Kodak resurgence in Film

Kevin, there's no "inference" involved.

 

The film companies you mentioned are presumably worrisome to the still-employed middle management of a shrinking line of Kodak's business (film).

 

That shrinking line of business is undoubtedly more profitable than a few years ago specifically because of the layoffs and shutdowns.

 

That shrunken line of business has apparently become small enough to be retained for a while. If nobody buys the brand, the film business will presumably be terminated when the employees age into their pensions. Those pensions are probably more important to Kodak than the profits from film, as with Chrysler, which would already be sold except for the same sorts of issue.

 

As for "profitability" of lines of business, that's not significant issue to Kodak's investors. "Profits" are not as important to investors (owners!) of any public company as overall earnings and anticipated FUTURE.

 

Profitable lines of business are abandoned every day when those lines aren't seen as part of the future. Privately owned businesses focus on immediate profits, public companies focus on the future.

 

Institutional investors (ie mutual fund, pension fund) buy shares of "profitable" companies when they pay dividends significantly higher than bonds OR have obvious potential to GROW in the future or be SOLD.

 

I think Kodak shares are owned for the dividends and the probability that they'll contract further (increasing earnings) and/or that the brand will be sold.

...and, wtr Ilford's future in GB, some will remember the bright and shining DeLorean factory. "New" doesn't equal viable:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lorean_DMC-12

 

How many new wet darkrooms are being established Vs 5 years ago? Beseler would know. What level of wet darkroom growth would justify production of coated films and papers, when the same companies could make more money exploiting their brands digitally? Shouldn't Beseler be making something for digital photographers?

 

Ilford seems to be backing out of the "paper" business, but continuing in the "coating" business. But along that line, I've "heard" that due to technical advances, coatings won't be used much longer with quality inkjet papers. The "baryta" story may be only a blip.

AGFA Photo IS dead. The link provided leads to some industrial and medical imaging site. No mention of APX 100, Scala, or any of the relevant products to amateur photographers. AGFA's name lives on. I have heard rumors of consumer films being re-introduced. So far, I only see old new stock available in the US. But that's no matter;there are plenty of analog material suppliers out there.

 

APUG.org certainly has it's problems as well. Foremost being it's a bit of an Ilford fan club. However, I'm not sure what is meant by "Stir up uncomfortable truths". Allowing an endless discussion and hand wringing on the death of analog film and paper here is counter productive. Bottom line is that I just got the current Freestyle catalog. There are 15 pages of black and white papers alone. Including the fact that Russian made Slavich papers now have a big distributor in the U.S.

But no one here talks about that. Only the imminent demise of film, analog photography, etc. Photo.net could use a little more selective truth and less conjecture IMHO.

Russ, Freestyle is indeed a wonderful resource and it'd be great if it represented "light at the end of the tunnel" instead of a dying ember. In earlier years there were better sources in every medium sized city in the US: unfortunately the "dying ember" metaphor seems a better bet.

 

Personally, I wish it was as convenient to use silver paper as it is to do digital printing, and I wish digital printing wasn't such an obvious choice for visual reasons.

 

I still rely entirely on film. Unfortunately, my Nikon scanner seems to be one of the last of the best, like Nikon's F6. Those seem to be omens.

 

Why should Photo.net use less "conjecture?" It's interesting in that context that you share your own theory about APUG along with your own admitted "rumor" about Agfa.

 

And what's this about "allowing" discussion on this topic? Is Mr. Putin listening?

>>Including the fact that Russian made Slavich papers now have a big distributor in the U.S. But no one here talks about that.

 

Russ, have you thought about why that it is?

 

If nothing else, APUG has given me a new-found appreciation for the scale and sophistication of the infrastructure that is used to produce film and paper. And the bottom-line on that is this infrastructure needs to be run hard and fast to have any chance of being profitable. If Slavich is exporting their graded papers to the USA then the most obvious reason is over-capacity. They *must* to produce a certain volume to stay in business and, now faced with an inablility of their traditional markets to support that volume, they are obliged to export to the USA.

 

In other words, while the availability of the paper might be welcome news to printers - it is indicative of a general negative trend for the continued production of ready-made analog photographic materials.

 

I wish I could say otherwise, but John Kelly is the only person I've seen in this post who is contemplating the future of analog photography with fully clear eyes.

 

I'm not putting both feet on the "film is doomed" bandwagon, but I see no real future for it as a universally-available product line that will be supported by a wide array of manufacturers. Even a scenario where it will remain available through one or two niche manufacturers would require its fair share of bullets to be dodged - raw material cost and availability, labor shortages, real estate appreciation, return on investment expectations, etc. Not a market for the faint of heart.

 

Russ - you mentioned something about film being the only remaining prestige product for Kodak. Sorry to say, but outside of perhaps a couple E-6 products, there's very little prestige in film. That it remains highly-coveted by a group of enthusiasts does not impart mass-market prestige.

