Is Kodak the 'Biggest Loser'

[I @ M]

Regarding film bodies: There are still a variety of new film cameras being produced (Nikon even still makes the F6), and in fact the number of companies making film cameras outnumbers those making digital cameras.

Tom, to be sure Nikon still makes the F6 ( released 2004 ) and the FM10 (released 1995 ) and in the scheme of things they are so far behind any update schedule as to be considered redundant. Do you think that there will be an F7 or an FM11 announced soon or indeed at all?

Never having considered the actual numbers of manufacturers presently in the game that are still churning out bodies it would be interesting to see how many there are that make purely film bodies, compared to those who make both film and digital, I guess we could further whittle the numbers down if we take away the "gimmick" factor of things like holga and cardboard bodied "wedding guest specials".

[Tom J McDonald]

Hi Andrew, the beauty of film cameras is they don't need to be updated constantly
Anyway, The FM10 is made by Cosina Japan and badged as a Nikon. If you'd like a list, I suppose I could spend 10 minutes compiling one May as well start with Cosina:

-Cosina manufacture quality 35mm and medium format rangefinder cameras, as well as 35mm SLRs. They also manufacture a range of great lenses, and their prices are very reasonable. The 35mm rangefinders utilise the Leica 'M' mount.
http://www.cosina.co.jp/kaigai/index.html

-Nikon of course make the F6, which is awesome.

-Fuji make the Natura and the Klasse range of 35mm cameras which are great and cult classics (can't find them now - ). They also make the Instax system of cameras which use instant film (just like Polaroid!). It's against the rules, but Fuji also make the Hasselblad H-series, which utilises film backs.http://www.fujifilm.com/products/film_camera/instant/

-Mamiya make the 7, which is the ultimate medium format rangefinder. http://www.mamiya-usa.com/mamiya-7-ii.html
I would say they make the RZ, RB and 645 but your rules don't allow that

-Kenko make a 35mm SLR which comes in 3 different lens mounts. From what I've heard, and looking at their spec sheet, they are a good, no nonsense mechanical camera. http://www.kenkoglobal.com/cameras.html

-Leica make the M7 and the MP - nothing more to say. http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/

-Phenix - Check 'em out! http://www.chine-taiwan.com/phenixoptics.htm

-DHW Fototechnik (ROLLEIFLEX) - Website isn't operating at the moment but you can order their SLRs and TLRs from a number of dealers - http://www.dhw-fototechnik.de/

-Vivitar! NO idea if they make it - http://www.vivitar.com/products/8/pr...lr/34/v3800-50

-I'm bored with listing each website so here is a list of the remaining ones I can think of.

-Seagull
-Cambo
-Toyo
-Linhof
-Deardorff
-RBT
-Sinar

-Ebony
-Chamonix
-Shen Hao
-Alpa
-Goersi
-Zenit
-Powershovel!
-Silvestri
-Tachihara
-Canham
-Arca Swiss
-Horsley
-Great Wall
-Zero Image
-Argentum
-Lotus
-Star Cameras
-Black Art Woodcraft
-Ty Guilloroy
-Plaubel
-Gilde
-Kamarwerke Dresden

In no order of importance... I'm sure there are more.
Anyway, you see film isn't dead...

I've left out the so called novelty cameras, but there's no doubt they eat a large chunk of film around the world.

[arthurking83]

.....
It's been shown that Kodak's film division is still very profitable and that it's other useless crap is sucking the profits that it makes. If they dump the other crud, concentrate on film in a changing market, they'll be fine - they'll shrink, but they'll be fine......

I highly doubt that ... "they'll be fine"!!

In 2000 their entire film sales were in the order of $7billion, and in 2010 this dwindled down to $1.7Billion sales!! not profit.
That they made any money on film is a testament to the fact that this was obviously a highly profitable venture for them.

The problem is that their film sales have diminished at a rate of about 20% per annum, and you don't need to be an expert in finance to realise that at some point in the next 2-5 years, the cost of ownership of their film production chattels is going to make film into a massive loss making venture.

I'd assume that the majority of their film sales will be to the health care sector where many health institutions may still be using film for X-ray machines and such like, but yet again, once the massive investment in digital is taken into consideration in this sector, a digital x-ray scanning device may pay itself off in as many as 12months due to the elimination of the ever increasing cost of film supplies.

To maintain a profitable line of products, the volume of the sales of that product is the most important consideration, the lower the volume the higher the cost of sales of that product.
Either Kodak accept a lower profit margin on that product, or they increase prices to maintain a specific profit level.

