Is Kodak the 'Biggest Loser'

[arthurking83]

I've said this on prior occasions and still maintain that Kodak are useless morons(well the execs are).

They used to be the only company in photography.. yeah sure there was the mighty Nikon who made a few million on their high quality gear, and the likes of Leica or other upper echelon individual that also eeked out a 'subsistence' living when compared to the billions that Kodak used to make.
Fuji made an impact as some point and I dare say they will outlive the monolith that used to be Kodak.

Not only have they basically gone broke, but according to this story are going even broker.

With the business that Kodak used to have, the foothold on the market they used to dominate with, had they see the future of photography as others had seen it they would now have a stranglehold on the digital market.
It's not like they never had a chance ... the morons that run the company simply had no idea and fat pay checks to go with that because for too long all they did was to do what was done in the past and wait for people to buy their wares.
Didn't happen for too long, no body is buying their wares now(be it hardware, software or services).
Who remembers any of their Kodak digital cameras?
I remember that I got a cheapie for the kids and the kid's cousins broke it.
It got replaced with a Samsung(in hot pink) and the Kodak passed through our little microcosm of history without barely a blip on the radar.
Daughter loves Pink Sammy and I've even asked her if she want an updated, better camera for Christmas ... "Nup! I like my pink camera"

I think it's too late for Kodak to be a player now.

I watched Kodak go from ... not just a corporate giant .. but a city sized Gigantosauraus of a colony(out here in Coburg not far from where I live) .. to a nondescript little street frontage with barely any presence at all.
Their business contracted so much that approximately 10 or so years back they had to scale back their local ops to centralise it from .. (somewhere in Sydney I think).

We used to deliver tons of their film stocks all over the place and made pretty good money from it due to the volume of work, not the value of each job!!
But they were obviously not profitable even way back then, so surely they must have seen the writing on the wall not just now, as in recently, but possibly 10 years ago or so.

I think they should be sold off split up, and really have no right to exist any longer because they obviously have no idea on how to cater to an evolving market.
I think once they're gone, maybe a new player could come in and do something right .. like create a system that people may get enthusiastic about.

I have to say I'm very much anaesthetised to the iPhone craze, and really can't see the fuss about it, but the kind of thing that Kodak needed to do way back when they had the resources was 'an iPhone system'. Something that people would warm too and come back too for more.. more useless products that filled a desire to gadgetise themselves.

Who knows.. maybe they'll re invent themselves as iDak or something, but I doubt it.
Apparently the assets are worth billions(to someone), and the film will continue for some time to come, so they won't just suddenly dissappear. But like the T-model and the Beetle and the Polaroid and the iPhone all good things seem to have an end(sorry couldn't resist the jibe about the iPhone .. I just can't see the fuss).

iDak is dead even before the idea was conceptualised by the company that should have thought of it! .. so, to Kodak I say good riddance(hopefully sooner rather than later).

It's still kind of sad if they do go into bankruptcy in the near future, sad that such a large company with command of an industry could go down like this.

Have to say too tho, I've only ever once in my life used Fuji film.(Velvia)
I've always used Kodak, and been happy with it for what it did.

Firstly Kodak was just so much more prevalent everywhere you went, and even where there were other apparently great alternatives, I still went with some roll of Kodak.
I think more so because of the work we used to do for them in that as they gave us work, I may have felt a need to support the guys that gave us some support.
Dunno really, but even as recently as a year or so ago, I still got myself a roll of this Ektar to give it a whirl.
I ummed and ahhed over a roll of Velvia too, but thought nah!... Gimme the Ektar.

Kodak's long fade to black news item on Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20111204,0,507980.column).

[fess67]

I am probably from the crossover era. When I was young I bought nothing but Kodak film. It was the best - I know because I was told it was!!

To me (I am 44) Kodak cameras were throw away 'holiday' cameras. Cheap and cheeful. When I bought my first SLR camera it was a Zentih. I could not afford the Canon I wanted but I do not remember there being a Kodak alternative....Kodak was the film I put in my Zenith. And is was bloody good!!

Is the passing (or possible passing) of Kodak a bad thing? Probably not. Sad, certainly, but times change. Did the directors / managers miss the boat, almost certainly however were they in a position to play in the brave new world or was it right to try to protect their domain?

Hell, I don't know!!

Fact is the world moved on and Kodak did not. Such is life. I am sure there are a plethora of companies / visionaries that were right for their tims but time moves on.

[Redbaron]

Good post arthur - funny you mention Kodak in Coburg, a bloke I used to know worked there in the 80's and like a lot of the lads who worked there - saw the big demise coming like a car crash in slow motion. A lot of the lads and lasses working on the floor saw it coming, but the execs kept their head in the sand.
Last I heard the factory is now a food place?? (Near the drive ins?) - If it's the same place I did a few pick ups there in my truck driving days and there were still a few old Kodak signs floating around or sticking through the paint.

[arthurking83]

The Newlands Rd side of the complex is all industrial, and the current tenants are Conga Foods(as they would obviously take advantage of the massive refrigeration site there.
The site is split by the creek and on the other side on Elizabeth St, it's residential.
The acreage of that side of the creek if it's developed into residential and commercial, would be a monstrous financial windfall for whoever is the site owner
(which I think is Kodak itself and not leased .. but I don't know).

We used to do both their admin courier services and also their urgent film transport, and for many years I used to enjoy picking up their admin work as in the office complex(on the residential side of the complex) there was this 20 foot photo of Ayres Rock/Uluru. Must have been old as the title was Ayres Rock, and I think it may have been captured by a Japanese photographer.
Details are all sketchy now as it's been 15 or so years but the photo behind the receptionist has left it's mark.
It wasn't the classical humdrum image you expect of the rock, but a close up with a telephoto from a distance, which highlights the might of the rock face against the Eucalypts, which themselves are not insignificant. The sheer enormity of the rock makes the trees look like small shrubs ... and the detail in the photo is amazing even tho it's a monster print.
One of my favourite landscapes images I've seen.

[KeeFy]

The one thing i never understood about kodak is. They had all the means and abilities. They were the first to dvelop a digital sensor, surely they had a good headstart? Back when digital was becoming mainstream, they had the know how to make good sensors but never bothered implementing it into a proper camera. My family had a Kodak digital once and it sucked so badly. Canon made better digital stuff.

Seriously, Leica M9s uses kodak sensors. Why can't they just implement something similar into a camera? It's not as if a comeback is not possible. Fuji has reinvented themselves and definitely will gain a foothold with the next x100 type with interchangable lens. Stupid bureaucratic thinking probably is the reason why the company is in this shithole. Royalties from patents is not everything and lawsuits should be reserved to keep your competition in check EG: Samsung vs Apple. Innovation is a word what Kodak execs have long forgotten.

Goodbye Kodak. You will be missed.... to a certain extent.

[Boo53]

My first 2 digital cameras were Kodak.The first one in 2000 was an all metal body and quite substantial, but only 1 Mp from memory. Before I went on a holiday in 2002 I bought a 2Mp model but by then they were all plastic, and it didn't stand up to much.

They were only compact little things but for taking shots of things builders had buggered up they did the job, but when the plastic one broke & they only had plastic replacements, I switched to Olympus in 2003.

