News: Kodak Is Cutting Up to 10,000 More Jobs

[bmattock]

I don't know much about the costs of producing film, but even if the R&D is already all paid off and making film is relatively cheap, it still costs money to run a factory (capital costs, salaries, inventory...) and distribute the film to retailers and/or end users.

I really appreciate all you said - but wanted to concentrate on this bit above.

One thing that folks are not thinking about right now - environmental controls.

Making film uses exotic chemicals and they often go into the ground. The EPA has had many its teeth pulled in recent years (let us not go there), but they still don't like groundwater pollution. Old factories often get the nod, because the economics don't allow for cleanup and everybody gets that. So you can modernize old factories, but you can't open newer, smaller, ones - even those that pollute less.

Not that making chips and plastic doesn't also create pollution - but companies like Canon, Nikon, et al don't do that production themselves - that gets farmed out. I've been to a Nokia plant - more like 'assembly plant' to be honest.

This is why, in my opinion, there won't be a Manny, Moe, and Jack company put together for the express purpose of making small runs of B&W or color film. They can relabel and sell what others make (think former Eastern Bloc and non-existant environmental controls), but make it themselves? No.

My prediction - there will never be another photographic film production plant built in the western world. Not even boutique-sized. Perhaps it could still happen in the former Eastern Bloc countries...but even then...it will require large amounts of cash.

The economics count, as always - but environmental concerns are just as pressing, and I think people tend to forget that.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[XAos]

"The important bit here - moving faster from point-n-shoot digicams to digital slrs, and introducing three models per year - the move away from film for the enthusiast (SLR users) is picking up speed." - Bill Mattock partial quote

Introducing three models per year is part of the problem. Too many digital cameras to choose from. They're wasting money making more cameras that do basically the same thing instead of investing in one inexpensive, full-frame rangefinder with 8.2 megapixels and TRUE noiseless black-and-white!!

All they have to do is read this forum to know what to invest in. Maybe Kodak should get out of the stock market and go private. No need to please investors anymore!!

C.

Moving toward DSLRs away from p&s is a good thing. The market needs to get an interchangeable lens DSLR down to the $400 range. It's only 2x what a bottom end film rebel costs you know.

However I agree about the number of models. For the life of me I've never understood the HP marketing system where there are 20 models of the same printer from $200 to $380 in $9 increments where A has features 1,2,5 B has features 2, 5 7 but not 1, C has features 1 3 and 5.... The only thing I can figure is that they have a bazillion independent product teams, so many that they end up leap frogging each other when the inevitable slips happen.
The turf wars must be something spectacular.

Even if you're not publicly traded, you still have to please the grocer.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I see that by dead you mean no more real effort will be put into film improvement and all the effort will go into digital. I could agree to that. We are at the same point as prop and jet aircraft were after WWII with film and digital. There are still prop driven aircraft in use today but the lions share of commercial aviation is now jet. If there remains enough of a market for film it will stay available just as there is still enough of a demand for prop driven aircraft.

Bob

 

[bmattock]

Moving toward DSLRs away from p&s is a good thing. The market needs to get an interchangeable lens DSLR down to the $400 range. It's only 2x what a bottom end film rebel costs you know.

However I agree about the number of models. For the life of me I've never understood the HP marketing system where there are 20 models of the same printer from $200 to $380 in $9 increments where A has features 1,2,5 B has features 2, 5 7 but not 1, C has features 1 3 and 5.... The only thing I can figure is that they have a bazillion independent product teams, so many that they end up leap frogging each other when the inevitable slips happen.
The turf wars must be something spectacular.

Even if you're not publicly traded, you still have to please the grocer.

Right now.

It's not about right, it's about right now.

They need to get out in front and stay there and grab market share. There is not room, most likely, for ten digital SLR makers. Maybe three, and one of them will be an also-ran. Canon, Nikon, and maybe Pentax or maybe KM. But nothing is firm - anyone could lose their edge.

And right now - if Canon introduces an 8 mp entry-level DSLR, Nikon had better respond toot sweet or the game is up. Lose money out the wazoo, do what you have to do - get them out there and get them out there fast and cheap.

Huge boon for the buyer right now - instant gratification. All barriers to adoption are falling and how.

We are seeing a huge lever being applied to the market - faster than nearly any technological revolution ever. Faster than adoption of PC's or cell phones, the other two biggies. We are nowhere near market maturation. We near saturation on PnS cameras - so the bar has to be raised, new expections created. Yesterday's model can not be good enough anymore in the mind of Joe Public.

