It's only Chapter 11.

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by benny_spinoza, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. O.K. So Kodak filed for Chapter 11. I'm sure many of the film-haters are snickering like school children seeing a hated classmate get his due comeuppance from the teacher. Many people confuse Chapter 11 with liquidation. I see it as a chance for Kodak to get their financial house in order. Considering that airlines and automobiles have filed Chapter 11, GM more than once....although it may not have been called Chapter 11 the first time they had to do it, I for one am optimistic that Kodak after restructuring will continue to make color negative film so long as there is a profit in it. With Fuji coming out with digital cameras that actually look and are controlled like film cameras, I'm just about ready to jump into the digital world. But I still like the results I get from film. On my last vacation, I took a canoe trip with my Nikon FM, not worrying about getting some water splashed on it. The pictures came out great. That's something I wouldn't do with a $2,000 digicam.
    There....just wanted to get that off my chest.
     
  2. many of the film-haters​
    It would be fascinating to actually meet one these apocryphal film "haters," but I have yet to encounter one. I hardly use it any more, but ... "hate?"
    digital cameras that actually look and are controlled like film cameras​
    Have you actually handled one? Because you are having to interact with the camera's very not-old-school menu system or other new-to-digital controls to make the changes analagous to selecting film speed, white balance etc (as opposed to digging that choice of film out of your bag). That's really no different than any decent DSLR has been for years, now. Aperture, shutter speed, focus behavior and the rest aren't really any different one way or the other.

    Pick up, say, a good ol' Nikon F100 and a newer-ish D300, and just pay attention to the stuff you care about ... the D300's important controls are just like shooting with that film camera, in every way that matters. Ignore all of the extra flexibility stuff, and you'll be on your way happily shooting (or could have been, years ago) without worrying about the difference Chapter 11 and Chapter 7.

    I'm not sure what will become of Kodak's film business, but I'll be optimistic with you on thinking that if they can shrug off their debt and some of their other crushing liabilities, a pale shadow of themselves may yet survive to make more film.
     
  3. I still have a foot in both worlds. with older digital cameras.
    But I have long experience with computers. and digital is closely related to out desktop or lsaptop pc.
    when a computer fails and believe this is not IF sa hard drive will fail it is WHEN.
    and cd's and dvd's may become unreadable in only a few years.
    all.
    all thsi stored information , all the photos may eb gone. Just like my friends data on 5: floppy disks.
    we see and earase many old, discrded pc's with everybody's good and bad information and pictures on them.
    How many ( besides you) know how to and take the time to backup those photos.
    Now this may seem incongrous when talking about Kodak, but film ,.slides and negatives keep a Very long time.,
    mathew brady's civil war negatives still exist after almost 150 years.
    I know, most never save those little dark things and toss aout the negatives
    and leave the prints around for kids to handle.
    and mechanical camera seem to keep working after 50-75 years.
    soem you can even get film that fits?
    Film is not permanent but can be close to permanent.
    digital, partly because of the shorter live of digital cameras and
    the rapit changes in media storage, may be obsolete and unreadable
    before your hair turns from brown to gray to white.
    Kodak despite it's very stupid moves into 126,110, disk, and aps
    made and, I hope, will conntinue to make a long lasting form of media.
    The government spent Billions of OUR money to bail out car makers that made really crappy and short lived undependable cars, and did not make them abandon dealers that mostly vitimized these car owners..
    But nobody cares about Kodak and other companies that this country really should eb supporting.
     
  4. Kodak (or whoever buys the film division) will keep making film as long as Hollywood will buy it. Remember, our use of film is a sideline to the Eastman movie film business, which is somewhere between 70-90% of the total film sales volume. All the new technologies were released in Eastman movie films first, and came to Kodak still camera films one to three years later.
    Of course, the problem is that Hollywood wants to be rid of film, especially in projection, where they want to go 100% digital.
     
  5. On my last vacation, I took a canoe trip with my Nikon FM, not worrying about getting some water splashed on it. The pictures came out great. That's something I wouldn't do with a $2,000 digicam.​
    There are tons of digital cameras in the $200-300 range that are waterproof to 20 feet and more. My problem with Kodak is that even when I shoot film it's usually from Fuji or Ilford.
     
  6. The government spent Billions of OUR money to bail out car makers that made really crappy and short lived undependable cars, and did not make them abandon dealers that mostly vitimized these car owners..
    But nobody cares about Kodak and other companies that this country really should eb supporting.​
    So we should spend gazillions to bail out a company that makes and sells products the public is largely abandoned unlike, say, cars?
     
  7. I cannot speak for others, but as someone who was a loyal Kodak slide shooter for over 25 years before transitioning gradually to Fuji products and later to digital, this is not a day of celebration for me.
     
  8. Could someone please tell an European what the difference between a Chapter 11 and a bankruptcy is?
     
  9. You can read about the various forms of U.S. Bankrupcy here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrupcy#Chapters (now that Wikipedia is back on line).
    In a nutshell, Chapter 7 Bankrupcy means the firm is liquidated; the assets are sold and creditors are paid something.
    Chapter 11 Bankrupcy allows the firm to continue to operate. While in Chapter 11, the company is protected form various forms of debt collection, i.e. the creditors cannot sue to recover debt owed them. The Bankrupcy Court can void contracts and direct that creditors are paid a portion or all of what is due them. Creditors vote whether to accept the terms or not. Why would they accept them? Because they would get more than if the firm were forced into Chapter 7 - liquidation.
     
  10. Benny, I think you are the one with a problem. Like others say I have yet to meet a film hater. It is all so silly. No one is rubbing their hands about Kodak - such nonsense. However, it has been coming for 15 years and now it is here. As to your obvious unease about digital photography, there's no need to be upset about it. I predict when and if you get a "real" digital camera you will wonder why you were so worked up about it all.
     
  11. Brooks, thank you for the explanation. Does that also mean that in chapter 11, if the market should improve, the company can continue to operate, and potentially recover?
     
  12. Well, then it is not over until the fat lady sings... :)
     
  13. Well, then it is not over until the fat lady sings... :)
    I've often wondered which opera that phrase came from.
    Anyhow, yes, if Chapter 11 is done right, a company can do quite well when exiting Chapter 11. The Judge usually appoints a Master, who will need to weigh many factors: Debtor's in possession...those who lend money to Kodak when Chapter 11 is announced, get priority. But there are other factors: impact on community, i.e., employees, jobs; retirees; future viability of a restructured company, etc. My main concern as a consumer is whether C-41 film manufacture can survive if Hollywood goes nearly all digital. Well, the lawyers, Master, Judge, etc., will have to work all that out.
     
  14. I've often wondered which opera that phrase came from.​
    As far as I know, that phrase is not from an opera, but I am told that in English theatres, there always was a female singer that sang "God save the King/Queen..." at the very end of the performance. And as many of these were quite large, they became "the fat lady" that sings...
    Any Englishmen out there that can verify this?
     
  15. No film haters? How about the guy with the 3 inflammatory, film-is-dying-these_are_the-facts-take-that-stick-in-the-eye-to-all-film-shooters-i_wont respond-to-posts=see=ya guy who trolled in lately?
     
  16. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    How about the guy with the 3 inflammatory, film-is-dying...​
    All he did was post factual articles. There were a lot of assumptions drawn about his motives, but certain nothing to justify all the attacks on "haters," note the plural.
     
  17. So we should spend gazillions to bail out a company that makes and sells products the public is largely abandoned unlike, say, cars?​
    In this instance, I hate to say it, but I believe natural selection should also be used to determine if businesses stick around.
     
  18. Wasn't there a Kodak going out of business, is film dead thread not a week ago? I think when I die and go to hell, one of the choices the devil will give me of where I want to spend eternity will be in the digital vs film room where this topic is argued endlessly forever.
     