Basically they seemed to have started down the right track in 2000 to stay in the digital hunt but then aimed for a price point without thought of durability and essentially dropped the ball

[kiwi]

who ?

[jev]

never bothered implementing it into a proper camera.
Kodak made a number of camera's in the DCS- and especially the DCS/Pro series that where not too bad. Also, the Canon D6000 and D2000 essentially where rebadged Kodaks. Too bad they decided the low-end consumer market would make them more money.

On the other hand, there where other photography related brands that have disappeared. Konica, Minolta, Agfa, Polaroid. Nothing new under the sun really.

[Redbaron]

Conga foods - that's the one! I remember having the truck loaded chock-a-block full off pickled gerkins or something or other... Lads who worked there were (are) a good laugh though. Massive plot of land.
Back in my bachelor days I lived off Elizabeth out the back - those were the daze. :beer_mug:

[Tom J McDonald]

Kodak still make the best film in the world and it is still used extensively all over the world.
All Kodak needs to do is forget all of its other pursuits and concentrate on making good film and paper and promoting its use around the world.

P.S they released a new motion picture film 2 days ago :santa:

[Tom J McDonald]

Kodak made a number of camera's in the DCS- and especially the DCS/Pro series that where not too bad. Also, the Canon D6000 and D2000 essentially where rebadged Kodaks. Too bad they decided the low-end consumer market would make them more money.

On the other hand, there where other photography related brands that have disappeared. Konica, Minolta, Agfa, Polaroid. Nothing new under the sun really.

Yes, DCS were very good cameras.

By the way, Agfa Gavaert is still going strong, though does not market film to the public as it used to.

[arthurking83]

There's no real point in producing the best in the world, if it ultimately ceases to exist.

The writing is on the wall for film.
It may sell in the limited quantities it does now, from the vast volumes that it used to sell.
But in the foreseeable future, production volumes may be at a point that it's simply not commercially viable(for them).

if Kodak don't produce something drastic and miraculous, they will end up as a has been that caters to a boutique market.

They'll make more money on the imminent publication of their book of how to lose billions upon billions within a lifetime.

Maybe that's their calling .. publishing books on .... how not to!

Agfa Gavaert unloaded it's photography based operations years ago Agfa Photo and Agfa Gavaert are not affiliated.

The old Agfa as I used to know them, closed their Melbourne production operations before Kodak did.
We sued to service Agfa as well(they used to have their main ops located in Nunawading, but we mainly used to deliver all manner of products to them, rather than deliver their products to their customers.

Don't know if AgfaPhoto still produce any products for the photography industry?

[Tom J McDonald]

I don't know what you mean when you say the writing's on the wall, but as far as I can see, film is very strong, considering the age we live in.

It's been shown that Kodak's film division is still very profitable and that it's other useless crap is sucking the profits that it makes. If they dump the other crud, concentrate on film in a changing market, they'll be fine - they'll shrink, but they'll be fine.

Ilford, Foma, Efke, Fuji, and companies which produce film are going strong.

AgfaPhoto produce many films for the aeronautical, medical and motion picture industries.

[I @ M]

I don't know what you mean when you say the writing's on the wall, but as far as I can see, film is very strong, considering the age we live in.



"The age we live in" to me is the crux of the discussion Tom, film has been on the go for a helluva long time whilst relatively speaking digital imaging is but in its infancy.
With digital, the mainstream consumer oriented cameras are by and large rapidly approaching the quality and feel of film, the more advanced and specialised digital bodies would now appear to be in the vast majority of commercial work.

Case in point with the age we live in to me is the example of our "local" camera store.
The owner is a very competent photographer who is in his mid 50s and has plenty of skill developing film. He still offers traditional darkroom developing as well as machine based roll film developing and printing. He is as far as I know the only person in this end of the state to do so and I think that the next nearest shop or lab that still does any film work is 250 klm away.

He retained his film bodies for his wedding work, refusing to use digital equipment even though he owned the latest and best specced Nikon bodies at every model release, until the D700 was released. He then retired his film bodies from commercial work and only keeps them due to the fact that they are worth virtually nothing despite costing into the thousands of dollars when bought new.
In a frank discussion with him he made the point that he had not anticipated such a rapid rise in digital quality and sales figures along with an even greater fall off in the demand for film. Both he and I are all for the continuation of film but his point and mine is that in "the age we live in" is changing so rapidly that film is all but dead in the consumer market and only hanging on as a popular medium for enthusiasts because film bodies can be purchased so cheaply. When those film bodies finally die, we can expect to see the final death throes of film.
I have to agree with Arthur, the writing is on the wall.

[Tom J McDonald]

Hi Adrew,
I agree that to the average consumer, film doesn't exist. Literally, most people think it's not made any more.
However, the enthusiast you speak of is numerous enough to keep an industry with 3 or 4 very large manufacturers in the game.

'The age we live in' now means we have to seek-out film and related products, not just meander down to the local Fletcher's and expect to get what we want.
There a number of stores like Freestyle: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/ who are still committed to giving consumers access to what they want.

Regarding film bodies: There are still a variety of new film cameras being produced (Nikon even still makes the F6), and in fact the number of companies making film cameras outnumbers those making digital cameras.

[ving]

yup digital has all but killed this one time photography giant.... just proves the old saying (one which i live by) "adapt or die." replace adapt with evolve if you like. :)

[Bennymiata]

I think Kodak's biggest problem is not the products they make, but their perception by the average Joe.

Kodak were amongst the first to get into digital cameras as well as papers for ink-jet printing etc., but people percieve them as being only into film.
They did try to move with the times, but most people didn't see their move and basically shunned their digital products in favour of other companies that were seen to be more into electronics and the digital age.
The Kodak digital cameras always had an old fashioned look to them, and this could also have been part of the problem, as they weren't attracting the youth, and many older people at the time, didn't want to move to digital so their cameras were being aimed at the wrong market.

I guess for a company that is as old as Kodak, and so entrenched in peoples' minds that they only equate the name with the box brownie and film, to completely re-invent themselves to attract an entirely new audience is not an easy task.
Canon and Nikon were well entrenched with their SLR cameras, and people already owned so much of their gear, that it was natural for people to buy a digital body from them so they could use their old lenses and accessories, but Kodak only made cheap, consumer grade cameras and have suffered as a result, because if you only have a P&S camera, changing brands when you buy a new one is not as big a deal as it is when you already have an SLR and lenses and other stuff to go with it.

[Tom J McDonald]

Benny, just to clarify, Kodak made several pro-grade DSLRs that had compatibility with Canon and Nikon lenses.
They also made backs for medium format bodies.
One of their sensors is in the M9.

[macmich]

no wonder they went broke if all there offices were the same as coburg
i used to go there and box up there old machinery to send back to the states or whoever purchased it and i could put any figure i wanted on the invoice and never even ask for another quote
1 day work there i could have two weeks off in the 80s
cheers macca

[ving]

from pwner to pwnd...

[I @ M]

Regarding film bodies: There are still a variety of new film cameras being produced (Nikon even still makes the F6), and in fact the number of companies making film cameras outnumbers those making digital cameras.

