Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece http://tinyurl.com/373zmj Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
My own observations based on a couple weeks getting an in store lab back up and running. This is an upscale big-box chain department store. The store I'm working in is one of the smaller stores in the chain and it's located in a revamped yuppified retail center catering to a clientèle with slightly more than average income: 1. We do C-41 print film. More than half of the film we take in is in the form of disposable cameras. 2. Even from disposable cameras people want premium processing - meaning we edit what gets printed taking out red-eye, compensating the lighting (lots of back-lit w/weak flash), and weeding out the OOPs shots. And they want double prints. 3. In addition to film we also do one hour prints from inter-net orders, kiosk orders from camera cards and CDs. People will dump a hundred shots willy-nilly from a camera card and order double prints from all of them ... PLUS a CD ... although 90% of the shots don't rise even to the level of "snapshot", and the customers willingly plop down $40 or more for an inch thick stack of 4x6 prints of their dogs tearing up the Christmas wrapping paper. 4. People love the kiosks, especially the one with the printers and scanner attached. I've got customers I recognize already as daily regulars, including one old gent who's going through his family albums and scanning the photos 4 or 5 at at time to make re-prints to send to friends and other family members. If the lab's not busy, I can almost do the one hour prints in the time they wait for the wax-thermal prints from the kiosk, but they'll pay the premium to get "prints in seconds". The "prints in seconds" are pretty damn good BTW. The store didn't have a photo lab specialist until I applied for the job. The equipment didn't get all the attention it needed. I've had the Kodak tech in just about every day for the last week and have repair parts coming in almost every day. As of yesterday, I've got it running about95 % - have a CD reader that failed in one of the kiosks yesterday ... Kodak should have it fixed by the time I go back to work on Friday. But I can already see that this thing could actually be a profit center for the store as well as something to attract customers in. It's pretty well automated, so productivity is high for the labor input, and the print quality is very good which, along with the convenience, brings in the customers. Which in turn makes me think Kodak ... or someone ... will be around for a while to service this market. The demand is there, and someone will supply it. > My friend the camera store owner must be a unique case, then. His > sales are as I described; I was mistaken to extrapolate them across > the whole market. > > At 9:30 PM -0500 2/8/07, Paul Stenquist wrote: > The opposite is actually true, due to the still healthy sales of > disposables. Most E6 labs have shut down. > Paul > On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:48 PM, Steve Sharpe wrote: > >> It is my understanding that it's the print films that have crashed in >> sales, since that is what the point-and-shooters use...and they have >> largely gone digital. E-6 and black and white are holding up well, > > though. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/8/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece > > http://tinyurl.com/373zmj > So who's down and out so far? Agfa and Forte? Anyone else? I really expected Kodak to be the last man standing. This could be good or bad. With any luck the old men in the white tower in Rochester will sell off the film division. Hopefully to a company who has an interest in making film products. I'd like to think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in Kodak's technology, at the very least. My instinct tells me that Kodak doesn't have a clue, though, and will probably just shut it down. Either way, this makes what's left of the film market a bit less competitive. The few players remaining may have a better chance of surviving it longer. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
> >On 2/8/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece > > > > http://tinyurl.com/373zmj > > > >I'd like to >think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in Kodak's >technology, >at the very least. > >Scott Loveless Fujak? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/8/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >On 2/8/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/373zmj > > > > > > >I'd like to >think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in Kodak's > >technology, > >at the very least. > > > >Scott Loveless > > Fujak? > Kojiford. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
Scott Loveless wrote: > I really expected Kodak to be the last man standing. You must be referring to a different "Kodak" than the one I've been observing for the past 20 years or so! I'm surprised they've survived this long, given their management. If Kodak wasn't planning on selling off their film division(s) before, they'd better be now because the rumor alone is going to decrease the value of anything associated with the word "film". They need to sell ASAP while they still can. My bets: Fuji to take the motion picture stuff. Most other stuff to be split off every which way. Except Kodachrome, which will die a quiet death. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
