Kodak to sell its Film and Paper business [merged]

[Larcomb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is my understanding that Kodak's chemical and coating operations can not be scaled back for small volume production. I think the evidence for this is pretty clear as Kodak would already have done this if it were practical... instead of dropping so many products.

 

So what you said above is true that it would take capital and determination to turn it into a small scale operation targeting niche markets. Why anyone would buy Kodak's facilities if this is their goal is not clear to me. It seems to me that you are making an assumption that somewhere there is a well thought through and informed business plan showing this would be profitable.

 

However this seems in conflict with your opinion that there will be strong demand. E.g. if the demand is so strong and will grow with a new generation, why would production need to be scaled back and targeted to a niche market? And the idea that increased film prices will lead to greater demand is wishful thinking in my opinion. As prices go up demand will fall. Yes, it might eventually just become a plaything for the well to do hobbyist at that point. But practical uses for film will be long gone by then and if film exists at all the market will be tiny if the price is too high.

 

I bet there is not a serious investor on this planet who would spend funds and/or raise more funds from others based on the idea that there will be a new generation of film users that will keep film sales steady let alone cause them to increase.

 

Since no one has been lining up to buy the Kodak film and paper division, I think the title of this thread should be changed to "Kodak to try to sell its Film and Paper business." Should it actually get purchased we will have a better idea of what the buyer plans to do with it.

 

DuPont and 3M exited the film and paper business decades ago. Well 3M still makes "Photographic Tape" which is black opaque masking tape. And photographic spray adhesives. Now if Kodak had used its chemists, facilities, and acquisitions to make corn and other seeds, they'd be a player today. That is what DuPont did.

 

But DuPont and 3M did not have the name 'Kodak'. As owners and custodians, I think DuPont, 3M, Weyerhauser etc. would be a good fit.

[KM-25]

There are some hurdles to overcome for sure....

 

Colleen has stated on the RFF thread that Kodak is also selling the chemistry sector as part of the sale. As it has been pointed out on APUG, Champion Chemical makes our Kodak soup and is owed a lot of money by EK so not knowing the details, I can only speculate as to whether the buyer of the film group also has to buy the chemistry operation and gets the debt with it?

 

So we keep going round and round on the fact that both still and motion stocks are made in Building 38 so how can they separate them. Well, who is to say that Kodak is not selling the entirety of both lines to the still film buyer only to lease the line back when needing to make motion stock? And who is to say that a big, big player in the motion picture industry is not going to buy the stills division and then make, sell and distribute both motion and still stock…some of them are owed some 26 million in rebates after all….all speculation, could be as close to a hit as throwing a stone at pluto from a hurricane…

 

There might be a formula here to keep Kodak film around longer than the Motion Picture industry's projected ( pun intended ) estimate for a full digital transition, but I think at this point, the best we can hope is that a big player buys the whole thing, Bldg. 38, stills, motion, lock stock and barrel and enjoys decent even though declining profits for a few years. Maybe by then EK engineering genius Garret Kokyx will have thought of other brilliant ways for the owners of Building 38 to monetize the facility and film will ride on yet more coat tails of profit...

 

In the meantime, meet my personal answer to "Filmaggedon"...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited August 24, 2012 by KM-25

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jpattison]

Where do you keep the beer?

[Paul J]

Kodak. Getting out of the film business? Bloody nora.

 

I'll never forget the week that home business Instagram was bought for 1 Billion and at the same time Kodak went broke.

 

[SiMPLiFY]

In the meantime, meet my personal answer to "Filmaggedon"...

 

I LOVE that picture and wish I had that supply! I just bought 10 bricks @ $3.99 a roll. I will hopefully be able to budget for a few hundred more before the price goes up and it becomes unaffordable.

[plasticman]

As I recall, when Kodak filed for Chapter 11, many of us were saying we hoped that the (profitable) film division could be spun off or sold as a separate concern. Now it's happening, the naysayers and vultures are circling all over again. Let's wait and see how it pans out.

 

And there's only one way to frustrate the schadenfreude of those longing to see film finally disappear: keep buying and using it.

[traveler_101]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is my understanding that Kodak's chemical and coating operations can not be scaled back for small volume production. I think the evidence for this is pretty clear as Kodak would already have done this if it were practical... instead of dropping so many products.

 

So what you said above is true that it would take capital and determination to turn it into a small scale operation targeting niche markets. Why anyone would buy Kodak's facilities if this is their goal is not clear to me. It seems to me that you are making an assumption that somewhere there is a well thought through and informed business plan showing this would be profitable.