Tom, to be sure Nikon still makes the F6 ( released 2004 ) and the FM10 (released 1995 ) and in the scheme of things they are so far behind any update schedule as to be considered redundant. Do you think that there will be an F7 or an FM11 announced soon or indeed at all?

Never having considered the actual numbers of manufacturers presently in the game that are still churning out bodies it would be interesting to see how many there are that make purely film bodies, compared to those who make both film and digital, I guess we could further whittle the numbers down if we take away the "gimmick" factor of things like holga and cardboard bodied "wedding guest specials".

[Tom J McDonald]

Hi Andrew, the beauty of film cameras is they don't need to be updated constantly:D
Anyway, The FM10 is made by Cosina Japan and badged as a Nikon. If you'd like a list, I suppose I could spend 10 minutes compiling one :) May as well start with Cosina:

-Cosina manufacture quality 35mm and medium format rangefinder cameras, as well as 35mm SLRs. They also manufacture a range of great lenses, and their prices are very reasonable. The 35mm rangefinders utilise the Leica 'M' mount.
http://www.cosina.co.jp/kaigai/index.html

-Nikon of course make the F6, which is awesome.

-Fuji make the Natura and the Klasse range of 35mm cameras which are great and cult classics (can't find them now - :eek:). They also make the Instax system of cameras which use instant film (just like Polaroid!). It's against the rules, but Fuji also make the Hasselblad H-series, which utilises film backs.http://www.fujifilm.com/products/film_camera/instant/

-Mamiya make the 7, which is the ultimate medium format rangefinder. http://www.mamiya-usa.com/mamiya-7-ii.html
I would say they make the RZ, RB and 645 but your rules don't allow that :)

-Kenko make a 35mm SLR which comes in 3 different lens mounts. From what I've heard, and looking at their spec sheet, they are a good, no nonsense mechanical camera. http://www.kenkoglobal.com/cameras.html

-Leica make the M7 and the MP - nothing more to say. http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/

-Phenix :) - Check 'em out! http://www.chine-taiwan.com/phenixoptics.htm

-DHW Fototechnik (ROLLEIFLEX) - Website isn't operating at the moment but you can order their SLRs and TLRs from a number of dealers - http://www.dhw-fototechnik.de/

-Vivitar! NO idea if they make it - http://www.vivitar.com/products/8/professional-and-slr/34/v3800-50

-I'm bored with listing each website so here is a list of the remaining ones I can think of.

-Seagull
-Cambo
-Toyo
-Linhof
-Deardorff
-RBT
-Sinar

-Ebony
-Chamonix
-Shen Hao
-Alpa
-Goersi
-Zenit
-Powershovel!
-Silvestri
-Tachihara
-Canham
-Arca Swiss
-Horsley
-Great Wall
-Zero Image
-Argentum
-Lotus
-Star Cameras
-Black Art Woodcraft
-Ty Guilloroy
-Plaubel
-Gilde
-Kamarwerke Dresden

In no order of importance... I'm sure there are more.
Anyway, you see film isn't dead...

I've left out the so called novelty cameras, but there's no doubt they eat a large chunk of film around the world.

[arthurking83]

.....
It's been shown that Kodak's film division is still very profitable and that it's other useless crap is sucking the profits that it makes. If they dump the other crud, concentrate on film in a changing market, they'll be fine - they'll shrink, but they'll be fine......


I highly doubt that ... "they'll be fine"!!

In 2000 their entire film sales were in the order of $7billion, and in 2010 this dwindled down to $1.7Billion sales!! not profit.
That they made any money on film is a testament to the fact that this was obviously a highly profitable venture for them.

The problem is that their film sales have diminished at a rate of about 20% per annum, and you don't need to be an expert in finance to realise that at some point in the next 2-5 years, the cost of ownership of their film production chattels is going to make film into a massive loss making venture.

I'd assume that the majority of their film sales will be to the health care sector where many health institutions may still be using film for X-ray machines and such like, but yet again, once the massive investment in digital is taken into consideration in this sector, a digital x-ray scanning device may pay itself off in as many as 12months due to the elimination of the ever increasing cost of film supplies.

To maintain a profitable line of products, the volume of the sales of that product is the most important consideration, the lower the volume the higher the cost of sales of that product.
Either Kodak accept a lower profit margin on that product, or they increase prices to maintain a specific profit level.

As already said, the writing is on the wall for them, and no matter what they do, it's inevitable that they'll have to accept a dwindling income stream from film.

I've seen opinions that Kodak's entire film ops(FPEG) will probably be in the red by about 2015-2017.

They simply can't sustain a -20% sales decrease every year and maintain the operations.
From 2008 to 2010 film sales diminished by close to 50% alone!!

First thing they'll do is to move it offshore, where they have less access to assure quality control. Then they have to battle these quality control bogies as the plants will now be located and run by third world workers, during which time these quality control issues will drive even more customers away again.
Otherwise they will license the technology to some offshore manufacturer to eliminate any more financial risk to themselves.

That there will be a very small enthusiast group dedicated to the use of film is almost without doubt.
There's always a niche market for some enthusiast hobby genre.

But their overall digital sales have actually risen from year to year, but not by as much as their film sales decline.
In the US their digital sales rose by about 10% over the previous year, but 2009 was a bad year in which sales declined by 11%.
But their non US sales have been declining by 5% over the past three years.

It seems that, US consumers are loyal, but that non US consumers are more finicky about their goods(and possibly services).

One thing that seems to be blatantly clear tho is that Kodak seem to not be interested in R&D .. that is the inventors of the digital age, and now don't give a rats about it and how to better it.

As it stands, Nikon and Canon and Sony have the edge on sensor design technology if you take camera performances as the measure of success.
Strangely these three companies seem to be doing well in the digital era.
I think the two aspects of imaging seem to go hand in hand.
Design products that people actually like and want, they incessantly chatter away about how good it is, and sales seem to follow.

They seemed to lack vision in the field of R&D, and now it's come back to haunt them.
All they had to do was design highly competent sensor technology that was amongst the best, if not the best, available and sell it to any manufacturer that wanted it.
That's what Canon and Sony do successfully.

Before this decade is out, someone will be looking at a takeover(if they haven't already filed for a Section 11 by then!)

Depending on the pace of digital advancements, specifically the size and cost of manufacture of the sensor, I doubt that any of the large film manufacturers will see out the end of this decade.
All corporations that conduct business do so with one thing in mind .. bottom line. Reducing costs is the surest way to increase profitability.
When a cost saving comes along, they'll latch onto it in an instant. The problem for film manufacturers is that this may be swift and severe.

Of course there will be other film products that will be required that use similar technology, but not specifically used for imaging, such as protective films and substrates for other uses within the imaging world itself, but film for use as a form of image capture is going to eventually become so expensive and hard to get, it'll become one of those niche markets that many will not bother with any longer.

And as for this idea that there are committed retailers out there that will be there to cater to an ever dwindling market .. another furphy!

Kodak shwed the world that not everything lasts forever.
Their company policy for film was that each product was supposed to be supported by the company for 100years, and Kodachrome was the last hooray for Kodak.
As a generally available product it lasted for some 60 odd years .... about 70years in total but not widely available for many years after it was invented. But what happened to the 100year policy?