Scott Loveless wrote: > On 2/8/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece >> >> http://tinyurl.com/373zmj >> > > So who's down and out so far? Agfa and Forte? Anyone else? I really > expected Kodak to be the last man standing. > > This could be good or bad. With any luck the old men in the white > tower in Rochester will sell off the film division. Hopefully to a > company who has an interest in making film products. I'd like to > think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in Kodak's technology, > at the very least. > > My instinct tells me that Kodak doesn't have a clue, though, and will > probably just shut it down. > > Either way, this makes what's left of the film market a bit less > competitive. The few players remaining may have a better chance of > surviving it longer. > Rumour has it that Forte's factory may have been sold. But it seriously needed an upgrade (they were running pre-WW2 equipment). Kodak wants to sell its film line, not shut it down. I suspect that if they sell it, the film unit will outlast Kodak proper. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/8/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott Loveless wrote: > > > I really expected Kodak to be the last man standing. I wasn't very clear. What I meant to say was that I expected to Kodak to hold on to the film business to the bitter end. > > > You must be referring to a different "Kodak" than the one I've been > observing for the past 20 years or so! I'm surprised they've survived > this long, given their management. > > If Kodak wasn't planning on selling off their film division(s) before, > they'd better be now because the rumor alone is going to decrease the > value of anything associated with the word "film". They need to sell > ASAP while they still can. > > My bets: Fuji to take the motion picture stuff. Most other stuff to be > split off every which way. Except Kodachrome, which will die a quiet > death. I agree somewhat. Kodachrome will die. Who would really want to take that off their hands? Fuji and others could probably make use of Kodak's film technology. But my real guess is that Kodak will blow it and all of their film products will die along with them. I hope I'm wrong. I'd like to be able to buy Tri-X (even if it's Fuji or Ilford Tri-X) for the next decade or two. Something I hadn't thought of earlier is that Lucky may end up with at least some of it. Not sure if that would be good for product quality, but if they get the emulsion right it wouldn't be all bad. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/8/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rumour has it that Forte's factory may have been sold. But it seriously > needed an upgrade (they were running pre-WW2 equipment). > > Kodak wants to sell its film line, not shut it down. I suspect that if > they sell it, the film unit will outlast Kodak proper. It doesn't matter if they want to sell it. What matters is closing the deal. I doubt the imbeciles in Rochester can pull it off. They'll figure out an elaborate way to botch the whole thing. Besides, when it comes to dealing with other companies, Kodak doesn't have the shiniest record. They seem to be good at acquiring other companies and then running their products into the ground. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/08/07 12:45 PM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kodak wants to sell its film line, not shut it down. I suspect that if > they sell it, the film unit will outlast Kodak proper. I understand that Fuji has been instigating "return to film" (paraphrasing) campaign for quite some time. Not really a front line flashy one, but quiet and persistent one. I read their management interview, betting that, when digital fever begin to subside, it will be followed by the resurgence of film. I think they actually believe it (not motivated by film biz promotion alone). If they are serious about it, and persevere to preserve at least the minimum film development/production capability, it is admirable. At least in Japan, many (do not know the proportion) advanced amateurs are slowly returning to film. I am sure some are very fussy about the image quality and they prefer film rendition, yet some are sick of too fast a product cycle of essentially the same thing etc. I am sure they of course use DSLR as well, but just reflecting on the advantageous parts of film. Some probably do not like the trend that the photography has turned into a processing by computer geeks rather than true sense of it, etc etc. Curious to know exactly what are driving them back to film. No, I am not a film advocate, just passing info :-) Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
Quoting Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Something I hadn't thought of earlier is that Lucky may end up with at > least some of it. Not sure if that would be good for product quality, > but if they get the emulsion right it wouldn't be all bad. > Kodak's amateur film is all being made in China now. Given the Chinese track record regarding copyright/patent infringement, you can bet that lucky already has access to Kodak's emulsion formulations. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Something I hadn't thought of earlier is that Lucky may end up with at > > least some of it. Not sure if that would be good for product quality, > > but if they get the emulsion right it wouldn't be all bad. > > > > Kodak's amateur film is all being made in China now. Given the Chinese track > record regarding copyright/patent infringement, you can bet that lucky already > has access to Kodak's emulsion formulations. > Lucky makes some black and white under their own name. I've never used it, but quite a few folks think it has some characteristics of older Tri-X. There are rumors that Kodak leaked/sold/traded some of the old formulas to them. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 08/02/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I'd like to >think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in Kodak's > >technology, at the very least. > > > >Scott Loveless > > Fujak? > > Tom C. Kojak? :) Eric. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
K.Takeshita wrote: > On 2/08/07 12:45 PM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Kodak wants to sell its film line, not shut it down. I suspect that if >> they sell it, the film unit will outlast Kodak proper. > > I understand that Fuji has been instigating "return to film" (paraphrasing) > campaign for quite some time. Not really a front line flashy one, but quiet > and persistent one. I read their management interview, betting that, when > digital fever begin to subside, it will be followed by the resurgence of > film. I think they actually believe it (not motivated by film biz promotion > alone). If they are serious about it, and persevere to preserve at least > the minimum film development/production capability, it is admirable. At > least in Japan, many (do not know the proportion) advanced amateurs are > slowly returning to film. I am sure some are very fussy about the image > quality and they prefer film rendition, yet some are sick of too fast a > product cycle of essentially the same thing etc. I am sure they of course > use DSLR as well, but just reflecting on the advantageous parts of film. > Some probably do not like the trend that the photography has turned into a > processing by computer geeks rather than true sense of it, etc etc. Curious > to know exactly what are driving them back to film. > > No, I am not a film advocate, just passing info :-) > > Ken > > From what I'm hearing, LF film sales in particular, and film sales in general bottomed out a couple years ago and have been holding steady or slightly increasing. Processing is still dropping as those shooting film are doing their own processing more and more. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
