Kodak and film

[sjw617]

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090104/BUSINESS/901040325

Talk among yourselves......

[bmattock]

I believe it is called "whistling past the graveyard."

[dmr]

I saw this in one of the photo magazines last month, may even have been one of Roger Hicks' articles.

I haven't tried it yet, but I do plan to.

At least Kodak realizes that there's still a market. The article asserts that half of the working professionals do film at least sometime. (cite?)

Now, if only they would get a similar attitude toward Kodachrome!

Oh well ... so it goes ...

[antiquark]

Maybe Kodak thinks that film sales will level off at some point in the future, instead of plummeting all the way to zero.

Maybe their research showed that film sales at that future time will be enough to continue to be profitable.

I can see why they would "cling" to film, it still might have some life left.

[bmattock]

I find it interesting - when Kodak CEO Perez says "Film is dead," he doesn't mean it. When he says "No, I was mistaken, film isn't dead," he does mean it.

I guess we parse what we read based on what we want to believe, eh? Or am I just poking the bear with a stick again?

[antiquark]

Hmmm, I was thinking that a very useful new year's resolution would be to stop arguing about the death of film... it would save me countless hours :)

[dmr]

Maybe Kodak thinks that film sales will level off at some point in the future, instead of plummeting all the way to zero.

Maybe their research showed that film sales at that future time will be enough to continue to be profitable.

I'm not a Kodak insider by any means, but given their history over the past few years, and given the current state of the economy, I think it's safe to say that Kodak doesn't f*rt (pardon {blush}) unless they are VERY sure that it will impact their bottom line positively!

With both Fuji and Kodak having recently introduced new and/or improved films, I think it's safe to say that the Powers That Be in the film industry don't consider film to be dead at all.

[Yvette]

I think Kodak and Fuji will keep making film no matter how much money they lose on it. It's cheap advertising because it keeps them in the press with stories like this one.

[mh2000]

Business predictions are usually based on growth... clearly there is no more growth in film sales... but supporting a dying product can still be profitable... so it really can be dead and un-dead at the same time.

:)

I find it interesting - when Kodak CEO Perez says "Film is dead," he doesn't mean it. When he says "No, I was mistaken, film isn't dead," he does mean it.

I guess we parse what we read based on what we want to believe, eh? Or am I just poking the bear with a stick again?

[bmattock]

Hmmm, I was thinking that a very useful new year's resolution would be to stop arguing about the death of film... it would save me countless hours :)

But what fun-filled hours they are, eh?

[mh2000]

people are still buying used Leicas (and other RF's), right? As long as we use them there will be someone selling us film... that is the reality. I have a number of very nice cameras that I don't plan to stop using anytime soon... how about you?

Maybe Kodak thinks that film sales will level off at some point in the future, instead of plummeting all the way to zero.

Maybe their research showed that film sales at that future time will be enough to continue to be profitable.

I can see why they would "cling" to film, it still might have some life left.

[bmattock]

Business predictions are usually based on growth... clearly there is no more growth in film sales... but supporting a dying product can still be profitable... so it really can be dead and un-dead at the same time.

:)

My point was that if Kodak says something we don't like, we say they don't know what they're talking about, they're lying, etc, etc. If they say something we like, then they're clearly correct. I wasn't so much interested in what Kodak has to say, but in what we have to say about what Kodak says, based on whether or not we want to hear it.

[mh2000]

still more enjoyable than watching brainless TV!

:)

Hmmm, I was thinking that a very useful new year's resolution would be to stop arguing about the death of film... it would save me countless hours :)

[antiquark]

But what fun-filled hours they are, eh?

Unfortunately, yes. :)

[40oz]

what that article fails to report is the astronomical sums Kodak has spent on digital business while still failing to see one penny of profit in that realm. Film is arguably a profitable enterprise, while digital is a money pit.

[35mmdelux]

I think Kodak and Fuji will keep making film no matter how much money they lose on it. It's cheap advertising because it keeps them in the press with stories like this one.

I'll say again, companies often carry a negative cash flow product in order to claim a full product line -- this claim is important to bigger companies. Economies of scale, production line availability, prod mix, etc. also contribute. An intangible gain.

The R&D is already depreciated (paid). We will see fewer new products and eventually a smaller line of B&W and color negative film.

[bmattock]

what that article fails to report is the astronomical sums Kodak has spent on digital business while still failing to see one penny of profit in that realm. Film is arguably a profitable enterprise, while digital is a money pit.

Ah, it's all so simple. That must be why Nikon and Canon are bankrupt, they aren't making film cameras anymore. Oh wait, they're not bankrupt. Huh.

Well, this digital fad will be over soon, and we can all go back to film. And having milk delivered. And elevator operators. And disco. Maybe some 8-track tapes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS135789+31-Jul-2008+BW20080731

[NickTrop]

Again - there are more labs at drug stores and photo shop chains in my immediate area than I can count. None of them have stopped selling or developing film. In my family, I'm the only digital camera user - and I use a film camera 99% of the time. Where the drug stores used to sell film, they now sell disposable film cameras. My 10 year old son used one a few weeks ago. Lots of folks out there want to take pictures who are complete luddites - or more accurately, have technical phobias.

Digital P&S cameras - slow zoom lenses, most don't do ISO above 200 very well, battery dependency, poor dynamic range, bad for black and white in-camera, can't do selective focus - images very flat.

Pro still shoot at least "some" film because they see the advantages of it. I get the sense many miss it but are forced to use digital. One pro photog at a recent event had the latest Nikon (and I thought my Lynx 14 was big and heavy...) His lament was that for all its capabilities and bells and whistles, it's "just 35".

[urban_alchemist]

Film will be like vinyl: a niche market, but stable, and with enough turnover to support a small industry around it. The days of a C-41 lab on every corner are long gone, but 1 good pro-lab/city with mail-order, and Fuji, Kodak and Ilford churning out film, and I'll be happy for decades.

[Peter_Jones]

Well, this digital fad will be over soon, and we can all go back to film. And having milk delivered. And elevator operators. And disco. Maybe some 8-track tapes.


I draw the line at disco :eek: some things are best left buried.

[JoeV]

...The days of a C-41 lab on every corner are long gone...

I call bullsh*t.

I don't know about your town or city, but in the last 3 years the Walgreens chain of stores has embarked on an ambitious growth plan nationwide in the US to compete with Walmart, by having a plethora of smaller stores on almost every street corner. And they all have the quick labs that do C-41 processing and RA-4 printing from digital files.

There are now more C-41 labs in my town than ever, because of Walgreen's growth.

The gloom and doomers do have a real effect on the economy, but I prefer to vote with my wallet.

~Joe

[urban_alchemist]

I call bullsh*t.

I don't know about your town or city, but in the last 3 years the Walgreens chain of stores has embarked on an ambitious growth plan nationwide in the US to compete with Walmart, by having a plethora of smaller stores on almost every street corner. And they all have the quick labs that do C-41 processing and RA-4 printing from digital files.

There are now more C-41 labs in my town than ever, because of Walgreen's growth.

The gloom and doomers do have a real effect on the economy, but I prefer to vote with my wallet.

~Joe

Calm down dear... :D

Not everyone lives in ye olde US of A...

