Kodak Q4 Earnings

[Pickett Wilson]

I don't resent film. I've shot film for 50 years. I shoot digital professionally, and mostly medium format and 4x5 for fun. Still, it's pretty hard to deny that film is dying. Sure, they still make buggy whips, but do you own one?

 

[zumbido]

Mr. Wilson, it appears that you are really "invested" in this argument. Please enlighten me. I don't understand the passion (if that's the correct term) behind the point of view. Do you really care if people use film cameras. I too use digital capture at work, there's a Phase on a 4 x5 Sinar in the studio and I generally use both FX and DX formats. I don't have any trouble with old or new technology. I scan my film and print digitally, but may again print my b+w wet. I just don't get it. Do you feel that people with film cameras are a threat to some sort of digital movement? Please fill me in. p.

Sigh. Just, sigh.

 

[Gumby]

Sure, they still make buggy whips, but do you own one?

Does a riding crop count?

 

[zumbido]

Does a riding crop count?

Only if it ever leaves the bedroom. Okay, the house.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Only if it ever leaves the bedroom. Okay, the house.

RFF just got sexy! 😱

 

[zumbido]

I think you've seen much more of this than I have. I'm really hoping for an honest answer - though I think your earlier statement may have explained the "system" of the argument. I'm not one to beat a dead horse.. Just thought I would troll for a honest response. I get these questions from people I work with all the time.

Okay, but you didn't get that question ("ew, why do you still use film?") or anything similar from any of the people you were berating. Unless I overlooked it. So why bring it up?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I don't resent film. I've shot film for 50 years. I shoot digital professionally, and mostly medium format and 4x5 for fun. Still, it's pretty hard to deny that film is dying. Sure, they still make buggy whips, but do you own one?

I would if I owned horses. Here in Indiana, there is a huge Amish community and they ride horse-drawn carriages, or they ride horses to get places. Also there are three companies operating horse-carriage tours of downtown Fort Wayne. Out in New Mexico there were no Amish, but a lot of people owned horses and rode them in barrel races and other equine sports. They used the riding crops mentioned by someone earlier. One of my clients out there sells tack, including buggy whips and riding crops too and they sell pretty well.

Lots of obscure things are still made that have smaller markets than the hobbyist and artist film market. Kodak and Fuji probably will leave film making in the next few years, but there are smaller companies that can produce film in small quantities profitably, just as there are small companies making obscure art supplies like egg-tempera paint (the stuff used in fresco painting. Who on earth does THAT? Someone must, because there are a couple of companies making the paint.

 

[robbeiflex]

Kodak's problems are larger than declining film sales: "For the quarter, Consumer Digital Imaging Group's revenue were $731 million, a decrease of 40%."

This is not about film vs. digital, death of film, etc. It's about a company that is in decline, and unfortunately it's the one that provides TMax, Tri-X, and M9 sensors. If you read the whole transcript you'll see that Kodak has serious issues to deal with across their whole business, but they tell us: "Our cash balance provides us with the ability to continue to make the investments necessary to complete our transformation."

Can we believe them? I'll keep my judgement to my self thanks. I do financial analysis often enough at work and don't feel like doing more in my spare time. However, if you want to read the whole transcript and make your own judgement instead of arguing over quotes taken out of context, then you'll find it here:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/248...010-earnings-call-transcript?source=thestreet

Cheers,
Rob

PS: Above quotes are from the linked page.

 

[Fawley]

Lots of obscure things are still made that have smaller markets than the hobbyist and artist film market. Kodak and Fuji probably will leave film making in the next few years, but there are smaller companies that can produce film in small quantities profitably, just as there are small companies making obscure art supplies like egg-tempera paint (the stuff used in fresco painting. Who on earth does THAT? Someone must, because there are a couple of companies making the paint.

I am in total agreement on this point. Furthermore, even if Kodak were to get out of the film business entirely, I would be very surprised if the well known brands like Tmax etc were not simply sold to another manufacturer. The Tmax and TriX names will be around for a long time to come.

 

[antiquark]

This classic comic explains everything about this thread...

http://xkcd.com/386/

 

[antiquark]

The Tmax and TriX names will be around for a long time to come.

