Author Topic: The Agonizing death of Kodak (Read 7102 times)

Soap · « **on:** January 05, 2012, 08:24:08 AM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/kodak-bankruptcy-chapter-11_n_1184101.html

Sad sad day

chris_n · « **Reply #1 on:** January 05, 2012, 08:51:39 AM »

how long do we have before beloved portra goes extinct?

iirc, they've already sold their gelatin division

jojonas~ · « **Reply #2 on:** January 05, 2012, 08:51:46 AM »

oh my... I didn't want to have to stock up on film for this

charles binns · « **Reply #3 on:** January 05, 2012, 09:26:07 AM »

Very sad. But I'm not sure this means the death of Kodak film. Film use is increasing (albeit still a fraction of it's original size) and is probably still viable as a business.

I am sure someone will step in to exploit this even if Kodak disappears. Ilford survived after all.

mickld · « **Reply #4 on:** January 05, 2012, 10:02:07 AM »

I predict a spike in wet plate collodion over the next few months. Time to go long on the gun cotton futures market

jojonas~ · « **Reply #5 on:** January 05, 2012, 10:12:56 AM »

it feels like the top of the film spike is definetily starting to pass now, DIY is the future!! back to basics

artists and alchemists feels like an inspiration in that film photography will always live on in one way or another

LT · « **Reply #6 on:** January 05, 2012, 10:28:00 AM »

I think if no-one in the US wants to do a management buy-out, or a new buy-out of the film business, as per the Harman Ilford thing in 2004, then other manufacturers might be looking to buy the emulsion patents for the films? maybe foma, Adox, whoever coats the new agfa apx, or Harman? Or even the Chinese lucky people (although I hope not ... their QC is terrible!) - that is assuming coating equipment can manage the Kodak formulae

I am optimistic about the films continuing, or alternatively, the other manufacturers picking up the losses, but it is very sad either way.

Alan · « **Reply #7 on:** January 05, 2012, 12:25:23 PM »

I wonder will the other manufacturers Ilford, Fuji, Foma, Lucky, Shanghai, Adox, Efke, Rollei, Impossible, etc. . . .
be secretly looking at this as a possible positive for them? or are they quaking in their boots after all its KODAK

Nigel · « **Reply #8 on:** January 05, 2012, 01:51:33 PM »

That really is sad, I'd better start building my cold room!

Francois · « **Reply #9 on:** January 05, 2012, 03:48:36 PM »

I was listening to the economic news this morning on national radio (CBC) ant the outlook might not be as gloom and doom as it seems. They were saying that the sooner they can get under the government's wing, the better. The bankruptcy protection laws would give them time to turn things around and avoid going under. They said Kodak was a good company at its core. If they can survive about four years, they will be good to go for another 100.

Late Developer · « **Reply #10 on:** January 05, 2012, 03:54:26 PM »

@Francois

That would be great news, so let's hope the analysts you saw are correct - more for the employees' benefit than anything.

It's bad enough that consumers such as ourselves have to find alternatives to our favourite medium. However, let's not forget that we do this for fun whereas the Kodak guys, their families and the businesses they trade with rely upon their trade to put roofs over heads and food in bellies.

gothamtomato · « **Reply #11 on:** January 06, 2012, 12:52:50 PM »

Hopefully this reorganization helps them survive because if other companies only buy their film patents, I have no confidence the quality of Portra will remain the same. Look at the Impossible Project: We thought it meant the some Polaroid would survive, but they still have no real color. Part of me thinks the funky film is fun, but another part of me feels like it's a bit of a scam - a great marketing campaign to get people to buy in to substandard film.

I only want Kodak film if the quality remains as it is.

Francois · « **Reply #12 on:** January 06, 2012, 03:44:17 PM »

Actually, there's quite a difference between Kodak and Impossible.
From the get go, Impossible said that they wouldn't be able to survive unless they sell their test production film to consumers who are willing to try out something that's essentially in beta development. I don't see it as much as bad quality control as working with stuff that's never usually intended to leave the lab.

On the other hand, Kodak mostly uses tried and true processes. Even if they were to send beta quality new emulsions to the consumer, they have enough knowledge to do something decent pretty stable on first shot. But my guess is the films we have will be there as they are for a very long time. R&D costs an arm and a leg yet doesn't bring any cash in. One way to keep on going for them would be to outsource film base (switching from Estar to Polyester base), outsource coating to places with smaller machines, outsource chemical manufacturing but keep the mixing in house. Supervise the coating process, and outsource everything that has to do with final packaging.

vicky slater · « **Reply #13 on:** January 19, 2012, 07:58:25 AM »

And they've filed, it's official.
They blame upsurge of digital and poor film sales.
Very sad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/19/kodak-files-for-bankruptcy

salvo · « **Reply #14 on:** January 19, 2012, 09:19:42 AM »

.... and from BBC too, pretty much saying the same stuff I assume
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16625725

"Since becoming chief executive, Mr Perez has been responsible for steering Kodak away from its traditional market in cameras to focus on home and commercial printers.

