Zaitz wrote:
Yes Ilford is still around. As are a few other companies who bought out old equipment to manufacture b&w film.
Crappy products? I am not emotionally attached to Kodak as I did not grow up using their products. But the new Portras, especially Portra 400, are incredible. They kind of gave up the e6 market, but not entirely. Though maybe overseas they did.
We used to go thru boxes and boxes of E6, mostly 120 and 4x5 but some 8x10 and 35mm. Ektachrome just wasn't very good compared to Fuji. I seem to have moved from E6 to digital don't really shoot c-41.
Good to hear about Ilford, and Portra.
Micky Bill wrote:
We used to go thru boxes and boxes of E6, mostly 120 and 4x5 but some 8x10 and 35mm. Ektachrome just wasn't very good compared to Fuji. I seem to have moved from E6 to digital don't really shoot c-41.
Good to hear about Ilford, and Portra.
no, it's not for Kodak. they have huge liabilities and require a much higher profit margin than Fuji or Ilford to make money as a company. cancel all their liabilities and then they have a chance but only if they get some management together that actually recognizes that they are in deep trouble on all fronts.
Herb...
cineski wrote:
Digital is definitely thundering away and the driving force of all things photographic but despite that fact, film is still being used enough to profit off.
yes, Ilford is still around but they just announced they screwed up a major production batch of silver halide printing paper and had to scrap it. no estimated time before they will get a batch that can be sold. inspires confidence, doesn't it? as for P&S and camera phones? the low and mid range P&S digital camera is doomed too because the cell phone camera is replacing them. oh, and any announcement of future plans during bankruptcy are pretty much speculation. Kodak doesn't get to determine what businesses they stay in, only what they want to stay in and the only thing that makes sense is high end commercial inkjet printers like the ones that the online short run photo book printers use. it's the only one of their current businesses that has decent market share, continuing growth, and decent profit margin.
Herb...
Micky Bill wrote:
Walk around Disneyland or at any event. Count the film cameras. Most people don't even make prints anymore, they shoot on the iphone or digital P&S look at the LCD, smile and show their friends and email it to them.
The problem with film from Kodak's standpoint is that film revenues have decreased every year for about the last ten years at an average rate of about 15% - 20% a year and there's no end in sight. Obviously that can't continue indefinitely. At some point the bleeding has to stop and that point has to be a profitable point for Kodak.
So while it's nice to know that Kodak will continue making "film" the question still remains - what films in what formats at what price and for how long? Personally I won't take a lot of comfort from the fact that Kodak will continue making "film" if a few years from now the only films they make are 35mm color film in disposable cameras and large format film that costs $30 a sheet.
As I posted elsewhere today...Kodak is still the world's biggest producer of photographic film from what I read a few weeks back....and demand for B+W film is growing steadily.
Interestingly...as any eBay watchers will confirm...the s/h market for quality 35mm and MF gear is very strong, far more so than this time last year. I'd say MF gear can cost 50% more now that then.
I cannot remember where I read this, but last year sales of consumer / professional film actually went up. I think Kodak was the one that mentioned this. Anyone have a link on this? I thought it was discussed on fm....
campyone wrote:
The problem with film from Kodak's standpoint is that film revenues have decreased every year for about the last ten years at an average rate of about 15% - 20% a year and there's no end in sight. Obviously that can't continue indefinitely. At some point the bleeding has to stop and that point has to be a profitable point for Kodak.
So while it's nice to know that Kodak will continue making "film" the question still remains - what films in what formats at what price and for how long? Personally I won't take a lot of comfort from the fact that Kodak will continue making "film" if a few years from now the only films they make are 35mm color film in disposable cameras and large format film that costs $30 a sheet. ...Show more →
Growth across the board in 2011 with 2 months left for profit is what he says^.
From poster Jeff Livacich on photo.net:
Now let's look at third quarter earnings for the other two groups.
