The end for Kodak?

[CGW]

'But suggesting that film in general will all unravel just doesn't add up. And right now there are plenty
folks interested in some kind of darkroom work. Cumulatively, that will keep somone in business making the necessary supplies.'

Right...The earth probably does look flat from where you're standing, too. Same old denial and magical thinking. Sorry!

[DREW WILEY]

My mistake ... thought I was on APUG, but obviously stumbled onto the cell-phone-camera forum.
Just where do you think commercial display photography is going to come from if high-end output options are going extinct? And just how many times do you think studios are going to amortize new
equipment outlays every five years? Right now I'm about to coach a studio photographer in large
format FILM use because he can't deliver competitive quality digitally. And believe me, this ain't the
flat part of the earth - I'm right smack dab in the heart of the tech empire, and I grew up right smack on the second deepest canyon on the continent. Flatlander I'm not. You'd be amazed at how
many Silicon Valley types on the trail ask to look under my darkcloth and with they had darkrooms
of their own. They guys who invent this stuff still know the difference, even if some of the moles
inflitrating this forum don't. Change is inevitable, but everything digital will change too, and probably
a lot faster. We'll see what goes extinct first.

[keithwms]

Could I ask a favour? Could some of you please give your personal opinions on the future of pyro developers? I think that'd make this even better.

[Rudeofus]

I see no documentation that film is profitable for Kodak, nor has been for the last 5 years. Their financials statements all say otherwise, as does the demolition of the facilities as they race to downsize. I see no signs of stabilization, just decline.

PE has commented extensively on the profitability, and he suggests money was shifted from the film division to the money losing digital branch to lower the overall tax burden. Tearing down excess facilities only means the market has declined, not that the remaining part loses money. And I have to remind you again: the current decline in film sales at Kodak comes from movie film, not photographic still film. Movie film, especially print film might well go away in the next few years, I don't know. The question is, whether one can make only color photographic film at the current volumes profitably. But still: Ilford, Foma, Adox and Efke couldn't care less about movie print film sales.

Real asset destruction is a loss of money and capital. Always. the decline of film sales is what killed Kodak on the balance sheet. There was no way management could have stopped that trend. What they did botch was management of their original digital lead.

Well, technically they could have used the excess money from their film branch to fund a proper downscale of their operations. As people here have already said, stock holders would have revolted against this because it would have devalued their stock. Well, look where this got them ....

Investors and creditors of emulsion production will be afraid to our good money after bad, especially where there is consumer market uncertainty.

And photographic film is the only uncertain market right now ....

Others have mentioned that Kodaks film business was mostly profitable even in the last 10 years. Kodak with its long time monopoly status used to be very generous when it came to worker compensation and retirement benefits, and they are paying dearly for this now. A chapter 11 might well release them from this burden and turn them into a quite profitable film business at 1/10 of their current size (or at their current size if the movie industry wants).

There will be investors who will invest in a profitable business and others who won't touch anything film related and rather invest in the next AAA rated pile of fertilizer (lots of growth potential here! ).

If colour film goes away, a lot of analog shooters will too. That will impact B&W sales from any source. A smaller aggregate market will increase prices substantially. This bodes poorly for a very small player like Ilford.

If the APUG forum is any indication, I'd say the vast majority of current analog shooters use mostly B&W. Ilford won't be harmed but rather see a boost if former users of Kodak's color offerings pour into the B&W market. If Kodak completely stops making B&W film, Ilford makes a close enough match for every Kodak B&W film (PlusX/FP4, TriX/HP5, TMax/Delta).

You don't have to buy a new digital camera either. That's your version of doom and gloom. There are certain economic advantages to digital in that every shot after original purchase gets less expensive and with analog it gets more expensive. And the dominant history of film cameras is of near-throwaway models. Refinancing Kodak's emulsion facilities for a market using 20 year-old cameras bought and sold off auction sites is going to raise question marks by anyone financing the Kodak leftovers. The credit will be short term, very expensive, and collateralized. That's a tough sell.

