Kodak on the chopping block?

<p>Anyone else see this article? <a href="http://247wallst.com/2009/12/02/the-ten-brands-that-will-disappear-in-2010/">http://247wallst.com/2009/12/02/the-ten-brands-that-will-disappear-in-2010/</a> Looks like film for weddings may become more and more a niche market with less and less support resources.</p>

<p>Thanks. <br>

<br>

I take the view that I cannot control these things, so I don't panic. <br>

<br>

As you probably know, I have a friend who shoots (exclusively) B&W film for Weddings and Portraits . . . I discuss these things with her. I think B&W will be "safe" for a long time to come. We still have a few Pro Wet labs printing both Colour and B&W . . . more than it seems some large cities in the US have.<br>

<br>

Our younger daughter has just finished a two year Photography and Digital media course . . . there was a large wet/B&W component to the course – the school used Ilford Film. She asked me last week if I could rebuild our home darkroom - she pulled out my MF kit to have a play . . . I don’t know, but I do think B&W will be around for a while.<br>

<br>

Merry Christmas David, all the best for 2010<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p>Did we read the same article? This is a key part of the article:</p>

<p>"Kodak won’t cease to exit. It just may wind up in a private equity portfolio with a much leaner and meaner structure."</p>

<p>Yes, the company may be restructured. But keep in mind that Kodak's film division is very profitable. It's the digital business that's bleeding. Film volume will continue to decline, but Kodak can sitll make money on lower volumes. The real concern is that they haven't done well in digital, and that's where the growth is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think B&W will be "safe" for a long time to come.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree. It's classic and last <em>forever</em> .</p>

<p>Adam</p>

<p>Just a quibble: that's not an "article" per se as much as it is an op ed piece on a blog. It's not news. It's opinion and guesses and not even from a mainstream source.</p>

<p>Did not see it until I clicked on the link you provided.</p>

<p>Kodak's demise has been rumored for about the last 15 years or so - maybe even since the flop of the Disc Camera (I won't mention APS in the spirit of the season.)</p>

<p>But it's still there...and they still produce film -</p>

<p>My guess is that if it ends up in an equity firm's hands - they will go through division by division and determine which ones can make money and which can't. Those that can't will be closed or sold to someone else - those that can will carry on. </p>

<p>What I see is a company not at all dis-similar to Apple pre iPod. I seem to remember a lot of rumors about the pending fall of Apple - then suddenly - iPod hits, the Mac becomes cool again and bam... no more talk of Apple dying.</p>

<p>Does Kodak have an iPod up their sleeve?</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>I think it's unlikely Kodak will exit the film business. They're a dominant force in the motion picture industry, and their film business is comparatively strong, with on-going R&D spend on new products that have been brought to market over the last year.</p>

<p>Where they're doing less well is in their digital spin-offs - kiosk printing, sensor manufacture, and in their B2C offerings. It's not unreasonable to predict that Kodak is looking at a restructure to consolidate its debt and write down losses from the lesser business streams, possibly closing some and optimising others.</p>

<p>Which is in fact exactly what other film manufacturers have already done: consider the restructuring of Fujifilm, the management buy-out of Ilford, and the private equity investment in Rollei. Kodak is just a little behind the others in terms of its execution.</p>

<p>As far as I'm aware, there have only been two real losses to the film business: Polaroid and Agfa. But there are differences in their business models. Polaroid was entirely dependent on high volume consumer sales, and the arrival of digital put an end to the unique proposition of instant pictures. And Agfa is primarily a chemicals company - film was a fringe business, and a very small part of its portfolio - and it simply decided to refocus on chemicals.</p>

<p>I'd expect the Kodak film business to be here long beyond 2010.</p>

I just bought 2 new printers! the 9810 printers. Hope Kodak sticks around for a few years!