[NickTrop]

Film will be like vinyl: a niche market, but stable, and with enough turnover to support a small industry around it. The days of a C-41 lab on every corner are long gone, but 1 good pro-lab/city with mail-order, and Fuji, Kodak and Ilford churning out film, and I'll be happy for decades.

I agree... That's how things will evolve. I send my Black and White out to Dwaynes in the US for processing sometimes, and buy virtually all my film on line except the occasional Fuji 800 speed, a good film readily available.

And that doesn't bother me in the least... As long as they still make it and I can get it at a reasonable price.
|

[bmattock]

Again - there are more labs at drug stores and photo shop chains in my immediate area than I can count. None of them have stopped selling or developing film. In my family, I'm the only digital camera user - and I use a film camera 99% of the time. Where the drug stores used to sell film, they now sell disposable film cameras. My 10 year old son used one a few weeks ago. Lots of folks out there want to take pictures who are complete luddites - or more accurately, have technical phobias.

Anecdotal evidence not supported by facts.

http://www.gfk.com/imperia/md/content/gfkatphotokina/2008/world_of_imaging_article2.pdf

Despite growing market penetration and market saturation at the household level, digital camera sales are still achieving amazing rates of growth. GfK expects that in 2008, 140 million digital cameras will be sold worldwide - a growth of 11% compared with last year.

With market penetration at over 60% in households within the markets that set the trends, this growth was achieved primarily as a result of booming SLR (singlelens reflex) sales and also through replacement sales of digital compact cameras.

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-pTGv0c4yeK.9giv88fyGb.D34SZ64BR0oBeb?p=3

http://sbdcnet.org/dmdocuments/2004PhotoLab.pdf

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/6180802.html

http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/local_business_shuttered_by_digital_photography/18303/

CIPA, the Japanese trade organization that tracks sales of Japanese-made cameras to international trade, stopped tracking film cameras entirely - the numbers are now too low to count. Monthly stats are here:

http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/dizital.html

http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/pdf/s_200811.pdf

Ignoring facts doesn't change them. Anecdotal evidence of families that never bought a digital camera does not change the trend. I'm sorry, it is what it is.

[Al Kaplan]

The question comes down to what production amount and value of film can keep Kodak in the film business, right? So lets get in the time machine and go back fifty or sixty years, to the days before Kodak introduced the 35mm based 126 Instamatic format.

Any decent camera store stocked B&W Kodak, Ansco, Gavaert, Agfa, Adox and DuPont film. They carried at least two or three brands in a variety of sizes: 122, 118, 116, 616, 120, 620, 127, 828 and 35mm in both 18 and 36 exposure lengths. The corner drugstore likely had both Ansco and Kodak in all of those sizes. How cost effective was that?

The average family stuck an 8 or 12 exposure roll of film in the camera and shot a photo or two of the kids playing in the snow. If they had a flash gun they might have used a bulb or two taking pictures with the Christmas tree and kids showing off their presents. Next was a shot of everybody in their Easter best perhaps followed by a graduation picture. That roll would be finished and another started during summer vacation, etc Yup, they probably shot two rolls a year, maybe three if somebody got married or had a baby! Factor in the fact that the U.S. population was less than half of what it was today.

With all those other film manufacturers competing with Kodak for market share Kodak still managed to make money. If the average American family only uses an average of perhaps two disposeable film camera a year? You do the math.

[Nh3]

Color film is dead, b&w is alive and even recovering. I think more people are shooting b&w now than they did in 80s (just my opinion), the reason I say that is because Rodinal, Microphen all of those chemicals which were almost dead are commonly available these days.

Arista2 400 is made in Germany and I can buy it for CDN$2 a roll. I don't know when was the last time I bought anything made in germany for $2. Arista premium is trix and sold $2 a roll.

The future of film is b&w and the only way b&w would die is if something cataclysmic happens and our perception of photography changes.

[Yvette]

Does the average American family use two disposable film cameras a year? Most have digital P&S's now, I would think. I know I see very few disposables on the tables at weddings anymore, and they used to be ubiquitous. Those of us who shoot weddings had a lot fewer flashes going off in our faces before digital! :)

[bmattock]

Color film is dead, b&w is alive and even recovering. I think more people are shooting b&w now than they did in 80s (just my opinion), the reason I say that is because Rodinal, Microphen all of those chemicals which were almost dead are commonly available these days.


Your opinion is incorrect, I'm sorry. Film use of all sorts have declined precipitously.


Arista2 400 is made in Germany and I can buy it for CDN$2 a roll. I don't know when was the last time I bought anything made in germany for $2. Arista premium is trix and sold $2 a roll.


Arista II 440 *was* made in Germany, by Agfa. It was APX 400. I am told that Agfa made lots of master rolls and put them in deep freeze before closing their doors forever.


The future of film is b&w and the only way b&w would die is if something cataclysmic happens and our perception of photography changes.

Something cataclysmic is happening.

[charjohncarter]

I like film because I don't like to read manuals and edit at the computer. I just want peace and tranquility when I do photography.

[Damaso]

"Film still represents a sizable portion of Kodak's finances. For the first three quarters of 2008, Kodak's film, photofinishing and entertainment group had $2.3 billion in sales, representing roughly a third of its overall sales and more than the $2.1 billion its consumer digital imaging group took in. But consumer digital imaging is growing, with its net sales up 13 percent from the first nine months of 2007, while the film, photofinishing and entertainment group sales were down 15 percent from the first nine months of 2007."

Yes, clinging...

[Nh3]

Your opinion is incorrect, I'm sorry. Film use of all sorts have declined precipitously.



Arista II 440 *was* made in Germany, by Agfa. It was APX 400. I am told that Agfa made lots of master rolls and put them in deep freeze before closing their doors forever.



Something cataclysmic is happening.

You're telling me that Nintendo Wii will stop people from playing real tennis, or all racing car drivers would play the latest racing simulation on their PS3 and stop racing?

If by that logic you have concluded that a simulation - which digital photography is - a simulation of photography will replace real photography then you're underestimating the human drive for curiosity.

Digital photography is a purely electronic activity and there is no room in it for creativity and originality, because of the "undo" button and because whatever you "do" with "it" was programmed by a group of code-monkeys in some IT company.

Digital photography like everything in our over-fed, bored, and lazy society is driven by lethargy and inertial. "Please make it easy", "make life easy", "I hate working hard and trying", those are the maxims of today and digital photography fits very well with "spirit of the times".

[bmattock]

You're telling me that Nintendo Wii will stop people from playing real tennis, or all racing car drivers would play the latest racing simulation on their PS3 and stop racing?


No, I haven't said anything like that. I refuted your statements that B&W film sales are higher than they were in the 1980's (they're not), and that Arista II 400 film is currently manufactured (it isn't).


If by that logic you have concluded that a simulation - which digital photography is - a simulation of photography will replace real photography then you're underestimating the human drive for curiosity.


I have concluded no such thing. I simply observe the trends and read the facts. I won't argue whether or not digital photography is 'real' photography - that's religion. I will note that it is accepted and used as if it were real, and that's really all that matters.


Digital photography is a purely electronic activity and there is no room in it for creativity and originality, because of the "undo" button and because whatever you "do" with "it" was programmed by a group of code-monkeys in some IT company.


Religion.