This can't last - we must plateau somewhere. And when the giants come to rest, there will a longer period of trying to extract some profit and consolidating efforts, a huge slow-down in upward movement. But it ends when Olympus or Ricoh or KM hollers "Uncle" and implodes. When there are one or two players in the DSLR market, then we see things slow down.

Until then - three new models per year? Better give me four. Five. Whatever. Just do it now. And Christmas is coming; you'd better be stocked with the latest, greatest and for cheap when I do my shopping or you lose.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[GeneW]

We all have a vested interest in film and hope for the best. I'm not convinced that the analogies between film and art supplies, buggy whips, or vinyl LP's have much relevance. Film is a unique technology and, as Bill points out, requires a specialized factory for production.

From a historian's point of view, this is a fascinating time. Technology displacements and transitions are deeply interesting as are the economic forces behind them. Are our linear predictions viable? Will an unknown factor from left field put a new spin on the equation?

My favourite bar in Phoenix, Arizona is Quien Sabe ...

Gene

 

[bmattock]

Quien Sabe ...

For non-Spanish speakers - 'who knows?'

My answer: ¿A quién ves en el espejo?

Best Regards,

Bill 'Gringo' Mattocks

 

[tetrisattack]

I guess what's causing me anxiety is that I'm an advanced amateur, not a professional, and I supremely enjoy the fruits of a market that's been maturing for decades (rangefinders!). But that market is built on film, which is being massacred, and while digital tech is rapidly improving, all of the development is happening in the mainstream and extreme high-end. The stuff I'm interested in is being ignored, 'cause there's no money in fine-art photography.

I mean, where's the drop-in replacement for 4x5? Where's my affordable RD-1 (can I order a digital ikon yet?) Where's my digital camera that's built to last more than 18 months?

10 years ought to be enough time to get all that sorted, but progress is going to be painful.

 

[bmattock]

I guess what's causing me anxiety is that I'm an advanced amateur, not a professional, and I supremely enjoy the fruits of a market that's been maturing for decades (rangefinders!). But that market is built on film, which is being massacred, and while digital tech is rapidly improving, all of the development is happening in the mainstream and extreme high-end. The stuff I'm interested in is being ignored, 'cause there's no money in fine-art photography.

I mean, where's the drop-in replacement for 4x5? Where's my affordable RD-1 (can I order a digital ikon yet?) Where's my digital camera that's built to last more than 18 months?

10 years ought to be enough time to get all that sorted, but progress is going to be painful.

It is unfortunate that we are on the cusp of something new, and yes, it is and will continue to be painful.

I'm an amateur as well - but pros who have a workflow and set of tools that they're used to and which works well for them are caught in this as well.

No one who has any kind of substantial investment in traditional photography - whether in equipment, training, or experience, is going to enjoy this much.

Although it takes time to assess the niche and respond to it - there will be lots of people where we are - with 4x5 stuff and so on - and someone will find a way to make a profit out of backfilling those areas. But it will take time for them to find us as a market.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[jan normandale]

this might seem off topic but

1. My daughter's boyfriend a 25 something walked in last week with 8 vinyl LP's, I asked if he got them at a used record store. Answer ... nope , artists are putting out vinyl now and it is priced competitively with CD's at about 18$ a copy! Hmmm
2. there are more photography schools today than ever before at universities all across North America and Europe, I also imagine in South America, and Asia. So they are not all there for 'digital only'
3. Global population is expected to be increased by about 500 million over the next 10 years, that is more people doing things with 'imaging' equipment including film and printing papers.

Point I'm trying to make is there may be a temporary contraction, but this hard copy stuff is not going to go away.

 

[sooner]

Bill,

I always enjoy reading your posts but am somewhat dismayed by the alacrity with which you write about the death of film, as if we were describing some chubby village elder writhing on the ground with a large spear through his gut. Yes, film is contracting, and the price of Kodak stock is forcing them to make big changes fast. But digital still has lots of issues, of which cost and reliability are huge. I tend to agree with the niche comparisons. How else do you describe Zeiss coming out with a new film rangefinder? Personally, I stand to gain from the current market changes as I can now afford dirt cheap rangefinders, and medium format systems come down, and maybe soon can actually contemplate a Bessa R2. Let the masses dump their film equipment, some of us are still around to catch it.

