if everybody in your market has not abandoned film processing, those who still do it and support it are doing OK these days. Wallyworld has pulled film machines in many markets - opportunity for the little guy.
Holga has, by itself, revived a once-dead market segment (120/medium format).
High School photo classes in many areas are running full. If you have an enlarger you aren't using and darkroom equipment to go with it, donate it to any school in your area which is still offering a film program, there are still many doing it.
And colleges have found running a wet darkroom program as an intro to their digital program is a good way for the kids to get a founding in the photo world. You can run a good wet darkroom program for an entire year for what one modern computer/scanner setup may cost these days.
The University of Iowa's whole art program was flooded out in 2008, literally. They have consolidated their art programs in an abandoned lumber yard, and have put in a new wet darkroom, polling 12 major arts schools, 10 said they were still offering wet darkroom classes and the classes were doing very well.
Now all we need is for somebody to start producing film SLR's again!
Agfa is back due to some new investors.
Ilford was not long ago sold to investors, the Harmon Group, seems pretty solid.
Fuji has the $$ (more or less) to stay in it for a while.
Kodak is a real question mark.
Freestyle is selling as much film stuff as they can get their hands on, 120 film is doing very well and if everybody in your market has not abandoned film processing, those who still do it and support it are doing OK these days. Wallyworld has pulled film machines in many markets - opportunity for the little guy.
Holga has, by itself, revived a once-dead market segment (120/medium format).
High School photo classes in many areas are running full. If you have an enlarger you aren't using and darkroom equipment to go with it, donate it to any school in your area which is still offering a film program, there are still many doing it.
And colleges have found running a wet darkroom program as an intro to their digital program is a good way for the kids to get a founding in the photo world. You can run a good wet darkroom program for an entire year for what one modern computer/scanner setup may cost these days.
The University of Iowa's whole art program was flooded out in 2008, literally. They have consolidated their art programs in an abandoned lumber yard, and have put in a new wet darkroom, polling 12 major arts schools, 10 said they were still offering wet darkroom classes and the classes were doing very well.
Now all we need is for somebody to start producing film SLR's again!
bmattock
Veteran
Not especially. Film is essentially a cash cow now, with no significant R&D being done and no plans to expand or grow the business. Low marketing costs and investments in physical plant are largely amortized and fully depreciated.
Digital still represents emerging markets that require significant R&D, market research, and advertising to support.
Film can be milked for all it is worth as it slows to a stop. But the 30% year on year sales decline mean even if it remains profitable, it's not enough to keep the company afloat by itself. It's buying time for the investments Kodak has made in digital technology to catch on, if they're going to.
bmattock
Veteran
No. A 'good segment' is a tiny fraction of consumers. It may well work, and I wish it well, but it will never be on the shelves of Walgreens again.
No, it is not. AgfaPhoto is bankrupt. We've had this discussion. If you can't keep up, take notes.
Yes it does.
Fuji continues to whittle down their film offerings.
Kodak is indeed a weak player.
It shows massive decline across the board for consumer sale of photographic film, which was the major driver. Of course the speciality sales outlets will see an uptick. Reading that as increased demand would be a mistake.
For a couple thousand art students.
High schools and colleges are closing their chemical darkrooms left and right. You can read it in the papers daily if you search - which I do. I used to post such things, but it's too depressing even for me.
Colleges are dropping wet darkrooms right and left. Seriously.
Good for them. It's not the case in most places.
EDIT: Sorry, I was being persnickety there. What did Roger call it? Oh yeah, peevish. Sorry.
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
I don't have a clue when the last film company will stop production. I suspect if the current players go under, someone will try to start boutique manufacturing, at least for b&w. Maybe they will survive, maybe not. But, I'm certain the film's days as a commercially viable product available in retail channels are numbered.
Bill's comments here are, I think, spot on target. As are others that highlight that profitability alone is no guarantee that a publicly owned corporation will continue a product. If the bean counters at Kodak thought they could make more money by putting the money that funds the film units into, say, Treasury Bonds, they'd do that. In fact, they have an obligation to do that.
When or if we all start selling off our film hardware is a personal decision. I'm almost certain to retain only one film camera for b&w use. If b&w film vanishes in the next few years, I'll take the hit. I'm still looking for a digital that pushes my buttons, but I expect to find one before I use the the color film that's in the fridge.
Bill's comments here are, I think, spot on target. As are others that highlight that profitability alone is no guarantee that a publicly owned corporation will continue a product. If the bean counters at Kodak thought they could make more money by putting the money that funds the film units into, say, Treasury Bonds, they'd do that. In fact, they have an obligation to do that.
When or if we all start selling off our film hardware is a personal decision. I'm almost certain to retain only one film camera for b&w use. If b&w film vanishes in the next few years, I'll take the hit. I'm still looking for a digital that pushes my buttons, but I expect to find one before I use the the color film that's in the fridge.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
There you go with those pesky facts again...
I can't disagree with your analysis, so I'll just shoot film as long as I can. Maybe for another few years, or a decade at best.
sper
Well-known
What is that ridiculous website and why do you all think they can predict the future? Maybe when the Wall St Journal says it will I get nervous, not some money blog.