Digital photography like everything in our over-fed, bored, and lazy society is driven by lethargy and inertial. "Please make it easy", "make life easy", "I hate working hard and trying", those are the maxims of today and digital photography fits very well with "spirit of the times".

Religion.

[Nh3]

This is not a matter of faith vs. rational thought. Its a lot more simpler than that.

Any form of human activity performed with a computer program and the results produced in an electronic format that can only be interpreted with another computer program is a simulation.

Digital lacks humanity and that is an essential quality for any enduring work of art or any work of historical value.

[david.elliott]

Just thought I would interject briefly --

I think that digital has led at least some people, including myself, into film photography. If it werent for digital, I would never have become comfortable enough, quick enough with the basics of photography to try film.

[Yvette]

That would include jpegs used to post photos in galleries? Only a computer program can interpret them.

[antiquark]

Maybe Kodak thinks film will just keep hanging on, like vinyl records:

Vinyl record sales double in 2008
http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Vinyl+record+sales+double+2008/1143511/story.html

From the article:
The top selling vinyl album in 2008 was Radiohead's In Rainbows, followed by the Beatles' Abbey Road, at 16,500 units.
"From what I'm gathering, strangely enough, it's the younger generation that are really kind of going back to (vinyl),'' said Roy Trakin, editor of the U.S. music industry website Hits.
"It's a nostalgic throwback to listening to music in a traditional way.''

[bmattock]

This is not a matter of faith vs. rational thought. Its a lot more simpler than that.

Any form of human activity performed with a computer program and the results produced in an electronic format that can only be interpreted with another computer program is a simulation.


Our communication, right now, is such. Would it be less of a simulation if we communicated via round-robin typewritten or hand-written letters? Would the content be different? Would it communicate more or less?

Your telephone calls no longer travel in the purely analogue realm these days. Chances are high that your voice is digitized somewhere along the way, particularly if you use a cell phone. Is the simulation of your voice less communicative than your voice?


Digital lacks humanity and that is an essential quality for any enduring work of art or any work of historical value.

You prove my point for me. "Digital lacks humanity" is a judgment, personal, and not subject to any objective 'proof' one way or another - it is a belief. "...and that is an essential quality for any enduring work of art or any work of historical value..." says the same thing. You posit feeling as if it were provable fact, and that is a facet that marks religion.

I won't argue religion with you.

[Nh3]

Computers are great for doing the mundane chores of daily life, banking, surfing the net etc...

But they can never replace our intrinsic drive for creativity, and creativity cannot be expressed through computer programs, period.

If I'm wrong then please show me a purely digital work of art, a masterpiece created through computer programs. And after I see such a work then I'll shut up and burn all my film and destroy all my film cameras.

I'm not kidding.

[Nh3]

I'm arguing here with a century of photography heritage and numberless masterpieces to back me up and you're touting a ten-year-old technology which still cannot produce a decent human portrait.

Speaking of religion, one of us is not introspective and I don't think its me.

[david.elliott]

Computers are great for doing the mundane chores of daily life, banking, surfing the net etc...

But they can never replace our intrinsic drive for creativity, and creativity cannot be expressed through computer programs, period.

If I'm wrong then please show me a purely digital work of art...

Afraid I have to completely disagree with you here. There are some pretty incredible digital paintings done with computer programs.

http://artrage.com/

Artrage is a very inexpensive program that I, and many others, use to paint. One can use a mouse, trackpad, or tablet (my preference).

And this is just one option for painting digitally.

[Nh3]

I'm speaking of a purely digital work of art, a masterpiece.

[david.elliott]

But they can never replace our intrinsic drive for creativity, and creativity cannot be expressed through computer programs, period.

Creativity does not always yield masterpieces.

A work can be the product of creative thought and action without being a masterpiece. And that work can be created via either analog or digital methods.

One man's masterpiece might be another man's plain red line on a canvas. I dont think it is particularly useful to say 'point me to a digital masterpiece.' I disagree more with your premise that creativity cannot be expressed through digital means.

[Yvette]

Do you think the "masterpieces" you refer to were considered masterpieces when they were painted?

[photomoof]

Computers are great for doing the mundane chores of daily life, banking, surfing the net etc...

But they can never replace our intrinsic drive for creativity, and creativity cannot be expressed through computer programs, period.

If I'm wrong then please show me a purely digital work of art, a masterpiece created through computer programs. And after I see such a work then I'll shut up and burn all my film and destroy all my film cameras.

I'm not kidding.

You have to get out more, start with John Maeda, MIT Media Lab, as a jumping off point.

[Nh3]

You have to get out more, start with John Maeda, MIT Media Lab, as a jumping off point.

In my humble opinion his work is painfully boring.

I want to see reflection of human feelings in a photograph. That's my criterion for judging a photo.

The day digital came to honestly do just that I might consider it, but even then the thought of a bunch of guys coding the program and setting the parameters to what I can do is unacceptable.

[photomoof]

Any form of human activity performed with a computer program and the results produced in an electronic format that can only be interpreted with another computer program is a simulation.


I believe I have asked you before... have you read Baudrillard?

"The very definition of the real becomes: that of which it is possible to give an equivalent reproduction."

[photomoof]

In my humble opinion his work is painfully boring.

I want to see reflection of human feelings in a photograph. That's my criterion for judging a photo.

Your level of boredom in really not the issue here, it is if art is being produced with computers, which of course it is.

How much of John Maeda's work have you seen in person to make such a statement?

[nextreme]

Oil vs. Aquarelle ? Pencil vs. Ink ? Toyota vs. Land Rover ?

I like film, its fun to work with, it's not always easy, I have to think, I won't be able to erase the mistake. I like digital too though !

After having watched the video posted by another member (mabelsound ?) on developing C41 at home, I'm committed to trying it this year, and even thinking about wet printing color (anyone have any how to links on the process?), so I hope color film will be around for a long time.

Cheers.

[Nh3]

I think some of the top photographers of today would agree with me and that is not something I take for granted.

If film is good enough for Salgado, Alex Webb, Kudelka, Gibson, Erwitt and almost all the current luminaries of photography, then its good enough for a humble amateur like me.

With that I rest my case.

[nextreme]

Well, I don't think we can argue one method produces art while the other doesn't. But I do believe a distinction should be made between images produced digitally or traditionally. I *think* art galleries often point out that fact (silver gelatin print vs. giclee ?).

[david.elliott]

I think some of the top photographers of today would agree with me and that is not something I take for granted.

If film is good enough for Salgado, Alex Webb, Kudelka, Gibson, Erwitt and almost all the current luminaries of photography, then its good enough for a humble amateur like me.

With that I rest my case.

I dont believe that anybody said 'film is not good enough for X person.'

I dont see that you have made any case really other than to state 'This dude uses film so I can too!'

[Tuolumne]

I am really enjoying just reading this and not participating. For once!

/T

[Double Negative]

Hey, any film news these days, almost, is good news.

My father in law is the business editor of that paper. :)

[photomoof]

I think some of the top photographers of today would agree with me and that is not something I take for granted.

If film is good enough for Salgado, Alex Webb, Kudelka, Gibson, Erwitt and almost all the current luminaries of photography, then its good enough for a humble amateur like me.

With that I rest my case.

OK to speak for yourself, but really you cannot speak for those guys.

