Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,577   Posts: 1,545,715   Online: 800
      
Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 133
  1. #91

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by railwayman3 View Post
    It's a private company, but (in common with all UK Limited Companies) the annual accounts are on public record (and available online for a small fee) from www.companieshouse.gov.uk (If you need anything like this, go to this official Government site, don't get caught by paying extra to so-called "company search agent" sites. )
    I would add that the information on the public register at Companies House (such as the accounts, statutory directors names etc) is deemed to be in the public domain, so there is no reason it can not be quoted here, as long as it is correctly quoted and referenced of course .

  2. #92

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    There should be no issue with licensing the Kodak name for film only to an entity that might purchase the film division. Licensing your name for specific products only is done all the time. Kodak would retain the use of the name for their inkjet products and whatever else remains. Already Kodak chemistry is made under license by the owner of the former Kodak chemical plant.

    A point to ponder is: When the sales of a product decline to the point that a master roll of film cannot be cut and sold out completely while still "in-date", then it becomes impractical to continue manufacture. Kodak can only make a certain size of master rolls, which are quite large, mile long I think, and wider than a yard (3-4 ft). What I don't understand is why they discontinued the 8x10 size of film that is still available in 4x5, as if there is stock for 4x5 there is stock for 8x10, as it is just a different cutting of the same master roll.
    Last edited by PHOTOTONE; 01-05-2012 at 08:43 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #93
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE View Post
    There should be no issue with licensing the Kodak name for film only to an entity that might purchase the film division. Licensing your name for specific products only is done all the time. Kodak would retain the use of the name for their inkjet products and whatever else remains. Already Kodak chemistry is made under license by the owner of the former Kodak chemical plant.

    A point to ponder is: When the sales of a product decline to the point that a master roll of film cannot be cut and sold out completely while still "in-date", then it becomes impractical to continue manufacture. Kodak can only make a certain size of master rolls, which are quite large, mile long I think, and wider than a yard (3-4 ft). What I don't understand is why they discontinued the 8x10 size of film that is still available in 4x5, as if there is stock for 4x5 there is stock for 8x10, as it is just a different cutting of the same master roll.
    I suspect that the value in any film spin-off would lie as much in the name Kodak as anything else. One does not associate that name with printers. Heritage sells. Owners of the digital and print product side may be better off with a new brand entirely. Weighting down an industrial film manufacturer with even more overhead for licensing is counter-intuitive.

    The point about master rolls is spot on. This applies to the entire industry, including Fuji and Ilford and their combined capacity. My concern is that there is no new capital to purchase the production assets of Kodak because there are no new customers for the product and the current sales are still in decline. With no one making new film cameras, both photo and motion picture (not in capacities large enough to amortize those master rolls), by definition the market is in an entropy death spiral. This type of capitalization cannot be sustained by eBay sales of cameras found in closets, Lomography, a few super-expensive rangefinders, and the LF hobbyists.

    If demand falls too far retaining adequate technical knowledge also becomes a serious issue alongside production facility maintenance and refurbishment.

  4. #94
    Neanderman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio River Valley
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE View Post
    There should be no issue with licensing the Kodak name for film only to an entity that might purchase the film division. Licensing your name for specific products only is done all the time. Kodak would retain the use of the name for their inkjet products and whatever else remains. Already Kodak chemistry is made under license by the owner of the former Kodak chemical plant.
    True enough, but remember -- Kodak is still marketing and distributing the chemicals. In that case, essentially all they did was sell the manufacturing while agreeing to buy everything produced. While they could do that with the films, that wouldn't make them "a digital company" since they'd still be selling film.
    "I only wanted Uncle Vern standing by his new car (a Hudson) on a clear day. I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary's laundry, and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on a fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and 78 trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It's a generous medium, photography." -- Lee Friedlander

  5. #95
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,400
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post
    I expect a legal defense could be mounted successfully, but that would eat the profits of a marginally thin business.

    So the business model of buying the film becomes 1) buy Kodak film, 2) fight with environmentalist movement, 3) watch movie theaters go digital, 4) hope to break even unless a union gets involved so you can go broke.
    The directors' liability is such that it can hang around even after someone leaves the Board.

    And it isn't so much fighting the environmental movement as fighting the government, because what generally happens is that without legislation being in place, the entities that buy these premises leave no material assets in the corporations, then cut and run if they are required to re-mediate, leaving the government with the responsibility of either leaving a public health hazard or spending large amount of public dollars.

    Alternatively, governments (municipal, state and federal) could pass specific exempting legislation - that is when the environmental movement would definitely jump in, to try their best to make the legislation politically costly.

    Note that the rules about all this vary tremendously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and to get a definitive opinion on this you would need to involve someone with extensive experience in these issues in New York.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  6. #96
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    WSJ "As Kodak Fades, Workers Remember Their Moment"
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...o&mod=yahoo_hs
    Andy

  7. #97
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,037
    Images
    65
    Yes, my friend Paul Gilman is one of the interviewees and is one of our GEH lunch regulars.

    PE

  8. #98

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    Will PE, and all other retirees lose their pensions?

  9. #99
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    Don't you guys in the US have state-funded retirement pensions?

  10. #100
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    The point about master rolls is spot on. This applies to the entire industry, including Fuji and Ilford and their combined capacity. My concern is that there is no new capital to purchase the production assets of Kodak because there are no new customers for the product and the current sales are still in decline. ....
    If demand falls too far retaining adequate technical knowledge also becomes a serious issue alongside production facility maintenance and refurbishment.
    This is probably the biggest fly in the ointment. Kodak and Fuji make MILES, or Vison Print film and Eterna Print Film respectfully. This is a Low speed colour product on a Polyester base for Process ECP2. The use for this stock is to make relatively short lived Prints to show in Theatres. Movie Projectors run this stuff at 90 ft a minute, so just look at the run time of your favourite recent movie to see how much of this film your local theatre needs. And two weeks later a new Movie comes out and the prints get shipped back to a Kodak Subsidiary to be destroyed.

    The Studios hate this so much that they have now made a deal which will subsidise the theatres to switch to digital projection. No prints, just a few DVD's or even just satellite download to a hard disk. I think the system is called "Virtual Print Fee" It is likely that all Theatres in North america will be switched to this system by the end of 2012. The Print film is sold rather cheeply, and it does not contain much silver so it is not only profitable but also justifies the maintenance and staffing of the Film making plants.

    It is almost like Tri-x is run at the plant as a hobby on the lunch break.

    This change will make it harder to keep that massive plant running I suspect.

    One of my other hobbies is Old Electronics, and when I go to the stores I see "Emerson", Tung-Sol., Sylvania, Westinghouse, RCA and many other proud brand names that are now applied to products that have NOTHING to do with the firms that made these brands famous. Vacuum Tubes had a similar Decline in the Mid 1970's -- 1975 RCA made their last Tube TV set. (I think GE stuck it out to about 1982 on their Low end models) with no demand for tubes to build new sets, production levels fell and the major makers turned to imports to fill the replacement demand. {at least with Tubes they don't go bad in storage}

    ILford and Foma don't have the MP Print film factor so they may be in better shape. Fuji has made themselves a niche in providing cated film products for Flat Screen displays from what I hear so they have a buffer. Kodak - the inventor of the OLED was too timid to jump on that advantage. With their Film making expertise they probaly could be cranking out TV displays with one hand behind their back..
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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