That ProphotosRus will pledge to it's loyal customers that it will have available all manner of odds and sods, is only going to last as long as the profitability of the venture that is ProphotsRus.
If they require refrigeration of a film product where they sell one or two rolls per year, and the cost of keeping this stock requires $1000 of refrigeration and financial commitment by the business, are these loyal film buffs willing to pay $1000 for a roll of film?
(of course this is a gross exaggeration, but the point is, are these film loyalists willing to pay whatever it takes just for the cache that they use film?)

Everything has it's price limit, and the cost of doing business is a significant factor in all of this. .... so I refer back to the original statement that the writing is on the wall.

I won't be the person that will come back and say ... told you so, but I'll be the first to admit if there is some kind of amazing turn of fortune, and that I was wrong.
And Kodak were caught on the back foot(in cricketing parlance), let one through to the keeper, were hit on the pad ..... and they're about to be given out!

[Tom J McDonald]

I'm exhausted after reading that.

Anyway, people have been saying exactly what you're saying since the Mavica.
Kodak may be given LBW, but that'll just make room for many of the other 'emulsion coaters' to move in and fill the void.
There are enough film users out there to sustain multiple companies, and if that ever changes, they'll coat their own plates.

[Kym]

There are many uses for film, but they are diminishing.
The key point is the economy of scale is rapidly shrinking.

Even in the medical market (having had heart issue this year) it all seems to be digital imaging.

The movie industry is the last hold out, and as long as movies are delivered in cinemas on film prints there will be a level of volume,
but when that goes digital we will be making our own if we want film.

There will always be the enthusiast, and that is good/fun, but as a serious commercial endeavour its over once movies go digital.

[Tom J McDonald]

Kym,
Ilford, Foma, Efke, Adox and Kentmere don't make motion picture films, yet they're doing fine and making profits from film and traditional papers for pictorial use.
Tom.

[Mark L]

.......
The key point is the economy of scale is rapidly shrinking.
......
There will always be the enthusiast, and that is good/fun, but as a serious commercial endeavour its over .....

There may always be a place for film (maybe), though I think the big $$ days are gone.
When lined up at the supermarket checkout, there used to always be a display of film for me to impulse buy. 100, 200, 400 ISO, mostly Kodak, sometimes Fuji. Wanna take a photo, gotta buy a roll of film. Now I can't find a roll of film in the supermarket.
6 years ago I could get a roll of film developed in 5 places here. Now Big W will reluctantly do it.
I can't buy a vinyl L.P. record here now, other than at garage sales.:confused013 Things change and move on.
And even if there are companies making money from film ;
a)I think the big $$ days are gone.
b)"I've said this on prior occasions and still maintain that Kodak are useless morons(well the execs are)." OP's first sentence.

[Kym]

Kym,
Ilford, Foma, Efke, Adox and Kentmere don't make motion picture films, yet they're doing fine and making profits from film and traditional papers for pictorial use.
Tom.

No issue with that, but none of them will be growing into multi-billion conglomerates in the next 10 years if they base their business on film.

Film is excellent, but is simply no longer remotely near the mainstream.
If you shoot film then enjoy it. But don't try to defend it, it needs no defence, rather let it be the niche it is.

Will CMOS sensors be the future? Maybe not ... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?94235-The-inventor-of-the-CMOS-sensor-talks&highlight=jot

Will mirrors be overtaken by mirrorless cameras? Probably!

The only sure thing with photography this century will be technological changes.

[knumbnutz]

2c worth
Kodak still make most of the MF 40mp sensors for the likes of Leica (not MF), hasselblad, phase one and pentax.
And then there are the other niche cameras that still need film like pano cameras 617 etc and LF.
I guess the other thing that we wouldnt see is all the more remote or 3rd world places that dont have access to power or the like that can still run film cameras because there is no power requirements. Not huge though.
and then the retro market. This will always be around as long as film is available.
As for myself, i have a Kodak Autographica from 1917 that takes 120roll film. It still works. I cant wait to see a digital camera last that long !

[Tom J McDonald]

Kodak sold their sensor division 2 months ago.

[arthurking83]

......
b)"I've said this on prior occasions and still maintain that Kodak are useless morons(well the execs are)." OP's first sentence.

begets


Kodak sold their sensor division 2 months ago.



An upstarts can come onto the digital scene with no knowledge of digital sensor technology, nor photography at all, grow themselves into monstrous conglomerate and make squillions from the new technology(which in effect is simply an extension of the old technology of film) .... and in stark contrast, Kodak flounders due to success of their own invention ... there can be only one conclusion for Kodak:

And that is that Kodak is the biggest loser. Simply a case of mismanagement and a lack of vision.

Film in it's current form has been around for 100years, and is possibly as mature as it's going to get.
I really can't see any of the current producers throwing massive amounts of investment dollars into R&D into a product of a market that's shrinking.

The current idea of using silicon to capture the same effect has been around in reality for about 10-15 years.
Due to the lower cost of production it's permeated the mass market far quicker than film took to do so. Of course the times have changed and film also had a depression of monumental proportions to deal with.
But at the current rate of take up, and as new sub technologies develop for silicon based imaging, I reckon we'll see larger format affordable sensors creep onto the market.
The demand for it may be too low for now, but as that manufacturing base evolves, there is only one outlook for film, and that's even lower volumes.
In 5-10 years, the mind boggles as to where digital imagery will be at!

Film is the motoring equivalent of the old banger vintage automobile. They're still around for sure, and there's a market for repro parts and services, but the wholesale manufacture of the stuff will one day be the domain of the small time niche 'nickel and dime companies'.


I don't see this as neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Basically it doesn't affect me in any way shape or form .. it's simply a prediction based on current trends.

As another example of the contraction of the entire film market:

Enlarger gear that used to cost thousands is now being slowly absorbed into junk status.
Massively capable gear such as lenses that would have cost in their thousands now fetch a few dollars on the net.
The disappearance of this market is yet another example of where things are going.
Digital is the 'answer' but only in that, it's far more cost effective than film based technology.
Business are there to make money.

Where Kodak lost out big time, was when they had a grip on the old market, they didn't use this power in any way to maintain control of the evolution of this market.
They should have seen that many people want not only instant photos on their camera and subsequently onto their PC's, but still in a print form.
The next step is obviously the home printing market, and their reaction was more along the lines of uploading images to the net on one of their print services and send the prints to the home.
How is this considered to be 'instant'?
They should have invested money into the development of quick, easy and more importantly cheap home print technologies.

All people want is a cheap solution .... that's where the real money is, and that's where Kodak made their money.
Traditionally their consumer services vs pro services were in the order of 5:1 in terms of income stream(2000 P&L states that $7.5 Billion in film sales compared to $1.5 billion in Professional services!)
Income from the consumer market is obviously far more lucrative and they only really offered goods and services that simply were not good value for money.
Consumer markets is where the money is. Not concentrating on this was their undoing.

