Kodak Financial Woes Deepen: Film Future?

FYI
Saw article a couple of days ago in WSJ about the wall street wolves circling EK seeking sale or dismantling of company. I'm thinking that film business division may be a target for cutting despite those inside who still want to continue.

Also thinking that our hope is that someone small with a committment to continuing might buy out the film division. I, for one, am really going to get serious about testing alternative 4x5 films to Kodak. Don't mean to be an alarmist, but... Keeping my fingers crossed.

I feel that this issue could be driven by what Kodak is carrying into this economy relative to their balance sheet. We know for a fact that Kodak was remise in properly assessing the clear and present danger that digital represented to their business model and as a result, Kodak could not react quickly enough once they hear the train bearing down on them. The costs in jettisoning antiquated manufacturing facilities, dropping employees and the retiree benefits that had been accumulating for years along with the costs to push their digital model albeit in panic mode could be their final challenge. I personally do not see this as the end of their conventional film business. Kodak has several options to consider which I would suspect they are doing so as we speak. They can sell this division off, spin it off, go into some bankruptcy re-organization mode or just close the door and see what opportunities are presented after the fact. The analog film business will continue to be a niche business but it will require overhead operating costs to be commensurate with the new business economics. In the short term it makes sense to do some stocking to get through the reorganization period.

Anyone that thinks that Ilford, Adox/Efke or Foma are immune from this same set of challenges should think again. I believe that the industry will survive because there is money to be made. Who makes the proper decisions and rises to the top of the heap is the $50 question.

It seems inevitable that Kodak, at least the corporation in Rochester as we know it now, will cease to offer B&W film (other than x-ray) before very long. I'd estimate that to be within five years. One wonders what Kodak supposed we would use to print our B&W images on Kodak film when Rochester discontinued B&W paper several years ago.

One possibility is that Eastman Kodak will spin off the silver-based photography business to a new independent company. They did just that a number of years ago when Eastman Chemical was created - shareowners in Eastman Kodak received a pro-rated number of shares in Eastman Chemical when the split occurred. Eastman Chemical is profitable, thriving now, and actually increased its dividend last year as Eastman Kodak's fortunes continued to decline. It is hopeful to speculate on the prospects and offerings of a reborn US chemical photography supplier no longer burdened by the corporate overhead needed to support the (revolving door and demonstrably inept) Rochester Kodak executive suite but that may be a bit of an utopian exercise. I speak as a former shareholder.

It would be nice if such a spin-off happens and wecome to have a competitive domestic supplier of our requirements, but one can also make the case that now is the time to accept what is certain to happen and begin using materials from Kodak's rivals in order to support the guys who actually have a commitment to the craft. It is in our interest to have alternative suppliers healthy and thriving when Rochester Kodak pulls the plug on silver film as they've done with paper. A cynic might opine "why bother with Kodak, there are other competent suppliers now who seem interested in our business and are more likely to survive".

I was forced to do find new suppliers (after 35 years of using Kodak materials) when Kodak discontinued photographic paper. I began using Ilford products out of necessity, was happy with them, and subsequently settled on Ilford sheet film which I've found to be just fine for several years now. I also use Fuji when I shoot rollfim and make up my darkroom solutions from bulk chemicals (at a vastly smaller cost).

Funny thing, I avoided Kodak for years but now I'm using their film in 35mm format.

I found that a local store was selling fresh colour 200iso 24 exposure film for £1 a roll. It looks to be the lowest level of Kodak film, but it's still 50% or less per roll than every other brand I've come across. The results have come out very good as well, making me re-evaluate my opinions on the brand.



So long as I can get a lifetime supply of that film before Kodak goes bust, I'm happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graybeard

///one can also make the case that now is the time to accept what is certain to happen and begin using materials from Kodak's rivals in order to support the guys who actually have a commitment to the craft.

---

Ilford just announced a new fibre-based paper. When's the last time EKC did that?