The near throwaway models have been thrown away by now or are (not) sold to collectors for 1$ a piece. Even photographic doofuses like me own high end professional cameras which would have been completely out of reach pipe dreams just 10 years ago, and these cameras will most likely be serviceable for decades to come.

There are a much more pressing dangers to Kodak's credit options: a huge unprofitable digital branch which can't even sell their patent portfolio for a reasonable price and the aforementioned burden from previous golden decades in the form of huge pension and health benefit liabilities.

*You* may go through a lot of film, but the market may require more proof that if you get hit by a bus there's someone to fill your shoes. Investors need to see the customer not yet on the horizon. A declining overall demand and no means to stabilize demand with new products (Lomo gets it correct) is the problem, both for analog film and MP film.

That bus hitting me might put a small dent in the film/chem/paper sales in my town but it's not going to put anyone out of business. Investors do see customers for Fuji, Ilford, Foma, Efke, Adox and others. If Kodak really goes away and if its product line gets chucked, I'd be somewhat afraid for color film, but B&W would rather thrive than wither.

[CGW]

My mistake ... thought I was on APUG, but obviously stumbled onto the cell-phone-camera forum.
Just where do you think commercial display photography is going to come from if high-end output options are going extinct? And just how many times do you think studios are going to amortize new
equipment outlays every five years? Right now I'm about to coach a studio photographer in large
format FILM use because he can't deliver competitive quality digitally. And believe me, this ain't the
flat part of the earth - I'm right smack dab in the heart of the tech empire, and I grew up right smack on the second deepest canyon on the continent. Flatlander I'm not. You'd be amazed at how
many Silicon Valley types on the trail ask to look under my darkcloth and with they had darkrooms
of their own. They guys who invent this stuff still know the difference, even if some of the moles
inflitrating this forum don't. Change is inevitable, but everything digital will change too, and probably
a lot faster. We'll see what goes extinct first.

Funny how the ad/editorial world seems to be getting along without film. People I'm acquainted are getting by nicely(i.e., profitably)without it.

Think you're suffering a wee bit of hypoxemia under that dark cloth.

[DREW WILEY]

I know people who hold digital photog patents who do their personal work on film for quality reasons
and not just for fun. Plenty of C-paper is still being sold. I can even walk into the local camera store
here and they've got stacks of Crystal Archive in the freezer and stacks of 4x5 color film in the refrig. The schools and UC teach with it. Commercial printers still use it. On the other hand, my friend
who does tabletop food photography with a Betterlight has only a finite time to get that serviced;
it is already defacto extinct, and there's no real substitute. Scanners are getting difficult to maintain. Large format color film still really has no practical substitute in the long run. But no, not
any flat earth around here, either topographically or intellectually. And we fine-art printers are pretty
small in volume compared to commercial display applications, which still demand good detail and color
reproduction, especially for cosmetics ads etc (big dollars). I don't have any crystal ball either, but
I suspect some version of high-end film will be around until there's a REAL digital substitute.

[Rudeofus]

Funny how the ad/editorial world seems to be getting along without film. People I'm acquainted are getting by nicely(i.e., profitably)without it.

People apparently get by profitably with this kind of work, too. What does it prove, though?

Think you're suffering a wee bit of hypoxemia under that dark cloth.

How often are you going to retry writing this? It just got deleted before ....

[Ken Nadvornick]

People apparently get by profitably with this kind of work, too.

Oh dear...

Those are hilarious!

Ken

[keithwms]

People apparently get by profitably with this kind of work, too. What does it prove, though?

Wow, that was painful to look at! The best comment: "eye-gougingly awful."

[CGW]

People apparently get by profitably with this kind of work, too. What does it prove, though?

How often are you going to retry writing this? It just got deleted before ....

Feel free to shadowbox all you like. That you can't/won't accept what's happened in the past decade is your burden. To say film is different is fine by me but to say it's better is pointless and does nothing to make a case for film. BTW, did you watch the Monty Python clip?