Isn't Film still profitable? As opposed to digital cameras where they sell at a loss and make up the difference on volume. Tom C wrote: > http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece > > http://tinyurl.com/373zmj > > > Tom C. > > > > -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
There's been rumors of Forte's demise but their web site is still up and they list a bunch of film products. Scott Loveless wrote: > On 2/8/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece >> >> http://tinyurl.com/373zmj >> >> > > So who's down and out so far? Agfa and Forte? Anyone else? I really > expected Kodak to be the last man standing. > > This could be good or bad. With any luck the old men in the white > tower in Rochester will sell off the film division. Hopefully to a > company who has an interest in making film products. I'd like to > think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in Kodak's technology, > at the very least. > > My instinct tells me that Kodak doesn't have a clue, though, and will > probably just shut it down. > > Either way, this makes what's left of the film market a bit less > competitive. The few players remaining may have a better chance of > surviving it longer. > > -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
Forte's done. Last I heard they were shopping for a buyer. Adam said they may have found one. J and C Photo was offering "Classic Pan" film, which was made by Forte. Right now, they're closed while they relocate their business. There are more rumors that they may actually be tooling up to coat their own film. Wheee! On 2/8/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's been rumors of Forte's demise but their web site is still up and > they list a bunch of film products. > > Scott Loveless wrote: > > On 2/8/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece > >> > >> http://tinyurl.com/373zmj > >> > >> > > > > So who's down and out so far? Agfa and Forte? Anyone else? I really > > expected Kodak to be the last man standing. > > > > This could be good or bad. With any luck the old men in the white > > tower in Rochester will sell off the film division. Hopefully to a > > company who has an interest in making film products. I'd like to > > think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in Kodak's technology, > > at the very least. > > > > My instinct tells me that Kodak doesn't have a clue, though, and will > > probably just shut it down. > > > > Either way, this makes what's left of the film market a bit less > > competitive. The few players remaining may have a better chance of > > surviving it longer. > > > > > > > -- > -- > > The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. > -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
That's the boneheaded management at Kodak for you. Film is a cash cow and Kodak just can't wait to dump it. On 2/8/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Isn't Film still profitable? As opposed to digital cameras where they > sell at a loss and make up the difference on volume. > > Tom C wrote: > > http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece > > > > http://tinyurl.com/373zmj > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > > The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. > -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
> > Kojak? :) With every roll of film a free lollipop! Eric Featherstone wrote: > On 08/02/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I'd like to >think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in Kodak's >>> technology, at the very least. >>> >>> Scott Loveless >>> >> Fujak? >> >> Tom C. >> > > Kojak? :) > > Eric. > > -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On Feb 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > That's the boneheaded management at Kodak for you. Film is a cash cow > and Kodak just can't wait to dump it. With the volumes of film processing dropping into the sewer, according to everyone in the photofinishing business this past year, I think the cash cow's milk has become sour. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/8/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > > > That's the boneheaded management at Kodak for you. Film is a cash cow > > and Kodak just can't wait to dump it. > > With the volumes of film processing dropping into the sewer, > according to everyone in the photofinishing business this past year, > I think the cash cow's milk has become sour. > http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4514513.html " ... While film sales have been shrinking by 20 percent to 30 percent in recent years, Yannas added, the sharply reduced rate of decline in the fourth quarter suggests Kodak is benefiting from the demise of film operations at Japan's Konica Minolta and Belgium's Agfa-Gevaert NV. ... " -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 08/02/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Kojak? :) > With every roll of film a free lollipop! Film sucks, huh! :) Eric. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/8/07, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/8/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > > > > > That's the boneheaded management at Kodak for you. Film is a cash cow > > > and Kodak just can't wait to dump it. > > > > With the volumes of film processing dropping into the sewer, > > according to everyone in the photofinishing business this past year, > > I think the cash cow's milk has become sour. > > > http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4514513.html > > " ... While film sales have been shrinking by 20 percent to 30 percent > in recent years, Yannas added, the sharply reduced rate of decline in > the fourth quarter suggests Kodak is benefiting from the demise of film > operations at Japan's Konica Minolta and Belgium's Agfa-Gevaert > NV. ... " Sorry. That link doesn't work anymore. It was an article about Kodak's finances last quarter. I'll try to find the full article. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/8/07, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/8/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > > > > > That's the boneheaded management at Kodak for you. Film is a cash cow > > > and Kodak just can't wait to dump it. > > > > With the volumes of film processing dropping into the sewer, > > according to everyone in the photofinishing business this past year, > > I think the cash cow's milk has become sour. > > > http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4514513.html > > " ... While film sales have been shrinking by 20 percent to 30 percent > in recent years, Yannas added, the sharply reduced rate of decline in > the fourth quarter suggests Kodak is benefiting from the demise of film > operations at Japan's Konica Minolta and Belgium's Agfa-Gevaert > NV. ... " > Got one this time: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/01/business/kodak.php Also from the article: "The company plans to pay down about $1.15 billion in debt, and analysts expect it to funnel the rest of the proceeds into digital ventures — possibly the ink jet printer market — as profits from its storied film business rapidly erode." Six of one, half-dozen of the other it looks like. Oh,well. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On Feb 8, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > On 2/8/07, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2/8/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: >>> That's the boneheaded management at Kodak for you. Film is a cash cow and Kodak just can't wait to dump it. >>> >>> With the volumes of film processing dropping into the sewer, >>> according to everyone in the photofinishing business this past year, >>> I think the cash cow's milk has become sour. >>> >> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4514513.html >> >> " ... While film sales have been shrinking by 20 percent to 30 >> percent >> in recent years, Yannas added, the sharply reduced rate of decline in >> the fourth quarter suggests Kodak is benefiting from the demise of >> film >> operations at Japan's Konica Minolta and Belgium's Agfa-Gevaert >> NV. ... " >> > Got one this time: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/01/business/ > kodak.php > > Also from the article: > "The company plans to pay down about $1.15 billion in debt, and > analysts expect it to funnel the rest of the proceeds into digital > ventures — possibly the ink jet printer market — as profits from its > storied film business rapidly erode." > > Six of one, half-dozen of the other it looks like. Oh,well. They picked up a little bit of business in the shrinking film marketplace due to two other players exiting. Not exactly what I'd call a growth opportunity ... the film and photofinishing industry is still shrinking fast, moving to digital capture products and services. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
No but if you buy "Kojak" film you're a sucker... Eric Featherstone wrote: > On 08/02/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Kojak? :) >>> >> With every roll of film a free lollipop! >> > > Film sucks, huh! :) > > Eric. > > -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
> > From: > Adam Maas > K.Takeshita wrote: >> On 2/08/07 12:45 PM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Kodak wants to sell its film line, not shut it down. I suspect that if >>> they sell it, the film unit will outlast Kodak proper. >> >> I understand that Fuji has been instigating "return to film" >> (paraphrasing) >> campaign for quite some time. Not really a front line flashy one, >> but quiet >> and persistent one. I read their management interview, betting that, >> when >> digital fever begin to subside, it will be followed by the resurgence of >> film. >> >> No, I am not a film advocate, just passing info :-) >> >> Ken >> >> > > From what I'm hearing, LF film sales in particular, and film sales in > general bottomed out a couple years ago and have been holding steady > or slightly increasing. Processing is still dropping as those shooting > film are doing their own processing more and more. Just from my own worm's-eye-view of the industry, I expect 35mm C-41 film and the RA-4 print process is doing reasonably well, and will be around for a while yet. It's all hybrid now with the film scanned and the prints exposed with lasers, but they're still processed with the same chemistry. Makes it a lot easier to give the average consumer a good print. And disposable cameras are big. For the average picture taker, it was a pretty big problem to get to a vacation spot they'd saved up for for years and then find out they'd forgotten to pack the camera. Not any more. Now, if you get to your destination and find you find you don't have it, you can pick up a disposable that's at least good enough for snapshots of the kids at Disneyworld. And if you make it to some tropical paradise, you can get a waterproof one to take pictures during your snorkeling lesson ... or not have to risk your high dollar camera on that white-water rafting adventure. And a significant number of the digital images taken today end up processed into RA-4 prints. Grandma don't need no steenkin' computer to look at prints of the kids trying on the sweater she sent them for Christmas. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