I've been shooting and processing for 56 years. Never used a Kodak product and never will.

- Leigh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graybeard

...I was forced to do find new suppliers (after 35 years of using Kodak materials) when Kodak discontinued photographic paper. I began using Ilford products out of necessity, was happy with them, and subsequently settled on Ilford sheet film which I've found to be just fine for several years now. I also use Fuji when I shoot rollfim and make up my darkroom solutions from bulk chemicals (at a vastly smaller cost).

---

Thank you for not supporting an American company and American workers. I guess we have not sent enough U.S.A. jobs overseas. It may be that Kodak has not been as supportive of analog photographers as we would like but at least you could continue using Kodak film until they padlock the doors.
Howard Tanger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leigh

Ilford just announced a new fibre-based paper. When's the last time EKC did that?

I've been shooting and processing for 56 years. Never used a Kodak product and never will.

- Leigh

---

Thanks for your support! Howard Tanger

Kodak may be in deep do-do financially but so are many others. Take California, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio...shoot, the federal government may shut-down in two weeks! Oil is over a $100 a barrel and will certainly go a lot higher considering the situation in the middle east.

But note this: Kodak just released a new version of Porta 160 in all formats - including 8x10! Here's a review: http://figitalrevolution.com/2011/02...41-scan-hybri/

Film will be around for some time to come. I know because I'm wearing my rose tinted glasses from the 70's :p

Thomas

time for a bailout?
look how many new cars gm came out with last year!

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howard Tanger

Thank you for not supporting an American company and American workers. I guess we have not sent enough U.S.A. jobs overseas. It may be that Kodak has not been as supportive of analog photographers as we would like but at least you could continue using Kodak film until they padlock the doors.
Howard Tanger

---

How much of Kodak's manufacturing is actually in the United States? The last HC-110 that I bought was made in Brazil.

What might happen to Kodak and its film and film-related businesses is pretty much total speculation at this point. The only thing we know is that if the current Kodak managment remains in office Kodak will be out of the film business. The only question is when. And with the division that includes film racking up losses it's my guess they'll be out of it sooner rather than later.

In the long run it might be good for film users if Kodak's film business was discontinued or sold to a company like Ilford or Fuji. That would allow film sales to be concentrated in the hands of fewer companies, thereby strengthening them and allowing them to continue producing film while film use continues to dwindle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leigh

Ilford just announced a new fibre-based paper. When's the last time EKC did that?

I've been shooting and processing for 56 years. Never used a Kodak product and never will.

- Leigh

---

Package up that emotion and write a screen play. It may do you some good there.

The world of business is the domain we are in. Company executives have been sticking their wet fingers in hot light sockets for perpetuity and will continue to do so. Add a myopic "we are smarter than the rest of you" culture to the mix and you produce a recipe for disaster. When it is a product that you enjoy using it can be very painful.

I ascribe to the fact that it is better for all parties to leave the labels and the history of the name on the packaging to yesterday's news and consume what photographic products do the best job of producing your best images and leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graybeard

How much of Kodak's manufacturing is actually in the United States? The last HC-110 that I bought was made in Brazil.

---

Kodak outsourced its photo chemical manufacturing some time ago. Neither your HC-110 nor any other remaining Kodak-branded developers, fixers, etc. are manufactured by Kodak.

not everything kodak made was made here in the states, just like with fuji, not everything was made overseas

at one point K made some of the film + paper overseas ( or in south america / canada ).
like with fuji ... a lot of their consumer films were made here in the states
( the film base in rhode island, coating + assembly in south carolina. )

===

unfortunately k isn't ready for a small market. they are used to making
hundreds of miles of film, rather than 1 mile of film. so there is
a lot of waste and they are drowning in it.

if they could somehow rig their machines for small runs, maybe they would have a chance.
or if they sold master rolls to someone like photo warehouse and have
them cut/package it for resale. when i asked K about them doing that a year or two ago, they
they said word from the top said "NO", even though it would assure people with odd-size film needs would
be happy, their re-distributer would be happy, and they would be able to sell
their materials in HUGE quantities.

its kind of like that monty python skit at this point

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwsKg6LwAuY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak

Who makes the proper decisions and rises to the top of the heap is the $50 question.

