It's only Chapter 11.

<p>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.<br>

There....just wanted to get that off my chest. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>many of the film-haters</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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?"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>digital cameras that actually look and are controlled like film cameras</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</p>

<p>I still have a foot in both worlds. with older digital cameras.<br>

But I have long experience with computers. and digital is closely related to out desktop or lsaptop pc.<br>

when a computer fails and believe this is not IF sa hard drive will fail it is WHEN.<br>

and cd's and dvd's may become unreadable in only a few years.<br>

all.<br>

all thsi stored information , all the photos may eb gone. Just like my friends data on 5: floppy disks.<br>

we see and earase many old, discrded pc's with everybody's good and bad information and pictures on them.<br>

How many ( besides you) know how to and take the time to backup those photos.<br>

Now this may seem incongrous when talking about Kodak, but film ,.slides and negatives keep a Very long time.,<br>

mathew brady's civil war negatives still exist after almost 150 years.<br>

I know, most never save those little dark things and toss aout the negatives<br>

and leave the prints around for kids to handle.<br>

and mechanical camera seem to keep working after 50-75 years.<br>

soem you can even get film that fits?</p>

<p>Film is not permanent but can be close to permanent.<br>

digital, partly because of the shorter live of digital cameras and<br>

the rapit changes in media storage, may be obsolete and unreadable<br>

before your hair turns from brown to gray to white.<br>

Kodak despite it's very stupid moves into 126,110, disk, and aps<br>

made and, I hope, will conntinue to make a long lasting form of media.<br>

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..<br>

But nobody cares about Kodak and other companies that this country really should eb supporting.</p>

 

<p>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. <br>

Of course, the problem is that Hollywood wants to be rid of film, especially in projection, where they want to go 100% digital.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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..<br /> But nobody cares about Kodak and other companies that this country really should eb supporting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So we should spend gazillions to bail out a company that makes and sells products the public is largely abandoned unlike, say, cars?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Could someone please tell an European what the difference between a Chapter 11 and a bankruptcy is?</p>

<p>You can read about the various forms of U.S. Bankrupcy here:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrupcy#Chapters">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrupcy#Chapters</a> (now that Wikipedia is back on line).</p>

<p>In a nutshell, Chapter 7 Bankrupcy means the firm is liquidated; the assets are sold and creditors are paid something.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Hi Per-Christian,</p>

<p>Absolutely. The current stockholders value may be wiped out, but the company will continue. Look at General Motors. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors#Chapter_11_reorganization">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors#Chapter_11_reorganization</a></p>

<p>Well, then it is not over until the fat lady sings... :)</p>

<p><em>Well, then it is not over until the fat lady sings... :)</em><br>

I've often wondered which opera that phrase came from. <br>

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. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've often wondered which opera that phrase came from.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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...</p>

<p>Any Englishmen out there that can verify this?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How about the guy with the 3 inflammatory, film-is-dying...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So we should spend gazillions to bail out a company that makes and sells products the public is largely abandoned unlike, say, cars?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In this instance, I hate to say it, but I believe natural selection should also be used to determine if businesses stick around.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> 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. </p>

<p> 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. </p>

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.

<p>Well, whatever. Not sure where all this "film hater" name calling is coming from, or what it achieves.</p>

<p>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..... :)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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? </p>