Can and will Kodak still make film?

[phil_wang1]

<p>Larry, this thread is not about the issue of film dying. This is about Kodak. We are talking about "Can and will Kodak still make film".<br>

We are not equalizing Kodak's fate to the fate of film. Actually if Kodak film is gone, it might help Fuji and Ilford and some other film manufacturers. To those companies, they might have a chance to increase their production, or at least will not need to reduce their productions.<br>

The latest Kodak news from Wall Street is here, sadly but it seems will be true about my prediction: <br>

<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140841495542810.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLETopNews">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140841495542810.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLETopNews</a></p>

[chandan_prithyani]

<p>Wall street journal has reported that Kodak is considering filing for bankruptcy and no one is interested in buy out. Will this be the final nail in the coffin for film and film processing? </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

 

<blockquote>

<p>When people think of Movie film production and Digital they forget one thing. Not all the world is North America and Europe. I know Bollywood can't afford to switch nor all theaters that show these movies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, Bollywood is an enthusiastic early adopter. They have a piracy problem that you would not believe, and digital lets the studios actually receive some profits from their work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Take the new and blossoming productions made in the Arab world that is just getting started.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Another bad example. Their also adapting fast, just like they pretty much bypasses the whole landline stage and started building well-planned wireless networks. The "Arab world", as you put it, has money, and if you can field the upfront expense, digital distribution pays for itself in about 18 months.</p>

<p>It's only the countries in such poor shape that they can't afford and investment now with an 18 month payback that have below average adoption rates. Greece, many African nations, many South American nations...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No folks you can't just read local news look at the big picture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. But that would include reading the publications of the particular industry you're commenting on, Larry. ;)</p>

 

[larrydressler]

<p>:) I have retired for all of this....</p>

[andylynn]

Selling that operation doesn't mean Kodak will not have gelatin, it means Kodak will buy it instead of making it. This is

a really common sort of thing to do these days - Kodak has been behind the times by making their own raw materials.

Many companies are finding it more profitable, instead of making some component they need, to buy it from a company

that makes so much more of whatever it is that economy of scale and expertise kicks in and it's cheaper that way.

 

Heck, many computer companies don't own any production at all. I don't think Apple owns any sort of manufacturing

facility anymore.

[plasma181]

<p>Saturday evening, I took pictures at our company holiday party. I shot about 2 and 1/2 rolls of Portra 800 through my FM3a. Just to mess with people, I would go up them after taking a picture and say, "Want to see?" And I would show them the back of my FM3a. :-)</p>

[harry_templeton]

<p>just went on the kodak website and the wall street journal, and as expected, film seems to be the only thing that kodak CAN do properly these days. management? forget about it, they're hopelessly confused.<br /> but film, film they can make! they have a very new cinema film in fact, samples look like a beauty. <br /> http://motion.kodak.com/motion/index.htm<br /> get a load of that slogan:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tired of hearing that film is dead? Well, so are we.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A toast to that, long live the Eastman Kodak Company. It would take a total idiot to kill kodaks film production even from a soley economic point of view, its almost the only thing making a consistent profit for them. Their printers barely made them any money after all that huge investment, and Phase One/mamiya/leaf and Hasselblad stole their place in the high end MF digital back market because kodak failed to innovate fast enough. But film lives on.<br>

by the way, I'm loading some ektar into my rollei right now. No worries.</p>

[doug_harl]

<blockquote>

<p>A toast to that, long live the Eastman Kodak Company. It would take a total idiot to kill kodaks film production even from a soley economic point of view, its almost the only thing making a consistent profit for them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Awesome Harry!</p>

<p>Can you link to some numbers so I can post them on the investment websites? Like - fool.com. marketplace.com. and a few others? Because the "smart" money is saying Kodak is dead - especially the film division - FPEG.</p>

[harry_templeton]

<p>Well the WSJ was about the difficult time they had in printers and ink (finally turned a small profit margin apparently) and the fact that large companies will typically fall behind when they cannot innovate fast enough, as with digital backs and competition from Hasselblad Phase One etc.<br /> as for profits from film:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00ZqnD</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ask ron andrews where he got his stats, thats actually a realistic number, i only heard non-numerical generalizations not statistics. <br /> Someone mentioned the fuji strategy on that forum as well: stop making crud products just to broaden your 'market range' and focus on a few quality items: maybe some printers designed for extreme color accuracy but not large format so demanding semi-pros can afford them: there is a market for that.<br /> Focus on unique products: Case in point Fuji X-1. Digital rangefinder without the leica price and with a sharp prime lens. Add in lovely design and no-frills feature set and of course it's a winner. <br /> I'm no design innovator, but those things sold FAST. come up with something new and special, and it will sell and endear itself to buyers.<br /> And then make FILM!! Its a niche company's dream: a relatively small but dedicated and loyal buyer demographic who will continue to buy your products as long as you don't screw them over. <br /> Consumers are smarter than companies think, many investors are often less intelligent than we would hope.<br>

and really, can we <strong>please</strong> have <strong>no more new threads about the coming apocalypse that is not determined yet</strong>. Its <strong>2012</strong>, when the big <strong>fissures start spewing water</strong> out of the ground and create worldwide <strong>tsunamis at the end of days</strong>, i think kodak will be one of the smallest priorities on my mind compared to getting the heck out of here.<br>

But all Mayan apocalypse jokes aside, can we just consolidate the threads into already existing ones so i don't freak out over nothing every time I log in to photo.net? Im sure many others share this sentiment.<br>

- Harry</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Sigh.... "And when I can't get it I shall invent it"... The time traveler.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

"...when the big fissures start spewing water out of the ground and create worldwide tsunamis at the end of days..."

 

Man, what a photo op and there you are without any film.

 

There are probably thousands of threads dealing with the demise of film in general and Kodak in particular. It would be a bit of work to combine them all into one humungous thread. But then, it would be a simple matter to just delete that one thread and everyone could get a good night's sleep.

[larrydressler]

<p>James I agree in more ways than you know but it is fire not water the next time.. :)</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Ah, I love it. At least for the dramatic 'struggle' between film and digital. ;-)</p>

<p>I still think they should have kept the Eastman name for movie film. Come on: who would not rather have an Eastman EXR 5203? :-)</p><div></div>

[clay_blanks]

<p>Even movies that are shot completely digitally are currently archived on film by most, if not all studios. It's the ultimate backup file or raw image in an age of constant and rapidly evolving digital technologies, formats, and storage mediums. And who knows when a sensor capable of matching 4x5 or 8x10 film will be available at anything resembling an affordable price. There's a resurgence in film use amongst the younger generation too. It may just be passing fad though. Whether or not the combined world film consumption from these "alternative" uses will sustain an economically viable business model very long term is any one's guess. I figure I have maybe 30 years before my bones will be gelatin raw material. At the rate I shoot film as a "hobbyist" I actually think I could buy enough film (and a couple of big fridges) to last me.. haha!</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Even movies that are shot completely digitally are currently archived on film by most, if not all studios.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course they're not. Someone (maybe you) claimed this in a previous discussion, and I posted a lovely set of links to statistics on the use of digital film recorders for archiving. It's on the order of 3% penetration. Not "most", not even "many". "Few" is the word that fits.</p>

 

[larrydressler]

<p>Is this thread still alive? Just like the email I got the other day.. Hi Larry I have shot some Kodachrome where can I get it developed....... 3%? Semantics Choice of words? Blanket statements? Change in times? We all adjust as I would still love to have my 61 mercury Monterrey that served me well all through my High School years but I adjusted. I do have to say this. Just shoot film if that is what you like and you can't blame anyone.</p>