I don't care about the company (as in THE kodak), so long as SOMEBODY keeps making some sort of tri-x. please. please. please.

I love how many hate Kodak the company and its practices, but continue to use Tri-X (not a dig at you SSS). If I only used products by companies I like, I wouldn't be using much.

I've not used any Kodak produces for over ten years now ... I decided there was no point supporting a loser ... and I was right

I like their film. They are clueless as to their real base of fans and users however (like many companies stuck in the realm of legacy products). Kodachrome was a treasure and a gem that could have been exploited to great profit and goodwill with wiser owner connected to the artistic fan and support base.

We can only hope that some entity who understands the niche film (and probably larger cine) market takes over those products, but I'd not bet on that.

I really don't understand how this thread came to be a discussion about the ethics of patent litigation. It doesn't matter one bit if any of us like it or not, it's an "any port in a storm" situation for the company.

Some of us remember a little outfit called Polaroid that got a few more years of life (and, unfortunately, self-complacency) out of winning a big patent lawsuit. Against Kodak, of course.

Hope Tri--x wont die :(

What about the Arista Premium? They are somesort of rebranded Tri-x, right? Where they made by Kodak?

Yeah, Arista Premium 400 is Tri-X.. I'm planning to fill my fridge with it this weekend...

I was once advised by my chairman to "stick to the knitting" at a time of corporate adversity ... perhaps Kodak would have been better attending to their own business instead of suing others, no?

Who would be interested in buying Kodak's film division?
Who is big enough to do that?

Kodak stands for quality films. That is how I have been seeing this company. Something went wrong there.

The top products have been Kodachrome and Tri-X.

I agree, but so does Ilford and they went belly up. Thankfully there was enough passion and belief to resurrect the brand and make the business work. Lots of people complained about some of the Ilford lines dropped, but at least they are alive and kicking.

Hopefully some wealthy film photography loving business people will come to the rescue.

Not Leitz, but Leica Camera. Leitz divested themselves of their camera making business back in the 1980's.

And Kodak sold their sensor-making division to somebody last year.

Jim B.

At this point, I don't think they would be trying to sell it anyway. Looking at last year's financials, the film division is the only one that turned any profits.

I don't think kodak films will be gone. The film photography is indeed a niche market, but what about the cinema industry ? Over there digital is still far away of the quality of the film

It doesn't seem to me - at risk of overstating the obvious, that there is enough demand for film for two suppliers the size of Kodak or Fuji to continue. Fuji adapted, Kodak did not. Kodak is hanging their future on printers and inks? That seems not to be a wise idear to me... I've given up printing with inkjets, never to return. How will Kodak compete with on-line services that produce prints for significantly less money that the cost to do this at home... for those who even still print at all?

Just as a side not:

Leitz company has nothing to do (anymore) with Leica. See what Leitz is actually doing.

As there were come comparisons of Apple and Kodak - I think the biggest difference is that the value of Apple company is estimated at 150 billion Euro :cool: I like products of both, but I have no illusions about their business practices - probably similar in many ways.

totally pathetic nonsense.

without patent protection
few companies would invest in research and innovation
if Kodak got a patent on something before someone else
its because at least that part of the Kodak was working right.

Stephen

Bad news on this front too. Panavision and Arri have ceased production of motion picture film cameras. Some time last year, the last film motion picture camera was made. Thus the future of "films" is digital.

http://nofilmschool.com/2011/10/rumo...r-exaggerated/

No doubt digital is the future, but i don't think that future is close

That is the trouble with the future. Before you know it, it is here. Just ask Kodak. Some companies have more foresight, Fuji for instance, than others, Kodak for example.

Bob

Quote from an ex-Ilford guy, who left in the reorganization: "The management bet the farm on inkjet paper and NEARLY won..."

It was a close-run thing.

Cheers,

R.

The film division has been Kodak's most profitable recently, but revenue continues to shrink quickly at about a 20% a year rate. That may even accelerate as Hollywood goes totally digital with the recent introduction of the Red Scarlet etc. etc. type cameras. We are seeing the kind of breakthroughs in digital cinema cameras now that we saw in digital still cameras around 2005, when there was little practical reason to stick with film for pros.