The only reason they've sold off their sensor division is because they know that's really all that's worth any money to anyone. Even tho it wasn't very successful for them, the fact still remains that it was more than 5x the income stream for them compared to the film division. But the film division is not just comprised of film, it also encompasses 'entertainment' as part of the complex.
It also encompasses the Kodak Kiosk printing services as part of the groups structure. This only highlights how small the film part of their business had shrunk too.

Just as at some point in time, the T-Model ford and the amazingly long lived VW Beetle gave way to better alternatives, so must film.
The Brazilians persevered for something like 20years manufacturing the Beetle well after it should have died.
Again, whether this was a good thing or not, is irrelevant, but it was a lot more demanding of resources in terms of production, and hence in reality something that shoudl have been put to pasture way before it did. But it served a purpose to the Brazilians in having a simple manufacturing base that their populace could come to grips with.
As I remember it, VW licensed the production to a company there, and eventually they replaced it with something like the Polo(or whatever). But the replacement was far less of a resource issue for them as it was quicker easier and cheaper to build.

This is what needs to happen to film. We just don't need this kind of inefficient use of resources.
As history has shown us, the technology costs too much money and hence is slowly fading from the general consciousness.
No one knows exactly when it'll be killed off in terms of volume production, and the other question of who will be the last company standing.
The real future of film manufacture will be a similar model to that of vintage auto parts production .. very small in comparison to what it looks like now.


The other thing about the production of films and emulsions, is that they're not all used for imaging.
Many film/emulsion types are used for whatever other purpose, and is a part of the greater process production of film and emulsions in general.
Just because Agfa Gaevert still manufacture films .. this doesn't necessarily mean only photography film!
They have a division called Agfa Specialty Products, and I'll bet my last dollar the vast majority of these films are of the wholesale 'cling wrap' films that we handle every day.
That's where the money is.. supplying business with their films and polymers in vast quantities .. not supplying a few sheets of large format photography film to a few ardent enthusiasts.

We pickup and deliver these 1 ton rolls of film like products every day and none of it looks anything like it's photography related(not Agfa products either I have to add).

Next time if time permits,I'll take more notice of what these rolls are and from whom.

[Kym]

Kodak sold their sensor division 2 months ago.

Reference... http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/kodak-sells-image-sensor-division-1039458


Kodak has sold its Image Sensor Solutions business to Platinum Equity for an undisclosed amount in a bid to raise cash for the firm.
The deal has emerged a week after Kodak announced it was looking to raise $500m in additional financing, warning last week that it would need to raise significant funds by completing a multibillion-dollar patent sale to survive the next 12 months.

Kodak is planning to generate $200m from "nonstrategic asset sales" this year, while shares in the company rose by 6% on Monday.

Platinum Equity, which bought the sensor business, is a firm that specialises in buying up distressed assets, but has so far not commented on the sale

[arthurking83]

"..... while shares in the company rose by 6% on Monday. "

Share price is currently at about 0.60c US, whereas in the year 2000, share price was in the US$50-60 price range!

[Tom J McDonald]

This thread is exhausting.

Like I said... Kodak needs to sell the rest of its baloney and concentrate solely on continuing to make film and paper, as a private company. Looks as though they're on the right track selling their sensors. They will be the definite winner in my eyes. If it doesn't happen, and they go belly-up. There are other companies that can satisfy the hundreds of thousands of ravenous film users around the world.
Ilford restructured and privatised in 2005 and they are in an extremely good situation, with profits growing every year. There's obviously a market for it, otherwise that would have never happened. They even introduced a new paper this year.

[arthurking83]

Problem with seling the sensor division and keeping the film(and entertainment) division is:

while the sensor division made a $300mil profit, the film and entertainment division made $60mil profit!

It's obvious that this move was strategic decision to raise capital, to ward off banckruptcy .. not simoly because the sensor division is lacking in any way.

The problem with the film division is that it's incorporated with the processing and photo printing section of their business, so the true extent of the state of each individual is only known by Kodak themselves as to how much money is made by each service they provide.

According to their 2010 financials is that the sensor division is making most of their profits.

Other operational costs are eating into their bottom line ... management issues such as employee health insurances redundancies and so on, not necessarily manufacturing operation cost overruns
That's a mangerial issue.. to simply say that they sold off a loss making section of their business is simplistic and inaccurate(according to their own financials).

I'm sure that they've placed themselves in a position to reacquire the sensor division when they're better placed to do so.

That mere fact that Company X has introduced a new paper to market is not an indication that this Comany X is investing in R&D. This is up to other companies such as Agfa and others to do as they're the real suppliers.
They're the companies that manufacture to cater for the onsellers.

That's what Agfa now does. They're a business to business operation, not a retailer themselves.

AgfaPhoto has nothing to do with Agfa Gaevert. AG woudl supply AgfaPhoto with the products they require.

AND FWIW, we'd expect new paper stock types to come to market anyhow. Paper is not a film dependent product. People obviously still want to print their photos. Whether they are film based photos or digitial based files is inconsequential to the R&D of new paper products.

I wouldn't doubt that Ilford is making bigger profits every year, but I'm sure this profit groth is coming from paper products and not necessarily from film sales.

This is the point of this thread.

Where other manufacturers have seized the moment and ridden the crest of public demand, Kodak have regressed and contracted on a massive scale.

Kodak of all the companies in this market segment have masively miscalculated where the market is, and how to best serve it.
They had the market presence to continue to dominate as they once did, and they buggered it up for themselves.

[Tom J McDonald]

'That mere fact that Company X has introduced a new paper to market is not an indication that this Comany X is investing in R&D. This is up to other companies such as Agfa and others to do as they're the real suppliers.
They're the companies that manufacture to cater for the onsellers.

That's what Agfa now does. They're a business to business operation, not a retailer themselves.

AgfaPhoto has nothing to do with Agfa Gaevert. AG woudl supply AgfaPhoto with the products they require.

AND FWIW, we'd expect new paper stock types to come to market anyhow. Paper is not a film dependent product. People obviously still want to print their photos. Whether they are film based photos or digitial based files is inconsequential to the R&D of new paper products.

I wouldn't doubt that Ilford is making bigger profits every year, but I'm sure this profit groth is coming from paper products and not necessarily from film sales.'

I'm talking silver gelatin paper here, something AGFA has nothing to do with.
Ilford's silver gelatin paper has everything to do with film. It's coated the same way as film is and its sole use is to be exposed to light which is transmitted through film (for example, through an enlarger or contact printed). The paper is developed and fixed the same way film is. This isn't inkjet paper.

Though Kodak's films and papers are incredible (most movies we watch are still shot on Kodak, though this is changing rapidly), I don't really mind if they go bust. As I said, there are other companies producing wonderful products out there to satisfy us.

[Bennymiata]

Film used in movies?
Why?
Because digital projectors aren't as powerful (yet) as film projectors are.

Many "films" are now shot in digital anyway then transferred to film.
How would they get all the CGI onto film directly anyway?
All "films" are digitised anyway, so when they do produce a really good, bright, digital projector, suitable for use in a cinema, THEN film as we know it, will surely die out.

[Tom J McDonald]

Film used in movies?
Why?
Because digital projectors aren't as powerful (yet) as film projectors are.

