Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,963   Posts: 1,523,223   Online: 862
      
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 103
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE View Post
    Kodak selling inkjet printers does not affect their film business. Why would it? The only thing affecting their film business is volume of film sales. They are not going to stop selling film, just to sell inkjet printers. They will stop selling film when sales get to the point where manufacture is unprofitable. Kodak selling inkjet printers in an already crowded market is not going to make more people stop using film. You can make nice prints on many inkjet printers from scanned film.particularly in color.
    I agree. I don't believe I did insinuate that ink jet printers would affect film sales, actually.

    I don't wholly agree with your statement about when Kodak will stop selling film. I think that Kodak would try to find a buyer for the unit before it becomes unprofitable because if the unit becomes unprofitable it would be hard to find a buyer. Naturally, there are circumstances (e.g. huge run up in silver prices) that could cause a very sudden change. Most likely, that would have a detrimental impact on all film/paper manufacturers.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    I don't wholly agree with your statement about when Kodak will stop selling film. I think that Kodak would try to find a buyer for the unit before it becomes unprofitable because if the unit becomes unprofitable it would be hard to find a buyer.
    Kodak did find a buyer for its medical imaging division, however Kodak did not attempt to find a buyer for its black and white paper production, and just simply closed it down.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE View Post
    Kodak did find a buyer for its medical imaging division, however Kodak did not attempt to find a buyer for its black and white paper production, and just simply closed it down.
    True. I don't claim to know, though, whether the unit was profitable or not. They had a relatively new facility in Brazil that was coating it, though I believe the finishing was still being done in either Rochester or Canada. At least that's what an old empty box of Polycontrast IV RC (a short-lived paper that finally got Kodak to parity with Ilford in the RC market, IMO) that I saved states.

    Kodak has generally been #1 or #2 in its film and paper markets. I don't know what their market position was in B&W paper. I do know that they had recently discontinued their production of paper support for these products right after they opened the facility in Brazil.

    I guess it's forever destined to remain a mystery.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    . . . and still no disclosure from Aldevo. Just what is your agenda posting on APUG? I have trouble finding anything you have posted beyond doom and gloom connected to film production. Perhaps you are a day trader hoping to generate some activity.

    Now to stop the lunacy a bit, some history, which I should add is in the past Annual Reports and SEC reports that can be downloaded by anyone. Kodak decided to get more into the commercial printing business prior to Perez becoming CEO. One of the first companies purchased was in San Diego a company known as Encad, who produced plotters and wide format inkjet. You will never find such a printer in CompUSA, nor Best Buy, nor Office Depot. This move was to place them more into commercial graphic arts supplies, though that business community did not highly regard Encad printers. Next step was to get a portion of printing technology from Heidelberg, who had a desire to leave part of the market segment. After that was the recent purchase of Creo . . . and suddenly Kodak went from a small player barely in commercial printing and graphic arts supplies, into about the largest player in the industry. All these company purchases cost a ton of money, which relates directly to many of the charges filed in those EK SEC reports. The idea of all this was that the consumer market would not provide the bulk of revenues and profits, and also that emerging markets around the world have been experiencing a greater demand for printed materials.

    Okay, so none of that directly relates to consumer films, consumer inkjet printers, nor consumer compact digital cameras. Kodak's early investment in digital imaging was bleeding money, though their were two hopes tied to the investment. The first was that people shooting a higher volume of images would be printing a higher volume of images. This was the prediction from numerous PMAI reports, and from big predictors like Gartner Group. What actually happened was that few of these new technology camera owners actually printed anything, so the idea of profits from printing to offset losses from the cameras did not happen. Then came the kiosk idea, including an EK purchase of some interesting technology, and again the amount of usage of these kiosks did not offset losses. Almost coinciding with that was the idea of home printing of images, and as maybe should have been expected, sales were low and few people took up this route, so no high profit inks and papers to offset digital imaging losses. The other idea was that once a company got enough market share, they could then raise prices to generate a profit; so far this has not worked for any players in this market other than Nikon (and yes, Canon offset losses through their business and office printing division), though I should point out that is from 2005 figures, so maybe a slight change (though again, that is more than six years losses for any company in this market segment).

