Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Film division not doing well at Kodak.
Old 01-30-2009   #1
vdonovan
Vince Donovan
 
vdonovan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 494
Film division not doing well at Kodak.

Kodak had a stinky quarter. Digital revenues dropped 23% but film was even worse: off 27% from the previous year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/te...1&ref=business
__________________

Vince Donovan
Portrait Photographer
San Francisco, CA
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2009   #2
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 9,028
Yeeks, I hope something levels out sometime.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2009   #3
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdonovan View Post
Kodak had a stinky quarter. Digital revenues dropped 23% but film was even worse: off 27% from the previous year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/te...1&ref=business
See also the other thread about Fuji. Not good news for film lovers I'm afraid.
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2009   #4
Lilserenity
Registered User
 
Lilserenity is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Worthing, W Sx
Age: 36
Posts: 1,028
Well I had better stop shooting film then and buy a digital camera

Or -- I'll carry on shooting 35mm and 120 whilst I can and when I can't find any anymore (b&w and C41/E6) then I'll get a digital camera.

What will be will be.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2009   #5
aad
Not so new now.
 
aad is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,231
Yes, film revenue was down, but profit was up. Digital just lost money. You can't lose money fast enough to make it up in volume.

I'm staying away from the Fuji thread. Too busy. I'll worry about film availability when I can't get any.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=3426'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2009   #6
jmkelly
rangefinder user
 
jmkelly's Avatar
 
jmkelly is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 551
Only down 27%? In today's economy that's about average. Better than GM or Chrysler. Not as good as Porsche. How'd Leica do?
__________________
- John
Some people actually know things, others just run their soup-sucks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2009   #7
Pickett Wilson
Registered User
 
Pickett Wilson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,846
I'm sure that's cold comfort to Kodak whose stock is tanking.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2009   #8
Chuck Albertson
Registered User
 
Chuck Albertson is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 534
Film revenue may be down, but it's still the bulk of their profits.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2009   #9
Pickett Wilson
Registered User
 
Pickett Wilson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,846
They have no profit. Overall loss was $127 million, I think.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2009   #10
brachal
Refrigerated User
 
brachal's Avatar
 
brachal is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Orleans, La
Age: 51
Posts: 1,021
Hey, film is down only 4% more than digital. That's doing pretty well.
__________________
Bill

My Gallery

Me on flickr

"Living in fear is just another way of dying before your time." DBT
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2009   #11
daveywaugh
Blah
 
daveywaugh's Avatar
 
daveywaugh is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 354
"Revenue from digital products dropped 23 percent to $1.78 billion, and traditional film-based revenue fell 27 percent to $652 million."

I know a large proportion of film revenue comes from motion picture stock, but still the proportion of overall film to digital surprised me. I'd say that bodes well for film rather than ringing alarm bells. The drop is disappointing of course, but any division worth that much is hardly going to "go out of business" anytime soon. I think there will be lots of film for a long time yet! They keep releasing new stuff don't they!
__________________
website.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2009   #12
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 9,028
Canon quarterly profits down 81%.

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/s...ighlight=Canon
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2009   #13
vol72
Registered User
 
vol72 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee USA
Posts: 62
Hey, it isn't just Kodak or analog that is down. In case you haven't heard, there is a recession/depression ongoing. No doubt some won't make it. I hope there will always be film during my lifetime, if not the equipment goes in a case to view. Much like the collectors have done for decades. At least I have used my camera equipment to make images.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2009   #14
Al Kaplan
Registered User
 
Al Kaplan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 77
Posts: 4,466
Based on "the sky is falling" predictions of some of you I'd get really concerned just reading the Miami Herald. After all, about every entity from the county school board to the Miami-Dade County government itself is committed to greater expenditures than the projected tax revenues for the next few years. Florida isn't in much better shape, and Clinton's budget surplus has been squandered and then some over the past eight years. Overall, Kodak and Fuji are starting to look sort off healthy compared to a lot of other things.
__________________
RIP

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2009   #15
John Lawrence
Registered User
 
John Lawrence is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by aad View Post
I'll worry about film availability when I can't get any.
My sentiments exactly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2009   #16
Windscale
Registered User
 
Windscale is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 401
Films will probably die out in a matter of years. Just hope that I will go before they do!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2009   #17
Al Kaplan
Registered User
 
Al Kaplan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 77
Posts: 4,466
...and the auto manufacturers are facing tough times, but I have no worries about gasoline going the way of buggy whips. We're in a major resession. There aren't a lot of new film cameras being introduced partly because the market is glutted with used ones, and partly because tha camera makers finally figured out a way to convince photographers, the amateurs at least, that they just HAD to buy a complete new camera every year featuring the latest technology.