Salgado does far prefer Tri-X for his work, and have good reasons to do so, but he does not build on saying his is the only way, it is simply HIS way.

Few artists and photographers I have known, comment on [or disparage] the methods of others, but are simply focussed on their own methods of creativity. Salgado recommends Tri-X for himself.

[40oz]

at the risk of joining the debate, I think what nh3 has stated is fine. He has put no words into anyone's mouth. He merely pointed out that there are plenty of respected artists/journalists using film. Obviously we can deduce that these people use film because it works for them. NH3 stated film works for him, so obviously he is in fair company.

It would be putting words into people's mouths to assume these artists and journalists would prefer digital cameras. Or that they use film for some reason other than personal preference.

Can Sebastiao Salgado really not afford a digital P&S? Is that the real reason he uses film? Or is it remotely possible that he uses film for the same reason nh3 and I prefer it? How is my preference for film invalidated simply because I have not been able to sit Selgado down and get a suitable quote for sharing on this forum?

To keep this on topic, Kodak in the 3rd quarter of 2008 finally showed a profit from their consumer digital imaging division. This is a good thing. They showed a decline in earnings for other divisions, due to a soft economy, among other reasons. Is it just me or would one expect a decline in earnings across the board for most companies given the current economic climate?

If a company like Kodak, that sees more profits from their film division than any other aspect of their business, says film is here for the duration, what outsider could possibly dispute that statement without being a fool?

[Yvette]

According to the report, if I read it correctly, they saw more profit from their film devision because they invested nothing in it, while they were investing heavily in digital. It doesn't seem to me a good thing if a company is no longer investing in a division.

[Bob Michaels]

Can we have a special flag to indicate a thread is just yet another "film vs. digital" debate?

[dof]

According to the report, if I read it correctly, they saw more profit from their film devision because they invested nothing in it, while they were investing heavily in digital. It doesn't seem to me a good thing if a company is no longer investing in a division.

The article mentions that they invested 11 million dollars in research and development in the group that oversees film production. How much of that was related to film per-se is less clear, however we can assume that some of this had to have been related to the development of Ektar 100 and the recently introduced update to TMAX 400.


-J.

"But for the company's third quarter of 2008, ending Sept. 30, its film, photofinishing and entertainment group spent $11 million on research and development, as well as $93 million on operating that group."

[J J Kapsberger]

Computers are great for doing the mundane chores of daily life, banking, surfing the net etc...

Not even that! (That is, their reliability at times causes users--this one in particular--to foam at the mouth, lose decades of life, etc.)

[40oz]

According to the report, if I read it correctly, they saw more profit from their film devision because they invested nothing in it, while they were investing heavily in digital. It doesn't seem to me a good thing if a company is no longer investing in a division.

They spent five times the money on digital R&D as film R&D, yet made 3 times the profit on film. Tell me again what a "good thing" is?

The facts are in the posted article, as well as the freely available SEC filing. Why is it so hard to get people to base their opinions and statements on the facts rather than assumptions and conjecture?

Quote taken from the 4th paragraph of the article: "the company continues to invest in new lines of films and the revamping of others." How does this get interpreted as they are no longer investing in a division? Boggles the mind.

To me, the article was obviously written by someone trying to say film is disappearing and that Kodak was messing up big time. I'm not sure where the motivation comes from, but I bet the author just spent too much money on a new digital camera. Seems kind of ignorant to be knocking the company that pays the bills in town, not to mention the company that made the sensor in the reporter's new digicam.

[Al Kaplan]

As a photographer about the only "investment" I've made in equipment over the last few years was a new air conditioner for the darkroom (under $100), a couple of bulbs for the enlarger and safelights, and a new paper cutter. The old air conditioner and paper cutter had been in use or at least 25 years, and the bulbs should really be considered as consumables because they don't get listed on any depreciation schedule. Kodak's lack of investment might simply reflect adding a second or third shift at some production facilities, and the expenditure would be allocated to labor costs rather than investments.

[bmattock]

I hope that this does not make me a fool. I tend to ask the question, 'cui bono'? Why would Kodak make this announcement? Why now?

Well, for one thing, they need to generate some noise around their company, they are announcing new digital cameras at CES today. Second, they just announced they are closing all their film processing plants in North Carolina and throwing everyone out of work. Third, they also announced they were suspending their 2009 forecast, which they had previously made, on account of the economy. Was I a fool to notice those things? Well, foolish me.

This is the operative statement in the article:

Kodak in 2005 estimated that, given the rapid decline of its film and photo paper business, its manufacturing equipment had at most a useful lifespan of three to five years, while its buildings had a lifespan of five to 20 years. In early 2008, the company revised some of those estimates, and now expects that buildings and equipment which were to fully depreciate by mid-2010 now will have useful lives through 2011 to 2015.

This is accounting. Kodak is saying that they can get more money out of film if they stop investing in infrastructure and simply run the machines until they fall apart, instead of completely depreciating them to zero and replacing them. I'm not talking about investments in R&D, I'm talking about replacing broken equipment and building new infrastructure, physical plant. They're not going to. They're going to run it until the wheels fall off. They just said so.

Now, given that they have made the decision to keep running the machines, they need to make sure that the market, which they know is declining on the order of 30% year-on-year, doesn't go away entirely while they are trying to suck some remaining profit from the equipment and buildings.

That's all this is. Nothing more. Kodak, like any publicly-traded for-profit corporation, has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Not you, not me (unless you are shareholders too).

What it means, to you and me, is that if the market doesn't destroy them utterly in the meantime, we'll have film from Kodak until 2015, then it's goodnight, Gracie.

[antiquark]

Maybe Kodak is thinking that by 2015, digital will be superior to film in every respect. Then nobody will care if film is gone.

For example, if you apply Moore's law to digital sensors, the sensor of 2015 will have something like 200 Megapixels (assuming the laws of physics are not a limitation.)

One of the reasons people still like film (IMHO) is that it is better than digital in many respects.

EDIT:
Pixel counts seem to double every 5 years:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/SNR-evolution-over-time
Still, that means that an entry level SLR will have 40 MP in 10 years.

[Nh3]

Film has not been outsourced yet which means its still cheap enough to make them in US/Japan/Germany. That is one option still left for film companies.

[bmattock]

One of the reasons people still like film (IMHO) is that it is better than digital in many respects.

I agree. It does not change what the average consumer is buying, and it ain't film.

Face it, these people think the crap photos that cell phones make are nifty keen. If they like them, then they're not interested in the technical superiority of film. We are, but we're not the market.

[FifthLeaf]

Film will be like vinyl: a niche market, but stable, and with enough turnover to support a small industry around it. The days of a C-41 lab on every corner are long gone, but 1 good pro-lab/city with mail-order, and Fuji, Kodak and Ilford churning out film, and I'll be happy for decades.

This sounds about right.

CDs:
1. were more convenient to store, carry, and operate than vinyl
2. sounded cleaner
3. you could skip to any track easily
4. etc.

But a small group still clung to vinyl for various reasons:
a. DJs could mix vinyl on a turntable easier
b. some audiophiles preferred the "warmer" sound
c. some collectors liked buying vinyl singles (there's a whole indie industry of selling 7")
d. or whatever.

The parallels with film are striking.

