Jump to content

It's only Chapter 11.


Recommended Posts

<blockquote>

<p>Kodaks announced restructuring plan is to abandon the film and photography business and focus on printers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kodak's "timely" announcement about the viability of the film market must mean Kodak hates film and that it thinks those using it need to be cured.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>My comment was not pointed to film and cameras, per se, but that the commercial market cannot be sustained. Kodak abandoning film was apparently a requirement to get the funding to continue their reorganization. Regardless of whether or not a particular customer prefers film over digital is irrelevant if there are not enough customers to support the production of the product. Would you pay $100 for a 36 exposure roll of 35mm, or a 12 exposure roll of 120? With Kodak gone the economies of scale of manufacture and distribution are gone as well. If film is to be supported as a boutique industry the unit costs will increase dramatically. One of the huge advantages that digital has over film is that the individual exposure in digital has an almost unmeasurably small unit cost, while each film exposure has a cost that is hundreds of times higher.<br>

Have you tried to buy a vinyl recording lately, or a sound system to play it on. If film is to survive, it will be like vinyl recordings.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's quite amazing that all here are blaming the demise of film photography for Kodak's woes.<br>

I find it quite ironic that the 'inventors' of digital photography have been completely over-run and outpaced by the other micro-chip users. To put it simply, horrendously bad management over the past 20 years or so have driven the world leader in all things photographic into chap. 11 and probably chap. 7. It's been on the cards for a long while now as management dropped the ball again & again. Conservative management and resting/relying on their laurels/name, instead of looking ahead and adapting to new and different markets, was a complete lack of foresight and business acumen. Nothing to do with film. People seem to forget that film was only a part of Kodak. Cameras, printing machines, medical photo stuff etc. were all part of their arsenal.<br>

By the way, rumours of the death of film are greatly exaggerated, ask Harman-Ilford and Fujifilm.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kodak has screwed things up so badly to this point, why would you think reorganization would change their mindset? All it will do is give them more time to make lousy decisions before going totally out of business.<br>

You can't change a few decades of stupidity with the stroke of a pen.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Gosh...I was just trying to inject a bit of humor by referring to "film haters". That's the problem with text communication....intent can easily be misconstrued. That reminds me of an episode in the Simpson's, where Homer was having his wife dictate a sarcastic letter to his boss, Mr. Burns. The intent of the letter was clear based upon Homer's sarcastic tone as he dictated his letter. But when read by Mr. Burns, it sounded like a sincere letter from a kind and loyal employee.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>It's quite amazing that all here are blaming the demise of film photography for Kodak's woes... ... <strong>Nothing to do with film</strong>...</p>

<p>...the 'inventors' of digital photography [<em>Kodak</em>] have been <strong>completely over-run and outpaced by the other micro-chip users</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This contradiction of claiming the level of film usage as not being a factor and then citing it as factor seems to the claim that is "quite amazing".</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kodak, like many entrenched companies of that vintage, lose the ability to be agile and manage emerging technologies. Because they were so dominant in film they hung onto it way too long. There are lots of other examples -- Tower Records, Blockbuster, Borders...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>IMO, a big company goes bankruptcy or quitting does not mean the death of the kind of product they have been made. GM bankruptcy does not mean the death of cars, IBM quitting laptop business does not mean the death of micro computers, Pentax is sold does not mean the death of DSLRs (or cameras with a Penta-prism)</p>

<p>I have been using film, but rarely Kodak. I loved IBMPC but now I'm happy with Acer and Samsung and I don't like the Lennovo. I wouldn't worry if Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony quit making DSLRs</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kodak was 91% of the film market. They had to abandon it as a condition of getting the DIP (Debtor-in-Possession) financing to take their Chapter filing forward. Will film survive? Sure, just like vinyl records have survived. You can still buy a horse-drawn carriage and ride it around. You want to ride in a hot air balloon? You can do that, but you won't find a scheduled flight to London or Miami on one.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>No comments on the topic, but I'm always amazed at the bad analogies:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> just like vinyl records have survived. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Vinyl records have survived because a) they are very cheap and easy to make in low volume and b) DJ servicing has kept vinyl going. However, DJs are moving fairly rapidly to the combination of a dual digital deck and a Macbook and this is going to quickly impact vinyl from major labels.</p>

<p><br /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To put things in perspective, most movies that you see in theaters right now are shot on FILM. Even new movies that are out right now, with a lot of special effects. This is completely contrary to what you hear from some people who claim that Hollywood is abandoning film. That is simply not true at all. These movies were shot on film, just to name a few:<br>

"War Horse"<br>

"Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol"<br>

"The Dark Knight Rises"<br>

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows"<br>

Even most tv shows are shot on film..."CSI," "Castle", "The Mentalist", "True Blood", and too many others to list here.<br>

You might want to check this out too:<br>

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Customers/Productions/index.htm<br>

But of course, I'm expecting a certain person to jump in with a snide remark, and then disappear again. That's what he always does in all the film forums. He never participates, just makes a cynical remark and then leaves again. Why? I have no idea.<br>

Anyway...</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Chris, I don't think the fact that Hollywood is still using 35 and 70 millimeter film for either distribution or shooting really has much to do with whether or not film will be available in small cans or foil packets. Film for folk like us will probably have to be processed by the photographer because the labs we used to use are going the way of the T-Rex.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You can argue back & forth between film & digital until you're blue in the face. The plain fact is Kodak screwed themselves. How long does the progressive trend toward a new medium have to take place? They missed the boat completely. Think of the Swiss watchmakers losing volumes to Japanese made watches. Same thing. Kodak screwed up. Plain & simple</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's quite amazing that all here are blaming the demise of film photography for Kodak's woes... ... <strong>Nothing to do with film</strong>...<br>

...the 'inventors' of digital photography [<em>Kodak</em>] have been <strong>completely over-run and outpaced by the other micro-chip users</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"This contradiction of claiming the level of film usage as not being a factor and then citing it as factor seems to the claim that is "quite amazing".</p>

 

 

<p>Guess it depends on one's interpretation. I read those statements to mean Kodak stopped being an innovator and got overrun by its competition. </p>

<p>Regarding the level of film usage... well, yes. Film usage dropped, digital rose, Kodak's management failed to redirect the company into new and profitable lines of business. But, I will miss the yellow boxes.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Les: I'm trained as a scientist and a lawyer and hold technical patents and run a technology firm. That you are using film is great. You are in a diminishing minority. My comments are directed to the market reality. The largest fact in that reality is that to obtain financing to go forward, the largest film manufacture in the world was required to close down their film operation. The only asset seen having real value in Kodak in the bankruptcy by the people providing the money were their patents in digital photography. That is reality.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...