Kodak on 10 Brands that will Disappear in 2010 List

[CameraQuest]

Will Kodak disappear in 2010?
I hope not, but some think so.
damn.


http://247wallst.com/2009/12/02/the-...ppear-in-2010/

Stephen

[Pickett Wilson]

I think almost certainly. You can't see double digit declines in revenue quarter after quarter for very long and stay in business. Simple economics.

But Fujifilm is experiencing serious declines in film sales, so I suspect they will dump film within the few years at most, regardless of Kodak's failure.

[Andy Kibber]

In marginally related news, I found out today that one of the two downtown prolabs in my city is closing. It's the one with Kodak branding. The other one is Fuji!

[dcsang]

Time to stock up while you can - empty a freezer or buy a new one

Dave

[Pickett Wilson]

Nah, Dave. Don't you read the forum threads? Film will be around for hundreds of more years.

[dcsang]

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

Nah, Dave. Don't you read the forum threads? Film will be around for hundreds of more years.

Oh.. I know.. those threads lack the following though:

"Film will be around for hundreds of more years in your freezers because all the big makers of film will have given up on the medium by 2015 due to a lack of profitability in that sector."



Cheers,
Dave

[Melvin]

This is a good story on how private equity firms operate. Good bye Tri-X!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=120391729

[Olsen]

Originally Posted by Melvin

This is a good story on how private equity firms operate. Good bye Tri-X!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=120391729

Thank you, for the link! Very good! I have already ordered the book.

Back home here in Norway, I have warned, for a long time, that these Private Equity firms will destroy our economy too. There is hardly a company within the small (soon tiny) industrial sector here in Norway that is not owned by a PE - and sunk into debt. That either have to be paid at some dramatic 'Monday' in the future, - or restructured. I suspect some of these PE firms to operate close to organized crime. Like the Gambino (of New York - or Sicily) family buying respected companies, drowning them with debt, run off with the money and let the company go bust.

There is only one remedy: Increase interest rates drastically! Let the prime rate float free and let the market decide what it it worth (- possibly the only issue I share opinion with Ron Paul) - and add a 'debt fee' - a tax that can help many countries cover their huge public debt.

As it is now, it is too easy and too cheap to borrow huge sums of money. This leads to that incompetent people can borrow just as easy and cheaply as the professionals. And it leads to that too much money/resources are directed towards not profitable investments.

Kodak?

I don't think that the brand will die, though. It's too valuable. There is more reason to be worried about film. The crisis we are in, a depression, actually, spells trouble for film production.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Olsen

Thank you, for the link! Very good! I have already ordered the book.

Back home here in Norway, I have warned, for a long time, that these Private Equity firms will destroy our economy too. There is hardly a company within the small (soon tiny) industrial sector here in Norway that is not owned by a PE - and sunk into debt. That either have to paid at some dramatic 'Monday' in the future, - or restructured. I suspect some of these PE firms to operate close to organized crime. Like the Gambino (of New York - or Sicily) family buying respected companies, drowning them with debt, run off with the money and let the company go bust.

There is only one remedy: Increase interest rates drastically! Let the prime rate float free and let the market decide what it it worth (- possibly the only issue I share opinion with Ron Paul) - and add a 'debt fee' - a tax that can help many countries cover their huge public debt.

As it is now, it is too easy and too cheap to borrow huge sums of money. This leads to that incompetent people can borrow just as easy and cheaply as the professionals. And it leads to that too much money/resources are directed towards not profitable investments.

Kodak?

I don't think that the brand will die, though. It's too valuable. There is more reason to be worried about film. The crisis we are in, a depression, actually, spells trouble for film production.

Dear Olsen,

Elegantly phrased!

Capitalism, historically, relied on intelligence and luck. Losses were well distributed (cf. my great-great grandfather who went broke and according to family legend had to sell the steam yacht and bring my great-grandmother Florence home from finishing school, but his was only one of a dozen or more major iron companies in the UK). Flo therefore joined the Party in 1917...

Now that any cretin with a few kronor spare can invest in the stock market, and the hysteria of crowds operates in selling shares in large companies, capitalism itself is devalued.

