AlanG Posted January 6, 2012 Share #41 Â Posted January 6, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Enough to buy about 5 rolls of Portra. Â Sorry but I deleted my post as I found the financial decline too depressing. At least I didn't own any Kodak stock but I can't say that about GM, Fanny Mae and some others that went bust on me. Â On the positive side we should note what a great company Kodak was for photography in general, for its employees for many decades, and what it meant to Rochester which has several first class institutions as a result of Kodak's generosity and presence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Hi AlanG, Take a look here kodak bankruptcy. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted January 7, 2012 Share #42 Â Posted January 7, 2012 I remember a serious thread on the forum - pre Dr Kaufmann - suggesting that the forum members should club together to buy Leica. Â Kodak is probably going to be cheaper, so, how about it? Dibs on the Lear jet! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RITskellar Posted January 7, 2012 Share #43 Â Posted January 7, 2012 On the positive side we should note what a great company Kodak was for photography in general, for its employees for many decades, and what it meant to Rochester which has several first class institutions as a result of Kodak's generosity and presence. Â Times change, and sometimes there's not much you can or should do about it. But what you said is very true. I grew up in Rochester, and the RIT campus and my father's photo labs were my playground. He has been a professor and director of the photo tech school for 45 years. Directly or indirectly, so much of his, mine and everyone's life in Rochester was defined by Kodak. It was and will always be an important part of our identity. It's sad, but then again, I trust that its legacy will live on in other ways for a long time to come. That said, of course, I very much hope that Tri-X, Portra, and the 16mm cinema films continue to be made and available in one form or another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 7, 2012 Share #44 Â Posted January 7, 2012 Kodak is probably going to be cheaper, so, how about it? Dibs on the Lear jet! Â I think it is a lease so that will be gone soon. I don't know what kind of list I got on but I receive offers for jet leasing all of the time but my boss (me) won't authorize them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gberger Posted January 7, 2012 Share #45 Â Posted January 7, 2012 One other point that might be overlooked: For years and years, Kodak had a near-monopoly on the sheet films used in the medical world (X-rays, etc). That is going away as hospitals and clinics begin to change over to digital processing. Today, when I nave an X-ray or a CT Scan, I take a CD of the results to my physician, along with the radiologist's assessment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 7, 2012 Share #46 Â Posted January 7, 2012 As George says, there are (or, more to the point, were) many uses for photographic film that had nothing to do with "photography" as we think of it. Radiographic films being one, graphic arts films/papers being another, scientific films being one more. Â For several decades, every single page in most U.S. newspapers (also magazines and books) was created by photographic processes: type set optically, or later by laser, onto photographic paper; and then pasted up into the final page layout and copied again as a life-sized "litho" (pure black or white) negative; which was contact-printed onto a photosensitive metal printing plate. Â Multiple billions of square feet of silver film sold every year by Kodak, Agfa, Konica and others, not to mention the miles of photo paper used for typesetting and the half-toned images. The average newspaper spent about 100 times as much each year for their backshop film as they did for the film shot by the staff photographers. Â Inch by inch, much of that volume of photographic material has been eliminated over the past couple of decades. First computer pasteup (Quark Xpress, etc.) and more recently, direct-to-plate technology, where the plates are laser-written directly from the computer, with ethernet replacing all those feet of film. Â When I worked as a hospital photographer in the 80's, every visual diagnostic tool (CT scanners, ultrasound machines, radioisotope imagers) captured the electronic images off the oscilloscopes/CRTs with Polaroid backs, or with X-ray film. As George says, today those images are saved digitally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 7, 2012 Share #47 Â Posted January 7, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) What I see as the relevant consideration is whether a scaled-down pro/consumer film manufacturing business is viable? Â As we know, Kodak films still make a massive profit, and I'm wondering how much greater that profit could or would be if: Â - the film division was divorced from the loss-making behemoth that forms the rest of Kodak; - the new company was 'leaner and meaner' (yes I know this sadly probably means fewer jobs); - the historical parts of the company (ie: Andy's references above) were completely shut down, ie: the company would concentrate only on pro film; - the volume market would be abandoned and replaced by a slimline but niche pro/consumer target market; - the film company would be run enthusiastically - with advertising and promotion and all the things (like Facebook presence and so on) that the film division barely registers now. Â An unbelievable number of ordinary people (this includes otherwise well-informed people like ad Art Directors, for example) truly believe that film is no longer produced - I can't tell you how many times I've had that same conversation about how amazing it is that I can still buy film!! The 'new' Kodak Film Inc. would have to start changing that impression with a real bang. