Kodak announcement from KEH

[lenser]

Hope this is true. KEH just posted this on their Facebook blog.

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-jo...ses-film-alive

[BrianShaw]

I hope it isn't April 1.

[tgtaylor]

Great news but expected as film was/is one of Kodak's profitable division. Here is the press release on their website:

http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Kodak_...ortunities.htm

Thomas

[Brian C. Miller]

Doesn't surprise me. Kodak has to cut everything that isn't making money, as in cash. The digital consumer products never made a dime, and Kodak sold off its profitable professional sensor manufacturing facility for cash last year. There isn't much digital stuff that makes money for Kodak.

[Brian Ellis]

Doesn't surprise me. Kodak has to cut everything that isn't making money, as in cash. The digital consumer products never made a dime . . .

Kodak's 2010 annual report shows earnings of $331 million for the Consumer Digital Imaging Group. Quite a few dimes. The 2009 report shows earnings for that Group of $35 million.

The company's overall losses weren't from operating losses of the Consumer Digital Imaging Group. Far from "never made a dime," that Group has actually been pretty profitable in some years. The losses in 2010 were related to interest expense and other debt-related losses and on "other operating expenses" which in 2010 were primarily caused by a $619 million write-down of goodwill in the Film Photofinishing and Entertainment Group.

[Brian C. Miller]

Kodak's 2010 annual report shows earnings of $331 million for the Consumer Digital Imaging Group. Quite a few dimes. The 2009 report shows earnings for that Group of $35 million.

Ech, my goof, I specifically meant the digital cameras. USA Today, Eastman Kodak fights for its future, "Perez early this year said 2011 would be a tough year as it scaled back its stagnant digital camera business, focusing just on profitable models and markets, and the company's traditional film business continued to shrivel."

PMA Newsline, Kodak reaffirms plan to complete transformation by 2012

There was another article which I've tried to find, but I think it was in the Rochester Democrat and Herald, and I can't find it in their archives. It was about what was actually profitable on the digital side within Kodak, and the digital cameras were singled out for their non-performance.

[SamReeves]

Hey Rochester, the horse is already outta the barn!!! LOL.

Sticking with green and Foma boxes.

[cdholden]

Hope this is true. KEH just posted this on their Facebook blog.

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-jo...ses-film-alive

This article quotes the Chief Marketing Officer. Hey Frank, can you go over there and make sure he's talking to the CEO/CFO/CTO? This looks like another case of the left hand and right hand doing their own thing and not communicating.
"Kodak's continuing consumer products and services will include the traditional film capture and photographic paper business, which continues to provide high-quality and innovative products and solutions to consumers, photographers, retailers, photofinishers and professional labs,"

Photographic paper business? They must be referring to the stuff that feeds inkjet printers. Why is it in the same sentence with "traditional film capture"?

[Sal Santamaura]

...Photographic paper business? They must be referring to the stuff that feeds inkjet printers. Why is it in the same sentence with "traditional film capture"?

They make a ton of RA-4 paper. That's what it refers to.

[Daniel Stone]

Lotsa labs here in LA use Fuji RA-4(or their funny name for it, same schtuff chemically-wise), but I know a few people who still run(or formerly ran) Kodak chems 100% of the time, simply because of the name associated with "quality". Not that Fuji is "bad"(I love their transparency films, RIP Astia ), but Kodak is what is filling my film holders at the moment, and I'm glad EK has decided to remain in the film/photochemical photo business. Its what made the company, and not that "branching out" is a bad thing, but having your resources spread too thin across too many project lines is NEVER a good thing. I just wish they'd bring back 160VC from ~2002-2005, it had more punch color-wise than the most recent versions of that emulsion(which I still love), but a wonderful way of rendering skin tones of any color/creed that Ektar just completely obliterates(not in a good way...)

I'm glad they've decided to stick with the profitable products, now if we can keep those Hollywood folk shooting film for a long time, they're the biggest customer of all!

-Dan