Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,685   Posts: 1,548,546   Online: 1117
      
Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 175
  1. #81
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,062
    Images
    65
    I hope that you realize that the film division at EK is doing well. If you abandon a working enterprise, you only push them into problems. So, do what you wish, but I hope you realize that you, and you alone are saying things that for the most part will end up furthering the woes at EK.

    If your actions help "kill" Kodak, that just reduces the actors in the field by 1, and it will be a major player gone!

    Good luck for the future.

    PE

  2. #82
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,334
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    I hope that you realize that the film division at EK is doing well. If you abandon a working enterprise, you only push them into problems.

    [...]

    If your actions help "kill" Kodak...
    By design I have been not substantively posting to this thread topic, as have many other longer time members after the last major Kodak eruption. No need to rehash my personal viewpoints on the subject that most of those members have already heard, and which have not changed.

    That said, however, I can't let this pass without asking in good faith...

    For years now we have heard that the film operations at Kodak are in dire - if not deathly - straits. Consumer film is almost extinct. Film distribution of motion pictures is almost extinct, or trending in that direction. Medical and scientific use of film is almost exinct.

    We've also been told that this seismic (disruptive technology) shift figuratively occurred in near milliseconds. Film sales dropped a gazillion percent in only a few hours in 2008. No one could have forseen it. All film manufacturers suffered deeply because of it. And the condition never subsequently mitigated. It's now the new normal. It's never going to be like it was, or even anything remotely similar.

    And one of the more prominent voices behind these viewpoints has been, well, you know who...

    Now you're telling us that "...the film division at EK is doing well." And that if we "abandon a working enterprise, [we] only push them into problems."

    Say what?

    I'm now more than a little confused. We've heard for years that we remaining film consumers are pretty much inconsequential to Kodak's bottom line, and by extension to its (digital) future. So how can our actions one way or the other "help 'kill' Kodak..."

    The understanding has been that consumer film users are mere gnats on Kodak's balance sheets. And that we gnats should just suck it up, quit tilting at windmills, and recognize that fact.

    Can these seeingly opposing viewpoints on Kodak's current film condition possibly be reconciled?

    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

  3. #83
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    We must be making them money. they don't stuff T-max or Portra into cine cameras as far as I know. And definitely not rolls or sheet film.

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by tomalophicon View Post
    ...they don't stuff T-max or Portra into cine cameras as far as I know. And definitely not rolls or sheet film.
    Correct. But cine film is still a roll, is still an emulsion coated stock and not a CMOS or a CCD, so it uses the "same" plant. There was a link posted here to some conference that interviewed some directors who were very big on film, on film's "look" in their productions. Their use of any type of film produced by Kodak improves the chances for the continued availability of, e.g., 35mm Tri-X. I don't see improvements in CMOS technology helping me as much, and if so then only indirectly.

    I'd rather know how small a coating plant can be that still produces just enough film to satisfy the demand for its output, and if a plant that size can be run profitably. If that can be satisfied then I say spin it off as Eastman Kodak and run it 24/7. Let the digital side be run through the same calculus and spin it off as Kodak-whatever Inc. Film gets dibs on all the yellow stuff.

    As a monolithic block the Kodak board can move money around to pay bills here and there and hide debt there and here. That's useful so I don't think any real clarity will come out of the whole mess for some time yet.

    s-a

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    684
    Images
    15
    I have the greatest respect for PE humble way of keep communicating with APUG members, despite their under-exposed and under-developed attitude.
    Kodak film is going to stay, so chill out folks, have some faith and buy some of that film.

  6. #86
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by semi-ambivalent View Post
    Correct. But cine film is still a roll, is still an emulsion coated stock and not a CMOS or a CCD, so it uses the "same" plant. There was a link posted here to some conference that interviewed some directors who were very big on film, on film's "look" in their productions. Their use of any type of film produced by Kodak improves the chances for the continued availability of, e.g., 35mm Tri-X. I don't see improvements in CMOS technology helping me as much, and if so then only indirectly.

    I'd rather know how small a coating plant can be that still produces just enough film to satisfy the demand for its output, and if a plant that size can be run profitably. If that can be satisfied then I say spin it off as Eastman Kodak and run it 24/7. Let the digital side be run through the same calculus and spin it off as Kodak-whatever Inc. Film gets dibs on all the yellow stuff.

    As a monolithic block the Kodak board can move money around to pay bills here and there and hide debt there and here. That's useful so I don't think any real clarity will come out of the whole mess for some time yet.

    s-a
    Understood.