<p>Time will tell. We'll see. Always lots of market speculation that doesn't amount to much. The vaccuum tube is a good example of a very specialized market that continues to exsist an improve actually. Film will be similar I think. Gee, now I'm speculating ;)</p>

<p>Picking up on Neil's comment: "I think it's unlikely Kodak will exit the film business. They're a dominant force in the motion picture industry," , Kodak also have other film industry clients that the general public are not aware of, and that is in surveillance, aerographic and other scientific industries.<br>

Neither has Agfa exited the film business. They too are producing film for similar industrial and scientific applications. But their business is entirely corporate. <strong><a href="http://www.agfa.com/">The Agfa-Gevaert Group</a> </strong> . Type Film in the search window.</p>

<p>The general public is a fickle beast and expensive to deal with. Enter <em>The Retailer</em> .<br>

The general public is a fickle beast and blows this way and that, <em>led by rumor and fashion</em> .<br>

Rumor and fashion is the stuff of the popular photography press, which feeds off <em>that fickle beast</em> .</p>

<p>Both Kodak and Agfa will produce just about any film required, providing the order is substantial enough. A number of aerographic films, panchromatic, IR, B&W or colour are manufactured in very large format for their principal applications. Stated on the Agfa site is the welcoming news that I can have certain films in 70mm or other formats. However, inquires are directed to "Your Agfa agent".<br>

One such 'Agent' is Maco Direct. They have selected from Agfa-Gevaert, one of the most suitable emulsions for us, in our 35mm /roll-film/70mm cameras, and have packaged it under the Rollei label as <strong><a href="http://macodirect.de/rollei-infrared-c-1_6_56_140.htmlhttp://macodirect.de/rollei-infrared-c-1_6_56_140.html">Rollei Infrared</a> </strong> (Without IR filter, is similar to Tri-X) Full marks to MacoDirect. We are going to depend more and more on people like them. Take a tour of the entire site, and feast on the B&W sheet film selection!<br>

Cinema has always had to struggle and juggle with economics because it's income is box-office dependent. (Dare I mention again <em>that fickle beast</em> . ) But in spite of it's expense, I would not be surprised even to see a strengthening of the <a href="http://www.in70mm.com/"><strong>70mm</strong> </a> (Todd AO or maybe another) There are cinema film formats that are rarely seen in the West for example Astrovision 10/70 which is found in theaters in Japan, China, South Korea, and Taiwan . Digital IMAX is lack-luster compared with analogue IMAX. But so it goes with projection in any format. My prediction for the the future in top class cinema to be a hybrid of film projection with digital sound. This too already exists.<br>

Kodak presented to the public the invitation: "You click the button - we do the rest". Ok, they have lost control of the flock, but there is the corporate sector, and a core of professionals and discerning amateurs, solid enough to keep some film in production.</p>

<p>The scene has changed dramatically, and will change even more. But it all comes down to us. Use it or lose it.</p>

<p>On a tangent, but as I mentioned it, does this look familiar?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Above is the Far East 70mm cinema format 'Astrovision 10/70', which was invariable printed down from 15/70 (IMAX). It is now produced exclusively by Japan's Goto Optical Manufacturing for its planetarium customers. <br>

Shown here though is the 70mm format which was the standard big screen sensation in the West, a format Known as Todd AO. I quickly slapped up this image to answer questions about the usability of 70mm cinema film in our 70mm Hasselblads, Lihof etc.</p><div></div>

<p>But back to your original concern David: "Looks like film for weddings may become more and more a niche market with less and less support resources."<br>

For as long as that niche exists, it can always be opened up.</p>

<p>"News of my death has been greatly exaggerated." --Clemens.</p>

<p>+1 for film; and, I disagree with every pick on that web page except for maybe e-trade, I don't know about that business. Kodak, Newsweek, Palm and Motorola will all do just fine. </p>

<p>Considering the alignment of some of those businesses, I wonder if some sort of politico stereotyping was used to make those picks. No matter, it looks like each one is wrong. </p>

<p> I imagine the Portra line of films should be ok for the enthusiast and wedding pro. IT's a steady seller for Kodak and I would guess they will keep it going if they can.</p>

<p>Well it certainly feels that way Ross, but they will keep it going only if we use enough of it.</p>

<p>It's really ironic, since Kodak engineers invented the digital camera and the Bayer filter in the mid-70's. This year, Kodachrome died after a 74 year lifespan (aka product cycle).</p>

<p>To take a dispassionate view, camera film is quickly dying. Wedding and other commercial clients don't care how their product is shot - they care about the results (i.e. the prints, etc.). Nostalgic or other emotional thinking on the part of photographers won't do a thing to slow or stop film's mainstream and commercial demise. All it'll do is get those photographers into a situation where they're not competitive in the marketplace. The imaging companies that didn't foresee the digital imaging revolution (or wouldn't accept the inevitability of it) are feeling the financial effects of their collective denial. So are their shareholders, who could care less about romanticizing film.</p>