Many "films" are now shot in digital anyway then transferred to film.
How would they get all the CGI onto film directly anyway?
All "films" are digitised anyway, so when they do produce a really good, bright, digital projector, suitable for use in a cinema, THEN film as we know it, will surely die out.

See above about those companies who DON'T produce MP stock.

[Kym]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140841495542810.html


Eastman Kodak Co. is preparing to seek bankruptcy protection in the coming weeks, people familiar with the matter said, a move that would cap a stunning comedown for a company that once ranked among America's corporate titans.
The 131-year-old company is still making last-ditch efforts to sell off some of its patent portfolio and could avoid Chapter 11 if it succeeds, one of the people said. But the company has started making preparations for a filing in case those efforts fail, including talking to banks about some $1 billion in financing to keep it afloat during bankruptcy proceedings, the people said.


Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140841495542810.html#ixzz1ik8gbBxT

[Tom J McDonald]

Great news.
Now what I've been predicting is even more likely to come true.

[Tom J McDonald]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Struggling-Kodak-disbands-rb-2420781718.html?x=0

[rocklogic]

that's really sad - but truly a direction that they were definitely heading in - with the way they handled things.

[Tom J McDonald]

Share price is up to 82 cents! :O

[I @ M]

Seems all the reports are saying that they want to concentrate more on the digital market.

Now all they need to do is come up with a snappy mass appeal product to win back customers.

Maybe they could call it ezy share or something trendy like that. :D

[arthurking83]

Lazy share?

.... hazy share maybe?

How about something more indicative of the current situation .... PWNED!! :D
(well at least it'd appeal to the mass geek market)

... up to 82 cents!! :D

only another 22% increase in value to go before they become a fully fledged two bit company.

[ricktas]

The really horrendous part of this is that as the company falters, those at the top (CEO/Directors, etc) are probably pocketing millions per annum, patting each other on the back and generally saying 'it had to happen', 'we had to do this for the benefit of the company', when their bad decisions have been the contributing factors to the demise of this once great and lauded company.

After the GFC, governments all over the world were telling us they were going to make these people more responsible, yet nothing has changed. They sit there getting the fat pays and bonuses, even as once proud and amazing companies are falling apart around them.

I find this truly sad! Kodak, the company, deserves/deserved better.

[KeeFy]

http://www.economist.com/node/21542796

Good read!

[arthurking83]

The final sentence is telling!...

(on the topic of Fuji)

.... "Film went from 60% of its profits in 2000 to basically nothing, yet it found new sources of revenue. Kodak, along with many a great company before it, appears simply to have run its course. After 132 years it is poised, like an old photo, to fade away."

As has already been said, film is not a viable option for a once massive company such as these two giants
They used to dealing in billions of dollars, not only in total sales, but profits as well.
To concentrate on film which can't be worth more than a couple of million or so in profit, is a defeatist attitude.
This is the equivalent of accepting a 1/1000th decrease in revenue and profits within a 5 year period. Hardly an acceptable business practise.

For Kodak, it should look to sell of it's film making arm now, while there is still something left of it where they can attract a decent amount of money from it, before it completely collapses in a few years time.
As time goes by the film manufacturing sector is only going to contract more so, until there's basically nothing left of it at all. Kodak are then stuck with plant and equipment worth zero.
They could offer a licensing deal where the branding of the film could still be called Kodak, and this would attract at least some royalties for Kodak...

But it's way too late, Kodak should have done this at least 5-6 years ago.

It's obvious that Kodak's incompetent management system has created this situation.

if you now look at Fuji's digital camera range, it seems that everyone aspires to owning one! :confused:

If the pursuit of digital technology has been the downfall of Kodak as some folk imply, then it's due to ill conceived ideas rather than the technology itself.
I highly doubt that if Kodak hadn't stretched it's resources to ride the crest of the digital age, and concentrated solely on film, it would be worth any money at all.
Fuji and it's much larger size would have swallowed it up whole and consolidated all of Kodak's old film production into one manufacturing corporation.

[Tom J McDonald]

Exactly.

[KeeFy]

http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/19/2717973/kodak-files-for-chapter-11-bankruptcy

GAME SET AND MATCH! Goodbye Kodak.

[Tom J McDonald]

http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/19/2717973/kodak-files-for-chapter-11-bankruptcy

GAME SET AND MATCH! Goodbye Kodak.

It's chapter 11, not chapter 7...

[KeeFy]

It's chapter 11, not chapter 7...

How many companies actually make it out of chapter 11? Not many. Considering the oncoming global meltdown as well. I say good game. :)

[jim]

Sadly there is nothing very surprising about the demise of Kodak. The survival and continued success of Fujifilm though, that's remarkable.

[Kym]

Sadly there is nothing very surprising about the demise of Kodak. The survival and continued success of Fujifilm though, that's remarkable.
Fujifilm made the digital transition, their revenue/profit is not in film.

[jim]

Um, you make that sound a lot easier than I think it was.

[Kym]

Um, you make that sound a lot easier than I think it was.

No doubt! But the issue is they did and Kodak did not. Kodak actually had a better starting point, but just failed to capitalise on it.

[sunny6teen]

No doubt! But the issue is they did and Kodak did not. Kodak actually had a better starting point, but just failed to capitalise on it.

kodak had been in trouble since the 70s/80s and were just unable to dig themselves out of a hole. they were still making big profits but they were diminishing. there were loads of failed decisions during that period. remember disc film? they also made a video camera that could plug into you tv but didn't believe the public would pay for such an expensive item. they ditched it. videotape (which kodak didn't make) sales started eating into their profits.
they also couldn't attract the electronics gurus to move from california to rochester.

their list of problems was endless. digital cameras weren't the catalyst but rather the final nail in the coffin.

fuji survived because they pretty much cut the cord in the photography market. don't quote me on this but I think I read somewhere that their digital camera industry, whilst healthy enough, is largely subsidised by other industries...xerox etc.
last I heard was that they were moving into the cosmetics industry.

[Tom J McDonald]

Yes, Fuji makes face cream. If only Kodak had thought of that.

So who's gonna stock up on Porta and T-max?

[Kym]

Sometimes taking a hypothetical what if view helps analyse a situation...

What if...
- Kodak had make all the right decisions?
- Kodak had aggressively leveraged its digital patents?
- Kodak had teamed up with a great lens manufacturer?
- Kodak had done with digital what it did with film 100 years ago; i.e. provide the camera and all printing services, and online gallery services (i.e. Klickr rather than Flickr)?

Maybe we'd all be shooting Kodak and not PeNikCanSOly!

The transformation of Fuji and the demise of Kodak are significant markers in the global transition to digital.

[arthurking83]

That WhatIf proposition would do anyone's head in.

Kodak had a massive power with it's branding, being one of the worlds leading brand names in terms of recognition.

Had they made the right decisions, and dominated the market the way they dominated film for such a long period may have lead to a stifled digital market and lacked creativity and competitiveness!