It is hard to manage a business with revenues shrinking at 20%+ per year. However, a bankruptcy filing does help a lot, because it cancels existing employment contracts. Unfortunately, a lot of union-type employees such as those at Kodak got rather grossly distorted employment benefits, especially pension and healthcare benefits that were extravagantly expensive. For example, General Motors used to have employment costs of something like $89 an hour, of which $28 was the actual wage. Everything else was pension and healthcare, because when you allow early retirement after thirty years and people retire at age 48, and then you're paying for that person and healthcare for the person's whole family long after they stopped working, that gets real expensive. You can still have a decent $28-an-hour job with $8 in benefits and a pension at 65, but you need to go through bankruptcy to get there.

There seems to be some confusion as to what Kodak's business actually is. This is from the 3Q11 quarterly report:

http://investor.kodak.com/phoenix.zh...l-newsEarnings

Consumer Digital Imaging Group Segment (CDG): This segment provides a full range of digital imaging products and service offerings to consumers. CDG encompasses the following SPGs. Products and services included within each SPG are identified below.

Digital Capture and Devices includes digital still and pocket video cameras, digital picture frames, accessories, branded licensed products, imaging sensors, and licensing activities related to the Company’s intellectual property in digital imaging products.

Consumer Inkjet Systems includes consumer inkjet printers and related ink and media consumables.

Retail Systems Solutions includes kiosks, APEX drylab systems, and related consumables and services.

Consumer Imaging Services includes Kodak Gallery products and photo sharing services.

Graphic Communications Group Segment (GCG): GCG serves a variety of customers in the creative, in-plant, data center, commercial printing, packaging, newspaper and digital service bureau market segments with a range of software, media and hardware products that provide customers with a variety of solutions for prepress equipment, workflow software, analog and digital printing, and document scanning. GCG encompasses the following SPGs. Products and services included within each SPG are identified below.

Prepress Solutions includes digital and traditional prepress equipment, consumables, including plates, chemistry and media, related services, and
packaging solutions.

Digital Printing Solutions includes high-speed, high-volume commercial inkjet, and color and black-and-white electrophotographic printing equipment and related consumables and services.

Business Services and Solutions includesworkflow software and digital controllers, document scanning products and servicesand related maintenance offerings. Also included in this SPG are the activities related to the Company’s business solutions and consulting services.

Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group Segment (FPEG): This segment provides consumers, professionals, cinematographers, and other
entertainment imaging customers with film-related products and services. FPEG encompasses the following SPGs. Products and services included within each SPG are identified below.

Entertainment Imaging includes entertainment imaging products and services.

Traditional Photofinishing includes paper and output systems and photofinishing services.

Industrial Materials includes aerial and industrial film products, film for the production of printed circuit boards, and specialty chemicals.

Film Capture includes consumer and professional film and one-time-use cameras.



Here were their profit and loss for the nine months ending September 30:

Consumer Digital Imaging Group Segment: Sales of $1,142 million. Net loss of ($350m).

Graphic Communications Group Segment: Sales of $1,975 million. Net loss of ($171m).

Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group Segment: Sales of $1,152 million. Profit of $2 million.

Indeed. Ask the CEO.

Cheers,

R.

Let's all get together here at RFF pitch in and buy the patients for Trix and Tmax and find some third party to make it for us, then we will never run out.

Very informative post, thanks! Just FYI... the FPEG (Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group Segment) group was eliminated this past week and "film" and related items will be folded into another organization. That's what happens with 20% year on year declines in revenue (though still profitable, for now).

Crossing my fingers that they can stay afloat with some of my fav films, like TX. Given their economies of scale, fixed costs and diminishing revenue from the sector I'm not too optimistic...but there's always hope!

Not always. My wife was born in Rochester. Both her father and her uncle worked for the Great Yellow Father, among other relatives, and it was a mostly benevolent and extremely paternalist company.

Cheers,

R.

No, not really, that is what originally was Brucklacher tools, which had family ties to the file management Leitz of the link (which had been Leitz ever since 1871). Both were part of the Leitz Holding, and the tool business was parted out and retained the family name after the file and stationery company was bought by Esselte.

Kodak unions
 

Everyone talks about Kodak's unions. Kodak did not have unions. They set up the employee's with some of the best benefits and pensions in Rochester. The only plant that was unionized was duPont, which had a local union from the old Defender Photo Plant, which duPont bought. That union tried to strike twice, but duPont had plans for all non-exempt and exempt salary to run the plant and break the union. That worked so well for duPont the bulldozed everything down to a gravel lot a few years back.