As already said, the writing is on the wall for them, and no matter what they do, it's inevitable that they'll have to accept a dwindling income stream from film.

I've seen opinions that Kodak's entire film ops(FPEG) will probably be in the red by about 2015-2017.

They simply can't sustain a -20% sales decrease every year and maintain the operations.
From 2008 to 2010 film sales diminished by close to 50% alone!!

First thing they'll do is to move it offshore, where they have less access to assure quality control. Then they have to battle these quality control bogies as the plants will now be located and run by third world workers, during which time these quality control issues will drive even more customers away again.
Otherwise they will license the technology to some offshore manufacturer to eliminate any more financial risk to themselves.

That there will be a very small enthusiast group dedicated to the use of film is almost without doubt.
There's always a niche market for some enthusiast hobby genre.

But their overall digital sales have actually risen from year to year, but not by as much as their film sales decline.
In the US their digital sales rose by about 10% over the previous year, but 2009 was a bad year in which sales declined by 11%.
But their non US sales have been declining by 5% over the past three years.

It seems that, US consumers are loyal, but that non US consumers are more finicky about their goods(and possibly services).

One thing that seems to be blatantly clear tho is that Kodak seem to not be interested in R&D .. that is the inventors of the digital age, and now don't give a rats about it and how to better it.

As it stands, Nikon and Canon and Sony have the edge on sensor design technology if you take camera performances as the measure of success.
Strangely these three companies seem to be doing well in the digital era.
I think the two aspects of imaging seem to go hand in hand.
Design products that people actually like and want, they incessantly chatter away about how good it is, and sales seem to follow.

They seemed to lack vision in the field of R&D, and now it's come back to haunt them.
All they had to do was design highly competent sensor technology that was amongst the best, if not the best, available and sell it to any manufacturer that wanted it.
That's what Canon and Sony do successfully.

Before this decade is out, someone will be looking at a takeover(if they haven't already filed for a Section 11 by then!)

Depending on the pace of digital advancements, specifically the size and cost of manufacture of the sensor, I doubt that any of the large film manufacturers will see out the end of this decade.
All corporations that conduct business do so with one thing in mind .. bottom line. Reducing costs is the surest way to increase profitability.
When a cost saving comes along, they'll latch onto it in an instant. The problem for film manufacturers is that this may be swift and severe.

Of course there will be other film products that will be required that use similar technology, but not specifically used for imaging, such as protective films and substrates for other uses within the imaging world itself, but film for use as a form of image capture is going to eventually become so expensive and hard to get, it'll become one of those niche markets that many will not bother with any longer.

And as for this idea that there are committed retailers out there that will be there to cater to an ever dwindling market .. another furphy!

Kodak shwed the world that not everything lasts forever.
Their company policy for film was that each product was supposed to be supported by the company for 100years, and Kodachrome was the last hooray for Kodak.
As a generally available product it lasted for some 60 odd years .... about 70years in total but not widely available for many years after it was invented. But what happened to the 100year policy?

That ProphotosRus will pledge to it's loyal customers that it will have available all manner of odds and sods, is only going to last as long as the profitability of the venture that is ProphotsRus.
If they require refrigeration of a film product where they sell one or two rolls per year, and the cost of keeping this stock requires $1000 of refrigeration and financial commitment by the business, are these loyal film buffs willing to pay $1000 for a roll of film?
(of course this is a gross exaggeration, but the point is, are these film loyalists willing to pay whatever it takes just for the cache that they use film?)

Everything has it's price limit, and the cost of doing business is a significant factor in all of this. .... so I refer back to the original statement that the writing is on the wall.

I won't be the person that will come back and say ... told you so, but I'll be the first to admit if there is some kind of amazing turn of fortune, and that I was wrong.
And Kodak were caught on the back foot(in cricketing parlance), let one through to the keeper, were hit on the pad ..... and they're about to be given out!

[Tom J McDonald]

I'm exhausted after reading that.

Anyway, people have been saying exactly what you're saying since the Mavica.
Kodak may be given LBW, but that'll just make room for many of the other 'emulsion coaters' to move in and fill the void.
There are enough film users out there to sustain multiple companies, and if that ever changes, they'll coat their own plates.

[Kym]

There are many uses for film, but they are diminishing.
The key point is the economy of scale is rapidly shrinking.

Even in the medical market (having had heart issue this year) it all seems to be digital imaging.

The movie industry is the last hold out, and as long as movies are delivered in cinemas on film prints there will be a level of volume,
but when that goes digital we will be making our own if we want film.

