earleygallery Posted November 5, 2011 Share #61 Posted November 5, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) For one thing, you are not accounting for the increasing cost of film. As the market shrinks and less film is made, prices will go up. More and more film users will shift to digital as the expense of purchasing and processing film increases. We each have our tipping point. Sorry but this is just your opinion. You can't speak on behalf of all film photographers. Not to mention the perversity of talking about the cost of film on a Leica forum, where people are happy to spend the price of 10 rolls of film on a lens cap or 150 rolls on a half case!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Hi earleygallery, Take a look here Discussion on Kodak on Radio 4. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanG Posted November 5, 2011 Share #62 Posted November 5, 2011 Oh AlanG give it a rest will you! Why would anyone who wants to shoot digital still be sticking with film? Those of us who remain unconvinced are sticking with film and it would take a lot to change that for me. So, one could assume that we are at the bottom of the curve. Lomo people tend to be the young and trendy, they're shifting lots of cameras and film! I just popped to my local Jessops and bought some 120 B&W. They don't stock much of it, but they still sell it. This is a mini store selling mostly cheap digicams. I'm off in the morning to use the rolls of 120 in a couple of 1903 Kodak box brownies at the London to Brighton Veteran Car Rally. Thank god not all of us think like you! Asking, "Why would anyone who wants to shoot digital still be sticking with film?" assumes a conclusion that is not in evidence and is immaterial as film is continuing its decline in sales for whatever reasons. You do not know how I think or what interests me about film or digital. That too is irrelevant to the points at hand. I thought this was a discussion about the viability of Kodak as the title of the thread states. If you want to start an "I love film thread," go for it. I hope you can keep getting your preferred film for as long as you want it. I am not writing through personal emotions or any relationship with film or digital. I am simply reporting the information I have read and am applying some analysis and response to the views of some others. I haven't seen you present a viable argument that would convince me that I am incorrect. Your remarks to me are mostly repetitious variations of wanting to shoot the messenger. I seem to recall when I mentioned concern about Kodak some time ago, you and some others didn't want to accept it then either. All of the evidence in Kodak's recent reports has shown that besides the company being on a precipice, that film is rapidly declining in profitability for them (-46% this past qtr.) and they do not make any mention of how it will recover in the future or if they can sell the division to anyone in order to try to save the company from bankruptcy. The profit from film was providing breathing room but is not doing enough anymore. They are now pinning all hopes on borrowing more money and selling patents in order to build up the inkjet business and other divisions until they becomes profitable. If you want me to say I love film and hope more people use it, I will. "I love film and hope more people use it!" There, do you think that will change anything? Other than shooting more Kodak film yourself, is there anything you can do to keep the company viable for the future and change what looks to be inevitable? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 5, 2011 Share #63 Posted November 5, 2011 Alan, please, you are making assumptions. Can you quote global film sales last year v year to date? Profit/loss for each manufacturer? Global number of users last year v this year? We are both forming opinions from where we sit. Personally I think digital photography as we know it today is a dead duck. Interesting that Kodak are focussing on inkjet rather than sensors and digicams! As for shooting more Kodak film, why should I? I bought a bunch of Ilford stock today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 5, 2011 Share #64 Posted November 5, 2011 Alan, please, you are making assumptions. Can you quote global film sales last year v year to date? Profit/loss for each manufacturer? Global number of users last year v this year? We are both forming opinions from where we sit. Personally I think digital photography as we know it today is a dead duck. Interesting that Kodak are focussing on inkjet rather than sensors and digicams! As for shooting more Kodak film, why should I? I bought a bunch of Ilford stock today. I thought we are only concerning ourselves with Kodak on this thread and they reported a 10% decline in the Film, Processing, and Entertainment Group last quarter over the 3rd qtr in the previous year. That caused a 46% reduction in profit for this division compared to the same qtr in 2010. How many times do I need to quote this to you? If other companies can be successful selling film and chemicals, more power to them. Although Kodak claims its declines in film sales are in line with industry wide trends however they measure them. The best I can tell is that Kodak made $15M in profit from the Film, Processing and Entertainment Group in the most recent qtr. They increased prices some. CEO Perez does not mention this FPEG division as being the solution for bailing out Kodak but does say he expects the division to be profitable in 2012. Meanwhile they are burning through cash so fast that $15M more or less won't make much difference. His summary paragraph lays out basic plans for the future. Do you see anything about film in it? Eastman Kodak's CEO Discusses Q3 2011 Results - Earnings Call Transcript - Seeking Alpha "On to our traditional business. Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group, FPEG revenues declined at a rate of 10% and they delivered $389 million in revenue. FPEG posted another quarter of positive earnings from operations in spite of significantly higher commodity costs. The higher commodity costs was mitigated by the pricing actions taken throughout the year. In addition, FPEG continued to verbalize costs in line with industry-related volume declines, and when combined, these actions enabled FPEG to generate $15 million in segment earnings." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 5, 2011 Share #65 Posted November 5, 2011 Alan you said "other than shooting more Kodak film yourself...", I'm just pointing out I shoot other brands as well as Kodak. If Kodak cease film production then I will simply shoot more Ilford/Fuji etc. As you've acknowledged at last, Film is profitable for Kodak. As for their figures please remember that Kodak dropped Kodachrome and a few other lines last year, so one would expect their numbers to be down. Digital photography per se isn't part of Kodak's survival plan. Says something! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 5, 2011 Share #66 Posted November 5, 2011 Alan you said "other than shooting more Kodak film yourself...", I'm just pointing out I shoot other brands as well as Kodak. If Kodak cease film production then I will simply shoot more Ilford/Fuji etc. As you've acknowledged at last, Film is profitable for Kodak. As for their figures please remember that Kodak dropped Kodachrome and a few other lines last year, so one would expect their numbers to be down. Digital photography per se isn't part of Kodak's survival plan. Says something! I don't know how shooting other brands is relevant but if you like them, that is fine with me. Are you implying that once Kodachrome and other films were discontinued those shooters either stopped shooting film or went with another brand? Kodak does include digital cameras in the survival plan but Perez seems a little vague about it, "We are making large participation choices in our digital cameras businesses..." But I agree that it doesn't look to be a main focus and I think that Kodak is moving away from photography in general. On a side note, look at how quickly Apple Computer went to Apple Inc. and is mostly a consumer electronics company now that gets the majority of its income from cell phones. Something the didn't even make a few years ago. I believe I always stated that film was profitable to Kodak. Almost everyone who has observed Kodak probably knows that their biggest problem for about a decade has been to try to replace the lost profit as this division has declined. (Film was a high margin item but it doesn't look so appealing anymore.) It is now contributing very little profit compared to costs, but it is something. I wonder if they have many film chemists or are doing much film and processing R&D anymore. "Personally I think digital photography as we know it today is a dead duck." Is there some new technology you know of coming along that is going to replace digital photography? You might try to get yourself to accept Kodak's statement that the 10% decline in film use was part of an industry wide trend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 5, 2011 Share #67 Posted November 5, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Did I dream that they brought out some new Portra film this year? Or was that the elves who made it while they were asleep? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 6, 2011 Share #68 Posted November 6, 2011 Did I dream that they brought out some new Portra film this year? Or was that the elves who made it while they were asleep? Color neg for movies and stills is still their "bread and butter" film. Kodak says that the Portra 160 comes from the technology in the motion picture stock and it replaces two other films. Portra 160, Tri-X, T-Max 100 and 400 are probably their main players today. I'm not being glib. They certainly don't need chemists for Kodachrome film and processing anymore and I suppose they are not doing much R&D on E6 film or B/W. They have dropped all the tungsten film in slide, and color print as well as some other E6 films. There probably won't ever be any processes that replace C-41, E-6, or any of the b/w chemicals. I don't know what they are doing with silver based color printing paper and processes but considering they are emphasizing inkjet technology, traditional silver based color printing may not be getting much R&D. Kodak had 78,000 workers in 2000 and is down to about 18,000 today. I'd suspect some of these were chemists and others doing silver based R&D. I'd be very surprised if they announce much new stuff in silver based photography unless the overall situation at Kodak improves and the film market stops its decline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.