Best....John.

 

[Double Vision]

Meanwhile, in the Kodak boardroom:


"Sir, we have another disapointing quarter on our hands."

"We need to cut even more jobs then. More firings! More! More! More!"

"But sir, you and I are the only ones left!'

"Oh. Well... your fired!"

.

 

[Mark Wood]

This is my first post on this forum and I hope it's not too controversial but I'm an avid rangefinder camera/film user so I hope that makes up for it in some way! As a university chemistry lecturer in the UK who's just seen his department closed (well, who needs chemistry anyway...?!?), firstly my genuine sympathy goes out to the Kodak employees but I'm not sure how much sympathy to have with Kodak themselves.
I don't think that anyone could have predicted the speed of the digital "onslaught" but I really do wonder just to what extent the situation in which Kodak find themselves is their paying the price for their own marketing behaviour over the last 100 years? I say this primarily because of all of the unnecessary new film formats that they've tried to force onto the public during this time and then promptly and I believe, cynically, withdrawn support from, to try to force us to buy something else. I'm thinking of the formats (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Kodak have strongly supported, such as 620 (advantage over 120?!?), 127, 828, 126, 110, Disc and APS. I think that I have the chronological order about right and it's interesting to note that each format was significantly worse than its predecessor in technical terms with perhaps, the exception of APS (mind you, I've yet to see a sharp APS print). The public seemed to have given up on supporting this marketing strategy by the time Disc arrived and the situation was only highlighted by Kodak's abortive assault on Polaroid's instant picture market. It then didn't take long for the autofocus 35mm compact to oust 110 as the "point and shoot" standard in the 1980s, so shouldn't this have told Kodak something important 20 years ago? APS was probably the final nail in the coffin (worth noting that the Japanese manufacturers gave up on APS well before 35mm). Whilst other major film manufacturers have provided some support for Kodak's new film formats (particularly 126, 110, APS), their main attentions always seem to have been on the stalwarts of 35mm and 120 which will surely be the final film format survivors.
Are Kodak paying the price for trying desperately to change the market with successively inferior products? Many sold well in their time (particularly 126/110) but none have stood the test of time. Of course, it's all very easy with the benefit of hindsight and this is perhaps just my opinion but most importantly, I hope it's not too late for Kodak to recover. Long live Kodachrome, Tri-X, Plus-X... Oh and please bring back Kodachrome 25 and Panatomic-X whilst you're at it. Actually, good old 1250asa Royal-X Pan in Disc format, maybe that's what we really need...

 

[Socke]

Vinyl records aren't everywhere as they once where, it's hard to find styluses for record players and if my Braun PS420 fails it won't be repairable anymore.

As far as I know, tape for tape recorders is out of production and the last remains are horded by recording studios who where left in the dark when the amateurs got rid of their reel to reel tape recorders.

The new vinyl records are most probably produced by an independend band with a four track DAT or a digital studio based on a high end PC.

Let's face it, film is a rapidly shrinking market and those who once bought P&S cameras buy P&S cameras today albeit digital ones.

There will be film for the foreseable future, but you'll have to search for it and the choice will be smaller.

20 years ago I had a great choice of Kodak, Agfa and Ilford films in the local grocery stores in my small (5000 souls) hometown, today they have Kodak Gold 200 and 400 in the big supermarkets in the big town where I live now. Wallmart has Kodacolor, Fuji Superia and Konica. Sometimes you'll find some Agfa CT or Fuji Sensia there, but don't bet on it.

The local drugstore just dropped B/W, except some BW400CN, and I got the remaining stock of FP4. Thinking about drugstores, I can't remember any carrying developer and such, 20 years ago it was everywhere.

Then I shot B/W because it was cheap, now I shoot color because it's cheaper 🙂

All of my friends who take pictures do it with digital cameras, I'm the only one left who regularly uses film.

 

[fraley]

I heard the news today, oh boy...

I heard the news today, oh boy...

It's good to read all the responses to today's news. I just learned to use something other than an SLR (less than a year ago), and I LIKE rangefinders, so I really don't want a DSLR. I'm waiting too for a digital rangefinder, preferably that has a Leica M mount so I can continue using my Zorki and Bessa R2 lenses. I want to keep using the various 'classic' cameras I've started collecting. Hopefully there will be film available. Maybe not at the drugstore -- they just eliminated their Fuji stock. But on the other hand, they still carry 110 film.