I can see it now... "Introducing the new Casio Tri-X, the easy to use point-and-shoot! Its amazing art filters will give your digital snapshots that old-fashioned black-and-white look!" 🙂

 

[RayPA]

Poor Kodak. Film is the only product (consumer or pro) that Kodak offers that has any real value. It's the only product that has a user base that actually falls over itself to acquire it. It's the only product that Kodak makes that when they discontinue a product, users actually go into mourning. There is so much value in the phrase 'Kodak film', and for years they treated it like it was a pox on the company.

I shoot both film and digital, and I will never understand how anyone who has ever shot a roll of Tri-X and souped it in D-76 or some other solvent developer could ever walk away from that kind of magic--and then to pray and long for its demise (?!). That's proof that pure evil does exist in this world. 😎


edit: I offer this as proof of magic.
/

 

[Roger Hicks]

I am in total agreement on this point. Furthermore, even if Kodak were to get out of the film business entirely, I would be very surprised if the well known brands like Tmax etc were not simply sold to another manufacturer. The Tmax and TriX names will be around for a long time to come.

I would. In fact I'd be astonished. Talk to any emulsion/coating specialist and they'll tell you that it's virtually impossible to replicate an emulsion, even inside the company, if you change coating lines. Normally, they take this opportunity to incorporate improvements (such as on-line hardening so that Tri-X didn't reticulate any more). Of course, sometimes they incorporate only 'improvements' (note quotation marks).

Besides, who would buy the 'Tri-X' name? Ilford, when they already have a competing product? Foma, whose films have their own 'look'? Conceivably Gevaert, but I doubt it. And I don't think anyone who is capable of making itwould want the name T-Max.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bigeye]

I must say I'm confused by this.. a little any way: So: Fuji makes-owns Hasselblaud.. ? that owns or is owned by Imacon? , that uses Kodak sensors in it's equipment.. I know that Nikon is a Mitsubishi company.. and that Fuji and Nikon are on very friendly terms..So what is Nikon's involvement in the making of Hasselblauds? Nikon now has it's own FAB.. What is Sony's involvement in all this? The Friday Clubs must be interesting .. are there a lot of Swedes attending? What do they drink? Roger.. do you know about any of this corporate-Friday Club stuff, Re the above?

They have also left the pro digital SLR market ...

...then they have not?

.

 

[berlincontemporary]

Anyone else see their earnings announcement?

I was under the impression that film sales had begun to stabilize. However, after looking at the release I'm beginning to wonder if they're still on the decline.

Ironically, film still is the profitable part of KODAK.

 

[bigeye]

Lots of obscure things are still made that have smaller markets than the hobbyist and artist film market.

Isn't that the place of "art & craft", when commercial photographers and the snaps shooters are stripped away?

How often are people impressed when you say that a picture is from film, without any photoshopping?

The highest value product of any art or craft is hand-made and not machine-made. (If you doubt, just add, "and he did that on film!" to a description of any great picture.)

.

 

[bigeye]

It certainly looks that way.

I'm suggesting that Fujiblad would not want to compete with themselves. It's a much narrower market - down to 2 1/2 players now and you wouldn't want to cannibalize.

 

[berlincontemporary]

I was told a couple of years ago that it was their most profitable division. I don't know if any of that is current or was true.

As far as I know Kodak still makes a profit with film and they made profit with licensing their name. They were less succesful with anything digital.

 

[JeffL]

Film still seems to be alive in the motion-picture industry...

We just went to see "True Grit" the other week, at a local 20-screen modern cineplex that prides itself on its digital screening rooms ( one of which regularly screens the Metropolitan Opera's digital simul-casts ), but the print of "True Grit" that we enjoyed, was on good-old 35mm film.

Perhaps not completely releveant to this thread, but if major film studios are still using the stuff...

I read somewhere ( APUG I think ) that if the movie industry shot film at 40 or 48 frames a second instead of the 24 fps, the quality is just stunning - but more expensive.

 

[italy74]

As far as I know photographic film is just a "tidbit" of film produced for movie industry, every roll is a fraction second of a 2 h and more pizza roll. I think until Kodak will be producing film for movie industry, we're relatively safe. When Hollywood will move totally to digital, well, that is another story.
btw I agree with bigeye when stating how more impressed are people when they realize you didn't pp a great film picture! I know several people here who have never seen a film camera!