m_kevin_johnson Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 No, if they did they would loose one of the large part of their work, Government/Aerial! Yes they are doing a lot of Infrared but also a ton of work and in fact the bulk of the work in the large format line is in B&W. There have been some "streamlines" which have cut back on the "amount" of items that are offered but they were items that produced the same product. In the aerial market both Zeiss and Wild are still selling all the cameras they make at over $500,000 each. They use FILM and the bulk of that film is B&W. We are a small lab but have processed over 8500 sq feet of original B&W film this year (not including all of the duplications and film enlargements). 2003 was only about 5200 sq. feet of color film. To put it in perspective, a 35 mm roll of 36 exp is about .37 sq. ft. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_oconnor2 Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Go to the library and read the current issue of FORTUNE magazine... In an interview, Daniel Carp, the CEO of Kodak spells out what he is are doing and why... Then we don't need to speculate, discuss rumours, weep piss and moan endlessly, ad nauseum... I will spoil the end of the article by revealing that, given that film sales IS their source of positive cash flow, they are NOT giving B&W film, or any other color, the deep six... Kodak has been a cash cow for their stock holders for generations with probably the largest total cash dividend paid out to stock owners over the life of the company, in the world.. <I would need to research this to be 100% sure, but that's my opinion> Daniel Carp has just 'slashed' those dividends, leading to lots of weeping, wailing, and moaning... Almost at the volume level we see on here about, "Kodak is dropping film, waaaa, waaa, waaaaaaa" Cheers ... Denny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_s. Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 I, for one, have no problem with people musing about this interesting topic. I don't consider it "drivel" or "irresponsible speculation," I consider it another variation of spirited conversation, much like I would find at a cocktail party. And I enjoy it. But, I also think the conversation can be informed by some facts. So I went to Kodak's website and looked at their 2002 Annual Report. I guess the 2003 report is not ready yet. If any of you are interested in browsing this 38 page document, go here: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/annualReport02/financialInfo/detailResolution/detailRes1.shtml Here are some interesting facts as reported by Kodak's report. Their business is organized into four major areas: Photography, Health Imaging, Commercial Imaging, and Displays. Worldwide in 2002, they had nearly 13 billion dollars in net sales. By far the biggest revenue source for Kodak was Photography with over 9 billion dollars in net sales. A little more than half of these sales came from outside the US. In their report, Kodak lumps both digital and traditional products under the heading of Photography. I could not find a breakdown of how much of their 9 billion in net sales from Photography was from film vs. digital (nor how much was from color vs. b&w, for that matter). So I can't tell from this report how big these two lines of business are for Kodak, nor how profitable either one is. If any of you have sources for this information, that would be helpful. Here are some interesting statistics Kodak reports. In 2002, as compared to its worldwide net sales in 2001, film products were down 6%; professional sensitized products, including color negative, color reversal and b&w, were down 13%; consumer digital cameras were up 10% and inkjet photo papers were up 43%. It is sad that they don't report individual sales figures for analog vs. film. Without knowing this, it is hard to know if the 10% and 43% increase in the digital-related product lines is significant or not. We also don't know from this net sales information whether these product lines are profitable yet or not. It is encouraging to note, however, that Kodak does state that they have maintained their market share in the US consumer film over the last five years. While I can't tell from this report which of Kodak's business lines are its source of profit, we can all probably conclude that Kodak is serious about its commitment to the digital path. Here is a quote from the report: "Competition remains intense in the imaging sector in the photography, commercial and health segments. On the photography side, price competition has been driven somewhat by consumers' conservative spending behaviors during times of a weak world economy, international tensions and the accompanying concern over the possibility of war and terrorism. Some consumers have moved from branded products to private label products. . . . "The Company's strategy to balance the consumer shift from analog to digital, and the nature and pace of technology substitution could impact Kodak's revenues, earnings and growth rate." I, for one, remain convinced that there will always be traditional b&w film. I am very excited about exposing, developing and printing film, I am not attracted at all to digital or computer based images. That is just my interest and my hobby. I think there are lots of people like me. If Kodak reduces or eliminates its traditional films, so be it. There will always be others. Hope this helps the speculation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndc Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 I think I'm going to switch to pinhole cyanotypes... this is too confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron_l Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 >>"The cost of silver is not likely to increase in the future, since one the major uses of silver is color film, which use is declining rapidly."<< I have to disagree with you Mark. While I admitted that I am ignorant as to how the rising silver cost affects film production, I do have an understanding of the international financial markets (my day job) and I can assure you that the drop in demand from lower color film sales will have very little affect on the price of silver. The largest factors impacting the price of precious metals have nothing to do with individual industrial uses. They have to do with global economic forces and the movement of huge amounts of capital reallocation. The amount of silver mined each year has been less than the industrial demand for it for decades now and the stockpiles of governments and industrial holders has been declining for years. The US govt held 3 billion ounces of silver bullion in the 1940's. Today.....zero. So unfortunately I don't think we can be as confident as Mark that the price of silver is not going to continue to rise to exorbitant levels just because color film use is dropping. If only it were so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg_kern Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Simple answer: this "fine-print" supplier doesn't like to sell kodak products and favours other manufacturers (efke, foma, forte...), maybe because they give him a higher profit. I would not call this a credible source. But, even if Kodak would stop producing films in a few years (BTW, I don't think so), why change today, if you like the products? And to wich brand should you switch? Theres much change in the photo world today, and no manufacturer is guaranteed to survive the next 30 years. So, the "information" in the newsletter is nothing but marketing rubbish. Some further thoughts: Every garage in southern India can produce inkjet paper, but you need much know-how to produce a good film. Kodak executives would have to be complete idiots, to leave a field where they are technology leaders in many respects. In general, I think that Kodak at the moment is by far the most active manufacturer in the "analogue" world. Not only a new b&w factory, but also a new, very aggressively priced colour paper, still the widest range in film types and so on. The only reason I could imagine that Kodak would completely stop the making of traditional photo products in the next 10 years would be a serious finacial crisis, which could force them to sell this part of the company. (BTW., Agfa was trying to sell their consumer imaging division about 2 years ago). Let's hope thats not happening. And, the silver price: If I recall correctly, a square meter of film contains just a few grams of silver. The ready-to-coat emulsion may be very expensive, but the price of the raw materials is the least part of it. But also electronics contain some silver. Maybe Digital cameras and memory card get more expensive when the silver price rises. Will they then stop producing digital cameras? Better stock up with film and a Leica M2? (PARANOIA...PARANOIA...PARANOIA.....;) Regards Georg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Ron, I am not impressed with your "day job" credentials. Others on this board also have credentials and where doing photography in 1981 when the price of silver skyrocketed to over $50 per ounce (compared to about $5 per ounce today). That is in real dollars, not inflation adjusted dollars. But I don't want to get into a argument about credentials. All I can say is that decreased demand of any commodity (about 30% of total silver demand is for analog imaging purposes), usually has a downward pressure on prices, all other things being equal. This is basic economics. But I did not predict that the price would decrease, just that it would likely remain stable at worst. Of course, as I mentioned, the price of precious metals is very volatile during times of world crisis, and that is always a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron_l Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Mark - Congratulations for not being impressed with my credentials since I didn't actually give any. All I said was I have some experience in the financial markets. Rather than try to impart some of my knowledge on someone so enlightened as yourself, I will instead pose this question: If the demand from photography is such a driving force on silver prices, why did it go up 10 fold in the early 1980's? >>"But I did not predict that the price would decrease, just that it would likely remain stable at worst."<< Stable??? The price is up over 40% over the last six months. If that is your idea of stable then you are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 I also have experience with financial markets and have been a CPA for over 20 years.</p> The reason silver prices went up 10 fold in the very early 1980�s was that the Hunt brothers tried to corner the silver market. They were temporarily successful and prices skyrocketed, but then prices crashed back to normal levels soon after and sent them to poorhouse (making all photographers very happy). </p> If you want more details about this, see if you can find this book: </p> �Beyond Greed: The Hunt Family's Bold Attempt to Corner the Silver Market" by Stephen Fay. </p> With regard to the recent increase in silver prices, you are only looking at short-term trends. The real question is what depressed the price over the last few years, not why it has rebounded to normal levels that exist today. In recent years it was made public that Warren Buffet made massive investments in silver, and that has caused a lot of price volatility. </p> Another major factor is that when silver prices are quoted in US dollars, the price will increase because the US dollar has significantly decreased in value in the last 6 months. This has raised the price of many other commodities also. </p> The long-term trend forecasted for silver by most experts is for relatively flat prices on an inflation-adjusted basis. Don�t take my word for it. This was widely reported in news stories (I saw it in the WSJ) about Kodak cutting its dividend and investing more heavily in digital. But there are always some people who have contrary opinions, and no one knows for sure what will happen. As I mentioned, since silver is a precious metal, prices can be very volatile in times of economic and political uncertainty. </p> If you want to see the long-term price of silver, check out this website that shows the price over time in 1998 dollars. Note that the price in 1998 was $6.24 per ounce. In today�s trading, the spot market price was $6.46, but in 1998 dollars the price has declined since 1998. Assuming that the dollar eventually recovers, the price of silver as quoted in US dollars will decline IMO.<br> <a href=http://goldinfo.net/silver600.html>600 Years of Silver Prices</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_anon Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 The other main contributing factor is that the price of silver is below the cost of production. Most experts will tell you that price is about $10. When was the last time silver was at that level since the Hunt brothers' fiasco? The vast majority (if not all) of the silver produced today is a result of being the by-product of other precious metal mining (primarily gold and copper). The economics of gold and copper mining make it such that refining the silver just adds a little extra profit. If you will the silver refinign is being subsidized by the gold or copper mining. As long as that supply meets the current demands there is no upward pressure on the price of silver. Also remember that not many people today buy silverware, silver coffee servers, silver bowls etc. which was a high desire of previous generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_riedel Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 Good point on the mining of Gold/Silver/Copper. I know of a company that over ten years ago sold a gold mine. The resaon, they just started a very large cooper mine, and the amount of gold/silver they recovered from the copper mine was way more than the gold mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magic_rat Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 http://slate.msn.com/id/2093512/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerjporter Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 oops, sorry folks, it's 2007 now and there is still Kodak black and white film out there... i will check this forum again in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Well, it's not B&W, true, but they just introduced a whole new line of Portra color films. They've also been buying up film production facilities in China, including a controlling interest in Lucky. I wouldn't mind using Chinese made Tri-X at half the price of Rochester's product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerjporter Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 that would be awesome, i hadn't heard that. i have been all digital for a couple of years and have been yearning to get back into film a little more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Will Kodak deep 6 B&W Film in '08?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Heh. Couldn't let sleeping dogs die, hmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 No, just figured I'll ask again in '10....and '12.....and '14.....and so on..... Darn it! I paid thousands for my DSLR! Why won't film go away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_appleyard Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that film will be around for awhile, even in '08. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 >>>>I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that film will be around for awhile, even in '08. No, no, impossible! 5-6 years ago on this very site people were saying film would be completely gone within 5 years! Or at least almost impossible to find! So, should be any time now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now