Kodak reports increasing professional film sales

[doug_harl]

<p>@Francois The sources of your numbers? I'd like to see them. I showed mine - show me yours.</p>

<p>I don't know what the predictions were 10 years ago. All I know is the <em>current</em> sales and <em>current</em> profits of <strong>Kodak</strong>'s film business - that's all that was said. And if you look at the trend for the last decade, Kodak's film business has been in steady decline. <strong>More than likely, in 2012, Kodak will be showing a loss in their film business</strong> for the first time in who knows when.</p>

<p>Repeat this is about <em><strong>KODAK'S</strong></em> film business.<br /> The fact that <strong>KOKDAK's</strong> has been profitable in the <strong><em>past</em> <em>does not mean it will be profitable in the future</em></strong>. And considering current trends, it looks like KODAK's film business will die and even if it doesn't, the is a <strong>HUGE</strong> amount of pressure to eliminate <strong>KODAK</strong>'s film business.<br>

<strong><em>BUT</em></strong> Kodak IS the market leader in the film business and everything happening to Kodak is happening to everyone else - no doubt about it.</p>

<p>AND you can keep using it until you're blue in the face but the fact is, it's going away. Didn't do any good for Kodachrome, the Ektachromes that were ditched, Plus-X, Portra NC and VC - Oh, they were combined "wink" "wink", etc ....</p>

<p>Make fun of me all you want, poo-poo what I say.. but every time there's an announcement here of a film being discontinued, I just see more and more confirmation of the reality of what's happening in the film industry.</p>

<p>This is a classic case of a "disruptive technology" and it's AWESOME to watch!</p>

<p> </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Les you made my day.</p>

[doug_harl]

<blockquote>

<p>That must be a workflow issue as I don't recall ever getting a blue face from any of my images from film. Is this from portraits of smurfs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Blue in the face" is a phrase - I'm not sure if it's an idiom or a metaphor - it's been a while since my English classes. But what it means is that you can keep doing something until the point of failure - whatever it is - and it still doesn't make any difference.</p>

<p>For example in the case I've mentioned about buying film to keep the companies making it to continue making it, what I meant was that all of you can keep buying film, even using your life savings and borrowing money to buy more film, and it still won't make any difference in the decision as to whether to keep manufacturing film or not.<br>

Or to put it another way, you can keep buying film from Kodak, but it will make no difference in their decision to stop making it because their sales and profits have declined to the point where they will stop making it regardless of any short term bump in sales.</p>

<p>And even if sales actually increase, they still may close down the FPEG division because of projected sales and profits.</p>

<p>If you look at Fuji, all of their sales and profit increases has been in their commercial businesses and in the commercial end of printing - exactly where the private equity companies want Kodak to concentrate their business. And their sales in film has also been declining as fast as Kodak's and they're <em>still</em> in the business. My fellows and I have been scratching our heads over that one. Japanese public accounting is a bit different than ours in the US for public companies.</p>

[veronica_lodge]

<p>As a company Kodak's stock stinks loosing over 4 bucks per share. Its share price was better 50 years ago. It has dropped more than 5X in the last year. Major Kodak stockholders want the poison pill reversed, so Kodaks value can be released. If cut up many films will be junked so watch out.</p>

[doug_harl]

<p>Let me try to explain "disruptive technology" some more ...<br>

Horse driven carriages.</p>

<p>How many are left? A few actually. Go into most large metropolitan areas and in the park area there's more than likely a guy there with a horse, carriage, and a buggy whip -with a bunch of automobiles driving by it.</p>

<p>Obviously, he bought that carriage, horse, and buggy whip somewhere. Was it some local merchant or merchants in the city that sold them? Probably not. He had to special order them from somewhere. Yes, he was able to get them - but at his <em>local</em> dealer? Not unless the dealer happens to be based in his city; otherwise he ordered on the internet or catalog.</p>