There will always be the enthusiast, and that is good/fun, but as a serious commercial endeavour its over once movies go digital.

[Tom J McDonald]

Kym,
Ilford, Foma, Efke, Adox and Kentmere don't make motion picture films, yet they're doing fine and making profits from film and traditional papers for pictorial use.
Tom.

[Mark L]

.......
The key point is the economy of scale is rapidly shrinking.
......
There will always be the enthusiast, and that is good/fun, but as a serious commercial endeavour its over .....

There may always be a place for film (maybe), though I think the big $$ days are gone.
When lined up at the supermarket checkout, there used to always be a display of film for me to impulse buy. 100, 200, 400 ISO, mostly Kodak, sometimes Fuji. Wanna take a photo, gotta buy a roll of film. Now I can't find a roll of film in the supermarket.
6 years ago I could get a roll of film developed in 5 places here. Now Big W will reluctantly do it.
I can't buy a vinyl L.P. record here now, other than at garage sales. Things change and move on.
And even if there are companies making money from film ;
a)I think the big $$ days are gone.
b)"I've said this on prior occasions and still maintain that Kodak are useless morons(well the execs are)." OP's first sentence.

[Kym]

Kym,
Ilford, Foma, Efke, Adox and Kentmere don't make motion picture films, yet they're doing fine and making profits from film and traditional papers for pictorial use.
Tom.

No issue with that, but none of them will be growing into multi-billion conglomerates in the next 10 years if they base their business on film.

Film is excellent, but is simply no longer remotely near the mainstream.
If you shoot film then enjoy it. But don't try to defend it, it needs no defence, rather let it be the niche it is.

Will CMOS sensors be the future? Maybe not ... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...&highlight=jot

Will mirrors be overtaken by mirrorless cameras? Probably!

The only sure thing with photography this century will be technological changes.

[knumbnutz]

2c worth
Kodak still make most of the MF 40mp sensors for the likes of Leica (not MF), hasselblad, phase one and pentax.
And then there are the other niche cameras that still need film like pano cameras 617 etc and LF.
I guess the other thing that we wouldnt see is all the more remote or 3rd world places that dont have access to power or the like that can still run film cameras because there is no power requirements. Not huge though.
and then the retro market. This will always be around as long as film is available.
As for myself, i have a Kodak Autographica from 1917 that takes 120roll film. It still works. I cant wait to see a digital camera last that long !

[Tom J McDonald]

Kodak sold their sensor division 2 months ago.

[arthurking83]

......
b)"I've said this on prior occasions and still maintain that Kodak are useless morons(well the execs are)." OP's first sentence.

begets

Kodak sold their sensor division 2 months ago.

An upstarts can come onto the digital scene with no knowledge of digital sensor technology, nor photography at all, grow themselves into monstrous conglomerate and make squillions from the new technology(which in effect is simply an extension of the old technology of film) .... and in stark contrast, Kodak flounders due to success of their own invention ... there can be only one conclusion for Kodak:

And that is that Kodak is the biggest loser. Simply a case of mismanagement and a lack of vision.

Film in it's current form has been around for 100years, and is possibly as mature as it's going to get.
I really can't see any of the current producers throwing massive amounts of investment dollars into R&D into a product of a market that's shrinking.

The current idea of using silicon to capture the same effect has been around in reality for about 10-15 years.
Due to the lower cost of production it's permeated the mass market far quicker than film took to do so. Of course the times have changed and film also had a depression of monumental proportions to deal with.
But at the current rate of take up, and as new sub technologies develop for silicon based imaging, I reckon we'll see larger format affordable sensors creep onto the market.
The demand for it may be too low for now, but as that manufacturing base evolves, there is only one outlook for film, and that's even lower volumes.
In 5-10 years, the mind boggles as to where digital imagery will be at!

Film is the motoring equivalent of the old banger vintage automobile. They're still around for sure, and there's a market for repro parts and services, but the wholesale manufacture of the stuff will one day be the domain of the small time niche 'nickel and dime companies'.


I don't see this as neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Basically it doesn't affect me in any way shape or form .. it's simply a prediction based on current trends.

As another example of the contraction of the entire film market:

Enlarger gear that used to cost thousands is now being slowly absorbed into junk status.
Massively capable gear such as lenses that would have cost in their thousands now fetch a few dollars on the net.
The disappearance of this market is yet another example of where things are going.
Digital is the 'answer' but only in that, it's far more cost effective than film based technology.
Business are there to make money.