    Onwards to Kodak Polychrome Graphics (KPG), now mostly under the GCG. At one point, KPG was remarketing a printer using mostly HP parts (DesignJet series, not consumer printers). While the quality was better than their Encad offerings, I would imagine Kodak wanted their own solution (Perez was CEO at this point). The offerings were towards the business and professional markets.

    Then came a reorganization of divisions within Kodak, and how those divisions were reported in the SEC reports. When losses from one division might be cause for concern, then lump them into another division that is still generating a profit. Thus digital imaging got lumped with consumer films into consumer imaging, and a slight profit was shown. Finding out the internal numbers, detailed breakdowns, product specific earning, et al. are not required in SEC reports; so comments on those aspects could only be speculation.

    Another item not often mentioned is Kodak investing heavily into Lucky Film in China. As part of that agreement a few years ago, Kodak signed a 20 year funding promiss to Lucky Film. Kodak have at least 16 years left on that agreement. The downside on the agreement was that Kodak wanted a larger share of ownership of Lucky Film, though the Chinese government limited that part of the agreement. However, Kodak has a foot in the Chinese market, and can see some profits from this (mostly film based) investment.

    So in conclusion, consumer film profits prop up consumer digital losses at Kodak. Without another redistribution and change in structure on SEC reports, to get rid of consumer films would mean EK would need to show losses in consumer imaging. A more likely occurance is Kodak subcontracting compact digital camera construction, or selling off that division, while retaining the profitable chip making group. Another possibility is moving more production to China, though unless the Chinese government changes their foreign ownership stance, it might be quite a while until that happens, if ever. In other words, several things need to happen at Kodak prior to anything happening with consumer films.

    Note: I have a stack of SEC reports on EK just over 2' high sitting in my office. There is no way practical for me to type out that much, to give even more detail. I encourage anyone to read the SEC reports of the last eight years. Those even more interested in this should read the last six years PMAI reports, and consider paying for a couple Gartner Group reports on the consumer imaging and photofinishing markets.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio
    Last edited by HerrBremerhaven; 02-02-2007 at 01:49 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: spelling

  5. #35
    Petzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Europe
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    857
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    Kodak has generally been #1 or #2 in its film and paper markets. I don't know what their market position was in B&W paper.
    I can say that their b/w paper was never really available in Germany. 10 - 20 years ago, you could buy Agfa, Labaphot, Ilford and maybe some Kentmere paper, but Kodak paper was never seen in any stores; I think it wasn't distributed by Kodak in Germany at all.
    If you're not taking your camera...there's no reason to travel. --APUG member bgilwee

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    378
    I don't see it mentioned on this thread, but Kodak did just sell it's X-ray imaging division to some Candadian company last month. I sincerely hope they don't sell of their film division. It's important to keep objective and realize that Kodak is doing as much as it can without bankrupting itself to keep its film business alive. Sustaining profitability, as painful as most of you make that out to be, is the best strategy for ensuring that Kodak continues to offer the best line of films possible. Sorry, but B&W took a huge plunge when papers went digital. I wish it weren't so, but it is. A forum full of diehard film shooters here couldn't save Kodak's line of papers. In fact a lot of people knocked them even after Polycontrast IV came out, so I find it quite puzzling that a group so critical of Kodak's line of papers can treat it so harshly for taking action based in part on the B&W community abandoning Kodak's B&W products. As always, actions (buying) speak louder than words. I hope Ilford takes this to heart.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmIs4Ever View Post
    I don't see it mentioned on this thread, but Kodak did just sell it's X-ray imaging division to some Candadian company last month. I sincerely hope they don't sell of their film division. It's important to keep objective and realize that Kodak is doing as much as it can without bankrupting itself to keep its film business alive. Sustaining profitability, as painful as most of you make that out to be, is the best strategy for ensuring that Kodak continues to offer the best line of films possible. Sorry, but B&W took a huge plunge when papers went digital. I wish it weren't so, but it is. A forum full of diehard film shooters here couldn't save Kodak's line of papers. In fact a lot of people knocked them even after Polycontrast IV came out, so I find it quite puzzling that a group so critical of Kodak's line of papers can treat it so harshly for taking action based in part on the B&W community abandoning Kodak's B&W products. As always, actions (buying) speak louder than words. I hope Ilford takes this to heart.
    I agree with your post. Ultimately, when wedding photography went digital - the writing was on the wall. But I don't think EK really set themselves up to succeed in the B&W paper market - yes, they had Azo which nobody else really had - but they created serious gaps in their B&W paper lineup.

