Optimism for Kodak film division?

<p>An article from the British Journal of Photography, discussing Kodak's plan to continue it's film and paper divisions,<br /> basically unchanged. <br /> I know it's much too early to really form accurate conclusions at this stage in Kodak's bankruptcy,<br /> but hopefully, this is their long term plan and isn't just a bunch of fluff - stroking us with what we want to hear.</p>

<p>http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2145203/kodak-phases-digital-businesses-film-alive</p>

<p>Well, apparently their film sales were up 20% last year, and apparently film was the only division actually making them money, so it makes sense to keep those divisions running and concentrating on those two items.</p>

<p>Dont know about others, but Ive purchased more film in the past year, than all other years combined.</p>

<p>Mr. Jotwani says in the link: "<br>

"Kodak's continuing consumer products and services will include the traditional film capture and photographic paper business, which continues to provide high-quality and innovative products and solutions to consumers, photographers, retailers, photofinishers and professional labs,"</p>

<p>I suppose that the photographic paper reference is to either color paper and/or commercial lab supplies, as Kodak pulled out of the black and white paper supply business several years ago, leaving the field to Ilford (Harmon) and some smaller players. Fujifilm seems to be doing well with its film sales, as does Kodak, so that continuation seems to make sense. But in what form will Kodak emerge from its declared bankruptcy (although it may be only an initial phase of that process) and how would that affect supply? Some people have ressurected some of Agfa's paper line, but most Agfa products diappeared with the company demise, regrettably, and like the case of Konica. </p>

<p> I know the Oscars dropped Kodak recently. I guess they do not approve of American manufacturing. However I buy Kodak film regularly. Always have over the years. </p>

<p>The Oscars didn't drop Kodak. Kodak backed out of the naming rights deal because they didn't want to spend the money while in bankruptcy. </p>

 

<p>I understand the Kodak Theater situation is not settled. The theater's naming contract with Kodak, like all contracts once bankruptcy is filed, may be unenforceable. But it also may end up being renegotiated.</p>

<blockquote>

<h1 id="firstHeading">I know the Oscars dropped Kodak recently</h1>

<p>The Oscars didn't drop Kodak.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither is accurate. This ceremony of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is merely held at a building that bore Kodak as part of its name. A building owned by completely different entity.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess they do not approve of American manufacturing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a ridiculous statement even if the premise were accurate.</p>

<p>According to recent news reports, the conversion of movie theaters to digital will be complete by the end of 2013. The cost of this conversion is as little as $20K. That should free up millions of feet of film each year for conventional photography. At least, I think that's how it will work.</p>

<p>Edward, Maybe not 20K...could be 70-80K. Might be 20K or more per year just to lease the projectors,<br /> long term lease...hefty start-up deposits...penalties for terminating the lease early, etc...etc...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Farticle.cgi%3Ff%3D%2Fc%2Fa%2F2012%2F02%2F21%2FBU5U1N8SPB.DTL%26tsp%3D1" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8SPB.DTL&tsp=1</a></p>

<p>I hope you're right, though.<br /> Also, in the big scheme of things, isn't 35mm movie film a lot thicker then still film?<br /> Might work in some cameras, but bind-up in others(?).</p>

<p>Also, if you're not already set-up for it...need to learn bulk loading.<br>

More hoops to jump through!</p>

<p>Marc</p>

<p>One opinion has it that the end of movie film will be the death knell of color photography film, as the film industry is presently supporting the overall color film business economics. On the other hand, black and white film production will probably not be affected by that change (As a secondary note, "The Artist" black and white Oscar best film nomination from France was apparently shot in color and then transformed into black and white, rather than using black and white transparency film). However, there may be some small film manufacturers who will carry on limited supply of (no doubt more expensive) color film for photography</p>

<p>That's an interesting article Marc linked to. Looks like some quantity of small theaters will go under, which is a shame as I remember going to the local small theater in a very small Missouri town on Saturdays for what then was the highlight of my very boring life. There will be savings <em>"Hollywood's biggest studios have been working on a new standard for digital movies that could save them $1 billion annually in printmaking fees and shipping costs,"</em> I doubt tho it will be reflected in ticket prices. Well, there's always the Chinese DVD knock off market although their working on that as well with the copyright laws and the Internet tie in.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I doubt tho it will be reflected in ticket prices.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't doubt. The lowest ticket prices for first-run movies in Metro Detroit are at the new MJR Westland Grand Digital Cinema 16. As the name implies, it's 16 screens, all digital.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, apparently their film sales were up 20% last year, and apparently film was the only division actually making them money,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Apparentlys" can be deceiving. The 2011 annual report isn't out yet, but the latest quarterly summarizes the first three quarters of 2011 and compares them to the first three of 2010.<br>

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/31235/000003123511000137/ekq32011_10q.htm<br>

In terms of sales, the film group is down 14.8% from the same period last year. That's better than the consumer digital group, which is down 42.5%. The only group that didn't lose sales is the graphics communication group, also the biggest group in Kodak. They're up 3%.</p>

<p>In terms of earnings, the film group dropped 97.7%. Yes, it actually is "the only division actually making them money", because the other two groups are in the red, but if you separated film from the rest of Kodak, you'd be talking $2M profit on $1152M sales. They got to that 2% profit by substantially underfunding R&D. In their business, they should be running about 4.5% of sales, or $52M. They only ran $16M, or 1.4%. Had they been spending on R&D at a level appropriate for a company that has some interest in staying in business, the extra $36M would have turned that $2M profit into a $34M loss.</p>

<p>The really scary thing is that the best sources I have say that essentially the entire film R&D budget the last two year has gone into reducing silver content, in an attempt to boost short term profitability. No new product development, whatsoever.</p>

<p>So, since Matt phrased the topic as a question...</p>

<h1 >Optimism for Kodak film division?</h1>

<p>The answer is, unfortunately...</p>

<h1 >No.</h1>

<p>I dont necessarily mind no new films considering their situation: I just hope the keep what the have especially Tri-X.</p>

<p>I altho i DO hope that someday the bring out new stuff, esp b&w.</p>

<p>Well...could be I spoke/posted too soon. Kodak announcing it is dropping all Ektachrome, 'E-6' slide film.<br /> Continuing to produce E-6 chemicals, for now.<br /> http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2156493/kodak-discontinues-colour-reversal-films</p>