Digital:
1. is more convenient to store, carry and operate (memory cards, ultra compacts, no film loading)
2. produces cleaner images
3. you can skip around and immediately view any picture
4. etc.

But there's a group that still clings to film for various reasons:
a. some photographers get the results they want with film much more easily
b. others prefer the tonality and grain of film
c. some collectors/users prefer older style cameras.
d. or whatever

So it makes sense that film will come close to dying, but Ilford, Kodak, and Fuji will keep a small stream of products out. And if not, ADOX probably will. Many indie record stores have disappeared, but you can still buy online. So when your local pro shop doesn't have film in stock, you will still be able to buy online (depending on your country, of course).

[FifthLeaf]

Addendum: I'm more worried about papers and scanners disappearing.

[bmattock]

Film has not been outsourced yet which means its still cheap enough to make them in US/Japan/Germany. That is one option still left for film companies.

If there is no demand, there is no demand. Making something cheaper that no one wants won't help.

And film is already outsourced. Kodak makes a lot of its film in China. Doesn't help - the problem is not supply but demand.

[visiondr]

You're telling me that Nintendo Wii will stop people from playing real tennis, or all racing car drivers would play the latest racing simulation on their PS3 and stop racing?

If by that logic you have concluded that a simulation - which digital photography is - a simulation of photography will replace real photography then you're underestimating the human drive for curiosity.

Digital photography is a purely electronic activity and there is no room in it for creativity and originality, because of the "undo" button and because whatever you "do" with "it" was programmed by a group of code-monkeys in some IT company.

Digital photography like everything in our over-fed, bored, and lazy society is driven by lethargy and inertial. "Please make it easy", "make life easy", "I hate working hard and trying", those are the maxims of today and digital photography fits very well with "spirit of the times".

Bravo !!!!

[bmattock]

So it makes sense that film will come close to dying, but Ilford, Kodak, and Fuji will keep a small stream of products out. And if not, ADOX probably will. Many indie record stores have disappeared, but you can still buy online. So when your local pro shop doesn't have film in stock, you will still be able to buy online (depending on your country, of course).

The bar to entry is higher for film than stamping vinyl records. Forte is gone, Agfa is gone, Lucky is in bankruptcy and on its last legs, etc, etc. There is no ADOX film manufacturing. ADOX (Germany) is Fotoimpex, and their CEO says they get (got) their some of their film from Ilford and some from Efke.

When the last of the biggies closes the doors, the party is over, I believe.

[FifthLeaf]

The bar to entry is higher for film than stamping vinyl records. Forte is gone, Agfa is gone, Lucky is in bankruptcy and on its last legs, etc, etc. There is no ADOX film manufacturing. ADOX (Germany) is Fotoimpex, and their CEO says they get (got) their some of their film from Ilford and some from Efke.

When the last of the biggies closes the doors, the party is over, I believe.

That's so sad to hear. But if those facilities still have a useful life through 2015, I can use film until then and then stock up my freezer. Or just suck it up and learn digital.

Will the movie industry all be using RED by 2015? Or will there still be 35mm movie stock left?

[bmattock]

That's so sad to hear. But if those facilities still have a useful life through 2015, I can use film until then and then stock up my freezer. Or just suck it up and learn digital.

Will the movie industry all be using RED by 2015? Or will there still be 35mm movie stock left?

If what Kodak is signaling the market is correct (and if I have read correctly that this was a signal to the market), then the movie industry has until then to make the switch, or move to Fuji materials entirely. And RED is not the only digital cine business in town, is it? I don't know, I'm not into cine.

And I'm sure there will be 'stock' left for a long time after the last master rolls are made. We're still seeing Agfa film respooled and sold by everybody and his brother, and they've been shuttered for at least a couple years now.

[FifthLeaf]

If by that logic you have concluded that a simulation - which digital photography is - a simulation of photography will replace real photography then you're underestimating the human drive for curiosity.

Digital photography is a purely electronic activity and there is no room in it for creativity and originality, because of the "undo" button and because whatever you "do" with "it" was programmed by a group of code-monkeys in some IT company.

So electronic keyboards, which in a sense simulate a traditional piano, undermine the "human drive for curiosity"? And all the music created with them is neither creative nor original?

Just because your preferred medium is dying doesn't make its successor worthless. I bet painters were saying similar things about photography 100 years ago. Or silent film actors about soundies. Or black and white photographers about color. And so on.

[antiquark]

When the last of the biggies closes the doors, the party is over, I believe.

I don't know, Kodak was making roll film in 1900, it's not like they need quantum supercomputers to do it.

If the big companies quit film, I'm sure some guy will start making it in his basement.

[bmattock]

I bet painters were saying similar things about photography 100 years ago. Or silent film actors about soundies. Or black and white photographers about color. And so on.

Actually, you are quite correct. I collect and read old photography magazines and journals, and I study the history of photography. From the very first days of photography, it was decried as soulless, precisely because it was so literal compared to the painter's brush.

The same thing happened when photography entered a new phase - Mister Eastman and others made it possible for dry plates to be replaced by film, and for amateurs to get involved without having an education and basic understanding of chemistry and science. Oh, the clamor! Photography was being murdered by these ruffians! They put this fine art into the hands of the hoi polloi! Madness!

Then the pictorialists were decimated by the straight photography people, and the medium format folks taunted the 35mm camera people - it was called a 'toy camera' and a 'minicam' and was not regarded as being useful for much, and it CERTAINLY would never replace the TLR, and when it started to, well, Good Lord, it's DESTROYING PHOTOGRAPHY!

I have said this before. I never got an answer. I never will. The people who believe that digital is not real photography or that digital has no soul will never recognize themselves in these people.

Here's the fun part. I've got actually letters to editors of photo magazines from people who threatened to never take a photograph again if they were FORCED to use a film camera instead of glass plates. And history repeats itself.

I just laugh. Sure, sure, digital has no soul. Show me the soul part. I want to see it. What? You can't show it to me, you have to feel it? Oh, it's religion, then. Gotcha. Wink, wink. Well, you go pray for me, I'm shooting digital (and film). Gotta keep 'em guessing in heaven.

[bmattock]

I don't know, Kodak was making roll film in 1900, it's not like they need quantum supercomputers to do it.


No, but they need some really specialized equipment that is very big, and very hard to make, if they're going to make it in commercial volume.

And 100 years ago, they didn't have the EPA telling them what chemicals they could and could not dump into the water and ground.


If the big companies quit film, I'm sure some guy will start making it in his basement.

Show me the guy making Polaroid film in his basement. Come on, trot him out here. I want to see him. I was assured by people who claim to know a lot about business that if there is demand, there will be supply. So show me the guy making the film that fits into the old Polaroid Swingers. Show me the guy making the Polaroid roll film for all those sweet old folders. Where is that guy?

I thought if there was demand, there would ALWAYS be supply?

[antiquark]

Show me the guy making Polaroid film in his basement. Come on, trot him out here. I want to see him.

I hear there's a "Mr. Fuji" in Japan who makes fine instant films:
http://www.hpi.com/photo/instant-film-1/polaroid-and-replacements/

Nothing for your swinger, but perhaps you could replace that with something more modern? I hear polaroid cameras are cheap on eBay these days.