    Given Simon Galley's involvement - I think Ilford is doing everything it can to try to sustain interest in analog B&W. Which, naturally, makes a great deal of sense for them to do

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrBremerhaven View Post
    . . . and still no disclosure from Aldevo. Just what is your agenda posting on APUG? I have trouble finding anything you have posted beyond doom and gloom connected to film production. Perhaps you are a day trader hoping to generate some activity.

    Now to stop the lunacy a bit, some history, which I should add is in the past Annual Reports and SEC reports that can be downloaded by anyone. Kodak decided to get more into the commercial printing business prior to Perez becoming CEO. One of the first companies purchased was in San Diego a company known as Encad, who produced plotters and wide format inkjet. You will never find such a printer in CompUSA, nor Best Buy, nor Office Depot. This move was to place them more into commercial graphic arts supplies, though that business community did not highly regard Encad printers. Next step was to get a portion of printing technology from Heidelberg, who had a desire to leave part of the market segment. After that was the recent purchase of Creo . . . and suddenly Kodak went from a small player barely in commercial printing and graphic arts supplies, into about the largest player in the industry. All these company purchases cost a ton of money, which relates directly to many of the charges filed in those EK SEC reports. The idea of all this was that the consumer market would not provide the bulk of revenues and profits, and also that emerging markets around the world have been experiencing a greater demand for printed materials.

    Okay, so none of that directly relates to consumer films, consumer inkjet printers, nor consumer compact digital cameras. Kodak's early investment in digital imaging was bleeding money, though their were two hopes tied to the investment. The first was that people shooting a higher volume of images would be printing a higher volume of images. This was the prediction from numerous PMAI reports, and from big predictors like Gartner Group. What actually happened was that few of these new technology camera owners actually printed anything, so the idea of profits from printing to offset losses from the cameras did not happen. Then came the kiosk idea, including an EK purchase of some interesting technology, and again the amount of usage of these kiosks did not offset losses. Almost coinciding with that was the idea of home printing of images, and as maybe should have been expected, sales were low and few people took up this route, so no high profit inks and papers to offset digital imaging losses. The other idea was that once a company got enough market share, they could then raise prices to generate a profit; so far this has not worked for any players in this market other than Nikon (and yes, Canon offset losses through their business and office printing division), though I should point out that is from 2005 figures, so maybe a slight change (though again, that is more than six years losses for any company in this market segment).

    Onwards to Kodak Polychrome Graphics (KPG), now mostly under the GCG. At one point, KPG was remarketing a printer using mostly HP parts (DesignJet series, not consumer printers). While the quality was better than their Encad offerings, I would imagine Kodak wanted their own solution (Perez was CEO at this point). The offerings were towards the business and professional markets.

    Then came a reorganization of divisions within Kodak, and how those divisions were reported in the SEC reports. When losses from one division might be cause for concern, then lump them into another division that is still generating a profit. Thus digital imaging got lumped with consumer films into consumer imaging, and a slight profit was shown. Finding out the internal numbers, detailed breakdowns, product specific earning, et al. are not required in SEC reports; so comments on those aspects could only be speculation.

    Another item not often mentioned is Kodak investing heavily into Lucky Film in China. As part of that agreement a few years ago, Kodak signed a 20 year funding promiss to Lucky Film. Kodak have at least 16 years left on that agreement. The downside on the agreement was that Kodak wanted a larger share of ownership of Lucky Film, though the Chinese government limited that part of the agreement. However, Kodak has a foot in the Chinese market, and can see some profits from this (mostly film based) investment.

