Kodak's emergence from bankruptcy

[jason_withers]

<p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/03/kodak-bankruptcy-emerging-today/2756841/">http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/03/kodak-bankruptcy-emerging-today/2756841/</a></p>

[donnie_strickland]

<p>And a new name, Kodak Alaris:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/uk-kodak-pension-plan-completes-acquisition-of-eastman-kodak-companys-personalized-imaging-and-document-imaging-businesses-222197521.html">http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/uk-kodak-pension-plan-completes-acquisition-of-eastman-kodak-companys-personalized-imaging-and-document-imaging-businesses-222197521.html</a></p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>The old Kodak had lost its agility with regard to film evolving via its competition such as Fuji. Fujichrome 50 was a line in the sand that Kodak seemed to ignore. With the advent of Provia, Velvia, Reala etc, Kodak scrambled to catch up.<br>

Kodak was also too slow to react to the digital revolution. All this is reflected in their stock price. </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Yes Steve..but...now we have a new Kodak and still have great Kodak films to use while Fuji is in a steady mode of contraction in terms of product line. I am choosing to move film forward by making great images with it, far better use of time than rehashing tired old viewpoints, don't you think?</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>We've turned away from the brink with Kodak. Hoping the new incarnation is smarter, faster, and savvier than the train wreck formerly known as Kodak.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>It's a good thing that Kodak Alaris is privately held, so it can work on long-term strategies, rather than being a slave to quarterly reports. But it has to buy it's raw film stock from the existing Kodak, since they didn't get the Eastman movie film business. That's because Kodak wanted Eastman as a cash cow to continue to subsidize their diversification efforts. So they are very dependent on the Eastman business, and how long the movie studios want Eastman to be in business.<br>

What's an interesting question is whether Kodak Alaris has any "intellectual property" rights if Kodak shuts down the "Eastman" film line. Can they shop around to other production lines with Kodak's film "recipes" in that case? Can they buy the film factory in Rochester?</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>No need to get rude Daniel. I use film only... none of it being Kodak currently. To be fair, I do have some Kodachrome work published. </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Sorry Steve, I just see damaging after damaging commentary on the "Entire-net" these days when it comes to film, it's like an addiction to focus on the negative rather than the positive and it makes me really sad man, we need to move forward and let the past be the past.<br>

Good light to you!</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>It's a good thing that Kodak Alaris is privately held, so it can work on long-term strategies, rather than being a slave to quarterly reports.</em></p>

<p>Well I hope you are correct, because the focus on next quarter or next year instead of five, ten, or twenty years down the road is IMO a major problem for American (and probably worldwide) businesses. But I'd caution that it seems like many times financial parties buy businesses (out of bankruptcies or otherwise) not so much because they want to run them long-term, but because they think they can (1) break them up into parts that are more valuable than the whole, and/or (2) make some quick changes that will increase the apparent value in the short term so they can sell their equity (through an IPO in a new company or otherwise) at a big profit. Basically, I'm not sure how well being privately-held (especially with new private holders instead of long-time owners) correlates with long-term planning versus short term profits / share prices.</p>

 

[jason_withers]

<p>I never felt Fujichrome 50 was the "line in the sand"; Kodachrome 25 and 64 were two lines. I tip my hat to Fuji for developing some good films, but Kodak already made its mark in film history with Kodachrome long before Fuji ever thought Fujichrome. The continuously improved Ektachromes was just as good if not better than what Fuji was developing. Portra comes to mind as well. Besides, Fuji doesn't have anything as fine as Ektar 100.</p>

[donnie_strickland]

<p>I'd be happy if they made Ektachrome 200 again. It may not have been a splashy, sexy film, but its palette and speed perfectly suited my purposes for slide film. (Ektachrome 64 was my favorite, though.)</p>

<p>Ektar 100 is a very fine film, but its colors are just not to my taste. To each their own.</p>

[jason_withers]

<p>You're right Donnie. Everyone has their favorite films to use.</p>

[andrew_kleinfeld]

<p>I think they started downhill in the 60's, when they diluted their brand with low quality cameras. You just couldn't respect the company as much when they sold Instamatics as when they sold Retinas.</p>

<p>Their quality standards for film and chemicals were great, but they didn't give enough, or accurate enough, information to users. I was happy switching to Ilford in the 70's.</p>