[bmattock]

I hear there's a "Mr. Fuji" in Japan who makes fine instant films:
http://www.hpi.com/photo/instant-film-1/polaroid-and-replacements/

Nothing for your swinger, but perhaps you could replace that with something more modern? I hear polaroid cameras are cheap on eBay these days.

That's the point. Fuji film doesn't fit in the Swinger, nor does it fit in the majority of Polaorid cameras. There is clearly demand, there is no supply. Fuji has been asked to take over, and has declined to do so. If they won't, who will?

Thus, the old saw 'demand will be met by supply' is disproved.

Telling me about alternatives that don't work isn't meeting the demand.

So now...about this guy who is going to supply the world's 35mm film demand in his basement...

[sepiareverb]

Well at least we have bmattock to disprove every single notion that is not his own. Talk about supply outstripping demand. Now where is that ignore button?

[40oz]

I hope that this does not make me a fool. I tend to ask the question, 'cui bono'? Why would Kodak make this announcement? Why now?

Well, for one thing, they need to generate some noise around their company, they are announcing new digital cameras at CES today. Second, they just announced they are closing all their film processing plants in North Carolina and throwing everyone out of work. Third, they also announced they were suspending their 2009 forecast, which they had previously made, on account of the economy. Was I a fool to notice those things? Well, foolish me.

This is the operative statement in the article:



This is accounting. Kodak is saying that they can get more money out of film if they stop investing in infrastructure and simply run the machines until they fall apart, instead of completely depreciating them to zero and replacing them. I'm not talking about investments in R&D, I'm talking about replacing broken equipment and building new infrastructure, physical plant. They're not going to. They're going to run it until the wheels fall off. They just said so.

Now, given that they have made the decision to keep running the machines, they need to make sure that the market, which they know is declining on the order of 30% year-on-year, doesn't go away entirely while they are trying to suck some remaining profit from the equipment and buildings.

That's all this is. Nothing more. Kodak, like any publicly-traded for-profit corporation, has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Not you, not me (unless you are shareholders too).

What it means, to you and me, is that if the market doesn't destroy them utterly in the meantime, we'll have film from Kodak until 2015, then it's goodnight, Gracie.

You are reading that differently than me. I read it as a statement that film is their only real profitable enterprise right now, and might well be their most lucrative field for the next five-plus years. They showed 3rd quarter profits from the digital division, but it's anyone's guess if that is the start of a turnaround or a blip.

[sepiareverb]

It would seem that digital could be Kodak's downfall for the ever increasing need for R&D money to stay current, and no desire of producing anything but a cheap camera. I can't think of a really high end Kodak film camera beyond the 2D View Cameras, and hardly anything one would consider more than a hobbyist camera.

I'd love to see Kodak take a cue from Ilford and concentrate on film & paper and shrink in size. I'll never understand this notion that every company must always grow every year and never consider concentrating on doing something well and settling for a smaller market. But remember, I'm a moron.

[antiquark]

That's the point. Fuji film doesn't fit in the Swinger,


That's a red herring argument. The fact is, instant film still exists in some form. To say that it doesn't fit your swinger is like saying that digital is dead because you can't buy a memory disk for your Sony Mavica.

So now...about this guy who is going to supply the world's 35mm film demand in his basement...

I thought the point was, fewer and fewer people would be using film, hence it would be feasible for small companies or individuals to support demand. Sort of like the people who still make buggy whips. :)

[bmattock]

That's a red herring argument. The fact is, instant film still exists in some form. To say that it doesn't fit your swinger is like saying that digital is dead because you can't buy a memory disk for your Sony Mavica.


Not at all. It's like saying disc film is dead because you cannot get disc film for your Kodak disc camera. Which would be true.

The argument which I consistently hear is that demand requires supply to arise to fulfill it. Well, where is the guy making disc film in his basement?


I thought the point was, fewer and fewer people would be using film, hence it would be feasible for small companies or individuals to support demand. Sort of like the people who still make buggy whips. :)

And I reply that making film is much more complex and controlled by environmental regulations than making buggy whips or making LP records. Complicated to such an extent that a person working in their garage won't be able to do it on a commercial basis.

One gentleman, a retired Kodak engineer, has proven that he can make film in his basement, and he does so - and teaches others. However, it's LF, not 35mm, and it's rudimentary B&W, not Velvia, etc. His operations won't put a roll of 35mm film in your Nikon when Kodak, Fuji, et al, cease making film.

[40oz]

It would seem that digital could be Kodak's downfall for the ever increasing need for R&D money to stay current, and no desire of producing anything but a cheap camera. I can't think of a really high end Kodak film camera beyond the 2D View Cameras, and hardly anything one would consider more than a hobbyist camera.

I'd love to see Kodak take a cue from Ilford and concentrate on film & paper and shrink in size. I'll never understand this notion that every company must always grow every year and never consider concentrating on doing something well and settling for a smaller market. But remember, I'm a moron.

I'm with you. But AFAIK Kodak's digital division manufactures sensors for almost everyone out there. The fact is that Kodak digital imaging systems, whether film or digital, cover the spectrum.

I *think* Kodak has swung back and forth over the years trying to follow market trends at the behest of clueless investors and ambitious management. And for all the flack they've taken over the years for being ignorant morons, they are still pumping out premium films to this day.

[bmattock]

I'm with you. But AFAIK Kodak's digital division manufactures sensors for almost everyone out there. The fact is that Kodak digital imaging systems, whether film or digital, cover the spectrum.

I *think* Kodak has swung back and forth over the years trying to follow market trends at the behest of clueless investors and ambitious management. And for all the flack they've taken over the years for being ignorant morons, they are still pumping out premium films to this day.

The first Kodak digital SLR cameras, the DCS series, built on pro Nikon and Canon chassis, beat everyone to the punch, and were boffo hits with the news photojournalists. They kept at it for quite awhile, and were usually first to market with innovations in dSLR cameras, but eventually Nikon and Canon ate their lunch.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/camerasIndex.jhtml

They still make, as you pointed out, all the medium format high-end sensors, including the Leica M8 and M8.2, Hasselblad, etc. Nobody else has that technology, only Kodak.

Martian rovers? Kodak sensors.

http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=26067

The upcoming Leica Medium Format DSLR? Kodak.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3418&p=6

http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2008/07/09/kodak-s-50-megapixel-medium-format-sensor/

As I said, Kodak is in the top-ten of patent filers in the USA today - they innovate, they create. Their engineers are top-notch - film and digital alike.

The problem has always been marketing. They suck out loud at it.

As to the statement made by others that Kodak should shrink and just do film and not pay so much attention to the constant demand for growth, etc, that can't really be helped. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. That's a legal obligation - in extreme cases, their board and leading managers could be prosecuted and sent to prison for failing to do their duty BY THE SHAREHOLDERS. Sorry, that's the way public corporations work in the USA. If that's not a good thing, then change the laws. Kodak does what they have to in order to secure maximum return on investment for shareholders - by fiduciary obligation. They are just not at liberty to say "Well, we'd be a much nicer company, and more friendly to the film photographers, if we just shrank down and concentrated on the remaining segment of film users."

Besides, even if they could - film sales drop by 30% year-on-year. So a million dollars profit this year is 750 thousand next year, which is 525 thousand the following year, 367 thousand the year after, and so on. Eventually - no more market. What corporation intentionally chooses a route that has only one destination - down?