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinglj Posted January 7, 2012 Share #48 Â Posted January 7, 2012 How sad to see Kodak on the verge of bankrupcy.Many forum members born after 1982 may not appreciate what a dominant force in photography Kodak used to be and how the company literally made photography popular worldwide . Kodak was even a pioneer in digital photography .Another American icon lost .See The Rolling Road: KODAK Â shinglj Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 7, 2012 Share #49 Â Posted January 7, 2012 Sorry Plasticman but the problem is thapt film no longer makes a "massive profit" for Kodak Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posto 6 Posted January 7, 2012 Share #50 Â Posted January 7, 2012 My opinion, FWIW- sell the Kodak film business to Fuji, and let them reorganize as required to make it viable. Furthermore, by all means milk the Kodak name for nostalgia and marketing purposes, but do not rely on their business skills, models or prowess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 7, 2012 Share #51 Â Posted January 7, 2012 What's "massive" lies in the eye of the beholder. Â Kodak earnings (profits) from the entire Film, Photofinishing, and Entertainment group for Q3 2011 were: $15 million. Includes still-photo film and movie film, but not graphics arts products. Gross revenue (total sales before expenses) for the segment was $389 million. Margin = 3.9% Â Little ol' Leica earned about $20-22 million over the same period (interpolating from their half-year figures, and converting at the Euro/dollar ratio at the time). On gross income (again interpolated) of around $90 million. Margin = ~22% Â Posto 6: I think Fuji would be offended by the idea that Kodak has anything that Fuji would want to own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 7, 2012 Share #52 Â Posted January 7, 2012 I think Fuji would be offended by the idea that Kodak has anything that Fuji would want to own. Â Tri-X, can't think of anything else they'd want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 7, 2012 Share #53 Â Posted January 7, 2012 One of the Czech or Chinese companies would benefit from Tri-X much more than Fuji Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 7, 2012 Share #54 Â Posted January 7, 2012 I guess if Fuji wanted the look of Tri-X, they'd have made Neopan 400 look like Tri-X in the first place. They do have their own competent film chemists. Â EDIT: back in the mid-70's, when Fuji was breaking into the US market, their ad in photo magazines showed two apparently identical pearls on a black background. The tag line read: "Can you see the difference? Japanese eyes can!" The subtext to their whole marketing program over the decades has been "We ain't Kodak! We're better!" Â (Sorry, Steve - didn't mean to blind-side your post 56 with my edit... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 7, 2012 Share #55 Â Posted January 7, 2012 I could easily foresee Efke Tri-X this time next year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 7, 2012 Share #56 Â Posted January 7, 2012 I guess if Fuji wanted the look of Tri-X, they'd have made Neopan 400 look like Tri-X in the first place. They do have their own competent film chemists. Â Agreed, but Tri-X is _the_ iconic b&w film, and while they could have emulated the look they wouldn't have had the prestige of the name. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iliahi Posted January 7, 2012 Share #57 Â Posted January 7, 2012 I really like Ektar 100 & Portra 160/400. Given that Kodak is on the ropes, anybody has thoughts of buying up and storing film? It might not be a bad thing to stimulate film sales when they need it most. And, one's assured of a reasonable supply of film no matter the outcome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 7, 2012 Share #58 Â Posted January 7, 2012 If you place an order for a few million rolls, Kodak will keep going and no one will have to hoard! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim123 Posted January 7, 2012 Share #59 Â Posted January 7, 2012 I was thinking of the same thing. Hoarding 100G. However, only time will tell. In the mean time I just ordered a whole bunch of Fuji 50. Oh oh!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 7, 2012 Share #60 Â Posted January 7, 2012 A few years ago, I bought a load of Velva 50, a film that would never be made again.. Â Still available. Â "Don't Panic" as Douglas Adams sensibly used to say. Â I still think Kodak film s going West, but I do think that Tri-X will survive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.