There was a PR posted on APUG a couple of weeks ago saying they'd ended production. They're still selling off already produced product (heck, you can still get Agfa stuff more than a year after shutdown). -Adam P. J. Alling wrote: > There's been rumors of Forte's demise but their web site is still up and > they list a bunch of film products. > > Scott Loveless wrote: >> On 2/8/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece >>> >>> http://tinyurl.com/373zmj >>> >>> >> So who's down and out so far? Agfa and Forte? Anyone else? I really >> expected Kodak to be the last man standing. >> >> This could be good or bad. With any luck the old men in the white >> tower in Rochester will sell off the film division. Hopefully to a >> company who has an interest in making film products. I'd like to >> think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in Kodak's technology, >> at the very least. >> >> My instinct tells me that Kodak doesn't have a clue, though, and will >> probably just shut it down. >> >> Either way, this makes what's left of the film market a bit less >> competitive. The few players remaining may have a better chance of >> surviving it longer. >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
One of the rumours is that J&C bought the factory, and getting it online is the main reason for the shutdown. Nobody knows for sure though, and J&C certainly isn't talking. -Adam Scott Loveless wrote: > Forte's done. Last I heard they were shopping for a buyer. Adam said > they may have found one. > > J and C Photo was offering "Classic Pan" film, which was made by > Forte. Right now, they're closed while they relocate their business. > There are more rumors that they may actually be tooling up to coat > their own film. Wheee! > > On 2/8/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> There's been rumors of Forte's demise but their web site is still up and >> they list a bunch of film products. >> >> Scott Loveless wrote: >>> On 2/8/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece http://tinyurl.com/373zmj >>> So who's down and out so far? Agfa and Forte? Anyone else? I really >>> expected Kodak to be the last man standing. >>> >>> This could be good or bad. With any luck the old men in the white >>> tower in Rochester will sell off the film division. Hopefully to a >>> company who has an interest in making film products. I'd like to >>> think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in Kodak's technology, >>> at the very least. >>> >>> My instinct tells me that Kodak doesn't have a clue, though, and will >>> probably just shut it down. >>> >>> Either way, this makes what's left of the film market a bit less >>> competitive. The few players remaining may have a better chance of >>> surviving it longer. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. >> -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
It is my understanding that it's the print films that have crashed in sales, since that is what the point-and-shooters use...and they have largely gone digital. E-6 and black and white are holding up well, though. > > >Just from my own worm's-eye-view of the industry, I expect 35mm C-41 >film and the RA-4 print process is doing reasonably well, and will be >around for a while yet. It's all hybrid now with the film scanned and >the prints exposed with lasers, but they're still processed with the >same chemistry. Makes it a lot easier to give the average consumer a >good print. > >And disposable cameras are big. For the average picture taker, it was a >pretty big problem to get to a vacation spot they'd saved up for for >years and then find out they'd forgotten to pack the camera. Not any more. > >Now, if you get to your destination and find you find you don't have it, >you can pick up a disposable that's at least good enough for snapshots >of the kids at Disneyworld. And if you make it to some tropical >paradise, you can get a waterproof one to take pictures during your >snorkeling lesson ... or not have to risk your high dollar camera on >that white-water rafting adventure. > >And a significant number of the digital images taken today end up >processed into RA-4 prints. Grandma don't need no steenkin' computer to >look at prints of the kids trying on the sweater she sent them for >Christmas. -- Steve Sharpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://earth.delith.com/photo_gallery.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
The opposite is actually true, due to the still healthy sales of disposables. Most E6 labs have shut down. Paul On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:48 PM, Steve Sharpe wrote: > It is my understanding that it's the print films that have crashed in > sales, since that is what the point-and-shooters use...and they have > largely gone digital. E-6 and black and white are holding up well, > though. > >> >> >> Just from my own worm's-eye-view of the industry, I expect 35mm C-41 >> film and the RA-4 print process is doing reasonably well, and will be >> around for a while yet. It's all hybrid now with the film scanned and >> the prints exposed with lasers, but they're still processed with the >> same chemistry. Makes it a lot easier to give the average consumer a >> good print. >> >> And disposable cameras are big. For the average picture taker, it >> was a >> pretty big problem to get to a vacation spot they'd saved up for for >> years and then find out they'd forgotten to pack the camera. Not >> any more. >> >> Now, if you get to your destination and find you find you don't >> have it, >> you can pick up a disposable that's at least good enough for >> snapshots >> of the kids at Disneyworld. And if you make it to some tropical >> paradise, you can get a waterproof one to take pictures during your >> snorkeling lesson ... or not have to risk your high dollar camera on >> that white-water rafting adventure. >> >> And a significant number of the digital images taken today end up >> processed into RA-4 prints. Grandma don't need no steenkin' >> computer to >> look at prints of the kids trying on the sweater she sent them for >> Christmas. > > -- > > Steve Sharpe > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > • > > http://earth.delith.com/photo_gallery.html > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" Subject: Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner The opposite is actually true, due to the still healthy sales of disposables. Most E6 labs have shut down. Not being in the business anymore, I don't have access to the numbers, but I still talk to the people at my old lab. They can't tell me exactly what volumes are like now for confidentiality reasons, but I was allowed to believe that film processing is somewhere around 1/3 of what it was 2 years ago coming off the Christmas season. The post Christmas processing rush didn't happen this year, either. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