  19. One thing for sure is that with Kodak circling the drain there has been many threads on it. Some of the posts are informative however once you exclude the bickering comments. I do hope Kodak hangs in there but we shall have to wait and see what happens. I only have 4 rolls of film at the moment but I want to see the results from these rolls before buying more film.
    On the OP comments about taking camera's on boats I would have to say that I take my film camera's and DSLR on a 27ft Santa Cruz quite often. I crew for the Doctor that owns the boat and I always take a camera. I do not worry that much about camera damage myself as I shoot gear that can be replaced within my budget. So I just take the camera wherever I might want to have it. If the gear goes over the side of the boat then I will just replace it.
     
  20. Right now, there is in fact a post in this thread from a digital-only user who regularly makes sarcastic, cynical comments whenever a positive comment is made about renewed interest in film photography. This person never participates at all in the film forums, except to jump in and make a snide remark, and then quickly disappears again. Sure sounds like a film-hater to me.

    That's all I'm going to say.
     
  21. bms

    bms

    Well, whatever. Not sure where all this "film hater" name calling is coming from, or what it achieves.
    What I find interesting, if you had asked someone in the 1980's if Kodak was ever going bankrupt, most would have thought you were crazy. Shows that even an established company can go bust. Same for GM, though there still had a market, they just did not make the right product. But just imagine in 30 years, Apple may not be around anymore.... if they miss the boat on the next big thing, who knows, maybe brain implants..... :)
    I want to believe film will me around a long time, maybe not Kodak though. At some point, people will stop making film CAMERAS, and even the existing ones will stop working, parts will run out etc etc. so if you live another 100 years, stock up now on cameras and film. The price will only go up as supply vanishes.
     
  22. there is in fact a post in this thread from a digital-only user who regularly makes sarcastic, cynical comments whenever a positive comment is made about renewed interest in film photography. This person never participates at all in the film forums, except to jump in and make a snide remark, and then quickly disappears again. Sure sounds like a film-hater to me..​
    I don't know who this refers to but assuming, just for discussion, the accusation is accurate, it doesn't portray a "film hater". Rather it tends to describe someone taking exception to there being a "renewed interest in film photography". A claim often made without supporting data. This is completely different topic than the merits of using film.
    Even on its face, without any dispute as to its accuracy, the claim fails to describe someone who "hates" film. This whole 'film hater' theme, in general, is becoming very silly and absurd.
     
  23. Kodaks announced restructuring plan is to abandon the film and photography business and focus on printers. Kodak at one time accounted for 91% of the film market in America and that market, like the one for buggy whips, has disappeared. Film is dead and is relegated to the world of antiques.
     
  24. John is obviously exaggerating in his comment which is directly related to his statement about the market for film in the U.S. Its a fact that the market is diminished substantially and the Kodak situation is a result. Pointing that out in a thread about its bankruptcy hardly amounts to assertions that film users require some 'cure'. This film hater nonsense seems to arise from some sort of paranoid hypersensitivity rather than reality. Where are these actual supposed film hating or film user 'hating' posts?
     
  25. Kodaks announced restructuring plan is to abandon the film and photography business and focus on printers.​
    Kodak's "timely" announcement about the viability of the film market must mean Kodak hates film and that it thinks those using it need to be cured.
     
  26. My comment was not pointed to film and cameras, per se, but that the commercial market cannot be sustained. Kodak abandoning film was apparently a requirement to get the funding to continue their reorganization. Regardless of whether or not a particular customer prefers film over digital is irrelevant if there are not enough customers to support the production of the product. Would you pay $100 for a 36 exposure roll of 35mm, or a 12 exposure roll of 120? With Kodak gone the economies of scale of manufacture and distribution are gone as well. If film is to be supported as a boutique industry the unit costs will increase dramatically. One of the huge advantages that digital has over film is that the individual exposure in digital has an almost unmeasurably small unit cost, while each film exposure has a cost that is hundreds of times higher.
    Have you tried to buy a vinyl recording lately, or a sound system to play it on. If film is to survive, it will be like vinyl recordings.
     
  27. It's quite amazing that all here are blaming the demise of film photography for Kodak's woes.
    I find it quite ironic that the 'inventors' of digital photography have been completely over-run and outpaced by the other micro-chip users. To put it simply, horrendously bad management over the past 20 years or so have driven the world leader in all things photographic into chap. 11 and probably chap. 7. It's been on the cards for a long while now as management dropped the ball again & again. Conservative management and resting/relying on their laurels/name, instead of looking ahead and adapting to new and different markets, was a complete lack of foresight and business acumen. Nothing to do with film. People seem to forget that film was only a part of Kodak. Cameras, printing machines, medical photo stuff etc. were all part of their arsenal.
    By the way, rumours of the death of film are greatly exaggerated, ask Harman-Ilford and Fujifilm.
     
  28. Kodak has screwed things up so badly to this point, why would you think reorganization would change their mindset? All it will do is give them more time to make lousy decisions before going totally out of business.
    You can't change a few decades of stupidity with the stroke of a pen.
     
  29. Gosh...I was just trying to inject a bit of humor by referring to "film haters". That's the problem with text communication....intent can easily be misconstrued. That reminds me of an episode in the Simpson's, where Homer was having his wife dictate a sarcastic letter to his boss, Mr. Burns. The intent of the letter was clear based upon Homer's sarcastic tone as he dictated his letter. But when read by Mr. Burns, it sounded like a sincere letter from a kind and loyal employee.
     
  30. It's quite amazing that all here are blaming the demise of film photography for Kodak's woes... ... Nothing to do with film...
    ...the 'inventors' of digital photography [Kodak] have been completely over-run and outpaced by the other micro-chip users.​
    This contradiction of claiming the level of film usage as not being a factor and then citing it as factor seems to the claim that is "quite amazing".
     
  31. The intent of the letter was clear based upon Homer's sarcastic tone as he dictated his letter. But when read by Mr. Burns, it sounded like a sincere letter from a kind and loyal employee.​
    Excellent.
     
  32. Kodak, like many entrenched companies of that vintage, lose the ability to be agile and manage emerging technologies. Because they were so dominant in film they hung onto it way too long. There are lots of other examples -- Tower Records, Blockbuster, Borders...
     
  33. IMO, a big company goes bankruptcy or quitting does not mean the death of the kind of product they have been made. GM bankruptcy does not mean the death of cars, IBM quitting laptop business does not mean the death of micro computers, Pentax is sold does not mean the death of DSLRs (or cameras with a Penta-prism)
    I have been using film, but rarely Kodak. I loved IBMPC but now I'm happy with Acer and Samsung and I don't like the Lennovo. I wouldn't worry if Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony quit making DSLRs
     
  34. Kodak was 91% of the film market. They had to abandon it as a condition of getting the DIP (Debtor-in-Possession) financing to take their Chapter filing forward. Will film survive? Sure, just like vinyl records have survived. You can still buy a horse-drawn carriage and ride it around. You want to ride in a hot air balloon? You can do that, but you won't find a scheduled flight to London or Miami on one.
     
  35. Film may not be dead yet, but it's certainly pinin' for the fjords.
     
  36. As someone trained as a geologist (undergrad degree) I have a love of fossils and will probably always have a soft spot for film next to the trilobites.
     
  37. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    No comments on the topic, but I'm always amazed at the bad analogies:
    just like vinyl records have survived.​
    Vinyl records have survived because a) they are very cheap and easy to make in low volume and b) DJ servicing has kept vinyl going. However, DJs are moving fairly rapidly to the combination of a dual digital deck and a Macbook and this is going to quickly impact vinyl from major labels.
     
  38. Jeff: DJs aren't the only ones. There are audiophiles out there clinging to analogue systems and building new (and very expensive) ones. Just like there will be filmophiles who do the same thing.
     
  39. Les, don't confuse those who can see reality with any other emotion. It is not love or hate -- it is grasping reality.
     