The problem with Kodak is the "legacy" things, like attitude, pensions, salaries and patent strategies.

A lawyer is now President, when it should be a former emulsion chemist or coating engineer. The problem for the film business is that it will be very difficult to downsize the coating lines. They are designed to run at 1000's of feet per minute for a huge market.

All they will need is a small alley, an air knife coater and festoon dryer running at 30 fpm to meet the film demand.

I'm hoping Adox will want to go this way, as it's the only economical way to make film for the volumes needed.

Otherwise, you make a film run, and it never gets sold out before it expires.

Still ad sad day for former Rochester natives.

wow, I never knew that.
:(

It probably won't die off in the near-term, but if you read their Chapter 11 filing, it's pretty obvious to me that Kodak will be divesting itself of its film business as part of its ongoing reorganization:

I don't see how maintaining a film division fits in with completing their transformation to a "digital business". My guess is they will try to milk the film division for as much as they can (i.e., raise prices to increase revenue until they discover the market can no longer support the increases) before they either sell it to someone else or kill it off entirely. It will ultimately depend on whether anyone can step in with enough money to make it worthwhile for Kodak. Otherwise, they will probably just write off their losses and leave the old machinery to rust or be used for spare parts. The next year should be pretty "interesting"...

I wonder what it would cost to cart all that machinery off to Samobor. Those Efke chaps seem to know how to keep second-hand film manufacturing kit running for a few decades. :D
--Dave

No disagreement about patents and innovation, just disagreement about the particular patents Kodak is using to try and extract revenue from other companies. Here they are:

U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218 – “Electronic Camera For Initiating Capture of Still Images While Previewing Motion Images”

U.S. Patent No. 7,210,161 – “Automatically Transmitting Images from an Electronic Camera to a Service Provider Using a Network Configuration File”

U.S. Patent No. 7,742,084 – “Network Configuration File for Automatically Transmitting Images from an Electronic Still Camera”

U.S. Patent No. 7,453,605 – “Capturing Digital Images to be Transferred to an E-Mail Address”

U.S. Patent No. 7,936,391 – “Digital Camera with Communications Interface for Selectively Transmitting Images over a Cellular Phone Network and a Wireless LAN Network to a Destination”

Anyone can read find and read these using Google.

These patents are all (to me at least) straight forward and obvious applications of long existing network and computer technology (some of which dates back to the 1970's or earlier). These patents have been granted within the last few years. They are being used in conjunction with lawyers to generate revenue and have little to do with innovation.

What I find particularly amazing however, is that apparently Citigroup, a titanic multinational financial and banking firm thinks these patents are valuable too and has loaned the Chapter 11 Kodak nearly a billion dollars based on this assumption. I'd go short on Citigroup personally.

So someone tell me why the hell i got a 'sorry we can no longer get portra 400 in bulk anymore' answer from my local photo store today?
I am going in to buy all the trix and xtol they have tomorrow.

"We remain committed to make film as long as there is profitable demand for it. And as I noted, it is still profitable."

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-jo...ofitable-kodak

That article has a very positive feel!

One never knows, and I don't pretend to understand companies trading under 'bankruptcy' but perhaps if the film division is genuinely profitable and can stand on it's own then there is hope.

Personally I wish Kodachrome had not gone away but I realise I live in the past :o

I have corresponded directly with Audrey in the past; the interaction was both positive and pleasant.

Kodak is in that business, as a supplier of equipment and materials to the on-line services as well as point of sale kiosks. How big they are, their share of the market, etc., I don't know.

Here are my 2 cents...

I see this restructuring as a major opportunity to save kodak film. Kodak is just a brand. The machines and the people who make the film are the heart and soul of what we expose light onto. Suppose kodak sells off the film business to say Freestyle. The same machines, and the same people will be making the film. The trick here is to sell the film arm to someone who values it and isnt' going to drive it into the ground.

Kodak film is alive and kicking, the demand isn't enough for the supply to make it profitable in its current state. But if you settle the debts, manage your costs, I think it can become something more stable like an illford, or a efke.

This is only my theory.

See post #73 for an answer about the machine aspect and somebody taking it over.

Bob