[FifthLeaf]

There is no ADOX film manufacturing. ADOX (Germany) is Fotoimpex, and their CEO says they get (got) their some of their film from Ilford and some from Efke.

Sorry, I got ADOX and Fotoimpex mixed up: from what I understand, though, Fotoimpex owns the rights to the ADOX name. The CHM line is from Ilford and CHS is from Efke.

When I was in Berlin last summer I strolled by a store with lots of darkroom equipment displayed through the window. I talked to one of the guys there and he told me that they had bought some of the Agfa film machines and were going to bring them back, but under a new name. I told him that I thought that was awesome and, although I had never shot Agfa before, I had friends who loved their color films. He sheepishly responded that they were only bringing back B&W. And now six months later I now realized I was at Fotoimpex. (And looking at their catalog right now, it looks like I was talking to the founder.)

These are 6 month memories, so some of the above I've probably remembered incorrectly. But it seems plausible that they could have bought a smaller capacity machine used for creating test batches instead of full production runs. Now if only a Google search would have any useful information instead of just rumors.

If Agfa is really being brought back, this would confirm my guess that *someone* will find a way to produce film. Medium, sheet, and 35mm formats hold a place in photography that esoteric Polaroid formats don't: some of these standards have been around for over a 100 years and there's still a ton of equipment floating around (that's forwards compatible with their digital replacements).

Ah well, fingers crossed. Even if Fotoimpex resurrects Agfa, it will still be limited to only certain regions. Countries like Brazil, where Kodak has already pulled out of*, probably won't have a thriving niche film market if Ilford and Fuji leave too.

*Professional films, at least.

[FifthLeaf]

What corporation intentionally chooses a route that has only one destination - down?

Leica?



(Also, didn't Kodak try to phase out Tri-X after they introduced TMAX?)

[bmattock]

Leica?

(Also, didn't Kodak try to phase out Tri-X after they introduced TMAX?)

I should have phrased my question more carefully, sorry. I meant, what company knowingly chooses a route that they KNOW is losing market share by double digits year-on-year?

Some have said that film is profitable for Kodak, and therefore, why would any company shut down something that is profitable? It does not make sense. And that is true, on the surface.

But if I have finite resources, and I seek maximum return on my investment (as publicly-traded for-profit corporations must), I must consider strongly giving up a known 5% profit on a shrinking market for a 10% profit on a growing one (just using those numbers as an example). Even if the 5% profit is a lock and the 10% profit is a 'maybe', if it looks likely, I have to go with the market direction. So yes, companies will even abandon a market segment that makes a profit if they think they can make more of a profit by spending those same resources elsewhere.

[nextreme]

Makes you wonder why a company in Japan would want to make film based rangefinders.
Or a German company would contract production of their camera to that Japanese company.

[bmattock]

When I was in Berlin last summer I strolled by a store with lots of darkroom equipment displayed through the window. I talked to one of the guys there and he told me that they had bought some of the Agfa film machines and were going to bring them back, but under a new name.

I have heard the Fotoimpex "we're going to make film again" rumours, but you're the first person I've heard say they have spoken with someone personally who made the claim. If it turns out to be real, I think that's great.

However, this particular rumour has been going around for more than two years now, and no film seems to be coming forth.

Several have mistaken clever wording on marketing materials as 'proof' that film is being 'made' in Germany again, when it turns out that they are merely 'producing' film, meaning they are spooling and boxing old unused Agfa stock and selling it as if it were a new and different film entirely.

At this point, I would say the onus is on Fotoimpex. If they are going to actually 'manufacture' film, then I say let them do it, but they need to put up or shut up pretty soon now.

And as to the hardware they claim to have bought from Agfa - the news story printed in Germany after the Agfa buildings were dynamited said that the machinery had been sold to a South Korean company that hauled it away to make plastic film (not photographic). So I'd like to actually see this Agfa machinery they claim to have bought.

It's kind of sad, really. So many companies lie about where their film comes from, that a lot of enthusiasts are fooled into thinking new factories are being built, new films made, and they aren't.

To the best of my knowledge, and despite occasional disagreements, I believe that film is made only by these companies:

Agfa-Gevaert (Belgium) - not Agfa Photo, but the old parent company of Agfa Photo. Apparently, they are still making some sort of B&W film, for surveillance and aerial photography and the like - some companies have bought it and are selling it under a variety of names (ADOX Canada sells it as Bluefire, I think), Rollei, Maco, Bergger, etc.

Ilford (UK) - B&W films.

Kodak (US, China) - Color and B&W films.

Fujifilm (Japan) - Color and B&W films.

Ferrania (Italy) - "Solaris" brand color films.

Lucky (China) - Color and B&W films.

Tasma (Russia) - B&W films, maybe. Might be out of business, hard to know.

Efke (Croatia) - B&W films (They make up to ISO 100 films, buy the rest from others and relabel it).

Foma (Czech Republic) - B&W films.

A lot of smaller players have fallen off recently. The bigger names were Konica-Minolta, Agfa, and Polaroid. Smaller players were Forte, Shantou Era, and a host of Chinese firms that were largely unknown in the West.

Each closing has been accompanied by people claiming to be 'in talks' to revive the brand, restart the factories. None have succeeded, despite the hopes and dreams of film lovers everywhere.

[bmattock]

Makes you wonder why a company in Japan would want to make film based rangefinders.
Or a German company would contract production of their camera to that Japanese company.

Not really. See, making a camera is different than making film.

You make a camera, you sell the camera, and your involvement is done. No follow-on. You make film, you are engaged in the film-making business. It's a going concern.

You notice Nikon still sells the F6. Is there still an assembly line somewhere, churning out F6's? No, they made the last F6 years ago. But they made a prediction about how many they could make and sell at a profit, decided they could do it, and did it. If they made 50,000 of them, then that's how many they have to sell, and that's as far as their market research has to take them.

Now, if Nikon sold film, they have to decide what the future market of film is, because it is a consumable. They have to decide how much to make, and try to figure out if they can amortize their costs over the length of time film will remain viable in the market - not to mention, they can store it a long time, but not indefinitely - not only will it get old, but it costs money to keep it cold, in addition to simply warehousing it as they do with cameras.

Film, being a consumable, implies an ongoing commitment to the market, one that has to be constantly reevaluated in light of sales trends and market forecasts; in the past, it was presumed that film would continue to be a market presence forever, and that is no longer a safe assumption.

Cameras only have to be sold until the run that a company made is gone. If they predict that market correctly, they're golden.

So sure, make a new rangefinder medium format folder. Pimp out the R&D and manufacturing, get some market buzz around it (which by the way helps your other product lines too) and estimate how many you need to make to break even and then turn a profit. If you think the market will absorb that many, then go for it. If the last roll of film were to be sold the day before you sold your last medium format rangefinder, so what? You're done, clear, made your profit and moved on.

They only lose if they overestimate the market and have product still sitting around and can't sell it at a price that makes them money. If, by some strange circumstance, they underestimate and sell out, they can reevaluate the market, crunch the numbers again, and make a second production run.

That is also why, by the way, the price will be 100% to 200% markup. Just in case they don't all sell like hotcakes right out of the chute, they can mark them down by half and still make a profit.

Yes, I'm cynical. It has served me well. Photography is our passion - it's their business. With an emphasis on 'business'.