  40. To put things in perspective, most movies that you see in theaters right now are shot on FILM. Even new movies that are out right now, with a lot of special effects. This is completely contrary to what you hear from some people who claim that Hollywood is abandoning film. That is simply not true at all. These movies were shot on film, just to name a few:
    "War Horse"
    "Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol"
    "The Dark Knight Rises"
    "Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows"
    Even most tv shows are shot on film..."CSI," "Castle", "The Mentalist", "True Blood", and too many others to list here.
    You might want to check this out too:
    http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Customers/Productions/index.htm
    But of course, I'm expecting a certain person to jump in with a snide remark, and then disappear again. That's what he always does in all the film forums. He never participates, just makes a cynical remark and then leaves again. Why? I have no idea.
    Anyway...
     
  41. Chris, I don't think the fact that Hollywood is still using 35 and 70 millimeter film for either distribution or shooting really has much to do with whether or not film will be available in small cans or foil packets. Film for folk like us will probably have to be processed by the photographer because the labs we used to use are going the way of the T-Rex.
     
  42. You can argue back & forth between film & digital until you're blue in the face. The plain fact is Kodak screwed themselves. How long does the progressive trend toward a new medium have to take place? They missed the boat completely. Think of the Swiss watchmakers losing volumes to Japanese made watches. Same thing. Kodak screwed up. Plain & simple
     
  43. It's quite amazing that all here are blaming the demise of film photography for Kodak's woes... ... Nothing to do with film...
    ...the 'inventors' of digital photography [Kodak] have been completely over-run and outpaced by the other micro-chip users.​
    "This contradiction of claiming the level of film usage as not being a factor and then citing it as factor seems to the claim that is "quite amazing".
    Guess it depends on one's interpretation. I read those statements to mean Kodak stopped being an innovator and got overrun by its competition.
    Regarding the level of film usage... well, yes. Film usage dropped, digital rose, Kodak's management failed to redirect the company into new and profitable lines of business. But, I will miss the yellow boxes.
     
  44. Les: I'm trained as a scientist and a lawyer and hold technical patents and run a technology firm. That you are using film is great. You are in a diminishing minority. My comments are directed to the market reality. The largest fact in that reality is that to obtain financing to go forward, the largest film manufacture in the world was required to close down their film operation. The only asset seen having real value in Kodak in the bankruptcy by the people providing the money were their patents in digital photography. That is reality.
     
  45. Steve: regardless of Kodak's claim in the piece you cite, the guys with the money placed no value on the film operation and abandoned it as a requirement of financing Kodak going forward.
     
  46. Les, if the financial market abandons film, it's future is pretty dim everywhere else. The guys with the money make the rules.
     
  47. Les, if you doubt my environmental credentials, take a look at this Nature Conservancy site: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/washington/50thanniversary/skagit-eagle-history.xml
     
  48. I certainly have exposed more film than CCDs. I really liked film, but have absolutely no desire to go back to it.
     
  49. Les, I think the Kodak bankruptcy is hardly speculation.
     
  50. Les: I'm trained as a scientist and a lawyer and hold technical patents and run a technology firm. That you are using film is great. You are in a diminishing minority. My comments are directed to the market reality. The largest fact in that reality is that to obtain financing to go forward, the largest film manufacture in the world was required to close down their film operation. The only asset seen having real value in Kodak in the bankruptcy by the people providing the money were their patents in digital photography. That is reality.​
    John Ellingson: Whoppee about your credentials. I'm so impressed. But maybe you skipped a few liberal arts courses and concentrated your curriculum? What are you doing on a film forum (rhetorical question)? Who cares about your opinions and prognostications? We're here because we love film and it works very well for us. Moreover, the film division is one of the only, if not the only, division within Kodak that turns a profit. And with virtually no promotional advertising. All of their other forays have been, let us say, "problematic"... That is reality.
     
  51. There is no film division in Kodak anymore. That is the reality.
     
  52. Here is a good analysis of what happened to the Kodak moment. BTW, Jeff, sorry about bursting your bubble.
    http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/21/what-happened-to-kodaks-moment/
     
  53. From what I have read, Kodak has changed their business plan and has incorporated the film division into the new division. I haven't read anywhere that they plan on stopping film production.
    John, I have to wonder if the environmentalist side of you is seeing some kind of happiness with the demise of company that is deemed a polluter?
     
  54. Kodak have combined the film division into their other two divisions (professional and consumer) and also explicitly declared a continuation in the film line as long as it is making money. They have also explicitly stated that the film line is *profitable*. This would definitely not happen if the investors had placed conditions that film would be dropped.
    So - film making a profit. Film explicitly merged into existing professional and consumer lines. Kodak have also announced that they have seen a resurgence in film use (obviously not enough to stop them going bust).
    My guess is a consortium of movie industry investors will step in to take it over (after all, over 60% of movies in the billboard top 20 are still film based and mostly kodak.
     
  55. There is no film division in Kodak anymore. That is the reality.​
    John Ellingson: Semantics; what William and Tim state. Why do you continue with your biased drivel? Get a life.
    And again, what are you doing here (rhetorical question)?
    No bubble; film works for me, and for many others. Again, reality.
     
  56. I never read anywhere that Kodak was required to shut down their film production in order to get financing. And John, you're trying to spread that as fact, when it's not true. That's how rumors get started on the internet, and pretty soon people believe that rumor and it gets perpetuated.

    You are ASSUMING that was a condition for Kodak to get financing, but you're trying to state it as a fact. And it isn't. I have not read a single article or document anywhere that said "Kodak will be required to shut down their production of film as a condition."

    In fact, Kodak has stated the exact opposite...that they will continue their film production after the reorganization.

    I also don't understand why people who don't use film are in a film forum.
     
  57. As Tim and William said, Kodak has combined three divisions into two. They are marketing-based: the Commercial Segment and the Consumer Segment. That does not mean that the actual production has been bifurcated- only the marketing. The elimination of FPEG does not mean the elimination of the components of FPEG.
    There is no "film division" anymore as an external division, and there are no other product-line-specific external divisions anymore, either. Yet there are still internal divisions doing what they were doing before.
    It's just a change in management structure-one which also enables Kodak to no longer have to show that FPEG was the only one making a profit.
    BTW, Chris, thanks for your cogent reply just before mine. You said what I was going to say.
     
  58. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I also don't understand why people who don't use film are in a film forum.​

    People are free to post in any forum they want on photo.net. Attacking them merely for posting is not acceptable.
     
  59. What if they're trolling?
    I am not saying John Ellingson is; he has points to make, and has stimulated conversation. I don't think trolling is his intention.
    But there comes a point where it starts to have something of the same effect. If someone goes on the Nikon forum and constantly talks down Nikon, after a while people are going to say, "What are you doing here?"
    I know the analogy is imperfect, but I think you will get my point.
    I also don't think anyone is "attacking him merely for posting"- it's the content of the posts that people are objecting to.
     
  60. Folks,
    Here's the deal. Forums on photo.net aren't a closed loop. Anyone can post anywhere they want. Simply disagreeing with other people about something like the future of a company like Kodak is far different from standing around telling everyone that film sucks. For example, saying "with kodak gone, film is dead" on a thread like this is a relevant point of conversation. Saying "film is dead" on a thread where the subject is "What is your favorite slide film" is a different sort of thing and would not be tolerated.
    I understand not wanting to hear from film naysayers if one is a film user. I'm sure it's depressing. But my suggestion would be for that film user to stay out of threads that discuss the possible downfall of one of the biggest film producers in history and stick to threads that are about the actual use of film.
     
  61. Something in the range of 20-25 million rolls of film were sold in the US alone last year. I don't know if that includes single-use cameras.
    Kodak may think 25 million of something is too small to bother with but I am sure there are companies, or potential companies, that would love to sell those 25 million items.
     