P. J. Alling wrote: >Isn't Film still profitable? On a per-roll or percentage basis. But making a big percentage profit per roll doesn't work when the number of rolls sold drops below a certain level. So a "roll of film" is very profitable but "film" isn't. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
Yes, except that Kodak isn't at that point yet. In fact every breakdown I've ever seen of their profits by division has them making money in film sales and chemicals and losing money on digital imaging. Eventually it may happen that operating profits on film will entirely disappear but with proper planning they don't have to. Mark Roberts wrote: > P. J. Alling wrote: > > >> Isn't Film still profitable? >> > > On a per-roll or percentage basis. But making a big percentage profit > per roll doesn't work when the number of rolls sold drops below a > certain level. > > So a "roll of film" is very profitable but "film" isn't. > > > -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
They could have kept film alive longer with better scanning at time of processing. The usual 1200dpi gives around a 5M pixel scan with great dynamic range ( each pixel is scanned for each of three colors instead of the RGBG mask which digital cameras use ), but then they compress it into a tiny file onto a CD, perhaps for throughput reasons. Then they charge extra, and often require you to buy prints as well. I remember when a local lab changed from optical to digital, how they said that it slowed things down, so they don't dare offer higher resolution scans because it'd take too long. These days they could have a digital camera with a macro lens aimed at the film as it went past, and snap a shot every frame almost instantly. It's too bad the cheap places mangle the film and the pro lab charges a dollar a frame. Brian -- Brian Dunn Photographic http://www.bdphotographic.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
I agree with Scott 100% as a former Sterling Drug employee. They purchased Sterling and years latter there was nothing left of what it was as an organization. It was dismembered in parts like a rag doll and when they saw they could not do any more harm they sold what was left, they may have kept some chemical production facilities and products but everything else was dismembered and sold in pieces. They actually overpaid for the acquisition which was look with regret by some corporation analysts. Regards Angel Ramos Arecibo Puerto Rico Scott Loveless wrote: > On 2/8/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Rumour has it that Forte's factory may have been sold. But it seriously >> needed an upgrade (they were running pre-WW2 equipment). >> >> Kodak wants to sell its film line, not shut it down. I suspect that if >> they sell it, the film unit will outlast Kodak proper. >> > > It doesn't matter if they want to sell it. What matters is closing > the deal. I doubt the imbeciles in Rochester can pull it off. > They'll figure out an elaborate way to botch the whole thing. > Besides, when it comes to dealing with other companies, Kodak doesn't > have the shiniest record. They seem to be good at acquiring other > companies and then running their products into the ground. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
P. J. Alling wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: >> P. J. Alling wrote: >> >>> Isn't Film still profitable? >> >> On a per-roll or percentage basis. But making a big percentage profit >> per roll doesn't work when the number of rolls sold drops below a >> certain level. >> >> So a "roll of film" is very profitable but "film" isn't. >Yes, except that Kodak isn't at that point yet. In fact every >breakdown I've ever seen of their profits by division has them >making money in film sales and chemicals and losing money on >digital imaging. There's not enough profit in it now. >Eventually it may happen that operating profits on film will entirely >disappear They have to sell of their film division long *before* that happens! (Otherwise no one will buy it!) >but with proper planning they don't have to. I don't believe that for a moment. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
- Original Message - From: "Brian Dunn" Subject: Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner > > They could have kept film alive longer with better scanning at time of > processing. The usual 1200dpi gives around a 5M pixel scan with great > dynamic range ( each pixel is scanned for each of three colors instead of > the > RGBG mask which digital cameras use ), but then they compress it into a > tiny > file onto a CD, perhaps for throughput reasons. Then they charge extra, > and > often require you to buy prints as well. > > I remember when a local lab changed from optical to digital, how they said > that it slowed things down, so they don't dare offer higher resolution > scans > because it'd take too long. > > These days they could have a digital camera with a macro lens aimed at the > film as it went past, and snap a shot every frame almost instantly. > > It's too bad the cheap places mangle the film and the pro lab charges a > dollar > a frame. There are a couple of problems with your theory. One, it sounds like you want the lab to give away a free CD with every film. Thats a little much to ask. The machines are completely configurable to file size on the CD, I don't know what you mean by tiny, the lab I ran was set up (by me) to put a fairly large jpeg onto the CD. Data transfer times are an issue with photo labs. To scan and burn a 24 exposure roll to CD at full resulution was a 20 minute process. A digital camera isn't going to help this, it still has to interface with the machinery, data still has to be transferred, and files still have to be created and written. Cheap labs mangling film is an isue, but if the consumer hadn't wanted his film mangled, he would have supported the better labs when they were available. Instead, the consumer flocked to the cheap places, and let the good places go out of business. What amazes me is that people have the balls to complain about what they get, when they are getting exactly what they are paying for. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