    So in conclusion, consumer film profits prop up consumer digital losses at Kodak. Without another redistribution and change in structure on SEC reports, to get rid of consumer films would mean EK would need to show losses in consumer imaging. A more likely occurance is Kodak subcontracting compact digital camera construction, or selling off that division, while retaining the profitable chip making group. Another possibility is moving more production to China, though unless the Chinese government changes their foreign ownership stance, it might be quite a while until that happens, if ever. In other words, several things need to happen at Kodak prior to anything happening with consumer films.

    Note: I have a stack of SEC reports on EK just over 2' high sitting in my office. There is no way practical for me to type out that much, to give even more detail. I encourage anyone to read the SEC reports of the last eight years. Those even more interested in this should read the last six years PMAI reports, and consider paying for a couple Gartner Group reports on the consumer imaging and photofinishing markets.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio
    Disclosure of what?...EK hasn't announced they're going to do anything where the film division is concerned. I never said they did.

    Btw: You'll not that I made serveral other posts on different topics during the past week.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    I agree with your post. Ultimately, when wedding photography went digital - the writing was on the wall.
    Umm, I must have missed the memo at the studio mandating that all future weddings must be shot with digital. Maybe you mean a different type of wedding photography other than the type I do? Newspapers are virtually 100% digital (I'm probably one of maybe a dozen photojournalists using film for college papers, and that's because I lie about it, scan it, de-grain it, and down res it to the point that only a skilled observer can even tell that it is film); frankly weddings are probably one of the last bastions with maybe 40-50% of the market (I mean pro wedding photographers too, not Uncle Bobs) still shooting film. Informal tally of other wedding photographers I see while I'm shooting a wedding of my own says it's virtually 50-50 in my neck of the woods. Compared with school photography, which is 90% digital according to a lab that would know, 40% is pretty damned good. Think of the countless 100 foot rolls of 70mm school studios are no longer buying. I take a roll of B&W film along to almost every wedding I shoot. Even if I load it in its own Mamiya RB back, it has *never* gotten used due to "time constraints". Everyone is rush rush rush on their wedding days and most people are too bothered to consider doing pictures a few days beforehand to take some of the pressure off. So B&W, except for the high-end photographers with couples willing to take time off for a private session, has been replaced by "Panalure B&W" in my line of work for quite some time now. We have weddings going back to the '60s that are all color.

    B&W was only around in papers because it was cheap, easy to develop under a wide range of conditions, and because a lot of papers were almost entirely B&W until the turn of the century. Remember when only the front page was in color, and usually only for special events? Even in the '90s, some figures I saw indicated that color negative film constituted over 90% of all film shot (as opposed to E6 and B&W), with most of that volume being generated by amateurs.

    All the Photo I students in the world, 6x7cm Playboy nipple shots, and National Geographic photo correspondance, and newspaper football pictures in the world only made a maybe 5% dent in overall film consumption. When amateurs started to abandon film in favor of digital, it's no wonder that Kodak took notice that the other 90+% of its market was moving its monies elsewhere. The only thing that is keeping film alive right now is Hollywood's massive 9 billion foot/year film consumption. Frankly, it's charity for them to keep making anything in B&W or E6, when C-41 and movie films are the only two lines still making them money.

    Sorry, but I really can't fathom how people think that the few hundred or few thousand feet of film they buy every year is significant compared with the billions of feet amateurs are no longer buying. How can pro photographers be so oblivous to the amateur machine that was and hopefully still will continue to fuel film coating?

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmIs4Ever View Post
    Sorry, but I really can't fathom how people think that the few hundred or few thousand feet of film they buy every year is significant compared with the billions of feet amateurs are no longer buying. How can pro photographers be so oblivous to the amateur machine that was and hopefully still will continue to fuel film coating?
    I think the movie film industry is actually funding film coating. The trend in recent years is to release films all over the country at once, necessitating thousands of prints of every movie. This used to not be so. 35mm film runs at 90ft minute, so you can see that an average length feature can use up 10,000 ft. of film x 2400 prints= huge, huge film requirements. yep, it must be movies, even with the sloooooow adoption of digital projection, that is still providing the profit picture.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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