I think they seriously stuffed up with their printing technology and market presence.
Just about anyone I talk too, wants cheap prints and done at their own leisure.... as they please.
Kodak are more famous for their prints than they are for their quality and variety of films.
People associate Kodak with their printed 4x6's and 5x7 and so on. They never cared not for films themselves, they bought up Kodakcolor400 by the bootload and expected to see 36 prints afterwards.None of them will still have the negatives now.. who does? Enthusiasts do, not the mass market. The mass market is where the money is, and by extension .. the key to maintain viability.
Kodak needed to have a printing solution for mum and dad photographers to print their happy snaps in the comfort of their own homes and do it cheaply with good quality .. and to aggressively market a technology and product such as this.
Almost any and every non photography centred household will have a low end modern Canon or HP printer to do basic photo printing. They cost in the order of $90 to purchase and $500 per year to print 50 images or so. Kodak needed to capitalise on this market segment. Epson don't seem to be doing too badly at the moment. They may also have non core operations to maintain buoyancy, but they're still here, where Kodak currently aren't.

I'd say that Kodak's intrinsic value, in the power of their brand name, that they'll survive.
Polaroid was brought back from the netherworld of business a few years after their demise, and their brand name isn't as highly valued as is Kodak's.

[Bennymiata]

Don't forget that Fuji also make a lot of lenses for pro video and movie filmmakers.
You can check them out on the B&H site under pro video lenses.
The range they have is ENORMOUS, with lenses ranging from $10K or so and then to over $50K each.
They also make the new Hasselblad lenses.
Fuji were clever in that they saw themselves as an imaging company, rather than just film makers and have a very broad base to operate in, whereas Kodak only made some cheap cameras, some sensors and film, rather than spreading their talents into other areas like Fuji did.
Kodak should have gone into the more professional areas of photography not only in film but the hardware too, and perhaps they should have also gone into printers and copiers in a much bigger way.

I'm sorry to see them go, as they were really the originators of comsumer photography, but I guess they just got fat and lazy and time has passed them by.

[arthurking83]

In Kodak's early digital history they made some of the best pro level cameras at the time, as they had the sensor technology to maintain a competitive edge.
Their early cameras were based on pro Canon and Nikon bodies .. but ultimately the competition caught up with better sensors in their cameras.

Kodak pulled out due to the losses they sustained in that sector and the rest is history .....

Think of a professional level printer from a manufacturer to cater to the pro and semi pro market, and you see what I mean.
This is where Epson comes into the equation. Ask anyone that offers advice on a high quality printer that caters to a pro/enthusiast market and Epson seems to be the only manufacturer that exists!
This is where Kodak fell short in not offering competitive products in a market they once dominated.

[arthurking83]

A great video of a 2006 Kodak presentation:


http://youtu.be/naT6ZZeok3A

[Tom J McDonald]

Here's another nugget from the past.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/08/embattled-kodak-enters-the-electronic-age-fortune-1983/

[Kym]

http://www.kodaktransforms.com/

On January 19, 2012, Eastman Kodak Company and its U.S. subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for Chapter 11 business reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The business reorganization will enable Kodak to bolster liquidity in the U.S. and abroad, monetize non-strategic intellectual property, fairly resolve legacy liabilities, and enable the Company to focus on its most valuable business lines.

Non-U.S. subsidiaries are not part of the filings, are not subject to the Court proceedings, and are operating as usual.

Kodak and its U.S. subsidiaries intend to continue normal business operations during the reorganization, and throughout the process:


Continue customer programs;
Provide employees with their usual wages and benefits; and
Honor all post-petition obligations to suppliers in the ordinary course.



A U.S. Chapter 11 proceeding is a legal mechanism that generally focuses on the preservation and reorganization of ongoing operating companies. The process will allow Kodak to continue normal business operations while we accomplish our objectives and emerge a profitable and sustainable enterprise.

Kodak aims to build company that will be successful in the marketplace – and a positive force in the communities we call home.

Additional information can be accessed from the links along the left side throughout this site.

[Analog6]

A very interesting article (http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/cameras/how-kodak-squandered-every-single-digital-opportunity-it-had-20120123-1qcui.html) in today's Sydney Morning Herald

Sad how a big photography industry founder and leader has gone downhill to this

[Xenedis]

It's an absolute tragedy that this has happened.

It's a real "Kodak moment", and not in a good way.

Kodak is a name that everyone knows -- even non-photographers know that Kodak is (was) a company that represented photography in a massive way.

I wonder if people from the younger generations, who only knows digital cameras and may have never even handled a roll of film, will know what Kodak was.

[I @ M]

I wonder if people from the younger generations, who only knows digital cameras and may have never even handled a roll of film, will know what Kodak was.

Probably in the same vein that people who are under 30 and drive a commodore will never know what a Holden was. :rolleyes:

[terry.langham]

Probably in the same vein that people who are under 30 and drive a commodore will never know what a Holden was. :rolleyes:

Not this under 30 person. Still remember Grandad's FJ and Dad's 48-215 project. Also pined after several variants since. Maybe the under 25's driving commonbores will big ignorant to what a Holden was. :o

Seems sad that the past seems to be getting less important as the new generations come through. No doubt Kodak and a lot of photographic history will be lost to all but a few in the younger generations.

[Tom J McDonald]

Not this under 30 person. Still remember Grandad's FJ and Dad's 48-215 project. Also pined after several variants since. Maybe the under 25's driving commonbores will big ignorant to what a Holden was. :o

Seems sad that the past seems to be getting less important as the new generations come through. No doubt Kodak and a lot of photographic history will be lost to all but a few in the younger generations.

Go out and buy a load of Kodak film then. :efelant:

[Tom J McDonald]

Another development towards purity! :th3:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/02/09/business/09reuters-kodak.html?_r=1&hp

[ricktas]

Not this under 30 person. Still remember Grandad's FJ and Dad's 48-215 project. Also pined after several variants since. Maybe the under 25's driving commonbores will big ignorant to what a Holden was. :o

Seems sad that the past seems to be getting less important as the new generations come through. No doubt Kodak and a lot of photographic history will be lost to all but a few in the younger generations.

it is just life. For those that lament the past, forget holden's, why are you not still riding around on a horse?
Progress happens!

[I @ M]

Another development towards purity! :th3:


Hmmm, so "purity" involves sacking 400 employees and dismantling the section of the business that generates 75% of the company revenue. :Doh:

Tom, it is fairly obvious that you have a high regard for the celluloid based photo medium but I rather feel that by your wording of the quoted post, you are implying that digital imaging is impure.
There is plenty of room on the earth for both mediums and whilst I certainly don't hold any form of disregard for film and the cameras that use them I reckon that your statement runs right alongside those that still cling to the belief that the earth is flat.

[Kym]

Film at its basic level is digital, i.e. the molecules of silver halide react to photons or not.

A digital camera is analogue, in that the sensor provides an analogue voltage depending on the number of photons detected,
it only becomes digital after the voltage is converted in via an analogue/digital converter that puts out a number in binary that is then processed.

So any argument about purity has to concede that a digital camera is more 'pure'.

:efelant:

Seriously, people who are bigots about any technology don't help anything.

The real issue is the final image as printed or displayed... does it ring your bells? If it does its a good image!

[Bennymiata]

I always thought that the Apollo astronauts used Hasselblad cameras, and not Kodaks, although these cameras probably used Kodak film.
There are around a dozen modified Haselblad 500E's sitting on the moon right now!
If you can get there, you can have them for free!

