lam
Well-known
Hey, some good news finally! 🙂 Regardless of glass-half-full language, atleast they're not just disappearing off the face of the earth.
Meet the new Kodak Film: Kodak Alaris...
- Thread starter KM-25
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 89
- Views 13K
jsrockit
Moderator
I thought Kodak announced a new film called Alaris ... 😱
lam
Well-known
That's what I read too when I initially clicked on it.. then I read the link and some of the comments ( not all of them obviously ).. Was like, 😱 NEW FILM!!
btgc
Veteran
First I thought it's new film, Kodak Alarmis....alarm is....
Aristophanes
Well-known
On demand is extremely expensive both for hardware and film.
The Rochester plant take kilometers of base rolling just to get started and spool. It can only be run in huge quantities, and since film has expiry issues, it only makes sense to run large batches of homogenized products, which is why remaining emulsions between motion picture film stock and still photo film will likely be similar. That's why esoteric ISO's and products (Plus-X) are disappearing. Since the coating system cannot scale down, and there is no capital to make smaller new ones. There is still demand for motion picture film, so this is what keeps that plant running.
Also, there is the technical overhead. That means engineers who know the product and chemistry and procedures. You cannot pay them to be on standby until orders come in. That's unpaid overhead and a career dead end. Machinery like this cannot be idled for very long between runs; they usually have to be left in a "hot idle" state or they require expensive maintenance and re-calibrations. Some of the chemicals cannot be stockpiled having expiry issues and environmental storage parameters. Film has always had a problem between limited inventory capacity (freshness) and large runs to keep costs down (volume). The entire chemical and mechanical structure of roll film is the opposite of an on-demand system. And if you want a decent quality product, no way it can be done in a barn by hobbyists, not Tri-X or Portra stuff.
As for scanners and optical equipment, hand-assembly and custom machine work requires a lot of experience and technical overhead. Consumer electronics like this are only affordable (even our $3,000 DSLR's) if they are assembled and quality tested in large volumes. There is a staggering cost gap between what one can do via Instructables and what a mass manufactured item requires.
Roll film production is and always has been a mass produced, industrial product reliant on mass consumption. When introduced it went from 0 - 100 in terms of volume with an almost instantaneous take-up by consumers on a vast scale. I poke around with a cost analysis and economic eye and I see continued production being partially viable, but it is the processing and scanning end where the logjam occurs for consumers of roll film (the motion picture will still use the digital internegative system). Since the debt is gone and the equipment is a sunk cost, there are no amortization outlays of note, so getting each roll out the door is purely operational, administrative New and focused), and distribution. It still requires a mass market but with processing and scanning increasing in costs this dissuades consumers from buying film in the first place on a scale to match the output.
In the longer run (and creditors will certainly note this) the lack of any new film cameras made on a mass scale is also an issue (especially affordable, compact AF models that encourage film consumption...when AF came in the roll film industry exploded in volume due to consumer shot confidence). It's difficult to extend credit to an industry reliant on salvage cameras. I suspect that's one reason why only the pension fund stepped in to buy the roll film and consumer imaging products. Between the capture devices, the capture medium, and the end-user image consumption, there's no cohesiveness or joint effort.
Maybe if Kodak Alaris could buy all the Fujitsu and Noritsu labs and processors they could re-do the original Kodak system of "You push the button, we do the rest." Of course that might rely on a mail order system reliant itself on the costs of that other, imperiled analog beast, the Post Office.
jsrockit
Moderator
Agreed. I can't see new ones being made either... except for super-niche stuff.
mnutzer
no title
Without reversal films for color slides Kodak will remain unattractive for many amateur photographers.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Most people contributing to this thread appear to know even less than I about the subject -- and I don't know enough to make any useful comments. Yes, modern film coating is incredibly fast and is normally with huge master rolls, and it may be that Kodak's machinery is literally too big to scale down.
On the other hand, I've known a few people who are or were pension trustees for either Ilford or Kodak and some of them know a lot about the business: certainly more than I and (I suspect) more than anyone else here. I find it hard to believe they'd have allowed the wool to be pulled over their eyes.
So why don't we just wish them well, and hope they know what they're doing? As we did with Ilford?
Cheers,
R.
On the other hand, I've known a few people who are or were pension trustees for either Ilford or Kodak and some of them know a lot about the business: certainly more than I and (I suspect) more than anyone else here. I find it hard to believe they'd have allowed the wool to be pulled over their eyes.
So why don't we just wish them well, and hope they know what they're doing? As we did with Ilford?
Cheers,
R.
Zonan
Well-known
Me too- thought it was like Ferrania Solaris film
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
Roger: I understand your position and views. One thing you don`t seem to accept: The whole KPP deal MIGHT be just one of those scams that the American business practice is famous for. The latest is the Microsoft-Nokia deal where a troijan horse: Mr Stephen Flopp
became the nokia CEO and succeeded lowering the Nokia shares so much that buying of half the company was an easy deal for Microsoft. incicentally He was hired right away back to Microsoft after a "mission accomplished". Don`t you find strange that the KPP is situated in England, out of reach for American legistration...
became the nokia CEO and succeeded lowering the Nokia shares so much that buying of half the company was an easy deal for Microsoft. incicentally He was hired right away back to Microsoft after a "mission accomplished". Don`t you find strange that the KPP is situated in England, out of reach for American legistration...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, I'm quite willing to accept that this is possible, but as I say, the people I've known who've been pension fund trustees have not been fools. And no, I don't really find it odd that it's the UK pension fund, because often (far from invariably) UK pension funds are less susceptible to looting or simply to being written off. Workers' rights are generally taken more seriously in Europe (even in England) than in the US.