  62. All quotes from one contributor.
    Not applicable in US Bankruptcy court. The judge makes the rules, hence the term "rulings"
    ...The guys with the money make the rules.​
    The most recent line of credit extension was likely negotiated pre-petition (before filing) and fulfilled/approved post-petition (after filing). It is highly unusual for a lender to dictate how company does business but Citigroup most surely approved a budget drawn up by Kodak. Moreover, it's unlikely a bankruptcy judge would approve a loan stipulating that a division be closed especially if it generates positive cash flow and constitutes 26% of the Company’s consolidated revenue for 2011.
    According to the first-day pleadings, Kodak blames 4 factors for their financial position.
    1. Market conditions since 2008 (low demand; film is one of many)
    2. "legacy post-employment benefits continue to consume a substantial amount of the Debtors’ cash"
    3. Their inability to collect from IP lawsuits.
    4. Diminishing trade credit and non-customary trade terms.
    ...regardless of Kodak's claim in the piece you cite, the guys with the money placed no value on the film operation and abandoned it as a requirement of financing Kodak going forward.​
    Kodak never "announced" this and there is no "restructuring plan" yet. The judge gave them an extension for re-organization until Feb 15, 2013.
    Kodaks announced restructuring plan is to abandon the film and photography business and focus on printers. Kodak at one time accounted for 91% of the film market in America and that market, like the one for buggy whips, has disappeared. Film is dead and is relegated to the world of antiques.​
     
  63. In bankruptcy companies arrange what is known as debtor in possession (dip) financing before filing. In the case of Kodak this financing
    came from Citigroup and required Kodak to abandon film. The court has approved the financing. Under bankruptcy law the DIP financing
    is put in first place ahead of all other creditors. In effect the judge has already ruled that Kodak will abandon the film business.
     
  64. In bankruptcy companies arrange what is known as debtor in possession (dip) financing before filing. In the case of Kodak this financing came from Citigroup and required Kodak to abandon film. The court has approved the financing. Under bankruptcy law the DIP financing is put in first place ahead of all other creditors. In effect the judge has already ruled that Kodak will abandon the film business.​
    John, can you give a reference for this statement, because I have read everything I can find about this and I have not seen anything in print saying that Kodak had to abandon their film business in order for the financing to be approved, or do you have some mysterious source in Kodak?
     
  65. In bankruptcy companies arrange what is known as debtor in possession (dip) financing before filing. In the case of Kodak this financing came from Citigroup and required Kodak to abandon film. The court has approved the financing. Under bankruptcy law the DIP financing is put in first place ahead of all other creditors. In effect the judge has already ruled that Kodak will abandon the film business.​
    To be honest, I'm not seeing this being reported anywhere either. Now, it's late and I'm tired. So who knows. But given the sheer eye-candy of the headline "Kodak forced to stop making film" I would think there would have been more coverage of it if such a thing were public.
    Now, there's always the chance that it isn't public knowledge. But given the fact that this is happening in a court of law, I don't know how likely that is.
     
  66. Oh well. Life without film will be kind of strange. I guess I will not be buying a Leica M7 afterall next year. Shooting film is my hobby but take away the film and I guess I am going Golfing more often. I enjoy bicycling and golf and I feel pretty sure digital gadgets will not make those things go away. .
     
  67. Here are a few quick references. You will note that there no reference to continuing the film business, but to closing down those manufacturing plants and labs. If anyone has access to the bankruptcy court PACER system you can actually download the agreement with Citi regarding the DIP package.
    http://www.zdnetasia.com/report-citigroup-to-provide-kodak-bankruptcy-funds-62303513.htm
    http://bizmology.hoovers.com/2012/01/19/bankrupt-eastman-kodak-secures-950-million/
    http://industryanalysts.com/IA10/CIO/Entries/2012/1/20_Kodak_Files_For_Chapter_11.html
    http://www.kodaktransforms.com/
    EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY AND ITS U.S. SUBSIDIARIES COMMENCE VOLUNTARY CHAPTER 11 BUSINESS REORGANIZATION
    Flow of Goods and Services to Customers to Continue Globally in Ordinary Course
    Non-‐U.S. Subsidiaries Are Not Included in U.S. Filing and Are Not Subject to Court Supervision
    Company Secures $950 million in Debtor-‐in-‐Possession Financing in U.S.
    Kodak’s Reorganization to Facilitate Emergence as Profitable and Sustainable Enterprise
    ROCHESTER, NY, January 19, 2012 – Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak” or the “Company”) announced today that it and its U.S. subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for chapter 11 business reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
    The business reorganization is intended to bolster liquidity in the U.S. and abroad, monetize non-‐ strategic intellectual property, fairly resolve legacy liabilities, and enable the Company to focus on its most valuable business lines. The Company has made pioneering investments in digital and materials deposition technologies in recent years, generating approximately 75% of its revenue from digital businesses in 2011.
    Kodak has obtained a fully-‐committed, $950 million debtor-‐in-‐possession credit facility with an 18-‐ month maturity from Citigroup to enhance liquidity and working capital. The credit facility is subject to Court approval and other conditions precedent. The Company believes that it has sufficient liquidity to operate its business during chapter 11, and to continue the flow of goods and services to its customers in the ordinary course.
    Kodak expects to pay employee wages and benefits and continue customer programs. Subsidiaries outside of the U.S. are not subject to proceedings and will honor all obligations to suppliers, whenever incurred. Kodak and its U.S. subsidiaries will honor all post-‐petition obligations to suppliers in the ordinary course.
    “Kodak is taking a significant step toward enabling our enterprise to complete its transformation,” said Antonio M. Perez, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “At the same time as we have created our digital business, we have also already effectively exited certain traditional operations, closing 13
    1
    manufacturing plants and 130 processing labs, and reducing our workforce by 47,000 since 2003. Now we must complete the transformation by further addressing our cost structure and effectively monetizing non-‐core IP assets. We look forward to working with our stakeholders to emerge a lean, world-‐class, digital imaging and materials science company.”
    “After considering the advantages of chapter 11 at this time, the Board of Directors and the entire senior management team unanimously believe that this is a necessary step and the right thing to do for the future of Kodak,” Mr. Perez continued. “Our goal is to maximize value for stakeholders, including our employees, retirees, creditors, and pension trustees. We are also committed to working with our valued customers.
    “Chapter 11 gives us the best opportunities to maximize the value in two critical parts of our technology portfolio: our digital capture patents, which are essential for a wide range of mobile and other consumer electronic devices that capture digital images and have generated over $3 billion of licensing revenues since 2003; and our breakthrough printing and deposition technologies, which give Kodak a competitive advantage in our growing digital businesses.”
    Mr. Perez concluded, “The Board of Directors, the senior management team and I would like to underscore our appreciation for the hard work and loyalty of our employees. Kodak exemplifies a culture of collaboration and innovation. Our employees embody that culture and are essential to our future success.”
    Kodak has taken this step after preliminary discussions with key constituencies and intends to work toward a consensual reorganization in the best interests of its stakeholders. Kodak expects to complete its U.S.-‐based restructuring during 2013.
    The Company and its Board of Directors are being advised by Lazard, FTI Consulting Inc. and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. In addition, Dominic DiNapoli, Vice Chairman of FTI Consulting, will serve as Chief Restructuring Officer to support the management team as to restructuring matters during the chapter 11 case.
    2
    More information about Kodak’s Chapter 11 filing is available on the Internet at www.kodaktransforms.com. Information for suppliers and vendors is available at (800) 544-‐7009 or (585) 724-‐6100.
    Kodak will be filing monthly operating reports with the Bankruptcy Court and also plans to post these monthly operating reports on the Investor Relations section of Kodak.com. The Company will continue to file quarterly and annual reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which will also be available in the Investor Relations section of Kodak.com.
    CAUTIONARY STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS OF THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995
    This document includes “forward–looking statements” as that term is defined under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward–looking statements include statements concerning the Company’s plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events, future revenue or performance, capital expenditures, financing needs, plans or business trends, and other information that is not historical information. When used in this document, the words “estimates,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “projects,” “plans,” “intends,” “believes,” “forecasts,” or future or conditional verbs, such as “will,” “should,” “could,” or “may,” and variations of such words or similar expressions are intended to identify forward–looking statements. All forward–looking statements, including, without limitation, management’s examination of historical operating trends and data are based upon the Company’s expectations and various assumptions. Future events or results may differ from those anticipated or expressed in these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements include, among others, the risks and uncertainties described under the heading “Risk Factors” in the Company’s most recent annual report on Form 10–K under Item 1A of Part 1, in the Company’s most recent quarterly report on Form 10–Q under Item 1A of Part II and those described in filings made by the Company with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and in other filings the Company makes with the SEC from time to time, as well as the following: the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern, the Company’s ability to obtain Bankruptcy Court approval with respect to motions in the chapter 11 cases, the ability of the Company and its subsidiaries to prosecute, develop and consummate one or more plans of reorganization with respect to the chapter 11 cases, Bankruptcy Court rulings in the chapter 11 cases and the outcome of the cases in general, the length of time the Company will operate under the chapter 11 cases, risks associated with third party motions in the chapter 11 cases, which may interfere with the Company’s ability to develop and consummate one or more plans of reorganization once such plans are developed, the potential adverse effects of the chapter 11 proceedings on the Company’s liquidity, results of operations, brand or business prospects, the ability to execute the Company’s business and restructuring plan, increased legal costs related to the Bankruptcy Filing and other litigation, our ability to raise sufficient proceeds from the sale of non-core assets and the potential sale of our digital imaging patent portfolios within our plan, the Company’s ability to generate or raise cash and maintain a cash balance sufficient to fund continued investments, capital needs, restructuring payments and service its debt; the Company’s ability to maintain contracts that are critical to its operation, to obtain and maintain normal terms with customers, suppliers and service providers, to maintain product reliability and quality, to effectively anticipate technology trends and develop and market new products, to retain key executives, managers and employees, our ability to successfully license and enforce our intellectual property rights and the ability of the Company’s non-US subsidiaries to continue to operate their businesses in the normal course and without court supervision. There may be other factors that may cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from the forward– looking statements. All forward–looking statements attributable to the Company or persons acting on its behalf apply only as of the date of this document are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements included in this document. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise forward–looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that arise after the date made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
    ###
    3
     