[Tom J McDonald]

I always thought that the Apollo astronauts used Hasselblad cameras, and not Kodaks, although these cameras probably used Kodak film.
There are around a dozen modified Haselblad 500E's sitting on the moon right now!
If you can get there, you can have them for free!

Hassies were always far superior to any camera Kodak offered, though their view cameras were top-notch.

[Tom J McDonald]

Hmmm, so "purity" involves sacking 400 employees and dismantling the section of the business that generates 75% of the company revenue. :Doh:

Tom, it is fairly obvious that you have a high regard for the celluloid based photo medium but I rather feel that by your wording of the quoted post, you are implying that digital imaging is impure.
There is plenty of room on the earth for both mediums and whilst I certainly don't hold any form of disregard for film and the cameras that use them I reckon that your statement runs right alongside those that still cling to the belief that the earth is flat.

Agree with everything you say, except that celluloid has generally been replaced by polyester :)

[Tom J McDonald]

Film at its basic level is digital, i.e. the molecules of silver halide react to photons or not.

A digital camera is analogue, in that the sensor provides an analogue voltage depending on the number of photons detected,
it only becomes digital after the voltage is converted in via an analogue/digital converter that puts out a number in binary that is then processed.

So any argument about purity has to concede that a digital camera is more 'pure'.

:efelant:

Seriously, people who are bigots about any technology don't help anything.

The real issue is the final image as printed or displayed... does it ring your bells? If it does its a good image!

I'm not a bigot; I use a DSLR to take pictures of film cameras when I want to sell them :0

[wideangle]

it is just life. For those that lament the past, forget holden's, why are you not still riding around on a horse?
Progress happens!

It is life, but it's also history, and that history is often deep and complex - would you say the same of historic buildings, knock them all down because progress happens. It's not one thing or the other I reckon, just an appreciation of what has come before our time and from the history and lessons of our past we can look forward to the moment and the future.

[ricktas]

It is life, but it's also history, and that history is often deep and complex - would you say the same of historic buildings, knock them all down because progress happens. It's not one thing or the other I reckon, just an appreciation of what has come before our time and from the history and lessons of our past we can look forward to the moment and the future.

Not at all, there is a big difference between keeping an old building in a good state of repair compared to letting it fall into dis-repair and needing to be demolished. Some things just end up needing to be pulled apart, knocked down, removed. No matter what, progress is going to happen, otherwise that digital camera you use, would never have been invented. Sometimes people just have to accept the world has moved forward, and they can choose to go with it, or not.

[arthurking83]

I'm also confused as to the notion of a move towards purity too.

While it's a smart move for Kodak to cease production of cameras themselves.. this idea of purity doesn't make sense.

Kodak should have done what they've done a long time ago and licensed the production of digital cameras to other companies and collected licensing fees from them instead!

It's obvious that Kodak as a manufacturer is bloated and inefficient and have relied upon the high profit high markup products such as film for far too long.
When it comes to competing on a level playing field their inability to compete against the rest of the world is what bogged them down and caused the financial collapse of the company!

As the inventor of the digital camera, Kodak should have seen that their role in the market was more as it was in the film business and maintained separation from the manufacturing side of the product and concentrated on design and IP licensing of their technologies!!

[wideangle]

Not at all, there is a big difference between keeping an old building in a good state of repair compared to letting it fall into dis-repair and needing to be demolished. Some things just end up needing to be pulled apart, knocked down, removed. No matter what, progress is going to happen, otherwise that digital camera you use, would never have been invented. Sometimes people just have to accept the world has moved forward, and they can choose to go with it, or not.

I don't think progress doesn't happen, of course it does and needs to happen. There are many examples of buildings though that are in a perfect working state, yet they are demolished for a wide range of reasons. It's the people with power that can often choose the path and way things go. Point is things are not as black and white as they appear. Sure progress happens, but one must acknowledge the past even if there are good and bad points, otherwise how can we learn for the future and really 'move forward' One persons idea of moving forward is going to be different to another persons, and they may think it's moving backwards - the rich diversity of human beings at work.

I don't think it's a case of choosing to 'move forward', its two steps forward 1 step back approach - some things are good and some things are not. It's like the success of certain brands, success with people using their technology, yet cheap labor force in China - do we ignore this and 'move forward' for the sake of progress - nothing is black and white in this world.....Kodak for whatever reason are to be no longer - I reflect on this loss and what that company has done in the industry - this doesn't mean I live in the past, it simply means that I view the past, and see that the past present and future are all linked.

[Kym]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/15/apple_asks_to_sue_kodak/


Apple seeks permission to kick Kodak's corpse



Asks court to allow patent claim against dying photo icon
By Rik Myslewski in San Francisco (http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2012/02/15/apple_asks_to_sue_kodak/) • Get more from this author (http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=Rik Myslewski)
Posted in Law (http://www.theregister.co.uk/public_sector/law/), 15th February 2012 18:56 GMT (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/15/)
Apple has asked the New York branch of the US Bankruptcy Court for permission to sue what's left of Kodak, the once-mighty film firm, for patent infringment.
"Apple requests express authority from this court before it initiates the actions out of an abundance of caution," Apple's lawyers wrote somewhat ungrammatically in the court filing, according to Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-15/apple-seeks-permission-to-sue-bankrupt-kodak-for-infringement.html).
The mood must be gloomy in the corner offices at Kodak's Rochester, New York headquarters. The company filed for Chapter 11 backruptcy protection (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/19/kodak_chapter_11/) less than a month ago, but that hasn't stopped Cupertino's legal team from now going after them for what it alleges are infringements of patents covering printers, digital cameras, and digital picture frames, Bloomberg reports.

[Kym]

http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/kodak-to-focus-on-printing/story-e6frfkur-1226457317178

KODAK wants to sell its document imaging and personalised imaging businesses to better focus on printing and business services as it tries to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Eastman Kodak Co said on Thursday that the sale of the units, along with cost-cutting measures and the auction of its patent portfolio, will help it emerge from bankruptcy sometime in 2013.

Kodak's document-imaging division makes scanners and offers related software and services.

The personalised imaging business includes photo paper and still-camera film products.

It also offers souvenir photo products at theme parks and other venues.

Antonio Perez, Kodak's chairman and CEO, said the planned sale is "an important step in our company's reorganisation to focus our business on the commercial markets".

The storied photography pioneer filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January.

It has kept operating while it tries to sell its digital imaging patents.

So far, it has not found buyers.

Rochester, New York-based Kodak was founded in 1880.

Kodak introduced the iconic Brownie camera in 1900.

Selling for $US1 and using film that cost just 15 cents a roll, it made hobby photography affordable for many people.

Its Kodachrome film, introduced in 1935, became the first commercially successful amateur colour film.

Kodak's workforce peaked in 1988 at nearly 150,000 employees.

But the company couldn't keep up with the shift from digital photo technology over the past decade and with competition from Japanese companies such as Canon.

It said earlier this year that it would stop making digital cameras, pocket video cameras and digital picture frames as it tries to reshape its business.

[swifty]

Haven't read through the whole 5 pages of responses but if others haven't said it, its like watching a train wreck in slo mo.
Its so sad.