Where Kodak lost out big time, was when they had a grip on the old market, they didn't use this power in any way to maintain control of the evolution of this market.
They should have seen that many people want not only instant photos on their camera and subsequently onto their PC's, but still in a print form.
The next step is obviously the home printing market, and their reaction was more along the lines of uploading images to the net on one of their print services and send the prints to the home.
How is this considered to be 'instant'?
They should have invested money into the development of quick, easy and more importantly cheap home print technologies.

All people want is a cheap solution .... that's where the real money is, and that's where Kodak made their money.
Traditionally their consumer services vs pro services were in the order of 5:1 in terms of income stream(2000 P&L states that $7.5 Billion in film sales compared to $1.5 billion in Professional services!)
Income from the consumer market is obviously far more lucrative and they only really offered goods and services that simply were not good value for money.
Consumer markets is where the money is. Not concentrating on this was their undoing.

The only reason they've sold off their sensor division is because they know that's really all that's worth any money to anyone. Even tho it wasn't very successful for them, the fact still remains that it was more than 5x the income stream for them compared to the film division. But the film division is not just comprised of film, it also encompasses 'entertainment' as part of the complex.
It also encompasses the Kodak Kiosk printing services as part of the groups structure. This only highlights how small the film part of their business had shrunk too.

Just as at some point in time, the T-Model ford and the amazingly long lived VW Beetle gave way to better alternatives, so must film.
The Brazilians persevered for something like 20years manufacturing the Beetle well after it should have died.
Again, whether this was a good thing or not, is irrelevant, but it was a lot more demanding of resources in terms of production, and hence in reality something that shoudl have been put to pasture way before it did. But it served a purpose to the Brazilians in having a simple manufacturing base that their populace could come to grips with.
As I remember it, VW licensed the production to a company there, and eventually they replaced it with something like the Polo(or whatever). But the replacement was far less of a resource issue for them as it was quicker easier and cheaper to build.

This is what needs to happen to film. We just don't need this kind of inefficient use of resources.
As history has shown us, the technology costs too much money and hence is slowly fading from the general consciousness.
No one knows exactly when it'll be killed off in terms of volume production, and the other question of who will be the last company standing.
The real future of film manufacture will be a similar model to that of vintage auto parts production .. very small in comparison to what it looks like now.


The other thing about the production of films and emulsions, is that they're not all used for imaging.
Many film/emulsion types are used for whatever other purpose, and is a part of the greater process production of film and emulsions in general.
Just because Agfa Gaevert still manufacture films .. this doesn't necessarily mean only photography film!
They have a division called Agfa Specialty Products, and I'll bet my last dollar the vast majority of these films are of the wholesale 'cling wrap' films that we handle every day.
That's where the money is.. supplying business with their films and polymers in vast quantities .. not supplying a few sheets of large format photography film to a few ardent enthusiasts.

We pickup and deliver these 1 ton rolls of film like products every day and none of it looks anything like it's photography related(not Agfa products either I have to add).

Next time if time permits,I'll take more notice of what these rolls are and from whom.

[Kym]

Kodak sold their sensor division 2 months ago.

Reference... http://www.techradar.com/news/photog...vision-1039458

Kodak has sold its Image Sensor Solutions business to Platinum Equity for an undisclosed amount in a bid to raise cash for the firm.
The deal has emerged a week after Kodak announced it was looking to raise $500m in additional financing, warning last week that it would need to raise significant funds by completing a multibillion-dollar patent sale to survive the next 12 months.

Kodak is planning to generate $200m from "nonstrategic asset sales" this year, while shares in the company rose by 6% on Monday.

Platinum Equity, which bought the sensor business, is a firm that specialises in buying up distressed assets, but has so far not commented on the sale

[arthurking83]

"..... while shares in the company rose by 6% on Monday. "

Share price is currently at about 0.60c US, whereas in the year 2000, share price was in the US$50-60 price range!

[Tom J McDonald]

This thread is exhausting.

Like I said... Kodak needs to sell the rest of its baloney and concentrate solely on continuing to make film and paper, as a private company. Looks as though they're on the right track selling their sensors. They will be the definite winner in my eyes. If it doesn't happen, and they go belly-up. There are other companies that can satisfy the hundreds of thousands of ravenous film users around the world.
Ilford restructured and privatised in 2005 and they are in an extremely good situation, with profits growing every year. There's obviously a market for it, otherwise that would have never happened. They even introduced a new paper this year.

[arthurking83]

Problem with seling the sensor division and keeping the film(and entertainment) division is:

while the sensor division made a $300mil profit, the film and entertainment division made $60mil profit!