Wolf's claim about AGFA GEVAERT, by the way, is absolutely 100% and easily verifiable if you go to their website. The AgfaPhoto operation in Leverkusen - which produced the mass-market APX films - has ceased operation.

 

Gevaert still produces aerial photographic films and they are *deeply* involved in the production of films used in microelectronics. This infrastructure enables them to custom-coat on to pretty much any suitable substrate. As a result, Maco/Rollei can leverage it to produce new film stock.

 

It isn't cheap, mind you, but it does give some hope of film being able to continue on for a bit.

Hello to all my fellow photographers, I just received a email from Kodak Information and Technical Support person. It read as follow, although we recently announced the discontinuance of Kodak consumer cameras, please be assured that Kodak is, and will remain comitted to manufacturing and marketing the world's highest quality film. It also states that they will continue to support loyal consumer that support film sales for years to come.

Rufus - this is old news. Kodak announced that it would stop selling film cameras in N. America and W. Europe, apart from disposable cameras, back in early 2004.

All I know is that I will continue in film as long as I can. Meaning, as long as I can still buy the chemicals and film: KODAK, Ilford, or whomever. <p/>But, when the time comes, I will switch completely to digital (using digital on the job - have to), shed a tear (my fondest memories growing up were working in my darkroom at the age of 9 or 10 - KODAK and a little Dupont), and then go digital all the way.

I think we'll be amazed how fast movie studios convert to digital when it's good enough.

The PanaVision Genesis is getting close. Because of the insane data rates involved, movies

are a decade or more behind still photography. But it's going to happen the same way--

the tipping point gets reached and then the changeover will be very quick.

 

I think only after that happens will we finally get a clear picture of what's going to be left

for the film lover. Once those coating plants aren't churning out miles of movie stock, will

it be worth keeping them open for a little bit of still film? Going to be interesting.

Film will be around for longer than anyone posting on this board.

Robert,

 

We're already at that tipping point, IMO. I read an interview with Quentin Tarantino not long ago discussing how the financiers for "Grindhouse" obliged him to use DV, although he was dead set against it.

 

I have a good friend who's finishing up a program at the SMFA in Boston and she has told me nearly all film projects are now shot on DV because of the cost. Night shots suck on DV, yes, but it beats not making the film at all. Two years ago, everybody was still using film...now it's 90/10 DV.

<i>I read an interview with Quentin Tarantino not long ago discussing how the financiers for "Grindhouse" obliged him to use DV, although he was dead set against it.</i><p>

 

This would be interesting if it were true. However, Tarantino's part was shot on 35mm, Rodridguez's part was shot on DV (not a suprise given his previous work.) This isn't a big secret, it's information that is widely available.

Yes, Jeff, I do stand corrected on that point. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

OK. What the heck. It's Thursday night and I've got no film to process, but only because I've been too lazy to shoot any this week.

So let's keep playing chicken little.

Let's try an analogy here; We should all stop driving our cars. Right now! Al Gore says it's bad for the environment, and there is no long term sustenance for fossil fuels. When ethanol goes into production, the tipping point will be "very quick", and you'll have no gas for your car! So you'd better convert to ethanol now, because, Exxon, BP, etc. are going to stop making gas any day now. Why, there won't be ANY profit in gas 20 years from now. All the infrastructure that supports it, the refineries, drilling rigs, car makers, etc. are saddled with decaying factories and aging workers. So yeah, you'd better grab your digital camera and jump in your hybrid vehicle, because after 2030, there's no more gas. Anyone who goes to a local pump and fills up, is sadly deluded. All of those so called choices of different octanes and detergents are just an illusion, waiting to crumble before your eyes. Who knows if your local station will be selling gas tomorrow because it's so difficult to make a profit in such a highly speculative commodity. Toss the car keys into the septic tank and start growing corn. Gas is dead.

 

BTW Big time director Stephen Spielberg is committed to shooting on film. Plus Grindhouse bombed at the box office. Where y'all been? Oh, I forgot. Writing the obituary for analog photography....

Russ, I can probably get you a front row seat at the Haight Street Fair.<p>

 

<i>Big time director Stephen Spielberg is committed to shooting on film.</i><p>He hasn't made a film worth watching in almost ten years (Saving Private Ryan was 1998) so I'm not sure that's an endorsement that would do much.<p>

 

<i>Plus Grindhouse bombed at the box office</i><p>

 

Pretty much everyone who has watched this knows that it is a) the length, and b) that Tarantino's piece is weak. It's sure not a film vs digital thing, Rodrigeuz's Sin City, which is one of the most digital films ever produced (DV, all greenscreened, processed backgrounds), was a bigger success than anything T did since Kill Bill. <p>

 

You see, it ain't the medium, it's the motion. (Very oblique reference to Maria Muldar, Freddie King, the Swallows.)

<i>Rodrigeuz's Sin City, which is one of the most digital films ever produced (DV, all greenscreened, processed backgrounds), was a bigger success than anything T did since Kill Bill</i>

<p>

Certainly true, if only because Tarantino hadn't directed any movies between the "Bills" and "Grindhouse". Rodriguez graciously chose to acknowledge QT as a "Guest Director" on "Sin City" but his input is hard to verify.