However, the firm has failed to stop its plunging profitability."

Late Developer · « **Reply #15 on:** January 19, 2012, 12:46:59 PM »

1. Moving away from sensors when everyone is looking for a "silver bullet" for image quality / low noise?
2. Moving into home and commercial printers when fewer people than ever are printing their photos?

Forgive my naivety but those two strategies simply don't add up for me.

I feel desperately sorry for the staff at Kodak as they appear to have gone through the death by a thousand cuts over the past decade or so. I ony hope that the restructure saves the company and, of course, the films we all love to use....

Francois · « **Reply #16 on:** January 19, 2012, 04:32:42 PM »

They can still manage to get back into profits. Being under bankruptcy protection actually gives them time to turn things around.

One thing I can't figure out is why they pulled out of the professional products market in the first place?
The old Kodak DCS backs were already ahead of their time and well used by newspaper photographers around the world. Then there was the gloriously beautiful dye sub printers. And lets not talk about APS... what a fiasco that was!

vicky slater · « **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2012, 08:18:43 AM »

Huzzah!!
Film is still profitable!!

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140216/-film-division-profitable-kodak

Late Developer · « **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2012, 08:46:11 AM »

Interesting article in today's (20 January) compact "Independent" (i) newspaper in the UK.

It makes Kodak appear a bit like the British camera manufacturing industry of the first half of the 20th century - great at inventing and manufacturing but then forgetting to develop (pun accidental on this occasion) thus leaving the door wide open to the Japanese (and others) to take the product forward and exploit its full potential.

For me, the greatest mistake (not just by Kodak but for all photographic product manufacturers) has been the failure to promote the idea that there is no need to choose film or digital but that it is perfectly feasible to have both - running as parallel technologies. How many of us have two cars (a sports car and an MPV perhaps? How many have a bicycle and a motorcycle?)

It's also a shame that others didn't develop the concept that Leica introduced - i.e. having a camera that would shoot film and digital simultaneously.

LT · « **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2012, 09:21:42 AM »

Quote from: Late Developer on January 20, 2012, 08:46:11 AM

It's also a shame that others didn't develop the concept that Leica introduced - i.e. having a camera that would shoot film and digital simultaneously.

I'd not heard of that - sounds interesting (and expensive!).

I think there is a real opportunity for anyone who can actually produce the re 35 digital film cartridge -http://re35.net/ to bring the film/digi camera to the masses.

I think Harman/Ilford do a fairly good job with the hybrid approach marketing. they invested in developing papers for use with a digital enlarger, and have produced some lovely FB inkjet paper also. But I suppose as a consumables producer, they don't have too much impact on the initial camera buying market.

Late Developer · « **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2012, 11:21:09 AM »

Hi Leon.

Yes, it was bl**dy expensive - as everything with "the red dot" on it tends to be. However, if you check the link below, you'll see that this did exist and it worked - and the 10MP sensor was made by...KODAK

I wouldn't mind getting my mitts on one to see how well it performs.

Had the likes of Nikon, Canon, Pentax or, heaven forbid, Kodak taken the idea forward and developed a more "mass market" option, the cost would inevitably have been a lot more manageable.

I suppose the drawback was that the mainstream camera manufacturers would have missed out on launching entirely new "digi only" camara variants and making a compact point and shoot camera version would have been disproportionately expensive.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2003/6/25/leicadigitalr9

salvo · « **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2012, 11:56:10 AM »

interesting update on the BJP article

"...argues BJP's technical writer Jonathan Eastland, Kodak is not doing enough to sustain the business. "Kodak needs to look at what is its core business. What make them think that digital printing will push their share price up? For Kodak to make digital printers their core business is laughable."

Instead, says Eastland, Kodak should truly embrace its historical status as a master of film photography. "Each time Kodak has discontinued a film, they used the excuse that it represented less than a certain percentage of their turnover, but it's still a percentage of a very large niche market. There are still millions of photographers around the world that are using film, and not hundreds as Kodak seems to suggest [see Jonckheer's statement above]."

Eastland adds: "Kodak's got to go back and crunch their numbers about the film market. All people want are these little yellow boxes of film, and that should be their core business, even it means reducing the company's size further. Kodak needs to hire people that actually know about film photography. It needs to market it properly and set up some great labs in strategic places with great customer service."

full article:
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140216/-film-division-profitable-kodak

hopefully they get rid of Perez soon?