William Robb wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Brian Dunn" > Subject: Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner > > >> They could have kept film alive longer with better scanning at time of >> processing. The usual 1200dpi gives around a 5M pixel scan with great >> dynamic range ( each pixel is scanned for each of three colors instead of >> the >> RGBG mask which digital cameras use ), but then they compress it into a >> tiny >> file onto a CD, perhaps for throughput reasons. Then they charge extra, >> and >> often require you to buy prints as well. >> >> I remember when a local lab changed from optical to digital, how they said >> that it slowed things down, so they don't dare offer higher resolution >> scans >> because it'd take too long. >> >> These days they could have a digital camera with a macro lens aimed at the >> film as it went past, and snap a shot every frame almost instantly. >> >> It's too bad the cheap places mangle the film and the pro lab charges a >> dollar >> a frame. > > There are a couple of problems with your theory. > One, it sounds like you want the lab to give away a free CD with every film. > Thats a little much to ask. > The machines are completely configurable to file size on the CD, I don't > know what you mean by tiny, the lab I ran was set up (by me) to put a fairly > large jpeg onto the CD. > Data transfer times are an issue with photo labs. To scan and burn a 24 > exposure roll to CD at full resulution was a 20 minute process. A digital > camera isn't going to help this, it still has to interface with the > machinery, data still has to be transferred, and files still have to be > created and written. > > Cheap labs mangling film is an isue, but if the consumer hadn't wanted his > film mangled, he would have supported the better labs when they were > available. Instead, the consumer flocked to the cheap places, and let the > good places go out of business. > What amazes me is that people have the balls to complain about what they > get, when they are getting exactly what they are paying for. > > William Robb > > Shopper's Drug Mart are quite happy to give a CD with every roll, for $2.99CDN. They also give an index print (which probably costs them more than the CD). CD's, especially bought in bulk, aren't much more expensive than the envelopes the negs and prints come back in. Surprisingly, the Shoppers I deal with is pretty good for development, certainly a top-tier minilab. Chemistry is fresh, negs are never scratched. The lab is run by a former lab manager from Blacks. Their printing sucks, but that's irrelevant as I never get prints done there (I print myself up to 8x10, go to a pro lab with a JPG or TIFF for larger) -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
- Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" Subject: Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner > Shopper's Drug Mart are quite happy to give a CD with every roll, for > $2.99CDN. They also give an index print (which probably costs them more > than the CD). CD's, especially bought in bulk, aren't much more > expensive than the envelopes the negs and prints come back in. > > Surprisingly, the Shoppers I deal with is pretty good for development, > certainly a top-tier minilab. Chemistry is fresh, negs are never > scratched. The lab is run by a former lab manager from Blacks. Their > printing sucks, but that's irrelevant as I never get prints done there > (I print myself up to 8x10, go to a pro lab with a JPG or TIFF for larger) The best consumer lab here is a Shoppers Drug Mart lab as well. It's run by a fellow I worked with some 20 years ago who has gone on to do just about everything related to the photography game from shooting school portraits to working in a custom lab. London Drugs also has a good lab in town here. These are not cheap labs, although as they have to be somewhat competitive, they are not especially expensive either. The Costco lab here is pretty good as well, but the Walmart labs all suck. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
Do instore labs actually turn a profit or are they there, more or less, to get people in the store with the hope they purchase other items? Tom C. >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" >Subject: Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:19:49 -0600 > > >- Original Message ----- >From: "Adam Maas" >Subject: Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner > > > > > Shopper's Drug Mart are quite happy to give a CD with every roll, for > > $2.99CDN. They also give an index print (which probably costs them more > > than the CD). CD's, especially bought in bulk, aren't much more > > expensive than the envelopes the negs and prints come back in. > > > > Surprisingly, the Shoppers I deal with is pretty good for development, > > certainly a top-tier minilab. Chemistry is fresh, negs are never > > scratched. The lab is run by a former lab manager from Blacks. Their > > printing sucks, but that's irrelevant as I never get prints done there > > (I print myself up to 8x10, go to a pro lab with a JPG or TIFF for >larger) > >The best consumer lab here is a Shoppers Drug Mart lab as well. It's run by >a fellow I worked with some 20 years ago who has gone on to do just about >everything related to the photography game from shooting school portraits >to >working in a custom lab. >London Drugs also has a good lab in town here. >These are not cheap labs, although as they have to be somewhat competitive, >they are not especially expensive either. >The Costco lab here is pretty good as well, but the Walmart labs all suck. > >William Robb > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
- Original Message - From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner > Do instore labs actually turn a profit or are they there, more or less, to > get people in the store with the hope they purchase other items? If they are being run right, they don't, just because of the price point they are forced to run at. If they do make money ar the low ball price point, they are probably also churning out junk. Exceptions will happen, there will always be some cheap lab somewhere that rises above expectations. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