---

It used to be the $64 dollar question. See how bad the economy has gotten?

A really astonishing event in all of this is the appearance of the book:

"Making Kodak Film" by Robert Shanebrook

http://www.makingkodakfilm.com

The book appears to have a wealth of technical information on Kodak's manufacturing technology including photographs of their process equipment. Kodak cooperated with the author in preparation of the book.

I have a number of years technical experience in a related industry, manufacturing metal (silver among them) powders and metal salt powders (the silver in photographic emulsions is as precipitated silver halide powders). There is as much art as there is science in making such powders. Our manufacturing methods and process equipment were closely protected intellectual property.

It is difficult to imagine why Kodak has allowed release of this information if film manufacture is a business they plan to continue in the future.

If you look you'll find numerous US reports about the Kodak Directors being some of the worst in the US, some are accused of overseeing Kodak's downfall.

They appointed Perez, at a time Kodak was an extremely cash rich company, they've bled it dry, just look at the bonuses Perez has been paid while Kodak's been loosing money.

Eastman & Mees must be turning in their graves at the way the companies been stripped bare.

Ian

In spite of all your bitching and moaning EKCo still makes the widest variety and the highest quality films, it's hard to compare pock-marked crap from England and the rest of the Third World to our stuff.

If you want Kodak to disappear, then keep on doing what you you're doing... dissing the company that pioneered and helped make photography what it is today. Go ahead and use the cheap stuff, or cling to your freezers of ten-year old stock, so the don't sell as much. Kill it faster and say goodbye to decent large format color....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

In spite of all your bitching and moaning EKCo still makes the widest variety and the highest quality films, it's hard to compare pock-marked crap from England and the rest of the Third World to our stuff.

If you want Kodak to disappear, then keep on doing what you you're doing... dissing the company that pioneered and helped make photography what it is today. Go ahead and use the cheap stuff, or cling to your freezers of ten-year old stock, so the don't sell as much. Kill it faster and say goodbye to decent large format color....

---

Yes, yes, yes! I agree, Howard Tanger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

In spite of all your bitching and moaning EKCo still makes the widest variety and the highest quality films, it's hard to compare pock-marked crap from England and the rest of the Third World to our stuff.

If you want Kodak to disappear, then keep on doing what you you're doing... dissing the company that pioneered and helped make photography what it is today. Go ahead and use the cheap stuff, or cling to your freezers of ten-year old stock, so the don't sell as much. Kill it faster and say goodbye to decent large format color....

---

The Coating division is a small part of Kodak, it's paid Perez etc their Bonuses because until very recently it's been extremely profitable.

It's the other parts of the company and the corporate directors that have been the downfall.

The problem is we all think of Kodak as a film and paper manufacturer, except they ditched B&W :D

The biggest Joke is Kodak (wholesale) are still trying to sell Kodachrome films (in the UK) some staff have no idea what it is and that processing been withdrawn, but they still have stock (in date) on the shelf :)

Parts of Kodak's website still recommend using their B&W papers, that's a company that's lost focus.


I'd add another problem, Kodak materials other than consumer C41 have almost totally disappeared from many markets/countries. If you'd seen how much time (days) I spent trying to get Kodak 120 Tmax films in South America 3 years ago you'd begin to understand. All I could get was Ilford and surprisingly Foma, and odd rolls of Fuji. it's the same here in Turkey, so I've switched back to Ilford after 20+ years of using Tmax, in all formats.

That's not the film division at fault, that's Perez and his distribution model.

Ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

In spite of all your bitching and moaning EKCo still makes the widest variety and the highest quality films, it's hard to compare pock-marked crap from England and the rest of the Third World to our stuff.