  68. Oh well. Life without film will be kind of strange.​


    There are other film manufacturers.
     
  69. Blockbuster is still in business so I don't know who said they were out of business.. Dish network bought them and I believe they are thriving.
     
  70. John,
    Do you really expect anybody to read and understand several paragraphs of legalese?
     
  71. OK now that I have spent an hour of my life reading through your links... there is still no direct reference that says Kodak is going to cease manufacturing film, which is what I asked for. As a matter of fact, here is a quote from one of your links that is opposite of what you say...
    Does the Chapter 11 filing affect the selection of products that Kodak offers?
    No. Offerings to customers will continue as usual. Kodak will continue to do what we have always done—bring products and services to market that help our customers do more, do it better, and do it faster. That will not change.​
    No I believe they will probably try to sell off their film business in order to raise money, I figure someone will definitely buy it and make a run at a successful business.
     
  72. Yes, Blockbuster is still alive. Our local store is closed and the building sits empty. My son used to work there part time while he went to school. I did not rent movies however as they were to expensive. However I still see Blockbuster advertisements and such. I am not sure in what manner they are still alive. If it is a streaming business or what. I have Netflicks myself.
    As far as Kodak goes I still do not see anything about film being dumped. However I believe it will be dumped unfortunately. Maybe that will give a shot in the arm to the other film companies.
     
  73. The most active thread I've ever seen. Gee, I wonder how people feel about film?
     
  74. I have never got a grip on profit of film. Does Kodak make a profit from it or not. So depending on the truth of that I would think that would lead to how they will re-structure.
     
  75. No I believe they will probably try to sell off their film business in order to raise money, I figure someone will definitely buy it and make a run at a successful business.​
    Then why try to sell it. It would make more sense to try to sell off the parts which are not profitable. If there is a section which makes a profit, the logical thing to do is keep it, not sell it.
     
  76. Then why try to sell it. It would make more sense to try to sell off the parts which are not profitable. If there is a section which makes a profit, the logical thing to do is keep it, not sell it.​
    Because I believe the current leadership of the company doesn't see that. From what I have seen in the past couple of years, they have made no effort to try to cultivate film sales. I believe they have done what everyone else has done and just believed that film was dying and just decided to let it ride out it's life.... I think if a company ran the film division and that is all it did, in my opinion, would probably make a tidy profit... not billions but there is some money to be made.
     
  77. @John E: There is NOTHING in the links you give about abandoning film production. Period. The 'closing of labs' referred to has already happened. Kodak is no longer in the photofinishing business; it still makes film. If EK wishes to become a digital-only company, it is likely to sell the film production lines. I hope the buyer (if a sale occurs) is savvy and tough enough to make that business survive--I believe it is possible.
    As to the 'buggy whip' nonsense; I can drive a carriage, but I can't go 55 mph on the highway for hours with one. I CAN shoot and print salable work from my film cameras, in SOME cases more easily or affordably than with digital (which is what I mostly use).
     
  78. Here are a few quick references. You will note that there no reference to continuing the film business, but to closing down those manufacturing plants and labs.​
    Those are plants/labs that have previously been closed. Nothing you have provided says anything about closing existing production facilities or ceasing to manufacturer film.
    If anyone has access to the bankruptcy court PACER system you can actually download the agreement with Citi regarding the DIP package.​
    Perhaps there is more info there, but I do not have access to PACER. And I still stand by my opinion that if Kodak were going to cease film production as of the bankruptcy judge's DIP ruling, there would have been headlines all over the place just for the sheer "look! look!" aspect of it that the media loves.
     
  79. One thing I don't understand is the sense of joy I kind of sense in some of these posts. I may be wrong, but I don't quite understand why some would celebrate the demise of a company that added so much to photography. Not to mention the possibility of many people losing their jobs. I never knew there was such animosity towards Kodak. I guess some people just get happiness from the misery of others.
     
  80. One thing I don't understand is the sense of joy I kind of sense in some of these posts.​
    I would caution anyone against assigning emotion on the part of the writer to a written forum post. It is wildly inaccurate at best and involves a lot of assuming on the part of the reader.
    The written word is a difficult manner in which to communicate emotions and feeling. Particularly in the relatively short and unprofessionally way that we all post on a forum. Most of the time it is all we can do to accurately understand the position or point that the writer is making. Allowing readers to correctly figure out the emotions behind those points or positions is frequently beyond the skills of most of us (as writers).
     
  81. Josh, I understand that and don't usually read into posts. BUT, when someone comes in and posts a statement repeatedly and when asked for sources, comes back and repeats the same statement and posts references that don't support the statement, you have to wonder if either they are enjoying the possible misery of some people or they are trolling in order to stir up people. That is why, instead of attacking the poster, I asked for references. I have been participating in forums and BB's for 20 years now, you get to recognize the trolls after awhile. It is also the reason I rarely get upset over anything I read on the internet....
     
  82. On Jan. 13th Kodak announced that it dissolved its film division and divided the assets between two remaining division.
    ABC News carried this story yesterday.
    Photographing Kodak's final moments
    Michael Janda reported this story on Saturday, January 21, 2012 08:24:00
    EMILY BOURKE: While the Kodak company may emerge from bankruptcy protection alive, and possibly stronger, after a restructure, there's no doubt the film business is in terminal decline. Kodak has already closed 13 factories and laid-off almost 50,000 staff.
     
  83. Below is a link to the petition filed by Kodak on January 19th. The Citibank DIP facility requires that Kodak file a motion with the BR court outlining the bid procedures for the sale of their digital IP portfolio by June, 2012, and to draft and file a plan of reorganization by early 2013. Don't see any requirement or current plan to sell the film operation.

