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.

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.

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

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.

It is very difficult to say if Kodak goes away other suppliers will step in. That may not be the case because there needs to be capital investment to do so and without a visible market bottom money will be reluctant.

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.

*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.

There are means to stabilize the market or carve out analog film as a niche, but the effort will have to be comprehensive and the backer of deep pockets. The dumbest thing anyone can do is imagine that film will ever compete with digital on quality or convenience. It cannot. Down that path lies marketing ruin. analog film requires its own market space unique to it, not burdened down with unwinnable arguments about superiority. Nostalgia and culture sell. That's the leverage.