What it boils down to -- nobody can make me buy a DSLR ! 😀

And do I really want to spend $300 USD on a cheapie P&S digital with a short focal length that doesn't provide selective focus and has menu-driven 'manual' controls???

 

[bmattock]

Point I'm trying to make is there may be a temporary contraction, but this hard copy stuff is not going to go away.

Sadly, Jan, yes, it is. The worst of it is that I'm not your enemy - I prefer film too. But denial doesn't work. Temporary contraction? Um, ok. Waiting for those 78 rpm records to come bouncing back. And my 8-tracks. Any day now!

Hint: When the host turns the lights out, the party is over and it is time to go home. Kodak has issued last call. The delay between last call and door being locked may be twenty years from end to end, but it is happening and there is very little to be gained by pretending it isn't so.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[GeneW]

Since Ilford seem dedicated to making a go of their core film business, I'm leaning towards using all Ilford B&W films from this point forward. I really like their products anyway, so this is no hardship. HP5+, FP4+, Delta 3200 here I come ...

Gene

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

I always enjoy reading your posts but am somewhat dismayed by the alacrity with which you write about the death of film, as if we were describing some chubby village elder writhing on the ground with a large spear through his gut.

Gruesome! Accurate, but gruesome!

Yes, film is contracting,

Yes, my former employer was 'contracting' some time ago. I called it being fired, but hey, whatever.

and the price of Kodak stock is forcing them to make big changes fast. But digital still has lots of issues, of which cost and reliability are huge.

You're right, digital has lots of issues. Doesn't matter, not one bit. The buying public, which are not camera-savvy like you and I, do not care a whit. They like digital, and that's the end of the discussion.

Remember the Beta versus VHS wars? Beta really was superior. It lost. When the market speaks, it does not matter who is right and who is wrong. What matters is who is fast and who is dead.

I tend to agree with the niche comparisons. How else do you describe Zeiss coming out with a new film rangefinder?

1) Bad business decision. They're known for it. They jumped into 126 cartridge as it lay dying, too.

2) They made the decision to come to market more than two years ago, and the slide towards digital was not as pronounced then - the market gurus gave film another five years in the top slot at that time. They were wrong, but that's life.

3) They can bring their rangefinder to market cheaply - they're not doing much of the manufacturing - Cosina is. Or am I wrong on that? Not sure.

Bottom line - even in a dying market - if they can make a profit, why not do it? It won't be for the long term, I promise you that. Cosina will crank out about 10,000 or so (maybe less) of these puppies and shut the line down. Zeiss will sell that stock for the next five years and then that's that.

So, they make 200 bucks a copy on these things. Why not do it?

Would you like to bet me that there will not be a follow-on model to the Zeiss rangefinder?

Personally, I stand to gain from the current market changes as I can now afford dirt cheap rangefinders, and medium format systems come down, and maybe soon can actually contemplate a Bessa R2. Let the masses dump their film equipment, some of us are still around to catch it.

That was my plan until I ran out of money, but still a good one for those who have a love of film.

I'm always kind of amazed at these same old arguments. I'm not here to argue about the superiority of film versus digital. I agree that film is great. Love the stuff.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

This is my first post on this forum and I hope it's not too controversial but I'm an avid rangefinder camera/film user so I hope that makes up for it in some way!

Mark, welcome! Not too controversial, and very interesting.

As a university chemistry lecturer in the UK who's just seen his department closed (well, who needs chemistry anyway...?!?), firstly my genuine sympathy goes out to the Kodak employees but I'm not sure how much sympathy to have with Kodak themselves.

Well, they've got a long history of hitting home runs - and laying huge eggs. Also, being shortsighted and greedy. All true.

I don't think that anyone could have predicted the speed of the digital "onslaught"

Oh, I did - but I'm terribly clever. Problem is, people who fail to fall down and worship at my feet.

but I really do wonder just to what extent the situation in which Kodak find themselves is their paying the price for their own marketing behaviour over the last 100 years? I say this primarily because of all of the unnecessary new film formats that they've tried to force onto the public during this time and then promptly and I believe, cynically, withdrawn support from, to try to force us to buy something else.

Oh, they are very much guilty of that.

I'm thinking of the formats (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Kodak have strongly supported, such as 620 (advantage over 120?!?), 127, 828, 126, 110, Disc and APS. I think that I have the chronological order about right and it's interesting to note that each format was significantly worse than its predecessor in technical terms with perhaps, the exception of APS (mind you, I've yet to see a sharp APS print).