    The events at Kodak certainly bring me no joy and I wish for the best outcome for their current and retired employees.

    http://www.kccllc.net/documents/1210202/1210202120119000000000001.pdf
     
  84. It is also the reason I rarely get upset over anything I read on the internet....​
    Wise advice. I learned a long time ago to never believe anything I read on an internet forum. Just too many personal opinions and too little actual facts.
     
  85. Wait that is not what you said before. You said under the terms of the bankruptcy they had to abandon film. That story does not say that, you have not produced any evidence of your statements. The factories and personnel cuts have taken place over ~10 years, these were not the result of the bankruptcy filing.
    Furthermore, from the information I have read, they are creating two new divisions, I believe one is a professional product division and the other a consumer product division. They are sending the consumer films to the consumer and the professional (I would assume this includes motion picture film) to the professional unit.
    Will they continue to manufacture and sell film? I would venture to guess as long as it is profitable and they don't sell off those assets, yes.
     
  86. John,
    If that is what you are basing your "no more film" statements on, then I believe you are seriously misunderstanding things. Or you really are trolling, and badly at that.
    Kodak has previously (over the past decade) shut down film-related facilities and has (as the articles note) recently reorganized their company structure, but neither of those things mean that film is (as of now) shutting down. And there has been zero proof provided of your statement that the DIP financing requires film production to cease.
     
  87. Josh, I don't have a dog in this fight. After the accident that ended my photography career I went to law school and ultimately became a
    bankruptcy lawyer. I did that for about twenty years before founding a software company. My comments are only observations. I heard
    some wag on one of the finance shows do an analysis of Citi's financing package noting that Citi was requiring Kodak get out of he film
    business. That still leaves Fuji, Agfa and others, but the film market has been in a steady and deep decline for years. None of Kodak's
    public announcements talk of keeping film alive as part of their business - quite the contrary. The CEO has said they will continue the
    process of winding down that business unit.

    I hate to see it happen, but it is the reality.
     
  88. Kenneth, the critical document, if you can pull it is the DIP agreement. I would expect it to 50 to 100 pages. It should be
    filed with the court. The motion and petition are very summary documents. I'll continue to see if I can find a definitive
    reference in terms all can appreciate.
     
  89. None of the court entered DIP facility documents mention a 363 sale of anything other than the IP portfolio. Although I haven't meticulously combed through all 228 pages spanning 3 documents (financing order, financing motion and the credit agreement), I know where to look...unless it's purposefully hidden somewhere, which is unlikely. FYI, much of the content in DIP financing documents outline protections for the lender and their priority (or superpriority) claims.
    As far as I can tell, the reason no one has officially reported the demise of the film division is because it's not there.
    Unless someone can point me to a specific page/paragraph that directly references film production with respect to the DIP facility agreement, I would consider the issue moot for now.
    The only real reference to declining film production is in the first-day pleadings.
    From 2003 to 2010, Kodak reduced its workforce by 50,000 employees, and closed 13 of its 15 film plants and 130 photo labs
    ...the industry projected a 10% decline, Kodak forecasted a 20% decline and the actual decline was approximately 40%. In addition to demand impairment, increasing commodity prices negatively impacted FPEG’s cash flow. FPEG purchased approximately $300 million of silver in 2011. Silver prices have ranged between 199% and 294% higher than 2008 prices. Because of the lingering effects of the economic crisis, Kodak cannot pass through all of these price increases to its customers.​
     
  90. So after all that it comes down to nobody really knows what will happen. It's just a wait and see type situation. I will just keep shooting some Kodak film and enjoy the fine qualities that it produces.
    I hope the best for the people at Kodak and those that spent their lives bringing those Kodak moments to our lives.
     
  91. http://www.kodaktransforms.com/ Kodak Chapter 11 Reorganization
    I followed links from the tabs "Consumer Products and Services" and "Commercial Businesses" and found consumer film, professional film, motion picture film and Endura paper.
    I found motion picture film in Super 8, 16mm, 35mm and 65mm, nine different films choices and four different print film choices.
    Four different still color negative films, all in 35mm and 120, most in 4X5 and one in 8X10.
    Two reversal films, 35mm, 120, some 4X5 and 8X10.
    Five B&W films, 35mm, other sizes unclear without more study.
    These films were found through the reorganization website.
    This question appears on the Consumer tab and the Commercial Customer tabs:
    Does the Chapter 11 filing affect the selection of products that Kodak offers?
    No. Offerings to customers will continue as usual.
    I don't see any evidence of bailing out of the film business, I only find evidence through the reorganization website of a company that manufactures and sells film, among other things. Why would there be film in the reorganization website if Kodak was required to stop film? Why would the DIP require film to be dropped if it makes a profit?
    I doubt Kodak will stop manufacturing and selling film anytime soon.
     
  92. If that is what you are basing your "no more film" statements on, then I believe you are seriously misunderstanding things. Or you really are trolling, and badly at that.​
    Josh, Concerning John Ellingson, I thought that he was a troll a while ago, and it was the same with Doug Harl. They bring nothing constructive, scare people without basis in fact by spewing specious (at best) "information" over and over and over, and generally waste much too much of everyone's energy. When these individuals will not listen to reality, and they persist, and persist, and persist, why in the world are they allowed to continue here? This is a great place overall in spite of these creeps, and I've learned a lot here for which I'm very grateful, but I really wish something could be done by the moderators to rid the place of these folks. I know it's not easy, perhaps impossible to definitively determine someone like this, and I think that I understand your previously stated position. But that was before several more similarly specious posts by him. Maybe I'm just blowing off steam, but somehow I feel it should be said.
     
  93. You guys at still at it eh?
     
  94. You guys at still at it eh?​
    "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll get dirty and the pig likes it."
     
  95. Oh, geez, sorry. Forgot the smileys! :)))
     
  96. The Duck hates film...
    http://whattheduck.net/category/strip-tags/chapter-11
     
  97. Jeff: I take your comment very personally. I work hard to contribute to this forum. If you don't like my views, feel free to discuss them, refute them or whatever. There is no animus or agenda on part other than to inform and only my observations from spending 70 years on this planet collecting scar tissue. I think your comment is way out of line.
     
  98. Jeff: I take your comment very personally. I work hard to contribute to this forum. If you don't like my views, feel free to discuss them, refute them or whatever. There is no animus or agenda on part other than to inform and only my observations from spending 70 years on this planet collecting scar tissue. I think your comment is way out of line.​
    John Ellingson, Your specious posts have brought nothing of value here. They have been clearly and repeatedly refuted, yet you persist and persist and persist AND.......
     
  99. Jeff, you are welcome to your opinion.
     
  100. James G. Dainis

    James G. Dainis Moderator

    This thread is descending to personal attacks. That is not in keeping with the over all tone that Photo.net strives for. Facts or opinions are welcome but not personal attacks. Keep that in mind.
     
  101. Thanks, James. I appreciate that. I welcome and value anyone's opinion and feel bad when things denigrate to the personal level. I certainly apologize if I've offended anyone, it never was my intent.
     
  102. Mr. Ellingson:
    You said you were a bankruptcy attorney, yes?
    (Forgive me for not posting cites because Kodak has since been de-listed from the NYSE and all the news is keyed to the ticker symbol)
    Sir:
    There was a news item that had the Citibank lawyer riping Kodak's management a new one saying something to the effect of - you burned through 2 billion dollars in a year (IIRC) what makes you think that our $950 million will save you?
    A Harvard' B' or law school professor said that in his opinion, Kodak is headed for liquidation.
    I don't understand. Citi gave Kodak its current line of credit and yet it sounds like they think it's going belly up. If I thought a company was going to be liquidated, I wouldn't have gave them a line of credit.
    Would you be so kind as to clarify for us how this can happen - the bank giving money to a company that they think will eventually have to liquidate?
    Thank you.
     
