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

Kodak Portra 160

Kodak has reaffirmed that film remains a profitable business for the company, a day after it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection

Author: Olivier Laurent

Hours after Kodak announced it was seeking bankruptcy protection, the Rochester-based imaging company was quick to reaffirm that its film division will survive the company's restructuring as long as it remains profitable.

"Film (still and cinema) remains a profitable business for Kodak, and we have the broadest and most respected portfolio of films in both segments," Audrey Jonckheer, Kodak's worldwide director of marketing and public relations, tells BJP.

"We have taken steps to sustain the business as it has declined, and we know that there are hundreds of passionate fans of film for the artistic and quality reasons they cite."

Over the past three years, Kodak has streamlined its range of professional films, introducing or relaunching products such as the Ektar 100, Portra 160 and Portra 400 [read our test of the film here].

Jonckheer adds: "We remain committed to make film as long as there is profitable demand for it. And as I noted, it is still profitable."

In 2010, Kodak's marketing manager for professional film at Kodak, argued that there was a real resurgence for film across the world. But, argues BJP's technical writer Jonathan Eastland, Kodak is not doing enough to sustain the business. "Kodak needs to look at what is its core business. What make them think that digital printing will push their share price up? For Kodak to make digital printers their core business is laughable."

Instead, says Eastland, Kodak should truly embrace its historical status as a master of film photography. "Each time Kodak has discontinued a film, they used the excuse that it represented less than a certain percentage of their turnover, but it's still a percentage of a very large niche market. There are still millions of photographers around the world that are using film, and not hundreds as Kodak seems to suggest [see Jonckheer's statement above]."

Eastland adds: "Kodak's got to go back and crunch their numbers about the film market. All people want are these little yellow boxes of film, and that should be their core business, even it means reducing the company's size further. Kodak needs to hire people that actually know about film photography. It needs to market it properly and set up some great labs in strategic places with great customer service."

Silverprint, a UK distributor and retailer of film equipment, agrees, stating that "over the last 12 months our sales figures of traditional film and paper have risen." It adds, on its Facebook page: "Silverprint has never been more determined in our commitment to supplying all our analog users worldwide, with everything they require to enjoy and develop both their careers or simply their love of analog photography. We feel that the press has currently converted the KODAK Story from "133 Year Old Company...Dead!"...to "Film...DEAD!". This is simply not the case, both in terms of sales figures and the current online buzz surrounding analog imagery and techniques. Variety is the spice of life and surely we are all commited to that idea!"

  • Comment
  • Print
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn

Comments

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)

Posted by: Matthew Wells on 20 Jan 2012 at 10:17

Film

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

Posted by: Ed Moss on 20 Jan 2012 at 10:26

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.

Posted by: Richard on 20 Jan 2012 at 12:09

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.

Posted by: Kayne on 20 Jan 2012 at 13:12

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)

Posted by: Andrew Eberlin on 20 Jan 2012 at 14:24

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 . . .

Posted by: Hermansheephouse on 20 Jan 2012 at 16:11

Oportunity

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

Posted by: Jeff on 20 Jan 2012 at 16:13

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.

Posted by: Tim Parkin on 20 Jan 2012 at 17:14

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.

Posted by: TIM on 20 Jan 2012 at 20:54

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.

Posted by: Ella on 21 Jan 2012 at 00:25

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. 😄😰

Posted by: Ray on 21 Jan 2012 at 13:39

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.

Posted by: Richard on 22 Jan 2012 at 13:29

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?

Posted by: Harrap on 22 Jan 2012 at 21:58

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.

Posted by: CGW on 23 Jan 2012 at 01:10

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/

Posted by: Bob on 23 Jan 2012 at 01:52

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.

Posted by: pat on 24 Jan 2012 at 05:25

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!

Posted by: Tez on 25 Jan 2012 at 15:56

Go Away

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

Posted by: bb on 25 Jan 2012 at 16:14

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.

Posted by: Heiko Krause on 25 Jan 2012 at 16:53

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!

Posted by: Charles Tait on 25 Jan 2012 at 16:59

Updating your subscription status Loading