[sooner]

Bill, I'm not going to join the usual film-is-dying debate, because I've done that before and said my peace. But I do believe you are somewhat overstating the power of this "legal" fiduciary duty to shareholders. For one thing, courts default to the business judgment rule, giving management wide latitude to decide what's "best" for the company, and hate to intervene. That's one reason there are so few shareholder lawsuits against management, even when they and their boards vote management millions in bonuses while they run the company into the ground. Look around at the carnage in American business, and not just with financial companies. Where are the revolting shareholders? Citing fiduciary duty to me is like saying Mars exerts gravitational pull on me--probably true, but very weak. And I mean that in a nice way.

[bmattock]

Citing fiduciary duty to me is like saying Mars exerts gravitational pull on me--probably true, but very weak. And I mean that in a nice way.

I'm talking about gross negligence, not management style, indifference, or actual idiocy.

What I am suggesting is that if Kodak's idiotic original management were still around, and they blithely stuck to film because they really thought it had a future, that's just stupidity, but probably not actionable on the part of shareholders. They're just doing what they think best - for the shareholders.

However, if Kodak said to heck with what appears to be the direction photography is going, we're going to get very very small and we know we will eventually go out of business and that's OK because we love film, the stockholders would sue whatever was left of the board of directors after they dragged them out of their offices and burned them alive.

Some in this thread have suggest that Kodak basically should be true to their fans and tell the stockholders to go pound sand. My reply is that they really, really, can't do that.

I understand the emotion that wants a for-profit corporation to act in the best interests of its customers instead of its stockholders, but that's just not how corporations work, nor how they are set up to work.

[nextreme]

Not really. See, making a camera is different than making film.

You make a camera, you sell the camera, and your involvement is done. No follow-on. You make film, you are engaged in the film-making business. It's a going concern.

You notice Nikon still sells the F6. Is there still an assembly line somewhere, churning out F6's? No, they made the last F6 years ago. But they made a prediction about how many they could make and sell at a profit, decided they could do it, and did it. If they made 50,000 of them, then that's how many they have to sell, and that's as far as their market research has to take them.

Now, if Nikon sold film, they have to decide what the future market of film is, because it is a consumable. They have to decide how much to make, and try to figure out if they can amortize their costs over the length of time film will remain viable in the market - not to mention, they can store it a long time, but not indefinitely - not only will it get old, but it costs money to keep it cold, in addition to simply warehousing it as they do with cameras.

Film, being a consumable, implies an ongoing commitment to the market, one that has to be constantly reevaluated in light of sales trends and market forecasts; in the past, it was presumed that film would continue to be a market presence forever, and that is no longer a safe assumption.

Cameras only have to be sold until the run that a company made is gone. If they predict that market correctly, they're golden.

So sure, make a new rangefinder medium format folder. Pimp out the R&D and manufacturing, get some market buzz around it (which by the way helps your other product lines too) and estimate how many you need to make to break even and then turn a profit. If you think the market will absorb that many, then go for it. If the last roll of film were to be sold the day before you sold your last medium format rangefinder, so what? You're done, clear, made your profit and moved on.

They only lose if they overestimate the market and have product still sitting around and can't sell it at a price that makes them money. If, by some strange circumstance, they underestimate and sell out, they can reevaluate the market, crunch the numbers again, and make a second production run.

That is also why, by the way, the price will be 100% to 200% markup. Just in case they don't all sell like hotcakes right out of the chute, they can mark them down by half and still make a profit.

Yes, I'm cynical. It has served me well. Photography is our passion - it's their business. With an emphasis on 'business'.

I dunno, I think the (film) camera companies should be given a bit more credit. I doubt their thought process is simply sell a camera and move on, surely they value their clients more than that and would value repeat business (another camera, lenses, accessories, etc.)
They are in business too with all the same pressures for growth and profit. I would venture from their point of view, and given their knowledge of the photography business which is much greater than ours for sure (or mine at least), film will be available for at least the normal lifespan of their product.

The fact that film is a consumable and a camera isn't (or at least, possibly not at such a rapid rate) doesn't mean market research or product viability evaluations are any different either.

What it boils down to, is Kodak have said they made money from film, and thats a good thing. I think the fact that Fuji deciding to produce a film camera is at least one indicator they see value the film photography market.

[mabelsound]

It is my duty to post, in every "death of film" thread, my opinion that film will be available, new, somewhere on earth, continuously (if perhaps expensively) until all of us posting here are dead.

Thanks and good night!

[Trius]

What mable.sound said.

[emraphoto]

"Digital lacks humanity and that is an essential quality for any enduring work of art or any work of historical value."

what planet are you on? really? i have read some hot air in these threads and this has got to take the cake.

every single day there are men and women risking life and limb to bring us some of the most compelling images of our times. these people are driven by a love, curiosity and respect for humanity. these people work incredibly hard and risk everything to remind us of our humanity (and some times lack of it).

time heatherington
balazs gardi
john moore
james nachteway
brert stirton
etc
etc
etc

to claim that there is no work of historical value being produced on digital camera's is so completely out of touch with what's going on in the world of RELATIVE photography i don't understand it.

[Tuolumne]

"Digital lacks humanity and that is an essential quality for any enduring work of art or any work of historical value."

what planet are you on? really? i have read some hot air in these threads and this has got to take the cake.

every single day there are men and women risking life and limb to bring us some of the most compelling images of our times. these people are driven by a love, curiosity and respect for humanity. these people work incredibly hard and risk everything to remind us of our humanity (and some times lack of it).

time heatherington
balazs gardi
john moore
james nachteway
brert stirton
etc
etc
etc

to claim that there is no work of historical value being produced on digital camera's is so completely out of touch with what's going on in the world of RELATIVE photography i don't understand it.

Some things are so completely stupid that they deserve no comment. The above quoted statement was one such.

/T

[emraphoto]

you are right my friend and usually i breeze by these posts with a hearty chuckle BUT i happen to know some of these folks. i know how much they risk, contribute and how intense their love for humanity runs.

[craygc]

[] ...and elevator operators... []

(just to be a smart a$$ :D) They do still exist in places...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/114/295070422_73f5fb02cb_m.jpg

[photomoof]

N
You notice Nikon still sells the F6. Is there still an assembly line somewhere, churning out F6's? No, they made the last F6 years ago. But they made a prediction about how many they could make and sell at a profit, decided they could do it, and did it. If they made 50,000 of them, then that's how many they have to sell, and that's as far as their market research has to take them.



Well hardly years ago, they only started production in 2004. The F6 was in constant production in Japan since 2004, however recently it appears the sales are so slow they have shut down for now (reported by several journalists on the web), but the F6 was produced in one of their more traditional high tech facilities in Japan (the Sendai Plant), pretty much on an as needed by sales. You are right of course the camera is not likely to go back into production once they have shut down the line, so there is extra production.

Nikon is very nimble about production, mostly because of Japanese tax law, which have never encouraged maintaining inventory. The tax reform of 2007 has changed the way inventory is valued.

Prior to the 2007 tax reform, fair market value of inventory in the context of the lower of cost-or-market method would be the replacement cost (for a raw material). This was amended to the net sales value in the 2007 tax refom. So we will see how this changes the traditional inventory structure.