<p>You see, before the horseless carriages (automobiles); carriage, horse and buggy whip dealers where in every town or nearby. But as automobiles took over, they eventually became specialty items. In other words, they weren't readily available. Instead of having a buggy whip seller on every corner or in every town, you now have to go on to the internet and <em>search the World</em> to find some and compare prices.</p>

<p>Or let's stick to photography since it's considered to be <em>a special case from every other industry here</em>. Let's look at Daguerreotypes shall we? And let's go to<a href="http://freestylephoto.biz/42802-Adventures-of-Photography-150-Years-of-the-Photographic-Image"> my favorite film seller</a> (online because all of my local guys don't sell film anymore) and look for "Daguerreotypes". Huh, nothing but a book about it. Well, I'll be. How about glass plates? <a href="http://freestylephoto.biz/1832016-Rockland-Colloid-Tintype-Parlor-Kit">Hmm we got this</a>. And when I do a google search for<a href="http://www.shinyphotos.com/links.php"> </a>Daguerreotype supplies, <a href="https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Degueretype+supplies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t#hl=en&sa=X&ei=PQjQTrzcO4uXtwefhOmwDQ&ved=0CBoQvwUoAA&q=Daguerreotype+supplies&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=6a01c1aab557d443&biw=1115&bih=692">well I get this.</a> I guess if I dig through those million plus hits, I'll find someone who supplies those things. I'm sure if dig long and hard enough, you <em>will</em> eventually find someone who supplies those things. You will - I have no doubts.</p>

<p> </p>

[doug_harl]

<p>My bad, I just got back from Publix and they still had 4 rolls of Kodak color film on their rack. And Walmart still has the FUJI something or another there too with the mailers that go to Dwaynes.</p>

<p>Just want to be accurate ....</p>

<p>EDIT: And if Walmart is selling FUJI film .... that may explain what FUJI is still making it. Hmmmmmmm.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Some of you people make me want 2012 to get here faster. Be honest. We all know is a smaller market than it was just a few years ago. Some of us like shooting film and will continue to shoot film no mater where we have to go to find it. There is still a market for film that makes money and it too is smaller but still huge. When I say buy film to keep it alive I see even that get a 2012 response. I am one person but together we are many people. I know it can never be a movement like the Tea party or occupy but there is to to this planet than the U.S. and Europe. Believe me people there are many places where using film is still the norm or using it along with digital is just fine.<br>

I just will go along with Les here and agree I like it ,I use it, I buy it and I process it.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Fuji is making film for others too. As is Kodak.... All that Hipster film you see like LOMO? Well it is Made by Fuji or Kodak.</p>

[doug_harl]

<p>Mods ... if you'll indulge me one last statement on this thread - and I promise this WILL be my last ...</p>

<p>I thought what is happening to Kodak now, wouldn't have happened until 2018. In other words, Kodak's FPEG division is 6 years ahead of my schedule of its decline.</p>

<p>My worst case scenario has turned out to be a pipe dream.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Les sort of like why we still use dogs and a flashlight for coon hunting. I like that.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>I will use film as long as it's available. When it isn't I will do something different.</p>

<p>I'm not going to let doom and gloomers ruin my fun.</p>

 

[larrydressler]

<p>Bill you are my newest friend.. I hope I can be yours too. Some people just don't understand that what I do for fun and to the enjoyment of others is a path I chose. If I ever run out of trail then I know it is time to make a new one but I still am on the trail.</p>

[wblynch]

Larry, I'm flattered. Now I have two friends, not including my dog who has no choice.