If you want Kodak to disappear, then keep on doing what you you're doing... dissing the company that pioneered and helped make photography what it is today. Go ahead and use the cheap stuff, or cling to your freezers of ten-year old stock, so the don't sell as much. Kill it faster and say goodbye to decent large format color....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howard Tanger

Yes, yes, yes! I agree, Howard Tanger

---

It's hard to imagine how you can describe Ilford as "pock marked" though some Foma film has been reported with coating defects.

I've always found Ilford the QC equal of Kodak, and it's certainly not crap.

I don't want Kodak film to go away, and I'll continue using it while I can, but I could, if I had to, get by in B&W very well without any Kodak products assuming everything else on the current market remained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

...it's hard to compare pock-marked crap from England and the rest of the Third World...

---

At it again Frank? It's obnoxious every time you unjustifiably denigrate Ilford. This time you've also described England as a third world country. Your reputation as a hurler of nonsense increases with every such post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

...EKCo still makes the widest variety and the highest quality films, it's hard to compare...to our stuff...

---

So, are you a major Kodak stockholder Frank? "Our stuff?" Is your ownership of Kodak why you flame Ilford?

Frank is just joking or is he sick;--)))

I use Kodak Films still in 4x5 and smaller on 8x10 I switched to Ilford and I alway's buy what I get fast!
So you also use Ilford and Fuji's on smaller then 4x5 but Fuji gets very hard to get here in Switzerland!

Cheers Armin

That WSJ article is written by shorties. If you listened to the most recent EK concall, you would know the paper and printing business is still being right sized and stabilized, pretty much on time, and although not mentioned in the concall, traditional film has leveled and even gained a bit. Film is still a high margin and cash cow for EK and anyone else who might acquire it.

One of the hardest thing to do is scale down a large company. Polaroid, even under wise management, would have had trouble doing it, but couldn't.

WSJ articles are suspect in my book. I've watched many DJ publications that predict wishes especially on the short side.

Well... I do love to get Sal's blood pressure up.

But I think it's asinine to claim Kodak is giving up on film at this point, and that the solution is to switch to a lessor brand, especially if you live in the USA. I live in Rochester, I see what happens when you buy off-shore junk and our local factories close. Americans have done it to themselves and we're stupid to have done it. But at the very least, we could at least buy some products made in our own country.

Granted, Fuji has equal-to-Kodak quality control but, having been burnt by Ilford mis-packaging and also mis-cutting several boxes of their B&W sheet film, I know that Ilford's quality and Kodak's quality are not equivalent. It's not bad film, you just get what you pay for.

I have always been puzzled about advertising. Why isn't there any advertising done to extol the virtues of using film?? If you want to move a product, it has to be advertised. However, film companies have been letting this concept sit on the floor. How can you have a Kodak moment without Kodak film? Why doesn't Ilford play up its history starting with the Autochrome? What would our history have been like without film? Sure, a painting of the Hindenburg crashing would be dramatic, but would it be as dramatic as the actual photographs?

The "but they don't care" argument doesn't work with me. We use information to prick someone's conscience. Milton Rogovin used portraits to provoke social change. W. Eugene Smith took a physical beating for photographing industrial waste in Japan. So why don't the film companies go and prick the consumer's conscience? It's like they've lain down and died.

I'm guessing they have done the math on advertising costs as well. Their limited advertising $$ are probably better spent on more profitable aspects of their business.. or at least that's what they are thinking.

Advertising is often directed more to new and growth markets. Film is thought of as a maintenance market. EK does advertise its film here and there, but in the absence of a clear or younger market for film, there isn't much point. Also many miles of motion picture film are no longer needed, now that American company Panavision has succeeded in exceeding film for movie making.

All of "the film companies" are small. The large companies such as Kodak, Fujifilm and maybe Ilford, make some film, by the way, but it is now a small part of their overall business. For EK, it shrank frighteningly, resulting in a lot of empty real estate. Polaroid was out of control before digital hit. Fujifilm was much quicker to react to changes in consumer imaging with their very successful Finepix line. Harman Technology continues to serve the smaller market well with their Ilford brand, and there are other niche players who are looking at possible growth as the giants move out of the field.

