View Full Version : Here We Cut Again

Jeff Morfit
20-Jul-2005, 08:10
Kodak has announced that it will be cutting an additonal 10,000 jobs this over what they had originally planned. Here we cut again.

John Cook
20-Jul-2005, 08:15

tim atherton
20-Jul-2005, 08:17
Article here:

Eastman Kodak raises target for job cuts to 25,000

couple of quotes:

Eastman Kodak Co. said Wednesday it will chop up to 25,000 jobs from its workforce, instead of the 15,000 layoffs it had originally announced.

The Rochester, N.Y., company also said it lost $146 million US (51 cents a share) in the second quarter, compared with a profit of $136 million US (46 cents a share) a year earlier....

"Sales of our consumer traditional products and services are declining faster than expected. While we are not in a position to control the rate at which traditional markets decline, there is a lot I can do about the cost structure of the traditional portfolio," he said.

Perez wants to speed up the company's transition to digital technology as its sales of consumer film decline....

Kodak plans to cut its traditional manufacturing infrastructure to approximately $1 billion US, compared with $2.9 billion US in January 2004. The cuts will be mostly complete by the middle of 2007....

Tom Westbrook
20-Jul-2005, 08:44
I wonder if this means black & white films will be next on the chopping block? Any idea how FujiFilm is doing? If TMX goes, there is only Acros in packets left, no? Well, except Type 55, but who knows what's going to happen to that? I wonder if Ilford will reconsider its previous position on a readyload system of some sort?

Brian C. Miller
20-Jul-2005, 08:54
I think that Ilford will happily make a packet film if both Fuji and Kodak discontinue theirs. I wonder if Ilford will start offering Pan-F in sheets. I suppose that Kodak will be discontinuing their B&W films next, within two years. They can't be making that much money on them.

Antonio Corcuera
20-Jul-2005, 09:01
From http://home.fujifilm.com/info/ir/message/

"However, revenue was negatively affected by a decrease in demand for color films in Japan, North America, and Europe; a rapid deceleration of growth in demand for digital cameras, particularly in Japan and North America; a drop in prices of recording media due to intensifying competition; the progressive appreciation of the yen against the U.S. dollar; and other factors. As a result, the Company's consolidated revenue declined 1.5%, to 2,527.3 billion ($23,620 million), compared with the previous fiscal year. Domestic revenue amounted to 1,311.8 billion ($12,261 million), down 1.8%, while overseas revenue totaled 1,215.5 billion ($11,359 million), down 1.2%.

The Company worked to reduce the cost of sales and operating expenses through such measures as those to improve manufacturing efficiency and to reevaluate and optimize procurement processes. However, a rise in raw materials costs boosted the cost of sales, while temporary expenses were incurred in connection with various structural reform measures. Reflecting these overall factors as well as a one-time gain on the transfer of the substitutional portion of Fuji Xerox's employee pension fund liabilities, operating income was restrained to 164.4 billion ($1,537 million), down 11.1%.

Income before income taxes amounted to 162.3 billion ($1,517 million), down 1.6%, reflecting a 17.9 billion improvement in the balance of nonoperating income and expenses due to such factors as a shift from negative to positive figures in foreign exchange gains (losses) recognized on the settlement and translation of foreign-currency-denominated receivables and a decrease in interest expense accompanying the Company's efforts to reduce external borrowings. A drop in the effective corporate income tax rate and other factors supported a rise in net income, which reached 84.5 billion ($790 million), up 2.7%."

tim atherton
20-Jul-2005, 09:05
If Kodak folded on film (or even just sheet film) why would Ilford bother making some form of readyload? They would have the lions share of the market then - there would be no need for them to invest in what would really be just a costly marketing tool to try and lock people into their product?

John Kasaian
20-Jul-2005, 09:07
Ominous, to say the least. My thoughts are with all those people getting axed---I hope some disgruntled former employees who know how to make film & paper (AZO) will decide to go into business for themselves.

John Berry ( Roadkill )
20-Jul-2005, 09:26
What percentage of the film market would Kodak have if they made Supper-XX, and Royal pan available again.

John Berry ( Roadkill )
20-Jul-2005, 09:30
I know it's a dead horse. I just like to go out and flog it every once in a while.