<p>

I fear poor Russ has been reduced to amalgamating irrelevant analogies together in an attempt to assail a position I wasn't even taking. Supplanting petroleum-based fuels would require tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure investment. The investment needed to supplant still, pictorial film (excepting large formats) has already been made.

 

And I would have thought that we would all agree that using a bit less gas would be in our collective best interests, anyhow, but apparently there is at least one dissenting viewpoint. But I digress...

<p>

Perhaps he could have spared himeself a bit of grief (and time) had he realized that nowhere am I suggesting that anybody STOP shooting film merely because its long-term availability is, IMO, in jeopardy.

<p>

At the end of the day, though, this doesn't rate terribly high on my list of things to worry about.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece

Kodak has two manufacturing plants for film and paper, one in Rochester and one in Harrow England. Production of all film and color paper are going well with a good profit, but for the first time it is lower than digital.

 

The Kodak motion picture line has shown growth this year.

 

For those that read APUG, you will see my post over there about Kodak in the film industry. The summary is, Kodak will be in this business as long as the motion picture industry uses film.

 

Ilford film and paper are still manufactured in England as are Kentmere papers.

 

Kodak production of film surpasses the film production of Ilford, EFke and all other European manufacturers combined. Fuji is second behind Kodak, and is suffering badly due to the shrinkage in the analog market and the loss in motion picture. They are a very poor second there. Fuji is surviving by virtue of being more diversified than Kodak and having some government support (subsidies).

 

Ron Mowrey

A BIG European player told me this :

AGFA is kind of back as a German entity (I forgot which one) bought the brand's name for stuff like chemicals (= Rodinal Sistan are back on the European shelves).

But "AGFA films" are not back since the owner of the name "AGFA films" asked too much $$$$$ for the name to be used. Hence we have now "Rollei 25" which seems to be identical to the old "Agfa 25".

Rowland, nowhere has Kodak said its film business is dependant on the motion picture

industry. You are just making that up. What Kodak has said is that they see 10 years growth

in motion picture film. You are just another Apug Kodak hater.

Bob;

 

I am a 32 year veteran of Kodak Research Labs. I do not hate Kodak, but you should know that there are realities. All B&W film and reversal film sales are a drop in the bucket compared to motion picture negative and print films produced at Kodak park. Color paper is the second largest product.

 

If Motion Picture goes away, then there will be a rethinking about the consumer products, as they are so small.

 

Now, what have I said anywhere that is contra-Kodak? I most emphatically do not hate Kodak. AAMOF, if you were interested in the subject, you will find that I have several posts on APUG complaining about Kodak bashing there. I'll complain about it here too if need be.

 

I would prefer that you stop and consider things before you accuse.

 

Ron Mowrey

Rowland,

 

You are just fear mongering that - as yet unproven - reductions in movie film will lead Kodak

to drop camera film also. You have also been spreading FUD about the environmental lobby

and its effects on film sales. You sound like a disgrunted ex-exployee with an axe to grind.

Bob;

 

IDK how you get this. I am not telling a falehood after all. This information is well known, and has been posted by others as well as myself especially the environmental issues. AAMOF, I have posted my express disagreement with environmentalist arguments here and elsewhere regarding photo products.

 

You sound like you should be on APUG where digital is not allowed. In any event, you know nothing about me, but I know a lot about Kodak. I suspect I know a lot more than you.

 

Motion picture film will be around a long time, and I've said so in various posts here and on APUG. I suspect at least 8 - 10 years minimum. At the same time, overall film sales for consumer are dropping at an alarming rate for Kodak, Ilford and Fuji.

 

Misestimates on this drop severly hurt Ilford and Agfa at the same time that they drove Kodak out of the B&W paper arena about 3 years ago. If the companies can survive this drop, then film will be around a long time.

 

In the mean time, you had better get yourself more informed. I am doing everything possible to pass on my knowledge of emulsion making, film building and coating as possible, in my writings and in workshops. I have faith in the future of analog products and will do more than, I suspect, you will to keep them around far beyond my span on earth.

 

FYI, I had a happy productive 32 years at Kodak and retired without any regrets or difficulties that would make me a 'disgruntled ex-employee'. I have not axe to grind. It sounds as if you do.

 

Ron Mowrey

<i>"Ilford has turned it's paper business over to the Chinese."</i>

<br><br>

Complete rubbish (and grammatically incorrect). As Alan Johnson said - and both he and I have witnessed first hand - Ilford film, paper and now Harman inkjet papers are being produced in England. That's in the UK, not the Far East.

<br><br>

If APUG.org looks like an Ilford fan club it's because the reborn Ilford have talked and listened to its customers - something most firms in this business don't do. Ilford then produce stuff people want to buy. It's no wonder they're popular!

<br><br>

In response to the original question I think Kodak will only make film products (or have them made and branded as Kodak) as long as it's worthwhile. I just hope that lasts a good while.