  7. #87
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,062
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    By design I have been not substantively posting to this thread topic, as have many other longer time members after the last major Kodak eruption. No need to rehash my personal viewpoints on the subject that most of those members have already heard, and which have not changed.

    That said, however, I can't let this pass without asking in good faith...

    For years now we have heard that the film operations at Kodak are in dire - if not deathly - straits. Consumer film is almost extinct. Film distribution of motion pictures is almost extinct, or trending in that direction. Medical and scientific use of film is almost exinct.

    We've also been told that this seismic (disruptive technology) shift figuratively occurred in near milliseconds. Film sales dropped a gazillion percent in only a few hours in 2008. No one could have forseen it. All film manufacturers suffered deeply because of it. And the condition never subsequently mitigated. It's now the new normal. It's never going to be like it was, or even anything remotely similar.

    And one of the more prominent voices behind these viewpoints has been, well, you know who...

    Now you're telling us that "...the film division at EK is doing well." And that if we "abandon a working enterprise, [we] only push them into problems."

    Say what?

    I'm now more than a little confused. We've heard for years that we remaining film consumers are pretty much inconsequential to Kodak's bottom line, and by extension to its (digital) future. So how can our actions one way or the other "help 'kill' Kodak..."

    The understanding has been that consumer film users are mere gnats on Kodak's balance sheets. And that we gnats should just suck it up, quit tilting at windmills, and recognize that fact.

    Can these seeingly opposing viewpoints on Kodak's current film condition possibly be reconciled?

    Ken
    Interesting comments Ken;

    I'm going to humbly reply (a la Georg! )

    The Kodak film division is still selling film and making a profit. This is in spite of the economy and the rest of EK. There has been a big drop in sales, but in the end there is still a profit. It all goes to digital, not back into the film division!

    So, we have a problem here. The albatross of digital is hanging around the neck of the film division making things more dire than they need to be in the current situation, and you all are going to jump ship! This will only make things worse.

    So, in the first quarter of 2005, film sales dropped 35%. This is more than was predicted for the entire year. Agfa failed and Ilford had to reorganize. Kodak dropped paper products and had some layoffs. In 2008, the MP industry started going to digital, and the entire economy WW went sour. EK had another drop, a rather large one.

    I think that in retrospect, the film division was doing well despite all of the impediments, but OTOH, they were doing poorly because of digital. Every year the demand for film goes down and down.

    So Ken, this is a replay of several posts to explain what your gazillion in 2008 really amounted to and what years that took place in. It also explains (I hope) that all things are relative.

    For example, I feel great today, for my age, but if I felt this way 50 years ago, I would check into a hospital!!!!! Understand?

    PE

  8. #88
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    For example, I feel great today, for my age, but if I felt this way 50 years ago, I would check into a hospital!!!!! Understand?

    Eubie Blake once said had he known he would live so long he would have taken better care of himself.

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    I think that in retrospect, the film division was doing well despite all of the impediments, but OTOH, they were doing poorly because of digital.
    Along this line (and the ship might have already sailed on this one) it might help film or EK in general if EK hired an ad firm (like Chiat Day?) that did campaigns for Apple or Volkswagen. Somebody really creative. Big Box retail in general and the likes of Walmart have for years driven home the idea that quality is irrelevant; price and convenience are the only criteria. Film is not only cool and neat and fun but, within its constructs, it is superlative to digital. If Kodak does not press the message here then it stands to lose those (re-)discovering film, cine and still. If film is profitable then EK needs those profits more than ever for elsewhere in the ledger.

    I'm shutting up now on this topic.

    s-a

  10. #90
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by semi-ambivalent View Post
    Along this line (and the ship might have already sailed on this one) it might help film or EK in general if EK hired an ad firm (like Chiat Day?) that did campaigns for Apple or Volkswagen. Somebody really creative. Big Box retail in general and the likes of Walmart have for years driven home the idea that quality is irrelevant; price and convenience are the only criteria. Film is not only cool and neat and fun but, within its constructs, it is superlative to digital. If Kodak does not press the message here then it stands to lose those (re-)discovering film, cine and still. If film is profitable then EK needs those profits more than ever for elsewhere in the ledger.

    I'm shutting up now on this topic.

    s-a
    It's not cool to lose money. The jury's in. Film isn't selling because demand tanked. The "field of dreams" scheme just doesn't hunt. Rows of film on hooks where none hung for several years wouldn't suddenly vanish with cries for more. C'mon.

Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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