Kodak Retires Kodachrome Film

[wogster]

PE has got it 110%

Let us remember here, Kodak is a public owned corporation, same as Fujifilm and Ilford. If the analog products loose money for more than two quarters... BAM they will get a bullet to the HEAD - DONE.

The board of directors of these corporations do NOT care about Kodachrome, HIE, Velvia or any other film we love, They LOVE their paychecks and if they do not make $$... Guess what the share holders do to THEM... BAM they get a bullet to the head.

So unless there is a SOLAR storm and it kills ALL DIGITAL on the earth, GUESS WHAT ??? - FILM IS DEAD (not 110% yet but its got cancer and we are all out of chemo sauce and radiation :-()

What do you think KODAK will do is all the movie theaters go DIGITAL....

THEY WILL FINISH OFF ALL FILM !!

No movie film = NO FILM AT ALL !!

They would rather you watch the PGA Tour and get a KODAK moment, buy a DIGITAL photo frame and show off DIGITAL photos of little Jane and Johnny you captured with that nice little Kodak Easyshare camera.

So we can stick our heads in the bloody sand and BITCH why they took our film a way.

Do you want to keep your film ?? What do you do ???

Go BUY a lot of film, go SHOOT a lot of film and have a PRO LAB develop it and guess what MITE happen ??? The share holders, the board members and the BEAN counters mite give a sh*t and let you live another day !! That is the BEST you can hope for.

We shall go on to the end...
We shall fight in Rochester...
We shall fight on the seas and oceans...
We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the labs, we shall defend our FILM, whatever the cost may be...
We shall fight in Tokyo...
We shall fight in Cheshire...
We shall fight in the fields and in the streets...
We shall fight in the hills...
We shall never surrender !!

OK... NOW !!!

GO shoot some film and have some FUN and make some ART !!

Enjoy what we have for now and GET OFF THIS BLOODY DIGITAL COMPUTER !!

!! GO ANALOG ~ Ride or Die !!

Film is not dead, far from it. the fact is film is not the trouble here, it's Eastman Kodak. The world is a very different place from even 10 years ago.

I think Kodak needs to go through the same trial that Ilford did, they may even need to go through the same process. They need to become a company that can operate well in a niche market. That may mean running a single flexible coating line instead of several that can't be switched from one product line to another. There is still a healthy market for printing paper, so maybe one coating line for film and one for paper.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Kodak is a public owned corporation, same as Fujifilm and Ilford...

I was under the impression that Ilford is privately held by its directors, who purchased the business (but got a 20-year lease on the real estate) out of receivership.

[aldevo]

Fuji is in trouble as well. I spoke with many Fuji people in 2006 at the ICIS conference here in Rochester. They had a very minor presence in analog and a major presence in digital similar to the Kodak balance. Most analog people were either Chinese or Russian. Most of the Russian people were no-shows as is normal due to their funding situation.

In any event, no one is immune to the digital revolution and that is what has taken the world and the photo industry by storm. Rapidly dropping prices of digital are the major factor, but now the economy is affecting everything.

PE

I think Kodak's fall-off in digital sales is now nearly matching the fall-off in analog (both were down nearly 30% in the past quarter). And keeping in mind that Kodak opeates at lower price points in that market - this is perhaps startling. On the other hand, maybe it isn't given Kodak's increasing reliance on digital printers. Printer ink is a discretionary consumable and in this economy - it's going to get hammered.

I have a growing feeling that digital will prove to be extremely detrimental for Nikon, Canon, FujiFilm, etc.

1) Smart phones are supplanting dSLRs as high-end discretionary consumable gadgets. dSLR shipments have peaked and that's the key profit-driver for the consumer imagng units of these companies.
2) The gains in sensor sensitivity (i.e. ability to shoot at higher ISOs) coupled with the smaller image circles that lenses need to accommoate APS-sized sensors have lowered the bar for optical design to the point where the Tokinas, Tamrons, and Sigmas of the world can now eat their lunch.

Very, very few consumers buy a 2nd lens for their dSLR. Increasingly, they are eschewing the manufacturer's kit lens in favor of a cheaper option from other makes.

3) It's increasingly apparent that digital still capture will be supplanted by digital video capture and screen grab. It's already happening in photojournalism. It's my understanding that high quality digital video is extremely costly and difficult to bring to market.

None of this means Canon, Nikon, etc. will be re-embracing film...that will likely never happen. But I wouldn't be surprised if most of the "traditional" makers of photo gear exit the business in just a few years because they haven't got the tech stack for the next "big thng".

[aldevo]

I was under the impression that Ilford is privately held by its directors, who purchased the business (but got a 20-year lease on the real estate) out of receivership.

You are, AFAIK, 100% correct.

[aldevo]

Film is not dead, far from it. the fact is film is not the trouble here, it's Eastman Kodak. The world is a very different place from even 10 years ago.

I think Kodak needs to go through the same trial that Ilford did, they may even need to go through the same process. They need to become a company that can operate well in a niche market. That may mean running a single flexible coating line instead of several that can't be switched from one product line to another. There is still a healthy market for printing paper, so maybe one coating line for film and one for paper.

I'll defer to PE on this one, but...

I rather doubt that Kodak's existing coating infrastructure (even for B&W) could ever operate profitably at what will become the "equilibrium" demand level for the market. And I rather doubt that the size of that market makes investment in replacement infrastructure a good idea from an ROI standpoint. It's my understanding that EK's coating lines are already extremely flexible, but there are limits to how little it can manufacture and still turn a profit.