Consumer imaging is not focused in consumables, such as film and paper anymore, but on image acquisition, processing and electronic transmission - new virtues to extol, by the dozens.

Anyway, when investor groups start ganging up on a shrinking company, it hastens its demise, putting pressure on its market price, and discouraging believers. The goal is to get the price down even more, force divestment at a low price, while making money on short positions. It happens all the time.

http://new55project.blogspot.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobwysiwyg

I'm guessing they have done the math on advertising costs as well. Their limited advertising $$ are probably better spent on more profitable aspects of their business.. or at least that's what they are thinking.

---

Seems to me that they are using their financial resources to purchase their competition so they can shut down these operations some of which is newer than what they have in England. Some call it a predatory business practice. Others call it being shrewd but every time such a deal gets transacted one more option is wiped off of the table. Remember Kentmere and Bergger?

Nobody in this game is ready to be nominated for sainthood. But I still need sheet film in my holders so I am going to make like Switzerland so I do not have to declare my alliance with anyone. Whoever is still making and cutting emulsion is my close personal friend. Long live analog!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller

I have always been puzzled about advertising. Why isn't there any advertising done to extol the virtues of using film?? If you want to move a product, it has to be advertised. However, film companies have been letting this concept sit on the floor. How can you have a Kodak moment without Kodak film? Why doesn't Ilford play up its history starting with the Autochrome? What would our history have been like without film? Sure, a painting of the Hindenburg crashing would be dramatic, but would it be as dramatic as the actual photographs?

The "but they don't care" argument doesn't work with me. We use information to prick someone's conscience. Milton Rogovin used portraits to provoke social change. W. Eugene Smith took a physical beating for photographing industrial waste in Japan. So why don't the film companies go and prick the consumer's conscience? It's like they've lain down and died.

---

What would they say? For the needs of the vast majority of people, film is terrible. Everyone over 30 knows what film is like and do not want to go back. They all gave up film in a time when it was easily accessible, cheap and development was everywhere. That has changed since then, and digital has improved greatly.

As for history, the Model T Ford played an important role as well. Spending hundreds of millions on advertisements still would not sell more than a handful of a re-issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

But I think it's asinine to claim Kodak is giving up on film at this point, and that the solution is to switch to a lessor brand, especially if you live in the USA. I live in Rochester, I see what happens when you buy off-shore junk and our local factories close. Americans have done it to themselves and we're stupid to have done it. But at the very least, we could at least buy some products made in our own country.

---

It's essentially the same question as whether Chrysler and (to a bit lesser extent) the other two of the Big Three were forced into bankruptcy because Americans are increasingly buying Toyotas and other import cars or whether Americans were driven over to foreign brands by Chrysler et al producing junk cars...

What car are you driving, Frank? :)

But the Ford Model T truck was superceded by other versions of trucks. The current trucks still have four wheels, an internal combustion engine, and decent seating and hauling. The Model T has more in common with an F150 than a Leica II does with a Leica M8.

Now, if the F150 had four electric hub-motors and charged up in an hour for a day's worth of driving, that would be a similar advancement, and a similar economical effect. Oil companies would be going bankrupt, etc. There would be people griping about the demise of gasoline, and how the rumble of a V8 is so cool.

But gasoline engines really suck. And the equivalent electric vehicle doesn't really perform as well as a gasoline vehicle, and it's so much more expensive. But of course if you don't care about the performance, then you can get something that's within your budget.

So I suppose that imaging going electric is akin to the transportation industry going electric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller

But the Ford Model T truck was superceded by other versions of trucks. The current trucks still have four wheels, an internal combustion engine, and decent seating and hauling. The Model T has more in common with an F150 than a Leica II does with a Leica M8.