20-Jul-2005, 09:51
TimA, don't you think the profit margin is greater for ReadyLoads than sheets? It might be worth the bother. And they could raise the price even higher...

Ralph Barker
20-Jul-2005, 09:54
re: Ilford and Readyloads or Quickloads . . .

My understanding is that Ilford considered packets in the past (well prior to the restructuring), but the cost of licensing the technology, along with the cost of creating the new, additional production line, was prohibitive for them. My guess is that the real problem would be trying to recapture that investment through the slight additional margin or "premium" that might be charged for packets, recognizing that those sales would come, in part, from reduced sales elsewhere in their product line.

Now, if Uncle Yellow were to "pass on" and bequeath the technology to them, it might be another matter. ;-)

Tom Westbrook
20-Jul-2005, 10:23
Tim A said: why would Ilford bother making some form of readyload?

I see your point, but if it proved worth the investment it would obvioulsy mean more money for them. Perhaps, though, the reject rate and/or costs to develop such a system is much higher with the packet-ization process, so would not create enough extra profit to make it worth the bother, or they would have to sell it at, say, 3x loose sheet prices, as opposed to about 2x we're getting it for now. I'm not sure I'd buy it if it were that much more expensive. Anyway, I hope they at least investigate it. I hate loading and lugging holders around.

Ralph said: Now, if Uncle Yellow were to "pass on" and bequeath the technology to them, it might be another matter.

Fat chance. However, a little innovation wouldn't kill anything. Maybe a workable multi-sheet system? Didn't Tri-X used to come in some sort of multi-sheet packet system a few years ago? I never used it, but something like that for HP5+ would be cool.

Anyway, it's an academic discussion. The way things are going, we'll be lucky to have any kind of B&W sheet film, let alone one or more in some sort of readyload system.

Richard Littlewood
20-Jul-2005, 10:45

George Stewart
20-Jul-2005, 10:49
My experience with a recent purchase of 8x10 B&W sheet film is that prices are on the rise. I fully expect 8x10 B&W sheet film to cost what 8x10 chromes do now (almost $400 for a 50 sheet box) within a few short years. I don't expect 8x10 sheet film to be available in about 10 years. I would say the same for 4x5 about that time also. Perhaps I should learn how to coat glass plates now.

Donald Qualls
20-Jul-2005, 10:51
Tom, I think you're thinking of film packs.

If I could buy *any* B&W film in 9x12 cm film packs and get an adapter that would fit either of my plate cameras, I'd be one happy camper (and I could probably hack a Voigtlander or Contessa-Nettel adapter to fit my Kawee Camera). No light leaks, up to 16 shots in a pack (size and weight comparable to the three plate holders I have for the Kawee Camera), and they can be advanced more quickly than 120 roll film with a red window. Carry 2-3 packs and I could have the capacity I'd associate with 35 mm and get 12x the negative area. Plus, you can remove and process the exposed films without sacrificing the unexposed.

However, the film has a bad rep with people who've handled it -- it has to be thinner than even roll film in order to pull around the tight corner inside the pack, and the glue that holds the tab/backing to the film is apparently a problem to remove from the film. Not to mention the dimensions aren't quite the same as the nominally same-size sheet film, so it's a problem to process in tanks with reels (like a Jobo). And again, it'd just be extra expense and quite a long-shot gamble for these days with shrinking film market and a company that's freshly out of bankruptcy.

Brian C. Miller
20-Jul-2005, 11:30
Well, there is such a thing as "licensing" for technology, so nothing would have to be developed from scratch. Perhaps the Polaroid license might be cheaper than the Kodak or Fuji license, who knows. There's only so many ways to hold a sheet of film in a Polaroid holder, though.

20-Jul-2005, 19:15
And now, the GOOD news. I just stumbled upon the fact that 160VC is now available in 620.

Brian Ellis
21-Jul-2005, 09:55
I think Tom's right. Whether Readyloads will be available is a minor problem, the real problem is whether there will be large format film available in any form. And FWIW (very little) I don't think the availability of disontinued films like Royal Pan or Super XX would help Kodak at all. Kodak's problem isn't share of the market, it's the fact that the market itself is disappearing.