Consumer Digital: $90 million dollar loss for the third quarter, compared to $67 million profit for same period the year before (3Q 2010)
Graphics Communication: $55 million loss, compared to $35 million loss for 3Q 2010.
Compare that to FPEG: $15 million profit, compared to $28 million profit for 3Q 2010.
So the Film Group made $15 million for 3Q 2011, while the other two divisions lost a combined $145 million!
For the first three quarters of 2011, all groups:
Consumer Digital: $350 million loss, compared to $345 million profit for the first three quarters of 2010.
Graphics Communication: $171 million loss, compared to $92 million loss for the first three quarters of 2010.
FPEG: $2 million profit, compared to $86 million profit for the first quarters of 2010.
The Film Group made $2 million for the first three quarters of 2011. while the other two divisions lost a combined $521 million!
I think most of their film revenue, or nearly all of it, comes from the feature film area. Bollywood is huge and I doubt they are going to switch over as quickly as Hollywood. I am assuming they use Kodak film as well.
Interesting figures although there may be something behind going from a $345 million profit to a $350 million loss in one year. Or an $86 million profit to a $2 million profit.Could be some of those accounting tricks.
rattymouse wrote:
Film use in movies is just about to go into free fall. Digital movies have arrived now and studios are moving over to that far faster than predicted. Just like how the consumer market reacted. Very, VERY few movies will be shot on film in a few years.
Sad, but true.
Industry insiders say "it's getting closer but digital is still not there yet" and it's not used very much overall. It's still fringe.
I come from that industry myself and know a lot of "insiders" plus have a pretty good feel for how things work there. My guess; it'll take another 10 or 15 years before digital becomes substantial enough to replace film as the standard cinematographic medium. And this is regardless of how good Digital is or how much better it becomes in the next 4 or 5 years - unless there's an unexpected game-changer. A game-changer such as customers demand digital and refuse to go to film showings or something on that end of things... ( ie, not a technology-centric game-changer).
It won't be the ticket buying customer, it'll be producers and theatre owners who demand change. If the costs are too high the producers will go the cheaper route, and when they perfect digital projection, the theatre owners may demand digital. Or maybe 3D will catch on.
Bifurcator wrote:
Industry insiders say "it's getting closer but digital is still not there yet" and it's not used very much overall. It's still fringe.
I come from that industry myself and know a lot of "insiders" plus have a pretty good feel for how things work there. My guess; it'll take another 10 or 15 years before digital becomes substantial enough to replace film as the standard cinematographic medium. And this is regardless of how good Digital is or how much better it becomes in the next 4 or 5 years - unless there's an unexpected game-changer. A game-changer such as customers demand digital and refuse to go to film showings or something on that end of things... ( ie, not a technology-centric game-changer).
none of the below. Hollywood is interested most of all in protecting its profits and digital projection does so by reducing distribution costs the most and also speeds up distribution. that means perfecting digital is irrelevant. it's already good enough as far as Hollywood's distribution channel is concerned. within 2 or so years, film projection will be dead because there won't be film copies available to distribute. shooting every single Hollywood movie in film does not begin to cover the cost of making their film.
It won't be the ticket buying customer, it'll be producers and theatre owners who demand change. If the costs are too high the producers will go the cheaper route, and when they perfect digital projection, the theatre owners may demand digital. Or maybe 3D will catch on.
Quoted, for the record HerbChong wrote:
...within 2 or so years, film projection will be dead because there won't be film copies available to distribute. shooting every single Hollywood movie in film does not begin to cover the cost of making their film.
no-one who owns any part of the company believes them and moreover, the more that it is said, the more those owners will be inclined to fire the lot for being clueless.
The cinema is dying anyway so I don't see how the movie industry could save Kodak. I think the sustainable market will come from film camera enthusiasts, and it will be a lot smaller than the current market. Some companies are now thriving in the segment, the only question is if Kodak can adapt.