Now, if the F150 had four electric hub-motors and charged up in an hour for a day's worth of driving, that would be a similar advancement, and a similar economical effect. Oil companies would be going bankrupt, etc. There would be people griping about the demise of gasoline, and how the rumble of a V8 is so cool.

But gasoline engines really suck. And the equivalent electric vehicle doesn't really perform as well as a gasoline vehicle, and it's so much more expensive. But of course if you don't care about the performance, then you can get something that's within your budget.

So I suppose that imaging going electric is akin to the transportation industry going electric.

---

Yes, for an enthusiast, a Leica II is quite different from an M8. For the vast majority of people, they both do exactly the same thing except the Leica II is a headache to use. Need to buy and bring film, no instant preview, slower in use, need to pay for developing, need to wait for development and prints, can't instantly share pictures, can't change ISO. In the end, crappy pictures of the kids at Disney Land is still crappy pictures of kids at Disney Land.

The technical details, whether the picture was made using film or digital, is not interesting. Neither is it interesting if the car runs on electricity or gasoline. They are both cars that get you places, but the cost is different, and one has problems with range, recharge spots and recharge times. Digital photography on the other hand does not really have any downsides for the average photographer, so I don't think transportation going electric is similar to how photography went digital.

Brian,

Much as I would hate to disrupt yet another promising film vs. digital revelry ;), that's not what my comparison was about at all.

I was comparing Kodak films with foreign made films...

More specifically, I think that Kodak is on the fast track of ceasing film production, sooner much more likely than later, and that their decision to do so has next to nothing to do with my decision to keep buying Ilford.

My buying decision, on the other hand, has a lot to do with Kodak's strategic orientation, at least as much so as does Ilford's.

Marko

Kodak should call Donald Trump for suggestions, they obviously can't make any decisions on their own. Any business I've ever worked for would Sh*t can an employee who made decisions like Kodak has... except on and that's the US Government, military division. No one and I mean no one organization can be so tight as*sed as the military and yet spend and waste so much.

I read that we'd never see a car get 40 miles per gallon in the US, guess what, Hyundai and others are doing just that. They could have done it decades ago, who kept them making cars hooked to the pump?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marko

Brian,

Much as I would hate to disrupt yet another promising film vs. digital revelry ;), that's not what my comparison was about at all.

I was comparing Kodak films with foreign made films...

---

Actually, I hadn't paid any attention to your post! :eek:

It's always difficult to efficiently trim a company down. I personally like Kodak films, but the films that are most important to me have been discontinued. I can't get Techpan or HIE. I have to use foreign films, and put up with all of those subtitles. And if it isn't subtitles, then it's a big gaping emulsion defect. OK, so just one sheet out of 20 Efke IR. Still, I wasn't happy to see it, but boy was it big.

Fuji Acros has replaced Techpan. I don't like Tmax's grain. Yes, I do have at least three boxes of Tmax in the fridge.
Efki IR has replaced HIE and HIR. Nothing truly replaces Kodak's fabulous infrared films, but I continue on with what's available.

My color film is still Kodak, though. But realistically, am I using enough to sway Kodak to stay the course with film? Ummm, no. I think that I'd have to be moving through at least 50 sheets per day to be significant.

I don't exactly know if Kodak is trying to ditch film. I've seen a few sales statistics, and the volume appears to be significant to me. Whether it's significant to Kodak, heck if I know. I'm sure they have some kind of a plan, but heck if I know what it is. They are revamping their color lines, and from what I've seen of their movie film, I'd like to see more of that technology come over to where I can use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marko

What car are you driving, Frank? :)

---

funny. honda was voted best american made car! go figure. i guess they do a lot of the work here. putting them together and all......

i think frank drives a ford made volvo.....but lets ask frank to be sure.

i agree with frank that the problem with the USA right now is that everyone wants it as cheap as possible at all costs. and those costs are their jobs. hindsight shows americans to be pretty shortsighted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddie

funny. honda was voted best american made car! go figure. i guess they do a lot of the work here. putting them together and all......

i think frank drives a ford made volvo.....but lets ask frank to be sure.

i agree with frank that the problem with the USA right now is that everyone wants it as cheap as possible at all costs. and those costs are their jobs. hindsight shows americans to be pretty shortsighted.