Cheers,

R.

[Ronald_H]

If Kodak and Fuji quit film, they'll probably sell equipment to others. If the end is really close, I actually will buy a big freezer and stock it full of film. But we're not really quite there yet.

[Melvin]

I'm almost afraid to ask, but how's Ilford doing?

[bmasonoh]

Well this is just depressing. I'd like to hope that they'll sell their film division rather than just shut it down. I'd also like to hope that the Eastern European companies keep making film. There time may yet come.

[Pickett Wilson]

"I'd like to hope that they'll sell their film division rather than just shut it down."

I dunno. Let's look at the possible scenario. Kodak can't profitably make film so they have quit producing it. Fujifilm is close behind. Hey, I think I'll buy the equipment and start making film. Surely I could make a fortune that way!

[Jaans]

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

"I'd like to hope that they'll sell their film division rather than just shut it down."

I dunno. Let's look at the possible scenario. Kodak can't profitably make film so they have quit producing it. Fujifilm is close behind. Hey, I think I'll buy the equipment and start making film. Surely I could make a fortune that way!

Why is so much of your input into this forum and especially this thread come across as glib? Your prophetic nonsense on the state of world, ie specifically Leica and film is tedious to say the least.

I still find it amazing that other members bother responding to your remarks, especially after your trollish remarks when you rated the quality of the work here at rangefinder as generally poor in an earlier thread. It makes me wonder if someone has too much time on their hands. Perhaps you could help W. Bush cut down some more trees and dig for those worms in Texas.

[Dave Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Jaans

Why is so much of your input into this forum and especially this thread come across as glib? Your prophetic nonsense on the state of world, ie specifically Leica and film is tedious to say the least.

I still find it amazing that other members bother responding to your remarks, especially after your trollish remarks when you rated the quality of the work here at rangefinder as generally poor in an earlier thread. It makes me wonder if someone has too much time on their hands. Perhaps you could help W. Bush cut down some more trees and dig for those worms in Texas.

Glib or not Picket's "prophetic nonsense" makes a lot of sense, and probably appears tedious ( to you ) - because it is not what you want yo hear. As for his remarks regarding the quality of work - posted here ( I didn't see them ) as being generally poor - if that's being a troll, then I'm one too, because it IS!, mostly meaningless grey and white shots of strangers in the street - doing nothing in particular, or the endless examples of 'wonderful bokeh' - that makes you sick if viewed too long, but every so often - someone produces something of beauty and imagination. Perhaps I "have too much time on my hands" too! - now where's that axe and shovel?
Dave.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Dave Wilkinson

Glib or not Picket's "prophetic nonsense" makes a lot of sense, and probably appears tedious ( to you ) - because it is not what you want yo hear. As for his remarks regarding the quality of work - posted here ( I didn't see them ) as being generally poor - if that's being a troll, then I'm one too, because it IS!, mostly meaningless grey and white shots of strangers in the street - doing nothing in particular, or the endless examples of 'wonderful bokeh' - that makes you sick if viewed too long, but every so often - someone produces something of beauty and imagination. Perhaps I "have too much time on my hands" too! - now where's that axe and shovel?
Dave.

Agree ... Pickett seldom has stars in his eyes and never puts on the rose coloured glasses where reality is concerned.

I want film to survive as much as anyone ... but people who pluck statements from the air about how well film is really doing because they use it and know a lot of others who do also, give me the irrits I'm afraid because their claims invariably can't be substantiated with over all film sales figures!

Pickett has little tolerance for that sort of stuff and has a right to express his feelings about it ... as we all do ... often!

[sepiareverb]

Ilford gains a lot if Kodak goes under, and Ilford has stated many times they are in it for the long haul. Being much more nimble, and owned by the employees Ilford seems positioned to be the last man standing. Kodak, as a company owned by shareholders has no interest in anything but profit, be that in memory cards, shrinkwrap film or whatever. It is certainly not in the products that made them famous in large enough volumes to satisfy the owners who care nothing about photography. And they've demonstrated again and again they have no desire to be in the silver photography business. First paper, then Kodachrome, then a bunch of the chemistry. They're making it harder and harder for people who used to use nothing but Kodak products to bother with any of them. I use nothing made by Kodak anymore except for Selenium Toner and Glacial Acetic Acid.