  103. Hmm, I shoot film because I love the workflow of film. After working in front of a computer the whole day, time away from computer screen is a welcome boon. I can change the film and get different look. All said and done, computer ergonomics and screen glare are still not upto the mark.
    Personally, I love film and hope it stays. Hope Kodak comes out of this a winner. I have a relative working in Indian movies industry and they still use films ( Kodak especially) and have not heard much of any changes to that. They do have devices where they can replay the shot and see how it came out.
     
  104. Sanjay: I no longer work with film, but did and do love it. I think if it is going to stay alive it will have to be supported as a cottage industry by people like you. I think the hard reality of the marketplace means that the Kodaks of the world are going to look for larger and more profitable markets in the future.
     
  105. I'm almost sorry I started this thread because off some of the personal attacks I've read. I guess I shouldn't have inserted the comment about "film-haters". Next time when I start a thread, I'll leave out the wisecracks. I just hope negative film stays around. I've got a beautiful Hasselblad that now has relatively little re-sale value.
     
  106. Rick:
    Kodak is estimated to have about $3 billion in assets. New money that comes in after the bankruptcy filing (typically arranged before the filing). The new money (DIP financing) is given priority over all other creditors. That means in this case that Citi has $3 billion in security to back its $950 million financing -- along with a lot of hooks on the way. Typically in these settings the DIP financing may have lined up buyers or additional investors for the restructure business. This was CitiCorp Global, not the bank that did this. My guess is that they see value in the patents and printing business that they can make a high rate of return on this loan.
     
  107. Benny, I loved my Hassy and only gave it up when I could no longer stand long hours in the darkroom. I hope film survives, but if it does I doubt it will be coming in a yellow box.
     
  108. That means in this case that Citi has $3 billion in security to back its $950 million financing -- along with a lot of hooks on the way. Typically in these settings the DIP financing may have lined up buyers or additional investors for the restructure business.
    So in other words ... if some company thinks that Kodak's film business is worth buying, they can do so?
    Yes, I'm guarding my words here ... I don't want to seem like a Troll and yet, I want to learn something.
    Yes, sir - I can guarantee that you will get impatient with me.
     
  109. Possibly, but it would be tough at this point to buy that film business. First, Kodak shut down most of they film operation and laid off the employees (47,000 of them). Second, what was left was divided up between the two remaining divisions and it would probably be tough to put back together into a package to sell to anyone. To the extent that Kodak has remaining market share, Fuji or one of the other providers is probably going to try to capture that. Third, Citi and the other creditors are not focused on the film business, but on the digital patents and the printing business and will not be marketing the film assets -- what are left of them.
    I want to make clear I don't hate, Kodak, film or anyone here. I think everyone's children are smart and their dogs are cute.
     
  110. Fuji or one of the other providers is probably going to try to capture that.​
    Yes sir.
    Someone by the name of "Doug" posted an "Economist" article that basically stated that FujiFilm will basically milk the film business while it declines and when it runs into a loss, they will disband it.
    So, I still don't understand why a some company that thinks that film will die would invest or at least loan money to it.
    Or are your saying that if Kodak tanks, Fuji will capture their market share?
     
  111. Rick: You may have misinterpreted what I meant. I wasn't suggesting Fuji would invest in anything Kodak had, but will simply work to capture their remaining market share. That is pretty close to getting something for nothing.
     
  112. Seems like there are some very astute individuals on this thread that have a wide experience in finance and law. Who can see deeper into the crystal ball on this issue of the troubled Kodak? Truth is regardless of our worldly experience of finance, we're all trying to see into a crystal ball. Perhaps at this juncture there is an injustice to the contributors on this thread, in that the real red meat news is still to follow. I cant imagine that anyone contributing to this thread would like to see film go away. If someone does, then you're just confused, or not a Photographer. Their have been comments made on this issue of films place in this world, that allude to its demise. Now, the last time I checked, living in the United States, meant one of the privileges was having a, "choice," in the marketplace. I'm just literally imagining what it would be like to not have that choice. I hope the financiers working on this have the same compass as I do. Film & Digital.
     
  113. Don: I think you hit the nail on the head. The driver here is the marketplace and the perception of it. If you want to save "big film" go out and buy a hundred rolls tonight.
     
  114. Ah, I see. Yes, I'd misinterpreted what you said.
    Kodak goes bust and Fuji gets the spoils?
    Third, Citi and the other creditors are not focused on the film business, but on the digital patents and the printing business and will not be marketing the film assets -- what are left of them.​
    But I have to wonder if someone is.....
    Put your lawyer hat on my dear sir; who would buy Kodak's film business?
    IIford-Harman? NO. cannibalizing their existing business.
    Foma? Maybe.
    FujiFilm? NFW! They stated that they're going to milk the biz and shut it down!
    Who else??


    I'm beginning to see why vulture investors get the returns they do.
    Come on John! Help us wipper snappers!
    There was a time when aged ones were held in high regard - and for good reason!
     
  115. I don't think anyone would buy Kodak's remnant of their film business. First, as I said earlier, Kodak had really ramped down the business closing all those facilities and laying off 47,000 employees. Next they divided the remaining carcass up between the two surviving business units and not as a core function of either.
    Think for a minute if you were Ilford, Fuji, or Agfa... why would you buy anything instead of trying to fill the vacuum left by Kodak? Why would any new investor get into a business that Kodak is aggressively winding down only to compete with the Fuji types in a market that has been moving from film to digital for some time?
     
  116. Think for a minute if you were Ilford, Fuji, or Agfa... why would you buy anything instead of trying to fill the vacuum left by Kodak? Why would any new investor get into a business that Kodak is aggressively winding down only to compete with the Fuji types in a market that has been moving from film to digital for some time?​
    Now you're cooking pops!
    I can't think of anything at all. I'm just some young pup who, in his own opinion - that I won't mention here because I'd be accused of being a "Troll" - but for the life of me, you old timers have seen it all and this has happened before in another industry.
     
  117. I really want to know.
     
  118. Rick, I never thought anything of the kind.
    So you can save the FU for another day.
    I have no idea of your prior knowledge and was simply answering your query.
     
  119. I could imagine Fugi or someone buying the name and trademarks (logo and yellow box), if the price was right and they thought it could get them market share in the short term. But all of the film companies have huge amounts of excess capacity, and would have no need to buy factories or other production type assets.
     
  120. I for one love Kodak's films, especially Tri-X. I do hope that they will recover from this and continue to produce film. One of my problems with Kodak is that they discontinued their excellent dark room papers. Supplying traditional photographers with film but not paper is a marketing mistake. I have some old boxes of Polymax Fine Art Fiber and it is a beautiful paper to print with.
     
  121. Arda: The analysts recently have been flooding the press with the litany of Kodak mistakes.
     
  122. So much speculation. Let's face it, much of the outcome depends upon the Master appointed by the Bankruptcy judge.
    FYI: I personally had once opined that if Kodak made their own film scanners with great software for their films, and sold at cost or below cost, maybe they would have been in better shape. Or maybe not. I once posed that idea to someone at Kodak, but it was shot down as too expensive.
    Another FYI: Recently, I got some prints made from film at a big drug store chain. Total crap came out. I can see why so many typical snap-shooters have quickly embraced digital. My guess is that a low-cost digital camera spitting out jpegs can give a snap-shooter better results than the crap coming out of a drugstore minilab.
    And one more FYI: Have you noticed that used Leicas appear to be selling for less than one year ago. I don't have hard data to back that up. Only what I've noticed at used camera sites and flea-bay. Could that be a market signal?
     
  123. Yes they made their litany of mistakes, and in spite of those mistakes, their film division made money. So with that model in mind, they certainly could create a monster of success by simply paying attention to the business their in by reorganizing and complimenting the customer base that made the film division a success.
     