 

You are right to be skeptical. I am making no such assumption about the existence of such a business plan and in an earlier post I pointed out that the present physical plant is probably obsolete: rather, I am laying out what seems to me to be required to succeed and I am trying to remain hopeful. It's also worth pointing out that this transition has been done successfully elsewhere.

 

this seems in conflict with your opinion that there will be strong demand. E.g. if the demand is so strong and will grow with a new generation, why would production need to be scaled back and targeted to a niche market? And the idea that increased film prices will lead to greater demand is wishful thinking in my opinion. As prices go up demand will fall. Yes, it might eventually just become a plaything for the well to do hobbyist at that point. But practical uses for film will be long gone by then and if film exists at all the market will be tiny if the price is too high.

 

You treat demand abstractly as a product of price; I think it is embedded in culture . I am saying that the demand for film as a mass product is gone; it has been replaced by digital, but demand for film as a speciality product is still strong and likely to grow in the future. I am not treating demand as an abstract response to price, but in relation to broader cultural trends. We are talking about entertainment products.

 

I bet there is not a serious investor on this planet who would spend funds and/or raise more funds from others based on the idea that there will be a new generation of film users that will keep film sales steady let alone cause them to increase.

 

Well it isn't a sure bet, I'll grant you that, but who ever succeeded making sure bets? The larger point is that the company that purchases Kodak must show "determination"--as I said. This must do this out of desire to make a good product; they must believe in the product, otherwise just let the whole thing go--as has happened with so many industries in the USA.

[traveler_101]

As a humble spectator of this situation, i see it has been

they are motivated by the possibility of having their bonuses. that's it. nothing about creating a company, saving jobs or do something better . . .

it is awful to say, but it has nothing to do with truth, passion, entrepreneurship and ultimately nothing to do with photography anymore.

sad.

 

Hear! Hear!

[traveler_101]

There are some hurdles to overcome for sure....

 

In the meantime, meet my personal answer to "Filmaggedon"...

 

HOLY COW! Is that a freezer or a refrigerator full? Have you calculated how many years' supply you've got there?

[AlanG]

 

You treat demand abstractly as a product of price; I think it is embedded in culture . I am saying that the demand for film as a mass product is gone; it has been replaced by digital, but demand for film as a speciality product is still strong and likely to grow in the future. I am not treating demand as an abstract response to price, but in relation to broader cultural trends. We are talking about entertainment products.

 

 

There may be a market for it but I don't think it has anything to do with it being embedded in culture. Lots of pros and others who used film for decades have moved away from it and lots of younger people know virtually nothing about Kodak and see little value in the brand name or its products. Some might value Lomo more than Kodak at this point.

 

The demand for film as a specialty product does not mean that people will pay any price to use it. Large format film and processing priced itself out of my world quite a while ago and I switched to mostly 120 backs on my 4x5 cameras (and scanning) for about the last decade of my film shooting. Then once I was used to a digital workflow it was an obvious choice to move to digital capture once good quality digital cameras came out. Up to that time I had been about as immersed in the Kodak culture as one could get (without being a Kodak employee) but that had nothing to do with my decison.

 

Countless long time brand names and products that one might have thought were equally part of the culture are gone.

 

As to another post. - I see no reason for any large company such as DuPont, 3M, Weyerhauser... (where did that one come from?) to get excited about getting into the film business.

Edited August 24, 2012 by AlanG

[andybarton]

Let's not turn this into an anti-film discussion. Please.

[KM-25]

HOLY COW! Is that a freezer or a refrigerator full? Have you calculated how many years' supply you've got there?

 

Freezer on the bottom, -15F, cold fridge on top, about 30F. Since this is a fisheye view, the freezer is actually much bigger than it looks. I figure I have about 10 years worth if I don't buy anymore film, over 20+ years if I follow my plan of rotating in fresh stock which is how I do it now. I have since moved the 400 speed stuff into the freezer, pulled out the Techpan and APX25 and put it in the fridge since it will keep fine at 30F for years.

 

There is close to 3,000 sheets of 4x5, 2,000+ rolls of 120 and about 500 rolls of 35mm. I have enough chemistry on hand to soup all of it, I am sure B&H and Freestyle have reported me to the Department of Homeland Security, lol. Paper I have about a 2 year supply of, I just don't have the room to stock more than that at this point. Color makes up a small percentage of this and I am not sure I will be buying much more since I have limited use for it in my fine art work.

 

Film is absolutely my future, so I am not taking any chances and have probably saved a bundle in paying current prices now. I know of several very well known pros who refuse to use digital that have done exactly what I have, it just makes sense for the long run....