---

In 1999, Volvo sold its car division Volvo Cars to Ford Motor Company for $6.45 billion. The Volvo trademark was shared between Volvo AB, where it is used on heavy vehicles, and the unit of Ford, where it was used on cars. In 2008, Ford decided to sell its interest in Volvo Cars; in 2010, Ford sold the brand to the parent of Chinese motor manufacturer Geely Automobile for $1.8 billion.

Not part of Ford!

Yep got a Chinese Volvo and Chinese-made kid. Got the best of the bargain though!

And while we should be supporting, not dissing Kodak, like the American car companies, they made a series of bad decisions while saddled with an out-of-date business model, huge overhead, etc.

It's hard. I try not to buy anything from WalMart or the other big box stores. But having driven so many crappy American cars, it is really hard to not buy foreign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by engl

What would they say? For the needs of the vast majority of people, film is terrible. Everyone over 30 knows what film is like and do not want to go back.

---

I'm well over 30 and can guarantee that I've produced vastly more images than you are ever likely to and I find your statements about film to be absurd. Film and digital are tools, they each have their advantages and disadvantages and only a fool takes a dogmatic and inflexible attitude when it comes to their tools.

I am in a position to buy whatever tools I feel will best serve my work with little concern to cost. My living depends on it. For the work that I do, I find that film is of far greater advantage than digital. If I were still shooting commercial work I would mostly likely shoot digitally and on occasion film. But to make a claim that EVERYONE over 30 won't use film is an inaccurate generalization and one that comes from someone who clearly has limited firsthand knowledge of the subject.

To further claim that for the needs of most people "film is terrible" is also absurd, and at a time when the quality of film has never been better. For most people digital is simply more convenient and cost effective, film is NOT terrible. The entire photograph producing world used film exclusively for a very, very long time, and got along just fine with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

And while we should be supporting, not dissing Kodak, like the American car companies, they made a series of bad decisions while saddled with an out-of-date business model, huge overhead, etc.

It's hard. I try not to buy anything from WalMart or the other big box stores. But having driven so many crappy American cars, it is really hard to not buy foreign.

---

And that's the point - why on Earth should we be supporting any company consistently making bad decisions while refusing to ditch the obsolete business model and to adapt to the changing market? We are the ones who preach free and open market regulated only by offer and demand. I refuse to be exhorted to buy American for the sake of saving inept American companies.

And besides, what exactly makes a company "American" these days? Ownership? Location? Majority of workforce? Taxes they pay (or not)? In my mind, what makes any company American is success - American companies are supposed to succeed or close down, they are not supposed to live on anybody's handouts or charity.

If Kodak won't or can't adopt to the market, I have no problem turning to Ilford myself. And if that doesn't work either, I'll turn to whatever solution is available to enable me to keep making photographs.

I think America needs a dose of isolationism and protectionism myself... I'd stiff the Chinese and take our oil out of the Middle East under the threat of nuking Mecca. But that's just me, I'm moderate like that.

Well Kodak's film division hasn't necessarily made many bad decisions... ten sheet boxes or dropping IR film are bothersome but you can make a rational business case for why they had to do it.

You probably can't find another example of downsizing such a large and diverse company successfully, it's never been done before and regardless, it has to hurt someone. When you think of it in those terms, they've been doing a pretty amazing job.... There are plenty of great hindsight quarterbacks here, but nobody has suggested any viable way for them to recover or grow, and probably nothing is likely and it certainly isn't obvious.