  124. There rarely are Masters appointed in Chapter 11s unless there has been fraud or other criminal activity on the part of management. In Kodak's case they have hired a turnaround specialist from Jay Alix's firm. That is probably the best turnaround firm in the country.
     
  125. The problem with selling Kodak's film business - and their film business in general - is that the production facilities left are scaled to make a certain amount of film at one time. That amount is - A LOT. They can't make less than certain amount of master rolls as the entire film prodution process is sized to make that amount. If they don't have enough demand for the film, then what's been produced sits in warehouses and slowly goes out of date - or you get short dated film in the stores. It's not as simple as making just the amount needed (less film at one time), as staying viable in the film business also includes selling everything you make, and not have it sit in warehouses waiting for customers.
    When I managed photo stores 30 years ago we had the same type of problem with films we'd order for stock. A film like Tech Pan might sit on the shelf for months until it became short dated and we put it in a "Sale" bin. Likewise, something like Super XX (my personal all time favorite sheet film) would sit on the shelf while boxes of Plus-X, Tri-X, HP-5, and FP-4 went out the door regularly.
    My observation is that Kodak hasn't know what business it wanted to be in for over 30 years. They've been in and out of so many diverse market segments (sometimes more than once) that you had to wonder what they were thinking and who was tracking markets and trends. As an example, they were in and out of the magnetic media business (tape at first) on at least two occassions. Each time swearing that they were making a committment to the market segment and two years later closing down the production facilities and discontinuing the products. The last time they tried it they were making floppy disks - I still have some...
    They also had the habit of purchasing viable companies and running them into the ground or making them disappear - however you want to look at it. They never seemed to take the time to truly understand the market they were entering and the customers in that market segment - it all went into the Big Yellow Blender, got homogenized with all of the other products until there was nothing left but mush of that product and no market for the Kodak version.
    Copiers - Kodak made great copiers at one time better than Xerox, better than anyone. They serviced them better - and today when I walk into the reproduction room I'm greeted by Canon copiers. Canon - who got into the business long after Kodak exited it because they couldn't figure out how to capture a market segment - but, Canon could at an even later date and still does quite well.
    Kodak, one of the best, highest technology, most frustrating companies I've done business with and watched for 30 years slowly march itself off the cliff through its own internal management practices.
    I have no idea what they're going to do now. "Monetizing" technologies...haaa...haaaa...that means selling assets to generate whatever cash you can. Sooner rather than later, you run out of things to "monetize" because it takes R&D money to invent the technologies you're so cavalierly monetizing. The best assets they had, ideas and technologies that could provide a long term income stream if developed to market, are now being sold for short term gain.
    Kodak won't make it in the computer printer business because they couldn't figure out how to make it in: magnetic technologies (which should have included hard drives, and now flash drives), copiers, cameras, etc. - and now they're going to move the market away from Canon, Epson, HP, Brother, etc. in printers? Really?
    Maybe Kodak would be better off with a career in comedy as that's about all I can do is laugh at them as the Kodak Follies play out. Oh yeah...monetize it baby! That's the ticket to success....
     
  126. Steve: Good analysis. I hope you don't get classified as a film-hater or film-eater or some other kind of troll.
     
  127. Page 8-12 of the newly put forth Public Lender Presentation points towards the film unit being sold off. Josh, while Steve is right on the notion of the scale of production of film at Kodak being too big for the now niche market, did we not hear at Kodak while we toured the facility that the amount of film put out in a single coating session *could* be made shorter than the mile long, 54" master rolls? What is the output and storage dynamic at Ilford?

    This is a rough ride. I have pretty much what I need for 10-15 years of film work now, but I would like to continue to rotate stock as I use it up. At the very least, I see prices for Kodak film products rising considerably in the coming year.
     
  128. I hope you don't get classified as a film-hater or film-eater or some other kind of troll.​
    They can categorize me however they want...I've been there using nothing but Kodak photographic products since the 1950's. I still have the paper box (with prints in it) from the first 100 sheets of double weight Kodak Polycontrast 8x10 that I ever purchased - for $8.35. So I really don't care what the current crop of film users thinks about me...I'll just go home and look at the unopened box of 4x5 Super-XX that I still have and wonder if they have one too. I'm betting they don't.
    I've used, whenever possible, the products Kodak put out as they were always the very highest quality because of the legendary Kodak quality control which no one ever seemed to be able to match.
    When Kodak was in the video business, I used Kodak professional video tape. For our own information, we tested the Kodak tape against Fuji, Sony, and Ampex video tape. The Kodak tape had a flatter frequency response and when we put it on a drop-out logger showed far fewer drop-outs. The Kodak tape was also better under hard use (slow motion replay) where it was subjected to multiple head passes on single areas of tape and rapid start/stop motions. The binders were better (probably due to Eastman Chemical), and the substrate was better (virtually no stretch - I'd probably thank the film division for that one).
    A better product at the same price ...how did it sell? Hardly at all. Kodak did NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH to find the market for their own product.
    When I'd rent equipment to the networks and would show up at a field production truck, invariably they had Ampex tape in their machines. Why? Because Ampex had that market cornered because they catered specifically to networks and high end production facilities and it was just "known" that if you weren't using Ampex - buddy, you didn't have the right stuff - noob, neophye, nimrod...need I say more..hrrummppff...
    I used to delight in unwrapping the cellophane from the bright yellow and black Kodak tape boxes and putting the tape into my machine - when invariably questioned by the TD on my choice I'd just smile and say, "I've tested the tape you're using and I can prove the Kodak has less drop-outs." "Want me to send you a copy of a drop-out log?"
    Better product - no market savvy....the story of Kodak's last 30 years. The motto "Onward into the fog" seems to best describe Kodak's navigation of a myriad of profitable markets where they ultimately got lost, ran aground, and finally quit the business. Kodak always seemed to figure they were too big to fail....and that they'd always be able to find another market to apply the Kodak "magic name" - as if that's all it took.
    Well, frankly they're out of magic, and the name doesn't mean that much anymore. Not a hater just a long time user who's watched in amazement as they've squandered every chance and market advantage the name gave them. Chapter 11 isn't going to make them any smarter unless they get a turn around artist who can resurrect the magic once associated with the red logo on the yellow background - and find products worthy of that name... oh yeah...and consumers who want the products.
     
  129. Looking at there PPT it doesn't look like their core photo business will play much of a roll going forward. I still have prints I made on Kodak paper 40 & 50 years ago in Kodak boxes. I remember when some of my clients would buy out entire emulsions and send the film to those of us who worked for them and have us send it directly to the Palo Alto Lab for processing. Even though I liked Agfachrome for my own work, what little I had time to do, my clients all specified Kodak stock for transparencies from 35 through 8x10. Too bad Kodak could not have sold stupid. They had a large inventory they used.
     
  130. Interesting you should mention the Palo Alto lab. We had customers who insisted that all of their film had to go to Palo Alto. I always sent all of my film to Palo Alto. The processing at that lab was far better than the district lab (Dallas) we were supposed to use.
    Then you get to the Fairlawn, NJ lab. The only Kodak lab that regularly used to send back film with water spots...no charge...lucky THAT was the last lab Kodak chose to have available in the US instead of the Palo Alto lab.
    Yeah, even if stupid was a product in demand, Kodak, with a seeming surplus, would still not have figured out how or to whom to sell it...as they were obviously using all of it themselves and claiming they were encountering a shortage...
     
  131. First post, first question: does anybody have an idea of the size of the film market worldwide? Just camera film, without movie film. How many rolls are sold on an annual basis? Or total gross revenue? 2011 figures or the most recent ones. The only information I've found in this post is that around 25mln rolls were sold last year in the US alone.
    (not that I'm thinking about buying Kodak film business, it's just a curiosity..)
     
  132. Bruto: This may be a source for that information: http://pmaforesight.com/
     

Share This Page