Of course you could well be right. But I hope not, and on balance, I suspect you are not. As I say, what can we do except wish them well and hope that they know what they're doing?
Cheers,
R.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
Roger: If you are serious about this: Check here:
http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFiles/Content/Corporate/KodakTransforms/KPP_Recovery_Plan.pdf
Losses payable all the way from 2007... How are they going to do it ?
http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFiles/Content/Corporate/KodakTransforms/KPP_Recovery_Plan.pdf
Losses payable all the way from 2007... How are they going to do it ?
Aristophanes
Well-known
Actually, the pension plan in the UK is permitted to hold hard investment assets; that is why they can step in and purchase. Pension funds and structures (huge topic) in the US are not capable of being run like that type of business. There were all sorts of tax and other issues as well. The UK plan has some insurance and higher creditor status than the US pensioners so traded its position in the creditor line-up for assets. Pensioners in the US are near or at the bottom of the list in bankruptcy; they fare much better in the UK. It seems like the other creditors and bondholders approved that concept seeing the film business as a difficult sale or hold.
And who better than the pensioners with the knowledge base to run ideas through to rightsize the product for a much smaller market? I suspect they were the only ones capable of making a business case for this part of EK.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It certainly looks optimistic but maybe it was the best they could get.At this point, too, we're looking at financial jiggery-pokery rather than at specifically photographic concerns. With politics, at the least there's the chance of influencing people via public opinion. With a business...?
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You know more about this than I and you have certainly summarized it well.
Cheers,
R.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Pensions in trust in the UK have a secured creditor status. Not in the US.
As a result, the UK Kodak pension trust could assume assets in lieu of money (of which in bankruptcy there often are none) to continue to fund the pension liabilities on their own. They have chosen to do so as an incorporated business, hopefully drawing upon the expertise and consumer base of their own pensioners.
It was either that or take their share in the bankruptcy line and get crumbs. Where the UK pension stood in relation tot he US bankruptcy may also have been a legal entanglement that could have delayed resolution for years, so it was in everyone's best interest to let an asset go to the trust. Of course the only way it was going to work was if a guaranteed supply of film stock was made available along with the Kodak name.
I also suspect there was considerable emotion about what to do with the film legacy and the true Kodak name. I doubt any bank or creditor wanted to be associated with sinking Kodak film. Might have even been a bit of goodwill along the way. It could easily have been much, much worse. If you factor in the pension liabilities both ways across the pond, and add those deficits to the operating deficits of EK, there is no way that film has been profitable for over a decade. Not even close. Not only was EK selling land and other assets to make up for consumers leaving for digital, they were no paying their pension plans to do the same.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
At least the people behind KPP know the products, turning them to profit and hard cash is another matter...
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
They'll probably lose even more over the restructuring - that paper seems to precede them taking over Kodak film. But they aren't in a situation where they can hope to profit - they'll want to cut their losses and salvage some of their investments. If they accepted Kodak film as such a deal, they must have hoped to get more out of it than the meagre share they'd get out of a final sale of all property.
Of course, there have been cases where pensioners funds have been abused viking funeral boat style, heaping all bad assets on them and letting them drift out to sea burning - but I'd expect that more from companies that can split off one massively profitable fragment. Given that all Kodak is in a terribly poor shape, they don't have anything to offer to the managers they'd need to pull through such a scheme - something as uncertain as a job at the Kodak Print division does not really sound like a good incentive for a move that will destroy your reputation as a manager for good.
Aristophanes
Well-known
The moment EK entered bankruptcy those pension arrears are just a liability. The only question was where those statutory requirements raked in order of creditor/bondholder priority. Those arrears are now a write-off and can only be recouped from the continuing operation of the Kodak Alaris spin-off.
The way that pension funds get abused is primarily by under-funding them in a down business cycle. For most federally regulated pension systems that requires approval from a solvency regulator. For the most part it's a no-win situation because continued payments into these plans often makes other parts of the company cash poor and then they lose R&D and customers and pay and talent, etc., taking the whole ship...and the pension plan as well...down with them. So the solvency regulators OK's the contribution at lower amounts an a deficit or arrears situation piles up. This is what happened at EK. One of the things that got cut as customers left film for non-Kodak digital products was pension contributions. This is a chilling problem with private sector pensions. At least in the UK pension trusts have a more preferred status as the deferred earnings in the pension arrears are treated more like a bond.
Still, it it's hard to sell film in a digital world, it's hard to sell a depreciated film business. Let's hope this pension trust can keep things going lean and mean not only for the sake of film's legacy, but also for those pensioners. As a business case, Kodak Alaris is kind of a remarkable, intriguing story.
KM-25
Well-known
If you look at the headline above my first post, I corrected it to read what I felt it to mean, but it did not translate in the thread list, so if a mod could complete that task, then it will be done correctly, out of my hands though folks…
As for the dissecting of all of this, if that is what floats your boat, fine. I work hard to promote film use because my career path depends on it, I no longer want digital in my life as a photographer, so I innovate my thinking forward and scheme up new ways to market film.
If there are problems to be solved such as no new cameras, lack of labs ( Ilford has a new one in the U.S. ) then those look more like opportunities to me rather than problems, it all depends on how you look at it. I love solving problems, it keeps my mind sharp and alert.
But I understand, many here will make statements as if they can tell the future, know more about this transition than the people *actually* involved do and that is what they prefer to do with their time….but it is kind of like walking up to a guy taking a leak and saying "Do you know your fly is open?"
Thankfully, others on here will log off, walk out the door and make some photographs with their chosen film and be part of the solution. There are several solutions to the film future problem, the one in this case is to treat Kodak Alaris as if it were a nice bottle of red wine that has just opened…before you take a sip and form an opinion…..ladies and gentleman, can we let it breathe for a bit?
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