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2012, 12:09:44 PM »

A number of you will have received this email from Matt of AG Photographic fame already, but I know that a lot of our non-UK members probably aren't on the AG mailing list (and I know Matt won't mind me re-printing his email here) so I thought I'd add his comments to this thread by proxy. Matt has a good awareness of the photo industry from the commercial side of things (i.e. the other side of the counter as it were) and I do like hearing his perspective on things like this. Take it away Mr Wells:

Kodak: Business as Usual

By now most customers will have heard that Eastman Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection in the USA. We want to explain to customers that, despite emotive media reports, this does not mean the company ceases to exist - Kodak continues to trade as normal, the only difference being that much of their liabilities, they are now protected from.

In our view this is a good move for Kodak because:

1. It means they can re-organise the company without the threat of the liabilities that have hung over the business in recent years;

2. They can re-finance the company. By making the move into bankruptcy protection they have been able to secure $950m of funding from Citibank

3. For a number of years it has seemed top management in the company have been obsessed with Wall Street and the share price of the company. In our opinion this has been a hinderance to the effective management of the business. Now the company is de-listed from the NYSE, they don't have to concern themselves with Wall Street and can take decisions freely.

4. It is expected the company will remain in Chapter 11 for around 12 months, at the end of which a new Kodak will emerge.

At Ag Photographic we will continue to sell traditional Kodak products as usual. We hope this helps explain the situation to customers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drop Matt a line: sales@ag-photographic.co.uk or visit the web site at http://ag-photographic.co.uk

hookstrapped · « **Reply #23 on:** January 20, 2012, 02:58:53 PM »

Encouraging...

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140216/-film-division-profitable-kodak

Francois · « **Reply #24 on:** January 20, 2012, 03:50:43 PM »

Just like I said: no need to be so doom and gloom

While the deficit at Kodak seems huge, in reality it's not so much considering the size of the company. This is not a case like Polaroid or Agfa Photo.

Kodak is still distributed pretty much everywhere. Their films and disposable cameras are still in pretty much every drugstore. Granted choice is much slimmer than it was years ago.

Kodak isn't involved in a massive fraud like Polaroid was.

Kodak has more presence by simply being a household name like Kleenex. Agfa never got this status.

That's why I think big yellow will survive. Will it be like we have known it for years... hopefully not. Lets not forget we don't want the same old Kodak we know. What we want is a better Kodak.

Windy · « **Reply #25 on:** January 20, 2012, 04:01:25 PM »

There's a 128 yrs of Kodak timeline in The Independent (I can't find a link) - for 2009 it states 'After 74 years of production, Kodak stops selling 35mm colour film'

That's incorrect, isn't it

charles binns · « **Reply #26 on:** January 20, 2012, 04:03:26 PM »

It is encouraging - to be honest the title of this thread should be called the Agonising Death of Kodak Printers. There are plenty of examples of major US companies who have sought Chapter 11 protection and survived. Delta Airlines being one. Chapter 11 if anything is harder on the creditors than Kodak as they won't get their money back for some time.

Film is profitable business for companies. If it wasn't Kodak and Fuji would have pulled out long ago, and most of the smaller producers of film such as Efke, Fomapan, Rollei would have gone under too. The fact that there are still quite a variety films is a healthy sign for the analogue community.

I don't think it's doom & gloom for film users at all, demand is rising after all and at the end of the day there's always Shanghai GP3!

moominsean · « **Reply #27 on:** January 20, 2012, 04:08:55 PM »

i honestly think that what will eventually kill off kodak is the same thing that kills most major corporations with money problems...they want it all. no way are they going to drop everything and focus on film. they will want to maintain all product lines and stay a giant company to keep those involved as rich as possible for as long as possible. making it a smaller company is probably not an option, rather all or nothing.

Late Developer · « **Reply #28 on:** January 20, 2012, 04:43:08 PM »

The thing is, Sean, that I'm not sure what Kodak's "all" equates to anymore. They've sold off the sensor business and they feel that printers and inks are their "core" business. What else do they do that's worth doing or that someone else doesn't do better / cheaper?

Maybe the adminstrators shining some bright lights into some dark corners might bring help focus on the fact that they need to have a diversified portfolio which includes producing film.

Francois · « **Reply #29 on:** January 20, 2012, 06:17:28 PM »

Whatever happens, I can't wait to see how it's going to go!
In a way, this is a bit like a soap opera for me...

salvo · « **Reply #30 on:** January 20, 2012, 07:17:13 PM »

Quote from: Francois on January 20, 2012, 06:17:28 PM

Whatever happens, I can't wait to see how it's going to go!
In a way, this is a bit like a soap opera for me...

I kind of can see Perez wearing a hat a la "JR"

jojonas~ · « **Reply #31 on:** January 23, 2012, 08:36:30 AM »

just read the article on bjp, sounds good~
I just hope that the big old kodak ship won't take the film div. with it -if it sinks.