Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,247   Posts: 1,660,177   Online: 867
      
Page 9 of 31 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213141519 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 301
  1. #81
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,463
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Rogers View Post
    That was an uncalled for low blow...
    I said I did not dissagree with what Alan said.
    So, What is your point?

    What was it that prompted you to judge my comments
    by your assesment of my production experience
    rather than the content of what I said?

    Before you pick on the background of the little guy,
    go back and review the mistakes in you glossry!

    (Give me a holler if you need a hint)
    -----------------------------------------------

    Clean Air Clean Words to follow...
    Ray, as Sirius said above, your post quoted there was what made it rather obvious that you didn't have any experience in manufacturing processes and the costs involved at various scales.

    BTW, whatever did you mean by "the mistakes in you glossry"?

    PE

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Earth
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Moopheus View Post
    No, I suppose they didn't "have" to get so big; they were unfortunately saddled at one time with products that people actually wanted to buy. They could have decided, to restrain themselves. They could have said, Gee, you know, in the future, we won't be able to sell as much film and paper as we do today, so we'd better not build that new coating machine. We'll just tell people to buy Fuji instead.


    You make it sound like Kodak were the Beatles!

  3. #83
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,463
    Images
    65
    Rudeofus;

    No, the chemical companies that make kits are NOT equipped to coat film or paper. There is absolutely no crossover in either production facilities or coating.

    PE

  4. #84
    lns
    lns is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Rogers View Post
    How so?

    My

    the fact that KODAK is so huge is in large part a decesion...
    made out greed, not necessity.

    For example, paper can be made by the sheet as well as by the mile.


    simply meant that Kodak did not have to get so big,
    and that being big did not mean they had to stay big.

    Very true, and I understood your point at the time. Fear not: probably a lot of other people did too.

    I think you're right. But to me, that's water under the bridge. When Kodak expanded, the future looked bright and expansion seemed a good economic choice. It is fair to say that a lot of businesses have been blindsided by change.

    When it became clear that film was starting a major decline in sales, Ilford chose to restructure, get smaller and concentrate on black and white film. While Kodak chose to use the cash from film operations to try to turn into a digital company. Ilford's parent has a division that sells printer paper, by way, so it isn't film only either. Again, water under the bridge. Both were legitimate strategies. I prefer one but understand the other.

    I still maintain that there's too much panic in threads like this. We'll go crazy if we post about every negative prediction from every obscure stock tout or committed digital evangelist or negative nellie. I've been reading about the imminent death of film for five years now, and it's still here. I don't know about anybody else, but I bought some film from Kodak and Ilford this week, not to stick in a freezer, but to use. I'm shooting some of the new Portra 400 this weekend, and I can't wait to see the results.

    -Laura

  5. #85
    IloveTLRs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    the new switzerland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,056
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by brucemuir View Post
    I will truly be bummed when TriX is gone
    I will promptly slit my wrists
    Those who know, shoot film

  6. #86
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by alanrockwood View Post
    To oversimplify a bit, consider the following. A business typically has fixed costs and costs that vary with production. If sales dip below fixed costs then profits become negative, even if the the variable costs drop to zero. If a business is geared to run profitably at a sales volume of. let us say $10 billion, then fixed costs are probably fairly high, let us say for the sake of argument $500 million. If sales drop to $200 million (and assuming that production levels are well aligned with sales, i.e. neither over nor under production) the operation goes into the red.

    Also, for some types of business production is run in batches, and batches may have a minimum size. The product may also have a limited shelf life. I understand that film satisfies all these conditions. If the minimum batch size is relatively large, as would be typical of an operation designed for a high production rate, and if the sales rate drops too low then there will be waste as the unsold product expires on the shelf. The wasted product eats into profits, and in the worst case can cause the operation to go into the red.
    Although I agree regarding the different weight of certain costs on smaller production volume, when we - or Kodak - talk about "operating" profits they are not taking into account an important part of "fixed" costs, i.e. the cost of the plant.

    The cost of plant, machinery, buildings etc. is a multi-year investment the cost of which is detracted yearly as "amortization" (and depreciation, if any). The typical definition of operating income is income before depreciation, amortization, interest and taxes.

    Basically "operating" income it is not a real income, it just measure the revenues against variable costs or "fixed" costs that have to be repeated every year (such as insurance premiums, maintenance costs, surveillance etc).

    I am not an expert about coating, but I imagine that coating machines last for decades so, for the case of film, "operating" income is "more meaningful" than usual, if we are querying it to have answers about the sustainability of the operation.

    I don't write this to be nitpicking, only to show that operating income having into its belly mostly "variable" voices of cost it is easily "scalable", hence the fact that Kodak decreased production of film so much and kept operating income positive so long.

    Fabrizio
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    85
    Im happy that color production will be around for many years to come due to cine production even if it is in a spin off company, its B&W production that Im worried about.

    A quick napkin math puts me at 120,000 dollars to fund my film addiction for the rest of my natural life, might start making some investments in that soon.

  8. #88
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,463
    Images
    65
    All of you armchair economists have forgotten taxes which are higher in NYS than just about anywhere in the US, and here in Monroe county they are just about higher than anywhere in NYS. So, Kodak bears a HUGE burden in taxes and in fact, this was the reason that they were literally forced to demolish buildings that could have been renovated and rented out as office, lab or manufacturing space. It was less expensive to turn those buildings into grassy areas.

    As for the earlier comment about one sheet being as easy to coat as a mile, this is a very poor argument. The methods used to coat single sheets increase labor costs and defects. In fact, as you go from 1 mile to 1/2 mile, the costs are the same using the same equipment, but the idle time increases burden as the plant and machine must be kept tempered even when idle. So there are two ends to this train of scaling, the low end which is impossible on a production scale and the high end which is near impossible as you scale it back due to hidden costs.

    PE

  9. #89
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Regarding scalability, we should not forget that Kodak, even if it is an ill elephant, still is an elephant, and can carry a lot of weight with little effort.

    If one day they have to scale for a film production that is only 5% of current production, they will build new coating machines and, in the Kodak grand scheme of things, the cost will be a fly poo on the windscreen. So they can keep film production "forever" or until they are interested in having a presence in this sector (for future opportunities, that is).

    The problems are probably different:

    - Will it be possible to coat present emulsions on different machines? The change in scale might mean that some products have to go;
    - Will the big machines be scrapped? If yes, that means making harder the possibility of a resurgence of film in much bigger quantities, the firm should make a new investment in coating machines and that would mean being REALLY convinced the investment is going to repay in the next decades.

    From what I read, coating machines can be used, and are actually already used, for the production of certain digital goods (touchscreens or something like that). This is very nice to know because it means that there is a "return path" available in film production scale.

    Fabrizio
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  10. #90
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,463
    Images
    65
    Fabrizio, your arguments are totally wrong. It is a fact that Kodak (and Fuji AAMOF) are sick elephants and that scaling is not trivial nor inexpensive. It is also a fact that Kodak got rid of all of the old coating machines in order to make the high quality films we get today. It is a fallacy that you can coat one day and go idle for 6, as who keeps the machines hot and ready to go, how much does it cost etc. And, a machine can only run so slow with any degree of accuracy.

    It is like slowing down in an airplane. Eventually, you reach stalling speed! Then you fall!

    PE



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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