New York Times Articles, good/bad

[John Flavell]

Here are two stories in today's New York Times concerning photography. One good. One bad.

http://nytimes.com/2005/07/20/arts/design/20east.html

http://nytimes.com/2005/07/20/business/businessspecial3/20cnd-kodak.html

[Bill_1856]

Yes, but which is which?

[Brian C. Miller]

The first one, about a big web project, is the good one. The second is about Kodak laying off and its problems due to digital cameras.

[Brian Ellis]

I haven't read those particular stories but I've read about Kodak's layoffs in the business press. That is indeed bad news for those of us who use film, any kind of film, not just Kodak because the reason given for the layoffs is claimed to be declines in film sales even steeper than the declines that Kodak anticipated, even in countries like China. If Kodak's film sales are declining that rapidly there's no reason to think it isn't happening in varying degrees to all companies engaged in the film business. But I liked the Kodak president's statement that his business plan is right on track.

[paulr]

Just keep in mind that the decline was in the consumer side of their business, which is being rapidly taken over by very cheap digital cameras. The pro side is a different story ... I don't think we can assume to know the death rate on one side based on the death rate on the other side.

I can't imagine large format film is going anywhere anytime soon. Not when the digital alternatives still cost more than cars.

[neil poulsen]

Yeah, but given its comparatively much smaller volume, the pro side is likely much affected by what happens on the consumer side. Is it possible that one has been insulated from the other at Kodak?

[Brian C. Miller]

Based on their decision to drop b&w paper, I don't think anything is insulated from anything at Kodak. They want to stay in business, and will cut whatever needs to be cut to keep the company afloat.

[Brian C. Miller]

Kodak invests in Lucky Film (http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/78256.htm)


"This is very likely to be only the first step in Kodak's co-operation with Lucky,'' said Xiao Hanping, imaging industry analyst with China Galaxy Securities. "Even the parent company might become the next acquisition target.''

Doesn't that give you a nice, warm feeling? The future Kodak, subsidiary of Lucky Film. I wonder if Lucky B&W paper will be available.

[Brian Ellis]

It's all speculation but I'd think the pro side of Kodak is worse off than the consumer side when it comes to film. The consumer side includes film in disposable cameras, which has always constituted a very large percentage of total film sales and is still popular in some areas. Also, it's the pros who can afford the really expensive digital stuff that produces very good quality from what I've seen of the $30,000 digital backs. Plus it's the pros who seem to often be forced by the market to go digital even if they'd rather not. I see Kodak getting out of black and white film in no more than a year or two. I just hope Ilford is doing better than Kodak in the bottom line but I have my doubts.

[Dan Jolicoeur]

I imagine Ilford is in better shape than Kodak. I don't imagine they have been as top heavey as Kodak. This is a major realinement to stay in bussiness and keep the share olders happy. The ultimate decision is they are making money not film, chemicals or paper. That goes with any company. I still say that this digital thing is at the bottom of the hill and should start to head the other direction in the next few years. As long as they are making film for the movie industry, I am sure we do not need to panic, and think about hand made glass plates. Besides the human impact of job loss, there could also be some positive things come out of all this for film by the time it is has hit the bottom, and turns around. If there is a market for film it will be made. Who knows small companies that make sun glasses could start up a film production line. The smaller the company the more profitable they will be. Ilford has a very strong loyal customer base, and if they can stay lean and make money, then they have no reason not to want to stay in bussiness.

[David F. Stein]

Motion picture films may still be shot on film stock—for a while. And, remember, that advances for the motion picture industry and commercial photography have always given the fine art photographer and hobbyist many benefits. Soon, motion pictures will not be distributed by film but in digital format, transmitted to satellite right to the movie theater. It still hurts to see a company of the caliber that Kodak once was and still is suffer in the marketplace.

[Paddy Quinn]

"Motion picture films may still be shot on film stock—for a while. And, remember, that advances for the motion picture industry and commercial photography have always given the fine art photographer and hobbyist many benefits. Soon, motion pictures will not be distributed by film but in digital format, transmitted to satellite right to the movie theater. It still hurts to see a company of the caliber that Kodak once was and still is suffer in the marketplace."

They may remian shot on film for a while, but as you point out, distribution (where the huge bulk of film stock from Kodak etc is used) will be digital - but probably not to the theatres. The theatres (and blockbusters) are dying - witness the failure of Cinderella Man this summer as a prime example.

cf this succinct recent descritpion:

"The MPAA and the studios have
utterly, completely, dropped the ball on this and they do not seem to
realize. The reason for their incredibly delayed entry into streaming
movies is simply that they are waiting for Digital Rights Management
to be acceptable to them. Intel is about to introduce chip-level DRM
later this year, which will undoubtedly go into the intel Macs, at
which point Steve Jobs (he runs Pixar, remember) will introduce some
kind of streaming movie service modeled on and probably integrated
with iTunes. This will be combined with a wireless video streaming
box which will send HD pictures from your computer to your TV. This
is why you should buy Apple stock now, or even better in six months
when it tanks because of poor sales of the PowerPC macs.

The studios are rightly terrified of what this will mean because
their stranglehold on distribution will be largely gone. The only
person who is ahead of the curve on this is Mark Cuban and his 2929
prodco (google for this and you'll see what I mean).....

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21460472

either way, big changes are already coming to the movie industry which will certainly lead to significantly less film used in distribution, whatever happens at the production end.