"Film division is still profitable," says Kodak [update]

Just as we suspected

We suspected Film was profitable for Kodak - sure its a much smaller market, but it's a specialist market and specialist markets are, generally, sustainable and profitable.

Amazing what you can feel free to say about your business once Wall Street are off your back....(they never focused on the positive aspects of their traditional business recently for fear Wall Street would think they were going backwards)

Film

Good to hear we can still buy TRI-X and Portra, be a real shame if they went the same way as Kodachrome.

Where's the film going, though?

Unfortunately I don't believe Kodak's film division is profitable due to the Lomo, Ebony and Leica toting enthusiasts of the world, but rather the million-dollar budgets of Hollywood, where one take can devour as much media as a typical Lomographer will use in the lifetime. The large format media is not widely available, and there are some frustrating barriers for professionals still wanting to work with 120 in a contemporary environment.

I'd like to see Kodak address the lack of a good affordable scanner, really. At the moment there's a massive gap between consumer-level flatbed and dedicated 35mm models, of low dynamic range and quality, and then the only scanner that is easy to use AND delivers good, professional results - the Hasselblad X5. There are no equivalents to the Polaroid or Microtek 120 capable models.

Making film is great. Making film accessible and usable would be awesome. That means integrating it - reintegrating, if you will - into a digital workflow for most people, if you want them to cease experimenting and start consuming again.

Way to go

I think Kodak has gone from a company famed for making/providing widely accessible quality photographic products/solutions to a company that still makes a very limited number of quality products(films and one chemical paper) but no longer markets them, instead focusing on modern products that no cares about or doesn't make any difference to the market if they stay or go. Their printers, printing services and cameras the world could live with out, they are dispersed and scattered amongst points of sale. Though most of the modern products are intended to be affordable, appreciably so, the name Kodak no longer stands for any true devotion to quality photography.

I agree with the sentiment of this article. The world is made to believe digital is better and it is very much the present and future at least, but it is not necessarly better. That's just marketing.

I wish Kodak would stop worrying about what everyone else is doing and start thinking about what people would like, what they could do with. They have the know how... Photography is not just about craming mega pixels, it's about enjoyment amongst other things.

I'd like to see true photographic/optical service printing making a return. I would appreciate that, wedding photography too perhaps... This stratergysolution maybe be a bit backward or not full-proof. If Kodak survive I don't see why they can't pip the competition to the post at the next innovation.

Kodak could also:

1) Relaunch Kodachrome. Think of the statement of intent that could make for a new Kodak

2) Go retro - update the Box Brownie and the Instamatic for todays world.

3) Use the affection people have for the Kodak brand to create an exciting retail experience around all aspects of photography (gear, advice, talks, photo books)

A great range of products

There's been a lot of Kodak knocking in recent years, but the truth is, that their film and chemical products are iconic and of an exceptionally high quality.
I fully intend to carry on buying yellow boxes, and gathering light through a wonderful piece of glass made in Rochester in the 1950's.
just wish they'd bring back their papers . . .

Oportunity

Now that Kodak realizes its film is still profitable, maybe they'll wake up and bring back some favorites like HIE and Kodachrome.

Readily Available?

Well I for one have found that getting hold of pretty much any film apart from Fuji Velvia is quite easy. I've just ordered £800 of Kodak Portra 160/400 and £200 of Fuji Velvia sheet film for 4x5 and I will be doing so again before the end of the year. Maybe the stills film market doesn't consume as much as cinematography market but it is still significant. From my understanding it's still in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year turnover as well.

I imagine what will happen is a consortium of film companies (i.e. Warner, MGM, etc) will invest in the film division in return for their position as major creditors (from what I hear). This does concern me a little as they may not care for stills film at all but it would be better all round than many of the alternatives.

Make no mistake about Hollywood

Hollywood is only committed to film in so far as its current obligations. Thanks to megalomaniacs like George Lucas, James Cameron and David Fincher, the rest of Hollywood is chomping at the bit for a wholesale conversion to digital in every aspect of production and distribution. And it has nothing to do with the supposed "savings" in digital, because no such "savings" exists. This is a battle of cultural indoctrination, ie, the religious fervor of believing in new technology as a sexy, messiah-like savior in an industry that has surgically excised anything and anyone who's ideas resemble creativity or originality. One can only hope for the existence of some farsighted entrepreneur not influenced by this culture, who will take film and make it new again, in a marketing sense, it is poised for such a revival.

Core business

Absolutely agree Kodak must attend to core business even and especially at the niche edges. Film is to imaging what vinyl is to music. It was thought that vinyl died several times over but it's more popular than ever again.

Film

I would like to see a camera that use film as well as give a digital image file of the quality of today's dslr camera. I know my negatives will survive not sure that a digital image will be their 200 years from now. 😄😰

Film & Digital

Ray: There are several issues making that almost impossible - not least, the desire for the film capture to be wholly analogue. Polaroid's new Zink-based "instant" camera is a digital capture and a print out, not a split simultaneous digital and analogue capture.

Almost impossible - but not entirely. It's technically possible for film and digital to coexist within the same body, but with compromises that most of the market wouldn't tolerate.

I'd be looking at one of three routes - outside of the currently available interchangeable formats in medium and large format; First is a split-image system with a prism. Second, the TLR format offers a few options. Finally, a sealed module behind an in-lens shutter, that can be moved, and a Contax AX-style moveable film plane, would allow static subjects to be captured on both on location, but so would carrying two cameras.