You have it right by my reckoning.

The public seemed to have given up on supporting this marketing strategy by the time Disc arrived and the situation was only highlighted by Kodak's abortive assault on Polaroid's instant picture market. It then didn't take long for the autofocus 35mm compact to oust 110 as the "point and shoot" standard in the 1980s, so shouldn't this have told Kodak something important 20 years ago?

No, that was the 'short-sighted and greedy' bit.

APS was probably the final nail in the coffin (worth noting that the Japanese manufacturers gave up on APS well before 35mm). Whilst other major film manufacturers have provided some support for Kodak's new film formats (particularly 126, 110, APS), their main attentions always seem to have been on the stalwarts of 35mm and 120 which will surely be the final film format survivors.

The slowly began to realize that Kodak did not beat the drum anymore.

Are Kodak paying the price for trying desperately to change the market with successively inferior products?

Doubtful.

Many sold well in their time (particularly 126/110) but none have stood the test of time. Of course, it's all very easy with the benefit of hindsight and this is perhaps just my opinion but most importantly, I hope it's not too late for Kodak to recover. Long live Kodachrome, Tri-X, Plus-X... Oh and please bring back Kodachrome 25 and Panatomic-X whilst you're at it. Actually, good old 1250asa Royal-X Pan in Disc format, maybe that's what we really need...

Well, none of that will be happening, sadly.

Kodak made many mistakes in their time, and they were large enough to absorb the blow and keep chugging. The film-to-digital debacle was not a problem of their making - but their problem was in failing to recognize soon enough how important it would be.

Please keep in mind that Kodak was an early player in the digital arena - the oldest DSLR's now hitting the eBay lists and selling for sub-$200 prices are Kodak DCS models, built on Nikon or Canon (one Minolta, I believe) chassis. Kodak was into digital imaging in a big way early on.

If they had seen how big the market would be (had they listened to me, for example) they would have been in position to dominate the entire market. A clean sweep of the sort not seen since Wild Larry was debagged and radished on the playing fields of Pickford in full view of the Vicar of Chelmstownberry Green and Lady Astor-Wiggins.

But Kodak chose not to go that route. They kept the digital thing on a low simmer, and stirred the pot from time to time. When the market began to groan to life, they backed off. Modernized their B&W plants (damned glad they did that, gave a few more years to the end of the B&W cycle at Kodak, they have a capital expenditure to recoup). Played silly buggers with buying Chinese film producers and hoping to have a slice of the (they thought) 1 billion happy snapping Chinese using one-shot film cameras for their summer pictures at Three Gorges Dam once it's built.

Their lunch was opened and eaten for them, and that's the truth.

Now, having said all that - Kodak is tossing the surplus-to-requirements overboard with a determination and speed rarely seen in a large moribund American company. I have no idea if Kodak employees have unions, but if they do, they should be screaming like twelve-year-old girls who've just seen their first livestock show. It's all for naught, though. Jettison they must, if they're to save the company.

All that really remains is to see if they turned the wheel far enough, fast enough. Like a huge ocean liner, they turn and turn and then go have lunch. When they get back, they brace themselves for the slow roll as the ship begins to respond.

If I were the CEO of Kodak, I'd fire anyone who told me that film was something we should put a single dollar of R&D into.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Since Ilford seem dedicated to making a go of their core film business, I'm leaning towards using all Ilford B&W films from this point forward. I really like their products anyway, so this is no hardship. HP5+, FP4+, Delta 3200 here I come ...
Gene

Gene,

I agree, as it will be Ilford as the quality producers once Kodak withdraws from the B&W marketplace, then the title goes to the former Eastern Bloc countries once Ilford is finished. We may get twenty years out of Ilford, but I'm betting more like ten, and five would not surprise me.

Every photo-related company is taking a serious look at the bottom line and heading for the market they're best at serving where they can be competitive and make a profit for now. Ilford knows full well that by selling off their ink jet paper manufacturing capability, they're admitting that they end when the market for B&W film shrinks enough to no longer make a profit at producing it in England.

That will be a sad day.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[hth]

Following the discussion groups, I have seen troubled times for Kodak, Ilford and Agfa. But I cannot recall seeing any problem for Fuji, are they just happily taking over the market?

/Håkan