It's obvious that this move was strategic decision to raise capital, to ward off banckruptcy .. not simoly because the sensor division is lacking in any way.

The problem with the film division is that it's incorporated with the processing and photo printing section of their business, so the true extent of the state of each individual is only known by Kodak themselves as to how much money is made by each service they provide.

According to their 2010 financials is that the sensor division is making most of their profits.

Other operational costs are eating into their bottom line ... management issues such as employee health insurances redundancies and so on, not necessarily manufacturing operation cost overruns
That's a mangerial issue.. to simply say that they sold off a loss making section of their business is simplistic and inaccurate(according to their own financials).

I'm sure that they've placed themselves in a position to reacquire the sensor division when they're better placed to do so.

That mere fact that Company X has introduced a new paper to market is not an indication that this Comany X is investing in R&D. This is up to other companies such as Agfa and others to do as they're the real suppliers.
They're the companies that manufacture to cater for the onsellers.

That's what Agfa now does. They're a business to business operation, not a retailer themselves.

AgfaPhoto has nothing to do with Agfa Gaevert. AG woudl supply AgfaPhoto with the products they require.

AND FWIW, we'd expect new paper stock types to come to market anyhow. Paper is not a film dependent product. People obviously still want to print their photos. Whether they are film based photos or digitial based files is inconsequential to the R&D of new paper products.

I wouldn't doubt that Ilford is making bigger profits every year, but I'm sure this profit groth is coming from paper products and not necessarily from film sales.

This is the point of this thread.

Where other manufacturers have seized the moment and ridden the crest of public demand, Kodak have regressed and contracted on a massive scale.

Kodak of all the companies in this market segment have masively miscalculated where the market is, and how to best serve it.
They had the market presence to continue to dominate as they once did, and they buggered it up for themselves.

[Tom J McDonald]

'That mere fact that Company X has introduced a new paper to market is not an indication that this Comany X is investing in R&D. This is up to other companies such as Agfa and others to do as they're the real suppliers.
They're the companies that manufacture to cater for the onsellers.

That's what Agfa now does. They're a business to business operation, not a retailer themselves.

AgfaPhoto has nothing to do with Agfa Gaevert. AG woudl supply AgfaPhoto with the products they require.

AND FWIW, we'd expect new paper stock types to come to market anyhow. Paper is not a film dependent product. People obviously still want to print their photos. Whether they are film based photos or digitial based files is inconsequential to the R&D of new paper products.

I wouldn't doubt that Ilford is making bigger profits every year, but I'm sure this profit groth is coming from paper products and not necessarily from film sales.'

I'm talking silver gelatin paper here, something AGFA has nothing to do with.
Ilford's silver gelatin paper has everything to do with film. It's coated the same way as film is and its sole use is to be exposed to light which is transmitted through film (for example, through an enlarger or contact printed). The paper is developed and fixed the same way film is. This isn't inkjet paper.

Though Kodak's films and papers are incredible (most movies we watch are still shot on Kodak, though this is changing rapidly), I don't really mind if they go bust. As I said, there are other companies producing wonderful products out there to satisfy us.

[Bennymiata]

Film used in movies?
Why?
Because digital projectors aren't as powerful (yet) as film projectors are.

Many "films" are now shot in digital anyway then transferred to film.
How would they get all the CGI onto film directly anyway?
All "films" are digitised anyway, so when they do produce a really good, bright, digital projector, suitable for use in a cinema, THEN film as we know it, will surely die out.

[Tom J McDonald]

Film used in movies?
Why?
Because digital projectors aren't as powerful (yet) as film projectors are.

Many "films" are now shot in digital anyway then transferred to film.
How would they get all the CGI onto film directly anyway?
All "films" are digitised anyway, so when they do produce a really good, bright, digital projector, suitable for use in a cinema, THEN film as we know it, will surely die out.

See above about those companies who DON'T produce MP stock.

[Kym]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...495542810.html

Eastman Kodak Co. is preparing to seek bankruptcy protection in the coming weeks, people familiar with the matter said, a move that would cap a stunning comedown for a company that once ranked among America's corporate titans.
The 131-year-old company is still making last-ditch efforts to sell off some of its patent portfolio and could avoid Chapter 11 if it succeeds, one of the people said. But the company has started making preparations for a filing in case those efforts fail, including talking to banks about some $1 billion in financing to keep it afloat during bankruptcy proceedings, the people said.


Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...#ixzz1ik8gbBxT

[Tom J McDonald]

Great news.
Now what I've been predicting is even more likely to come true.