Frankly if they spun the photo film portion off to me, I'd market film to hipsters and sell tons of retro-Lomo-Ektars to kids. But even then, who knows if they could scale things back enough to be efficient in the market?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian K

I'm well over 30 and can guarantee that I've produced vastly more images than you are ever likely to and I find your statements about film to be absurd. Film and digital are tools, they each have their advantages and disadvantages and only a fool takes a dogmatic and inflexible attitude when it comes to their tools.

I am in a position to buy whatever tools I feel will best serve my work with little concern to cost. My living depends on it. For the work that I do, I find that film is of far greater advantage than digital. If I were still shooting commercial work I would mostly likely shoot digitally and on occasion film. But to make a claim that EVERYONE over 30 won't use film is an inaccurate generalization and one that comes from someone who clearly has limited firsthand knowledge of the subject.

To further claim that for the needs of most people "film is terrible" is also absurd, and at a time when the quality of film has never been better. For most people digital is simply more convenient and cost effective, film is NOT terrible. The entire photograph producing world used film exclusively for a very, very long time, and got along just fine with it.

---

I made one mistake in not being more clear about who does not want to go back. Everyone over 30 knows what film is like. The vast majority does not want to go back.

Film is terrible for the needs of the vast majority of those taking pictures, when compared to using a digital camera. It is inconvenient, costly, bulky, limited and slow, and they are indifferent to the differences in the image produced.

I fully recognize that film has many advantages and that is why I'm using it. Film is excellent for me, and there are other enthusiasts and professionals that find it great for what they do.

Congratulations, engl. You have discovered that most photographers prefer digital.

It is not like I'm going to request a medal for my findings :) My message was in response to why Kodak does not do more advertising for film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Syverson

Congratulations, engl. You have discovered that most photographers prefer digital.

---

Well, most "picture takers" prefer digital, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by engl

It is not like I'm going to request a medal for my findings :) My message was in response to why Kodak does not do more advertising for film.

---

Ah, well I guess we're in a agreement then. Advertising is largely a waste of money. It's not like a $5000 full page ad in American Photographer is going to convince your DSLR-shooting brother in law to pick up a film camera.

Well, engl, from watching digital being adopted, it wasn't a case of "film is bad," rather, "digital is new and cool." It's been about glitzy doodads and lights, not necessarily about making a photograph of anything at all. The new gadget in question just happens to be a camera. I've had conversations with gadget-followers and others who also wondered what was going through the gadget-followers' heads. People were (and still are) spending thousands on cameras they'd hardly use, and would be obsolete soon.

I read someone's take on it, and it boiled down to that in a family, the husband bought the gadgets, and the wife would use them. Previously the husband would buy a film camera, and the wife would be photographing the kids. Then the husband bought a digital camera, and the wife would still be photographing the kids, but of course wouldn't be buying any more film. I worked with a lady who didn't understand that photographs came from negatives; she had been throwing the negatives away once she got her pictures. Then I had to explain why backups of those digital pictures must be done. Yes, her computer had crashed, and she did lose her child's photos.

Now of course digital is here to stay, for good or ill. I just don't see a down-side to educating people about why they should be using film. One camera for the garbage stuff, one camera for what you want to preserve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

I think America needs a dose of isolationism and protectionism myself... I'd stiff the Chinese and take our oil out of the Middle East under the threat of nuking Mecca. But that's just me, I'm moderate like that.

---

Yup, that would work. Then the Chinese would dump a trillion $'s of US debt....leaving what's left to be called the American Peso. Of course, if you like paying $80 for a roll of film then, go ahead and isolate and be protectionist. History says without exception, that such an approach is doomed to failure.

Now, for me, Ilford films work just fine. For color though, I've been gobbling up a good 15 to 20 rolls of Portra 400 for every wedding....and will do so for the forseeable future. I'll probably burn through a good 1000+ rolls of Portra 160 & 400 this year alone.....maybe 200 or 300 sheets of it as well. But, that isn't enough to replace the drop in volume coming from theatres going digital. With that volume gone, Kodak will struggle to make their current production model work.