Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,553   Posts: 1,544,984   Online: 682
      
Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 155
  1. #81
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    I just saw the death of Kodak paper announced on MSNBCs "Market Wrap" show. Seeing it in the general media really brings it home.

    Kodabromide... Polycontrast... Polymax... Ah, 35 years of good memories.
    The end of an era.
    I guess I'll pour myself a drink and croak out a chorus of that dreadful, incipid Kodak theme song:

    "Goodmorning yesterday.
    You wake up, and time has slipped away.
    And suddenly it's hard to find,
    The memories you left behind.

    Do you remember the times of your life?"
    [Sniffle, sniffle]
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

  2. #82
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,684
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by blaughn
    Don't forget - they will be cutting all of the people loose as well. There is a sudden glut of people who understand photographic emulsions.
    In general I think this just represents a whole lot of lost knowledge as most of these people won't go back into the same field.

  3. #83
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,560
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    Let's say in a few years Kodak decides to drop film. I have seen people like Michael A. Smith stock discontinued film in a large freezer. I'd probably just get a normal sized chest freezer and fill it up with 8x10 tri-x. What kind of lifespan would the film have kept frozen? 5-10-20 years? From what I gather it is cosmic rays that can fog the film over time? I see NASA is developing an electromagnetic field device which repels these rays but unfortunately it will be out of our grasp..

  4. #84
    ann
    ann is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,878
    Images
    26
    at one time Kodak had more scientist on payroll than NASA. In the late 70's they stopped all RD with B&W products. the last "new" product was Xtol.

    they have been going down this road for a long time

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean
    Let's say in a few years Kodak decides to drop film. I have seen people like Michael A. Smith stock discontinued film in a large freezer. I'd probably just get a normal sized chest freezer and fill it up with 8x10 tri-x. What kind of lifespan would the film have kept frozen? 5-10-20 years? From what I gather it is cosmic rays that can fog the film over time? I see NASA is developing an electromagnetic field device which repels these rays but unfortunately it will be out of our grasp..
    Yep, I am going to start stocking on Tmx 400 and buy a box every chance I get.
    My guess is that we have 7 years at the most. I dont know Canadian tax laws, but I am guessing they will try to depreciate the new plant in 10 years (3 of which have gone by) and then they will shut it down. In the mean time, it is time to start learning how to make film or glass plates...

  6. #86
    MattCarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,303
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    Yep, I am going to start stocking on Tmx 400 and buy a box every chance I get.
    My guess is that we have 7 years at the most. I dont know Canadian tax laws, but I am guessing they will try to depreciate the new plant in 10 years (3 of which have gone by) and then they will shut it down. In the mean time, it is time to start learning how to make film or glass plates...
    I don't have an MBA or anything, but I think that the tax advantages come before the depreciation is over. If they scrap an item (or whole plant) that still has some book-value, they can claim that as a loss, I believe.

    Not that I am suggesting that this is in Kodak's plan.

    Matt

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Flotsam
    If Kodak is making a buck a box I agree, they are too stupid to exist.
    Take 'em away Darwin... Book 'em, incompetence One.
    Best of luck in the digital shark pool.
    Where does that leave Agfa and Ilford who *lost* a buck a box?

    Clearly they must have done that or worse.

  8. #88

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Chinn
    I would not hold out much hope about Kodak selling any of its proprietary formulas or product lines. Once Kodak completely seprates itself from film, film cameras and film become the enemy. Once they are totally digital every film camera sale, every wet print made at home and every roll of film sold regardless of mfg takes away potential revenue. Any company that is concentrating on digital wants to see the total extinction of film and film cameras.

    The timing of things such as this announcement are usually tied to upcoming earnings reports (to help cushion fallout from a bad report) or to demonstrate that a new CEO is aggresive in his strategic outlook.

    I think one reason we have not read about discontinuing of film is that they need to save that announcement for when they need to pump up the stock price.
    Cutting jobs, closing factories and dropping marginal product lines is music to the ears of the institutional investors who probably control most Kodak stock in various mutual funds and large holding companies.
    I think that you're right on a couple points. Kodak's bond rating took a hit at the same time Antonio Perez was named the successor to Carp. A bone had to get thrown, it seems.

    I don't think Kodak is getting out of film yet, though. My guess is that they got whacked over the head by their auditors over the depreciation valuation of the stuff in Brazil...plus, they were already planning to write off their paper base-producing facility. Their market positions in film and chemicals is stronger than in paper.

    I have heard, incidentally, that Kodak was having difficulties getting their new German supplier to provide material for the plant in Brazil. No idea whether it's true and I doubt we'll ever know.

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by MattCarey
    I don't have an MBA or anything, but I think that the tax advantages come before the depreciation is over. If they scrap an item (or whole plant) that still has some book-value, they can claim that as a loss, I believe.

    Not that I am suggesting that this is in Kodak's plan.

    Matt
    I think you hit the nail on the head!

    Kodak's film operations may be becoming last profitable, but they can still claim healthy deprecation which is added back to their cash flow. And it's cash flow that determines bond rating.

    I suspect that the Brazil facilities residual value was questioned and they threw in the towel. All speculation but it seems otherwise strange they would close the facility a mere 16 months or so after moving all B&W paper production there.

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by jovo
    I disagree. If (and of course they do) their fomulae have monetary value, they'll absolutely sell them. It would be irresponsible not to. There is a legal compulsion to generate the greatest return to investors as a condition of incorporation as a publically traded company. Besides...since Kodak has determined that the/their future is digital...what difference would the miniscule fine art black and white printing paper market make to them anyhow? Enemy?... Hardly.

    (On the other hand, everything I just said makes sense, at least to me. So to assume that logic will rule the corporate mind requires an enormous leap of faith and a large dose of naivete. I could be quite wrong ;-))
    I wish you were right, but I don't think so.

    If Kodak wants to write down the investment then they can't be getting licensing fees from them. There auditors (or the people who audit the auditors!) would raise a hue and cry.

    I suspect there aren't many parties out there who could/would give them enough in license revenue to inspire them to forego the write-off.

Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin