Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,856   Posts: 1,583,001   Online: 1085
      
Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 219
  1. #11
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    Resurgence or no resurgence, taking perfectly fine products off the market, possibly to replace them with a 'please all' variant would not sound like good news.
    Good news it can be, if the new film they give us instead of the two we can use now is indeed as good as at least one of them. And then, for those of us who liked the other one better it's bad news.

    And even if the new film would be one we like, it still means there is less choice. No opportunity to select either one of the now discontinued variants to suit a scene or purpose. We have to use that single new one instead.

    This could well be a sign that the film market is in fact no longer capable of sustaining two similar but different products.
    The talk about a resurgence could well be no more than an attempt to give a positive spin to what really is bad news about a situation that already wasn't so good.

    So "good news"?
    Wait and see, i'd say.

    I think they're under a lot of pressure to cut costs, so if they think they can combine two into one and not lose money from it, they're likely to do it. The rationale seems to be that scanning predominates now, so saturation can be adjusted after the shoot, therefore no need for two different films.

    If you print optically, I guess you have to take what they give you.

    I suspect that what you say about spin is so, at least in part. They consolidate two into one, then are able to announce a brand new film.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North America just north of that sharp right turn North America makes on the Atlantic coast.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    Let me first say that I am a big fan of Kodak, and I like their products, I also like their get them while they are young mentality of making a wide range of consumer films and disposable cameras to help grow a market of young people that might just continue to shoot film. Please tell me what Fuji and Ilford are doing to get more people into photography, you know the low end consumers that will buy the low end film that helps pay for these companies to make high end pro films?

    That said, yes it sucks that Kodak dropped 400 VC and NC in favor of a middle of the road Portra 400 but the reality of it is that Kodak makes four pro color negative films, when Ektar 100 came in something was going to have to go.

    So lets step back and look at this, Kodak is making five pro color negative films, four consumer color negative films (if you count 400 HD), two silver black and white films, and the BW400CN, then they have three slide films. By my count Kodak is turning out fifteen different films that are readily available for people to buy locally or via mail order, there are others but they are hard to find. If I want to walk into a store and buy film I can buy seven different Kodak films or three Fuji films at drug stores within 10 minuets drive of my home. If I want a roll of Ilford I'm looking at a two hour round trip. Now I will admit that Fuji does make a wide range of films with about eighteen, but their offering of readily available films is about as narrow as Kodak's if you really look at it, and Ilford is just as bad with eight films, and I feel they don't really reach out to the low end snap shooter at all here in the states especially with their cryptic film naming system.

    Kodak is going to continue to "adjust" their professional lines of film, and if you look at it closely they are following trends in fashion just like everyone else. Kodak Gold is a bread and butter product for Kodak and they don't mess with it all that much or all that often, if they only made that in 120, 220, and sheet film, that would be something and because it's Kodak Gold they wouldn't mess with it.

    Finally don't let it get to you, Kodak isn't doing this out of some kind of personal vendetta against you, It's me that they hate.
    "Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
    "Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"

    Me

  3. #13
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,636
    Images
    48
    <sigh...>

    Kodak's oft-repeated, long-term, strategic goals have not changed. Film is now, and will continue to be until it's no longer required, a transition product for Kodak. Minor market upticks or downticks are not going to cause Kodak's CEO to suddenly experience an epiphany, slap his head in realization of his own ignorance, and call in the press to announce the scrapping of that long-term strategy. Kodak's future has already been wagered on that strategy. The futures of all past and present employees who still depend on Kodak have already been wagered on that strategy. The Kodak CEO's future has already been wagered on that strategy. That strategy will not change.

    There may well be a slight to moderate resurgence in demand for film. The anecdotal evidence seems to point in that direction. This would be very good news for those companies whose long-term strategic goals lie in that direction. But Kodak is already well past the tipping point of no return...

    <sigh...>

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  4. #14
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,225
    Quote Originally Posted by stillsilver View Post
    Four months from now Kodak will announce that it is completely halting all film production. In another four months they will say film will be around forever. I have shot a lot of Kodak in my lifetime but none in the last 15 years. It has been Agfa, Fuji, or Ilford.

    Mike
    And your point is? An American that hates American companies?
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    How does 'Americaness' figure in this?

    And its it really forbidden to dislike what any american company does if you are an american?

    And by "an American", you mean someone from where exactly? Costa Rica? Canada? Does Kodak have a manufacturing plant in Belize?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,915
    Images
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    <sigh...>

    Kodak's oft-repeated, long-term, strategic goals have not changed. Film is now, and will continue to be until it's no longer required, a transition product for Kodak. Minor market upticks or downticks are not going to cause Kodak's CEO to suddenly experience an epiphany, slap his head in realization of his own ignorance, and call in the press to announce the scrapping of that long-term strategy. Kodak's future has already been wagered on that strategy. The futures of all past and present employees who still depend on Kodak have already been wagered on that strategy. The Kodak CEO's future has already been wagered on that strategy. That strategy will not change.

    There may well be a slight to moderate resurgence in demand for film. The anecdotal evidence seems to point in that direction. This would be very good news for those companies whose long-term strategic goals lie in that direction. But Kodak is already well past the tipping point of no return...

    <sigh...>

    Ken

    As often said, as long as we buy film Kodak will keep making it.

    Tom

  7. #17
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,705
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    And its it really forbidden to dislike what any american company does if you are an american?
    It does certainly seem that way to us non Americans.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  8. #18
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,636
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Kershaw View Post
    As often said, as long as we buy film Kodak will keep making it.
    With respect, Tom, I do not believe that to be universally true. There are more variables at play at Kodak than simple single product (or product line) supply and demand.

    Business history is replete with examples of companies that killed product lines that were marginally profitable in order to reallocate the freed resources to different product lines that, in their estimation, held the potential for higher profit returns.

    A current photographic example might be Leica, if the rumors are true. The rumor is that Leica has suspended production on the M-series mechanical cameras in order to switch their production resources over to their digital line. Prior to the digital line Leica did not go out of business, so the mechanical line must have still been marginally profitable. But in their estimation those production resources will now return more if shifted away from mechanical.

    Business is not all about making money. It's all about making the most money, regardless of any other considerations. Product lines exist - or are killed - solely to serve that goal. Legacy demand and customer loyalty have little to do with those decisions.

    I seem to remember reading that General Electric once began downsizing their world-class electrical R&D facilities in favor of selling life insurance. The result? From Wikipedia*:

    "Since over half of GE's revenue is derived from financial services, it is arguably a financial company with a manufacturing arm."

    And so it will be with Kodak. They have told us over and over they do not want to be in the film business anymore. For the moment, however, they must be in it. So they will continue to invest in film R&D only to the extent that it serves their stated longer range non-film strategy. We will continue to see some film upgrades that simply disguise product line downsizings. The upgrades themselves will be real, but not significant to Kodak's (or more significantly, our) longer range goals.

    Ken

    * I am aware that Wikipedia is a non-peer reviewed resource (well, at least in the traditional sense) and as such is inherently questionable. But this quote does mirror what I've read in the past from other resources.
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,915
    Images
    66
    Ken. Thanks for your response. However as far as I understand the "film manufacturing" devision of Kodak produces more profit than some other areas of their business. I'd be interested to know your view on Kodak's efforts in the consumer inkjet sector?

    Tom

  10. #20
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,636
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Kershaw View Post
    Ken. Thanks for your response. However as far as I understand the "film manufacturing" devision of Kodak produces more profit than some other areas of their business. I'd be interested to know your view on Kodak's efforts in the consumer inkjet sector?
    That may very well be true at the moment. But it's not long-term significant. Kodak's stated choice is to go digital. Period. That choice was made back when film still supplied virtually all of their income. Yet they made it anyway. And since making that choice all of their actions have been in support of that choice, and that choice only. Profits from film manufacturing - by Kodak's very own admission - still exist only to serve that long-term goal.

    My only observation regarding consumer inkjet is anecdotal. Photographic consumer inkjet exists for the purpose of printing digital images. Since the time Kodak made its choice to go digital, I've been on the lookout in public for people who were using Kodak digital cameras. In the last five years I could count on one hand the number of Kodak Easyshare cameras I've actually spotted in public.

    Without a base of dedicated Kodak camera users to purchase them, Kodak's inkjet products must then compete head-to-head with everyone else's inkjet products. My guess is that they cannot be generating huge profits. But I may very well be completely wrong about that as I don't follow Kodak's digital offerings at all.

    I'm off now to go shoot some Kodachrome. It's a rare sunny day here in the Pacific Northwest. I've got 4 rolls and 33 exposures left to go. Then my lifetime association with Kodak ends. Not by my choice. By theirs...

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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