<p>In a business sense, film isn't cost-effective for photographers. Those that don't modernize and reinvest in their business or cling to outdated business models will end up in the same boat as Kodak's camera film business. Really, right now pro film markets <em>are</em> niche markets, and they're shrinking fast. Just compare 35mm film type availability today to what was around in 2001 (e.g. 35mm Kodachrome was still available in 3 ISO speeds). History repeats here - the same thing happened with B&W films starting in the 50s with Verichrome Pan. I personally remember Panatomic-X being discontinued. As film sales shrink, the obsolescence (and discontinuance of manufacturing) of it is inevitable.</p>

<p>As digital imaging technology and materials improve and costs are lowered, the niche film markets will all but disappear in developed countries (no pun intended). As today's photographers age and retire or get out/are forced out of the business, they'll be replaced by younger photographers shooting exclusively digital. If one looks at where 35mm/SLR and MF camera companies are going with their product development that trend gets obvious, and has been for a few years. In a practical sense, remaining film photographers today have put all their eggs in one basket. I made a decision to get rid of my last film camera (LF 4 x 5) when Polaroid decided to stop making instant imaging film products. For film, the writing on the wall couldn't be clearer.</p>

<p>I see Kodak shedding their film business while there's still enough value in it to sell. The brand will probably continue for a while, most likely with a different owner, but available film types will keep declining and costs will rise. As the film market shrinks, the chemical companies that produce film processing chemicals will necessarily follow suit. Some C-41 film will probably be the last roll film left. I think that in the end the last folks shooting film will be LF fine art photographers.</p>

<p> I was at Yosemite 3 months ago and stopped at a particularly scenic little spot with poor light. There were about a dozen photographers there with up to $25,000 in multiple camera's around there neck, tripods and even shooting gloves (never seen a shooting glove before). They were rapid firing scenics at a speed of about 5-8fps. Basically , "I don't want to be that guy". However the olympus does not even have a viewfinder so it's not a camera I would choose..Oh, I loved the movie "Beyond the Sea", great performance..</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's the digital business that's bleeding.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If one actually reads the Kodak reports, the digital business is hurting because of licensing, not operations. The inkjet business is doing especially well, according to the most recent Kokak financial report.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Film volume will continue to decline, but Kodak can sitll make money on lower volumes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At a 25%-30% drop per year, the money made on lower volumes drops rapidly. Fuji is having the same decline in their film business.</p>

<p>This information is easy to find. It's far better to read the sources than to speculate.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>. Basically , "I don't want to be that guy".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't want to be the guy who feels compelled to put down the other guy with a camera. I want to be my own person.</p>

<p>This sort of year-end, attention grabbing infotainment is everywhere now pretending to predict everything. Would be fun to see what they said about things in 2006 that would happen in 2007-8.</p>

<p>Yes Gary, I've said similar in other threads over the past couple of years, and even with reference to the predicted death of portrait painting when the camera first appeared. But I was jeered out of the discussion because others thought such comparisons were irrelevant.<br>

So I will return to the portrait commission on the easel, and I have people awaiting my advice that the Linhof Technika has arrived. 4x5 and 5x7 film is on it's way.</p>

<p>Never heard of a lot of those "brands" - made up brands more like.</p>

<p>"If one actually reads the Kodak reports, the digital business is hurting because of licensing, not operations."</p>

<p>I assume you're referring to the cost of licensing in technology. You have to either own patents or you have to license technology to sell it, so it's silly to isolate operations from licensing. There wouldn't be operations without licensing.</p>

<p>No, it's not the cost of licensing. They license IP to other companies. Their licensing business is dropping. All you have to do is read the quarterly reports to find this out. Doesn't anyone bother to read the source material?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Doesn't anyone bother to read the source material?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Now, there you go again Jeff trying to confuse us all with facts when speculation, projection, and opinion provide so much more entertainment...</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I don't want to be the guy who feels compelled to put down the other guy with a camera. I want to be my own person.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Actually Jeff somehow that post was intended for another thread. Not sure how I posted it here. However I was not putting those people down. I think they are serious about what they are trying to accomplish. I am just saying I do not want to be like that, as I have chosen another path. My style is 180 degrees from that as I take one camera and then take one or two shots. I also do not wish to injure my neck carrying multiple pro level camera's about it. However the post was intended for the Kevin Spacey Olympus commercial post in which "I don't want to be that guy" was an integral part of the thread. Your comment is kind of unique really. If you look at your comment critically you might find you actually are what you do not want to be. </p>