[larrydressler]

<p>Your dog has a choice.. I had one run away... :)</p>

 

[rossb]

<p> I think film is still big business generating millions of dollars in sales each year. Maybe at some point Kodak will sell off it's interest in film but I believe somebody will buy it. For myself I love the fine qualities of film and find it makes a great hobby for me. Yes I have a DSLR but I prefer my F100 as the prints are just more pleasing to me and the process just makes for greater enjoyment as a hobby. Just this morning I ordered a new film scanner and early next year I will learn to process C41 at home to break the stranglehold the vanishing labs have on me. A rangefinder is in my future. </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Remember when a million was a bunch and enough? Well maybe it is time to downsize and deflate the Earth again...</p>

[rossb]

<p>There was a TV show called "The Millionaire" from the 50's I think. I suppose a million bucks in the 50's would have been enough.</p>

[larrydressler]

LOL In the 50s and 60s A million $'s was enough to start a bank. :)

[craig_sander]

<p>Two years ago, I was looked at as the guy who was resisting technology or maybe the guy who was living in denial about the future of photography. Nowadays, I'm noticing that I'm the guy who's "keeping it real". I like the transition.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Craig... I like you thought just not your message.. Keeping it real is about the art not the media... I Am real I shoot film I will keep doing it.. I just won't stop doing it for personal work. If I have to for some $ I know that my knowledge of film will sure the hell give me an edge over others... :)</p>

 

[jeff_z.]

<p>Wow, I am really busy right now and can't read everything, but some great comments; Larry's and Ross' really stood out for me upon a very quick read of the recent posts. Funny, how the gloom and doomers always show up, too.</p>

<p>I've tried to like digital, but it always leaves me cold. I love film and it grows on me all the time, and I use it exclusively. I've done newspaper work in the last few years, and won an award last spring for an image I'd made of two WWII veterans meeting for the first time; it was on Tmax 400, though I think it could have been made on BW400CN, my current favorite B&W for ease of use in my busy life. But I really hope to get into traditional B&W, too. And I've shot many concerts with Kodak's color negative emulsions that musicians are using for different promotional purposes. Some other images made on Kodak color negative are currently being used by an actor in a major tv series for self-promotion. These were made with camera/lenses that were decades old on average; manual focus. These images were made outside in changing light and the film handled it beautifully, I thought. So, I know beyond any doubt that film is extremely capable, and having the "latest, greatest" hardware is often and largely, bull. <br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Remember when a million was a bunch and enough? Well maybe it is time to downsize and deflate the Earth again...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Larry, that is so profound, and you've summed up what I think about often in regards to the obscene pay that executives in big companies manage to legally extort year after year, and the "trickle-down" effect this phenomenon has extended to their counterparts at the "non-profits", like Blue Cross, and many others. And, of course the way this thinking has permeated Kodak, where in my view, they have wasted an incredible amount of money getting into competitive commodity businesses, while ignoring (as far as marketing) their still quite profitable film and developing (chems) business.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think film is still big business generating millions of dollars in sales each year. Maybe at some point Kodak will sell off it's interest in film but I believe somebody will buy it. For myself I love the fine qualities of film and find it makes a great hobby for me. Yes I have a DSLR but I prefer my F100 as the prints are just more pleasing to me and the process just makes for greater enjoyment as a hobby. Just this morning I ordered a new film scanner and early next year I will learn to process C41 at home to break the stranglehold the vanishing labs have on me. A rangefinder is in my future.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Somehow, Ross' comments really make sense and resonate for me, as well, though we still have good, reasonably priced C-41 developing here, and they tell me that they are busy. <br /> <br /><br /><br /></p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>Somehow, Ross' comments really make sense and resonate for me, as well, though we still have good, reasonably priced C-41 developing here, and they tell me that they are busy. <br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p> My actual problem with the labs is that the closet one is 55miles from the house and they usually want me to return the next day. However I would be happy to use a lab if it were possible. They do really nice work so that is not a problem. I am all about small business acutally. Anyway thanks for the nice comments. </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Maybe this logic could be a rule-of-thumb: digital in the country (few or no labs), film in the city (more or closer film labs). That would depend on whether or not you prefer film by default.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Karim, the only constant (moving forward) will be the globalization of distribution. What will happen will be the brick-and-mortar will be the exception, and not the rule.</p>

<p>I will not matter where the customer is. It will likely all be done by mail. We are not that far off now.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Larry, "Occupy Kodak", that's a rip. I promise to buy my new Hasselblad film by March.</p>