Kodak anf Fuji recenly introduced entire new lines of first pro and now amateur color negative films, Ilford and Kodak still sell complete lines of traditional grain B&W films as well as lines of the newer tabular grain film. Fuji has brought new versions of their B&W to market.

Fuji and Kodak both recently revamped their professional motion picture film line-ups with improved finer grained versions, and films better able to cope with mixed lighting situations.

Trade journals such as The Rangefinder constantly have articles by and about photographers who haven't abandoned film. Sure, most of them choose digital for some shoots, but still they rave about the smoothness and tonality they get from film, and many actually prefer using film. The magazines still get ads from film manufacturers touting their lastest films. They have articles about how a film based work flow can be more economical than digital and save a lot of time to boot.

I guess I should go outside now. It's time to check and see if the sky is falling.
__________________
RIP

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2009   #18
vdonovan
Vince Donovan
 
vdonovan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 494
I regret my original "sky is falling" post in that it mis-states what is really going on at Kodak. I took a closer look at Kodak's actual press release and saw that film is actually the stellar performer in that company. It's not going to save their quarterly bacon, but they'd be fools to cut it off:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=69405
__________________

Vince Donovan
Portrait Photographer
San Francisco, CA
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2009   #19
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Kaplan View Post
Based on "the sky is falling" predictions of some of you I'd get really concerned just reading the Miami Herald.
If I were a black-and-white-thinking CEO and looked at my glass of water, I'd be panicking that 1 fluid Oz. is missing from the total 10 fluid Oz. that my glass used to hold five minutes ago.

It's a dry spell!!

It's the apocalypse! I better go and warn my neighbours that a brush fire is imminent. I'll also ask the Feds to bail me out, but not before I finish filling up my pool.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2009   #20
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,068
Kodak alone did $652 in film sales in a quarter, X4 = 2.6 billion a year - roughly approximately? That's just Kodak. I'd say the film market - obviously not what it once was, will be around for some time. Not worrying about it at all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2009   #21
Chris101
summicronia
 
Chris101's Avatar
 
Chris101 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Kodak alone did $652 in film sales in a quarter, X4 = 2.6 billion a year - roughly approximately? That's just Kodak. I'd say the film market - obviously not what it once was, will be around for some time. Not worrying about it at all.
Well, I'm glad that's settled once and for all!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2009   #22
Al Kaplan
Registered User
 
Al Kaplan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 77
Posts: 4,466
The thing to do is put all your money into pixel futures, then dump 'em just before the Big Money guys bale.
__________________
RIP

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2009   #23
Pickett Wilson
Registered User
 
Pickett Wilson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,846
I'm sure Kodak will make up the $137 million loss in volume.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2009   #24
cwatgo1970
Registered User
 
cwatgo1970's Avatar
 
cwatgo1970 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Texas
Posts: 41
With the current ecconomic woes, these percentages are close in sync with the decline in sales as just about everything else, not only film.
__________________
Fun-Quote: "Now, now, my good man, this is no time for making enemies." -- Voltaire His last words on his death bed when asked by a priest to renounce Satan.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2009   #25
dfoo
Registered User
 
dfoo is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,921
If you actually look at EK, their stock is ridiculously underpriced.

P/E: 1.82.
Market cap: 1.17bio.
Cash on hand: approximate 2bio.

That means the market values the company around -$800 mio. Good stuff!
__________________
M8, M3, ZM Ikon + too many lenses to list.

Some of my work - http://silverprint.posterous.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2009   #26
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfoo View Post
If you actually look at EK, their stock is ridiculously underpriced.

P/E: 1.82.
Market cap: 1.17bio.
Cash on hand: approximate 2bio.

That means the market values the company around -$800 mio. Good stuff!
Now, if I only had money to invest...

It's like Wall Street has become a refined Monty Python episode.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:53.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.