[Matus]

Originally Posted by sepiareverb

Ilford gains a lot if Kodak goes under, and Ilford has stated many times they are in it for the long haul. Being much more nimble, and owned by the employees Ilford seems positioned to be the last man standing. ...

May well be true, but the list of color films from Ilford is way too short ...

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Matus

May well be true, but the list of color films from Ilford is way too short ...

No, looks pretty rational to me...

Cheers,

R.

[nikku]

Yes, film is disappearing...so everyone panic and dump your old gear for super cheap on ebay! Preferably Olympus OM and Leica gear. Thanks.

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by nikku

Yes, film is disappearing...so everyone panic and dump your old gear for super cheap on ebay! Preferably Olympus OM and Leica gear. Thanks.

I'm not panicking, but I'm selling any and all film-related cameras that I do not use often and which will almost certainly have no value soon. It is time to wrap these things up in an orderly fashion. I will retain some medium format and large format as well as anything that also has utility with digital camera bodies.

[nikku]

Originally Posted by bmattock

I'm not panicking, but I'm selling any and all film-related cameras that I do not use often and which will almost certainly have no value soon. It is time to wrap these things up in an orderly fashion. I will retain some medium format and large format as well as anything that also has utility with digital camera bodies.

Sweet, hopefully there are a lot more people out there thinking along the same lines. I'm an opportunist, and if the price is right, I will buy into a dead system. Just because film is disappearing doesn't mean that film cameras cease to give a quality product. The entire reason why I started shooting film to begin with was the ability to get excellent quality with relatively little fiscal investment. The way things are going in the digital realm, only film cameras, not lenses, will be obsolete. I have never spent more than $100 on a film camera body (usually closer to $50). So even if the production of film ceased tomorrow, I would be out maybe $300 at most. But I still have a freezer full of film, and the means to develop at home, so I would still be able to shoot for the next year at least.

[nikku]

One thing that would suck however--I have to spend a lot of time in front of the computer processing RAW files to get them looking right. With film, I know exactly what films to use to achieve a certain look. Film is actually a shortcut for me (weird, I know).

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by nikku

Sweet, hopefully there are a lot more people out there thinking along the same lines. I'm an opportunist, and if the price is right, I will buy into a dead system. Just because film is disappearing doesn't mean that film cameras cease to give a quality product. The entire reason why I started shooting film to begin with was the ability to get excellent quality with relatively little fiscal investment. The way things are going in the digital realm, only film cameras, not lenses, will be obsolete. I have never spent more than $100 on a film camera body (usually closer to $50). So even if the production of film ceased tomorrow, I would be out maybe $300 at most. But I still have a freezer full of film, and the means to develop at home, so I would still be able to shoot for the next year at least.

Being able to shoot for the next year does not make my hundreds of old cameras any more useful to me. Making the rational decision to winnow the herd down to the few cameras that actually interest me is not in any way an indicator that I think badly of film quality. This isn't about isms, it's simple practicality. I'm glad there will be buyers for my stuff in the short term. I don't want to be the guy without a chair when the music stops.

[nikku]

Originally Posted by bmattock

Being able to shoot for the next year does not make my hundreds of old cameras any more useful to me. Making the rational decision to winnow the herd down to the few cameras that actually interest me is not in any way an indicator that I think badly of film quality. This isn't about isms, it's simple practicality. I'm glad there will be buyers for my stuff in the short term. I don't want to be the guy without a chair when the music stops.

I guess it's different for me since I got into photography in the early aughts, when the digital revolution was in full effect and everybody was selling off their film gear. I spent very little money for some great gear, and have followed that line of logic ever since. Plus, I keep my herd thin as I go. Like I said, if the price is right, you definitely have a buyer.

Once the film is gone, I guess I'll just have to continue shooting my dslr! (sucks because new lenses for that sucker are way more expensive.)