And I don't see EK being able to "pull and Ilford" and re-organize. EK is a much more complicated animal than Ilford is, and the credit markets are (obviously) much worse than they were for Ilford in late 2004. That isn't likely to change any time soon, so a doubt a Ch. 11 Kodak could ever hope to find debtor-in-possession financing that would allow it to operate. Maybe they could break up the company to survive but that's no gurarantee either (remember AgfaPhoto?).

Maybe Ilford can survive; maybe Foma & Efke, too - but I suspect FujiFilm and Kodak are simply too big to make a particularly long-term go of it in consumer pictorial film.

One never knows and as a loyal Tri-X shooter I hope that I am very much wrong, but that is what my gut and the little knowledge I have tells me...

BTW: It's my understanding that the market for printing paper is FAR from healthy these days: 1) It's a discretionary consumable (most are getting clobbered during the recession) 2) Even in digital, consumer tastes are shifting away from reflection prints to transmission media (e.g. wireless so-called "picture" frames).

[wogster]

I'll defer to PE on this one, but...

I rather doubt that Kodak's existing coating infrastructure (even for B&W) could ever operate profitably at what will become the "equilibrium" demand level for the market. And I rather doubt that the size of that market makes investment in replacement infrastructure a good idea from an ROI standpoint. It's my understanding that EK's coating lines are already extremely flexible, but there are limits to how little it can manufacture and still turn a profit.

And I don't see EK being able to "pull and Ilford" and re-organize. EK is a much more complicated animal than Ilford is, and the credit markets are (obviously) much worse than they were for Ilford in late 2004. That isn't likely to change any time soon, so a doubt a Ch. 11 Kodak could ever hope to find debtor-in-possession financing that would allow it to operate. Maybe they could break up the company to survive but that's no gurarantee either (remember AgfaPhoto?).

Maybe Ilford can survive; maybe Foma & Efke, too - but I suspect FujiFilm and Kodak are simply too big to make a particularly long-term go of it in consumer pictorial film.

One never knows and as a loyal Tri-X shooter I hope that I am very much wrong, but that is what my gut and the little knowledge I have tells me...

BTW: It's my understanding that the market for printing paper is FAR from healthy these days: 1) It's a discretionary consumable (most are getting clobbered during the recession) 2) Even in digital, consumer tastes are shifting away from reflection prints to transmission media (e.g. wireless so-called "picture" frames).

Every industry that has gone digital, has seen it's traditional technology take a steep falloff, then bounce back to create a small, but healthy market. I think that we are pretty much at the bottom of the falloff for traditional photography, it will then bounce back, heck I think that's starting already.

The still image market will divide into 3 sub-markets, the largest will be digital only, as phone-cameras get better, more people will use them, these are the people who used to buy disposables and box cameras. . Professional photographers will use digital where speed is of the essence. I expect journalists and some others will be digital only as well.

The second market will be the traditional film only market, this will be those who do not need the speed of digital and/or digital output, and where image quality and paper display output is the primary requirement.

The third is the cross-over market, people who shoot digital when they need digital and film when they want the quality film provides. I put myself in this group.

I expect of the remaining camera companies, at least one, will return to making film cameras as their front line product. At least one will produce film and digital cameras for people who want a system that uses both and shares lenses and other parts between them. At least one will go out of business. A number of the companies that make cameras along with other things will lose interest.

I should have specified analog printing paper, do you know how many people there are that treat the memory card like a roll of film, they pop it out of the camera, hand it to the lab and get prints made, seriously.

[Sirius Glass]

The second market will be the traditional film only market, this will be those who do not need the speed of digital and/or digital output, and where image quality and paper display output is the primary requirement.

And those like me who not only prefer film, but also cannot afford a MF d-back and would not accept anything smaller than 6x6.

Damn it! I paid for cameras and optics that can fill the 6x6 frame; I will not cave in to the 645 or smaller market.

6x6 or fight!

Steve

[accozzaglia]

Actually it's Churchill. Sort of.

Can't imagine Churchill emitting that sound unless maybe he stuck his cigar in his mouth backwards.

Hahaha. Or a lit cigar in the wrong opening.

Wasn't that "We shall overcome"?

[accozzaglia]

And those like me who not only prefer film, but also cannot afford a MF d-back and would not accept anything smaller than 6x6.

Damn it! I paid for cameras and optics that can fill the 6x6 frame; I will not cave in to the 645 or smaller market.

6x6 or fight!

Steve

/me looks down at the Polk-wannabe from north of the 49th parallel and says, "Yeah, go ahead, do try it!"

Hey, 645 surface area improves on 35mm. There's nothing wrong with that when moving up from only knowing 35mm. It's not for everybody, but it has a place.

[wogster]

And those like me who not only prefer film, but also cannot afford a MF d-back and would not accept anything smaller than 6x6.

Damn it! I paid for cameras and optics that can fill the 6x6 frame; I will not cave in to the 645 or smaller market.

6x6 or fight!

Steve

Not only is that MF D the price of a good used car, heck some of them challenge the price of a good new car, they can break the bank with the cost of batteries and most of the sensors are barely larger then a 35mm frame.

Nobody has convinced me yet, that there is any digital technology, that beats a properly exposed and processed AgX print from a properly exposed and processed AgX negative. I know that there are millions of people with expensive digital cameras that have shot tons of crap that will disagree with me here, but the chances are they have never seen the best that film can offer.