I use my Shoppers here in town alot.For the most [art they are good, but depends on who's there. There is one kid working the lab, if i see them, i leave and come back later when she's gone. Dave On 2/9/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Adam Maas" > Subject: Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner > > > > > Shopper's Drug Mart are quite happy to give a CD with every roll, for > > $2.99CDN. They also give an index print (which probably costs them more > > than the CD). CD's, especially bought in bulk, aren't much more > > expensive than the envelopes the negs and prints come back in. > > > > Surprisingly, the Shoppers I deal with is pretty good for development, > > certainly a top-tier minilab. Chemistry is fresh, negs are never > > scratched. The lab is run by a former lab manager from Blacks. Their > > printing sucks, but that's irrelevant as I never get prints done there > > (I print myself up to 8x10, go to a pro lab with a JPG or TIFF for larger) > > The best consumer lab here is a Shoppers Drug Mart lab as well. It's run by > a fellow I worked with some 20 years ago who has gone on to do just about > everything related to the photography game from shooting school portraits to > working in a custom lab. > London Drugs also has a good lab in town here. > These are not cheap labs, although as they have to be somewhat competitive, > they are not especially expensive either. > The Costco lab here is pretty good as well, but the Walmart labs all suck. > > William Robb > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
My friend the camera store owner must be a unique case, then. His sales are as I described; I was mistaken to extrapolate them across the whole market. At 9:30 PM -0500 2/8/07, Paul Stenquist wrote: >The opposite is actually true, due to the still healthy sales of >disposables. Most E6 labs have shut down. >Paul >On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:48 PM, Steve Sharpe wrote: > >> It is my understanding that it's the print films that have crashed in >> sales, since that is what the point-and-shooters use...and they have >> largely gone digital. E-6 and black and white are holding up well, > > though. -- Steve Sharpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://earth.delith.com/photo_gallery.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On Feb 8, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Feb 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > >> That's the boneheaded management at Kodak for you. Film is a cash >> cow >> and Kodak just can't wait to dump it. > > With the volumes of film processing dropping into the sewer, > according to everyone in the photofinishing business this past year, > I think the cash cow's milk has become sour. Film hasn't been a cash cow for years. More like a cash goat, and maybe a pygmy goat at that. Time to sell and move on. Companies that live in the past end up in the dust. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On Feb 8, 2007, at 2:26 PM, Eric Featherstone wrote: > On 08/02/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'd like to >think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in >>> Kodak's >>> technology, at the very least. >>> >>> Scott Loveless >> >> Fujak? >> >> Tom C. > > Kojak? :) > > Eric. For a VERY short time Kodak had a receptionist at their Richmond, VA, offices who used to answer "Eastern Kodiak Company" in a thick southern drawl. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
Bob Shell wrote: >On Feb 8, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >> With the volumes of film processing dropping into the sewer, >> according to everyone in the photofinishing business this past year, >> I think the cash cow's milk has become sour. > >Film hasn't been a cash cow for years. More like a cash goat, and >maybe a pygmy goat at that. >Time to sell and move on. Companies that live in the past end up in >the dust. Yeah, there might be enough profit in film for it to be worthwhile to a small, niche company, but even Kodak hasn't downsized itself that far. Time to sell it off while they can still get some money for it. Last summer a friend of mine who's a research chemist at Kodak was reminiscing about the golden era of film: "Man, it was like having a license to print money! It cost us less to make the film than for the box and packaging we put it in." I don't know if his comment about the cost of the packaging was intended to be taken literally, but he was clearly wistful about the "good old days" :) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On Feb 9, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Bob Shell wrote: > >> On Feb 8, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> >>> With the volumes of film processing dropping into the sewer, >>> according to everyone in the photofinishing business this past year, >>> I think the cash cow's milk has become sour. >> >> Film hasn't been a cash cow for years. More like a cash goat, and >> maybe a pygmy goat at that. >> Time to sell and move on. Companies that live in the past end up in >> the dust. > > Yeah, there might be enough profit in film for it to be worthwhile > to a > small, niche company, but even Kodak hasn't downsized itself that far. > Time to sell it off while they can still get some money for it. > > Last summer a friend of mine who's a research chemist at Kodak was > reminiscing about the golden era of film: "Man, it was like having a > license to print money! It cost us less to make the film than for the > box and packaging we put it in." > > I don't know if his comment about the cost of the packaging was > intended to be taken literally, but he was clearly wistful about the > "good old days" :) I worked in the photofinishing business for two and a half years in the early 1980s. If you were efficient about things, it *was* printing money. Overall markup over expenses at that time amounted to something like 80% gross profit for regular D&P work. That's why it was so easy to give away a roll of film with D&P. Then the little minilab machines came out and the whole game started to fall apart. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