Edited August 24, 2012 by KM-25

[CalArts 99]

As I had already mentioned in my early post on this thread, Kodak is keeping their motion picture film and chemical business which is their commercial film business. The rest is for sale. The Hollywood Reporter (trade mag here for the industry) reported on this a while ago (my post also has a link to a new film product that Kodak has just presented to the industry.)

[KM-25]

As I had already mentioned in my early post on this thread, Kodak is keeping their motion picture film and chemical business which is their commercial film business.

 

The photo chemistry portion is also for sale, as per Kodak's PR rep:

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1950869&postcount=31

[AlanG]

Freezer on the bottom, -15F, cold fridge on top, about 30F. Since this is a fisheye view, the freezer is actually much bigger than it looks. I figure I have about 10 years worth if I don't buy anymore film, over 20+ years if I follow my plan of rotating in fresh stock which is how I do it now. I have since moved the 400 speed stuff into the freezer, pulled out the Techpan and APX25 and put it in the fridge since it will keep fine at 30F for years.

 

There is close to 3,000 sheets of 4x5, 2,000+ rolls of 120 and about 500 rolls of 35mm. I have enough chemistry on hand to soup all of it, I am sure B&H and Freestyle have reported me to the Department of Homeland Security, lol. Paper I have about a 2 year supply of, I just don't have the room to stock more than that at this point. Color makes up a small percentage of this and I am not sure I will be buying much more since I have limited use for it in my fine art work.

 

Film is absolutely my future, so I am not taking any chances and have probably saved a bundle in paying current prices now. I know of several very well known pros who refuse to use digital that have done exactly what I have, it just makes sense for the long run....

 

Any deal for buying the Kodak film division will be contingent on a financed long term purchase agreement from you and a life insurance policy with the buyer as the beneficiary.

Edited August 24, 2012 by AlanG

[KM-25]

There may be a market for it but I don't think it has anything to do with it being embedded in culture. Lots of pros and others who used film for decades have moved away from it and lots of younger people know virtually nothing about Kodak and see little value in the brand name or its products.

 

The demand for film as a specialty product does not mean that people will pay any price to use it. Large format film and processing priced itself out of my world quite a while ago and I switched to mostly 120 backs (and scanning) on my 4x5 cameras for about the last decade of my film shooting. Then once I was used to a digital workflow it was an obvious choice to move to digital once good quality digital cameras came out. Up to that time I had been about as immersed in the Kodak culture as one could get (without being a Kodak employee) but that had nothing to do with my decison.

 

I'm sorry Alan, but it might be time to realize that many who have posted here who are not you are both pros and enthusiasts alike who actually represent a mere fraction of the niche market for film. There are a great number of people who are not posting on the web that use film and want to continue to do so, many of them outright famous. So what you have to say really does not apply here, we are not your audience.

 

I just don't know why you post this stuff, no one here really cares, we have heard it all years if not a decade ago at this point. We are not the majority, we are the niche minority that use either film alone or film and digital together and are only interested in employing everything necessary to see that we can continue on this path.

 

Why don't you see this?

[KM-25]

Any deal for buying the Kodak film division will be contingent on a financed long term purchase agreement from you and a life insurance policy with the buyer as the beneficiary.

 

Of course, but from a business standpoint, I also have to protect my future in photography, which is not digital. As I use stock, I will buy more, that is what I have done since I started phasing digital out of my life back in 2005. John Sexton has done exactly the same thing, but on a larger scale with several freezers. He covered his rear in what he needs and replaces what he uses as he needs to. If Kodak goes bust in terms of film, he has done what any pro would do and made sound investments in his future.

 

This is business 101 from a creative standpoint, don't leave it to chance.

Edited August 24, 2012 by KM-25

[tomasis7]

Deja vu again!

 

Anti film war!

 

How come when Im involved in the thread, it happens?

 

Kidding.

 

KM-25, pretty cool! It struck me why 500 rolls when you have far more sheets? I'd love stock 1000 rolls

[KM-25]

KM-25, pretty cool! It struck me why 500 rolls when you have far more sheets? I'd love stock 1000 rolls

 

500 rolls is 18,000 exposures of 35mm, 3,000 sheets is a **lot** more money and time consuming to shoot..:-)

 

I find the larger the format in the darkroom, the easier it is to print and spot.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tomasis7]

AlanG,

 

again

 

I say films can be seen as oil medium and compared to. If it gains commercial value, it doesnt mean that you go to that. Digital gains commercial value but oil colors still lives. Acrylics,other stuffs whatever.

 

People love real stuffs and watch things.

 

Painting analogy can be compared to films of course. Art doesnt diminish by commercialisation but live together with both aspects of making products or works.