Realistically though, none of them are commercially viable or feasible.

integration

I do not want to have to send away for the emulsions I want. I do not want to have to make journeys or use couriers to get my photographs precessed and/or printed.
I do not want to have to equip costly darkrooms either that I must heat and pay rent for to run my own processing, so I use digital.

I cant afford servants any more and got fed up woth being one for others a long time ago.

I am not alone: I need as Dr Freeze says in the Batman movie "a laundry service that delivers!" yet since Kodak themselves ruined 5 weeks location work in Scotland in 1992 by cooking their own Kodachromes, I have not yet found a reliable and satisfactory replacement, and me. I love film. I just love film.

Send me rolls of it and then process it properly and print it to A2 without any grain and I'll be a happy bunny, OK?

Magical Thinking?

Demand for film in N. America went over the falls a decade ago and hasn't hit bottom yet.Though Kodak may refer to sales being up, they say nothing of volume sold, especially in light of steadily rising prices.Less film sold at ever higher prices isn't great news.Virtually no new film cameras are available aside from plastic toys, Leicas and pricey pro MF models relative to 10 yrs ago. Who's going to invest in Kodak's film division when demand is still in freefall? Those huge coating alleys in Rochester aren't downsizeable to cottage industry dimensions to serve a shrinking market. And no, Kodachrome won't be coming back.

Fortune Mag Article

This article points out very well the long history of missteps of Kodak. The king of film didn't know any other way...

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/18/the-kodak-lie/

hundres???

"hundreds", WTF. Good to know he is in touch with reality, i.e. with the millions that have leicas, rolleis, blads, bessas, mamiyas that still use both 35mm/120 en mass.

re 'Make no mistake about Hollywood'

No savings to be made with digital? Love to see that statement justified as shooting movies with film needs to be transferred to digital, edited and then transferred back! Digital 'film' costs nothing!

Go Away

I wish they would just close up shop. Even when I shot film I always thought Kodak was a terrible company

those news avoid hamster-like film shoppings

I'm really glad about the BJP News. I would have been very disappointed if the Kodak film business would have the same destiny as Polaroid. They really should try to analyze and emphasize their costumers needs to find a proper way of surviving. I will cross my fingers. CHOOSE FILM.

Kodak film

Hi Funny thing is I totally agree about Kodak and I hope that the film people can get control of the company over the twits that currently run it. I have just dug out my old Nikons, Mamiya and even the old Sinar and plan some use this year. I still have a B&W darkroom too.

For many years i was a Kodachrome person and could be again. but we would be looking at Kodachrome 100, 400, 1600. Do not tell me it is impossible. Yes digital became fine with the D3 and D700 and will get better, but I think that there are many like me that would like some prime Aberdeen Angus well hung fillet steak rather than just meat.

So come on Kodak!

Large format too?

I can understand diminished demand for 35mm film but for most people there is no digital replacement for 6x6 Med Form or 4x5 large format.

filmisnotdead

the only reasons you fools cant afford film anymore is that you were too busy racing to the bottom of the day rate together. You foolishly thought that going digital would save you money and time. Idiots. WELCOME TO MCDIGITAL MAY I TAKE YOUR PICTURE?

"savings" mythology

There again, that persistent (cultural, not factual) myth: that because the recording media costs so little, and can be re-used, suddenly digital photography (and movie making) is FREE! Whoopee... If you've ever been on a movie (or TV) production and followed the footage once "captured" to the post production facility... Once days have passed, footage has gone through multiple hands, countless hours spent processing, converting, digitizing and distributing, archiving, and storing multiple formats (not to mention weeks and months in color manipulation and editing)--you would understand that the true difference in cost between shooting35mm (or 16mm) film and HD (or higher res.) video, is equivalent to the difference between choosing beef or pork on the movie's catering budget. Digital movie making at best, rearranges the former material costs into labor costs, and at worst, increases them. Same thing at work when we ask why most of us have to work more hours per week than 30 years ago, despite the giddy predictions of a 20 hour work-week at the dawn of the computer age, for example.

Bring back Kodachrome!

or any other film for that matter.....we still use film to compliment digital equipment. Now that scanners are higher specification and relatively inexpensive film can be scanned and manipulated with software to exceptional standards.

Where is the film going?

To comment on where 'the film goes' ow where it is used. I see more and more young 'hip' people in Berlin and elsewhere with a film camera. This 'trend' crowd sees film as the 'real' thing. They walk around with praktica's and all kinds of reasonable lower cost camera's. It is a trend. And that explains, I guess, more film being sold. In my view this trend has not 'peaked' yet. So I think there will be a growing market for some time to go around film.

Still shoot film

I shoot more film than digital. I love shooting with my Old Rolleis and Leicas. Yes, I love using my Nikon DSLRs too. It'll be great if Kodak relaunch Kodachrome.

we need u,

portra!

No New Film Cameras/Cost

As other posters have stated who is making the fim cameras to take my Nikon Lenses? Last year I shot plenty of Provia and Tri-X but it was all on old equipment which will one day fail. Currently I generally shoot for fun if I do any work it is on digital - for ease. The other night I shot colour at midnight outside in Scotland and had posted it online within minutes - impossible with film. If fim is so profitable what happened to Agfa? Why is Nikon not launching the FM4N etc etc. The factories making the stuff need a huge volume to be sold and processed. My processor says his business is up but perhaps that's because of all the others going to the wall. I got a scratched film back last week - now that's not a problem with digital. However I'll persist as I don't mind the wait.......