Kodak Financial Woes Deepen: Film Future?

[Brian K]

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.

[Marko]

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not dissing Kodak, like the American car companies, they made a series of bad decisions while saddled with an out-of-date business model, huge overhead, etc.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

[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.

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?

[engl]

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.

[Ben Syverson]

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

[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.

[Roger Cole]

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

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

[Ben Syverson]

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.

[Brian C. Miller]

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.

[David Luttmann]

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.