<p>Dilution of a great brand takes a while for the brand to fail, but it eventually does. And relying almost entirely on an obsolete product, film for movies and X-rays, seals it.</p>

[jason_withers]

<p>Andrew, the Instamatics you mentioned were actually a very successful line of cameras from Kodak in the early 60s. They were less expensive to manufacture than the (really expensive at the time) Retina Reflex models and they wanted to cater to more of the general public. A lot of people could not afford a Retina Reflex at the time.<br>

It was a really good move on their part to release a more budget-friendly line that simplified photography for the masses.<br>

Immitation is the most sincere form of flattery and there were so many other manufacturers that followed Kodak and released their own Instamatic type of camera that used Kodak's proprietary 126 film format and didn't that format run for like 30 years?</p>

[wblynch]

<p>Kodak made some very high quality 126 Instamatic cameras. They didn't sell all that well.</p>

<p>But here we are, with the results of 40 years of MBA mentality in American business. Why should Kodak be any different than US Steel, Pan-Am Airlines, Zenith Television or thousands of others?</p>

<p>Once the Vampire MBA's get you by the throat it's over.</p>

 

[DB_Gallery]

<p>So for years, many have posted about how great it would be to have the film part of Kodak spin off into new ownership. Now that it has happened, instead of positive youth filled insight into moving film forward on this site, we get tired AARP baseless remarks that stink up the place.<br>

<br /> What a wasteland this site has become...</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>This wasteland won't green-up much, film-wise, if you keep spewing vitriol on the forum. The company's turned another corner. We all know where it's been. All we can do is to keep buying and shooting film and try open-handedly to show people what it can do. Insults don't cut it, Daniel.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>As a long time Moderator here at Photo.net, I thought I'd post part of the Terms and Conditions of Use. FYI<br>

<br /> "We encourage the sharing of ideas and opinions on the topic of photography, but photo.net is not an "anything goes" website. Photo.net users come from all locations and backgrounds, and have diverse thoughts, beliefs, and feelings. Keep this in mind when you participate in the community, and treat others with respect. Postings that attack another person's motivation, intelligence, or character degrade the quality of the discussion and discourage thoughtful comments by others. There are many places on the internet where you are welcome to have moral or political arguments, however, in almost every case, photo.net is not one of them. Neither is this community a place for you to harass, abuse, threaten, or otherwise bother other members, and it's not a place for you to do anything illegal. We don't want to kick you out of the community, but if you do any of these things, we will. So don't do them."</p>

[eddy_d]

<p>Is Kodak even going to be putting out film anymore? I did not hear anything about film with the news of their emergence from Bankruptcy. I have heard about packaging.</p>

[jason_withers]

<p>I wonder the same thing, especially with color film. I actually bought a roll last night of the Kodak Max 400 speed film at CVS, with an expiration date I believe of sometime in 2015. I wonder how long it has been on the shelf. Was kind of pricey at $7.49 a roll. I can't find any of the consumer films listed on the kodak website since they have changed it a bit recently.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Check B&H's film prices/availability. Consumer film just isn't stocked as widely--or discount-priced--as it once was. The 2015 stale date seems about right, freshness-wise. Low stock+high prices sadly reflect demand at retailers like drug stores, big box stores, or grocers where consumer grade C-41 stuff once moved briskly.</p>

[barry_cochran]

<p>An article in my local paper today written by a Bree Fowler of the Associated Press says that Kodak is shedding photo operations and puts focus on printing technology. Quoting her "Kodak emerged from bankruptcy protection Tuesday vastly different from the company of old and gone are the cameras and film that made it famous."</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>'Quoting her "Kodak emerged from bankruptcy protection Tuesday vastly different from the company of old and gone are the cameras and film that made it famous."'<br>

<br /> Wholly misleading reporting for not explaining that "gone" doesn't mean "dead and gone" but effectively reorganized as Kodak Alaris. Film needs all the help it can get and this feeds the misapprehension Kodak doesn't make film any longer.</p>

[donnie_strickland]

<p>Agreed. It's exasperating seeing this kind of misleading story circulated by the AP.</p>

[wblynch]

It is up to Kodak Alaris and the others to correct the perception.

 

Maybe 2 or 3 dollars of advertising could help?

 

I don't think I have seen a Kodak Film ad since the Atlanta Olympics.