Kodak to Ilford : Alternative Products.

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Keith Tapscott, Nov 9, 2005.

  1. Keith Tapscott, Nov 9, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Keith Tapscott

    Scott W Guest

    GIven that it is Ilford who put out the chart I would guess they are
    simply trying to get
    you to switch to their film at the same time you switch to their paper.

    I would guess the Ilford will be gone before Kodak stops making BW
    film.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 9, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Keith Tapscott

    Mike Guest

    Thats debateable. Kodak seems to want to get rid of film as soon as
    possible. Unfortunately they can't do it until the rest of their business
    becomes profitable.
     
    Mike, Nov 9, 2005
    #3
  4. Mike a écrit :
    And will it ever do ?
     
    Claudio Bonavolta, Nov 9, 2005
    #4
  5. Keith Tapscott

    Scott W Guest

    You could well be right, I am thinking Ilford will be the next to go
    after Agfa, but maybe not.

    You are right that Kodak really wants out of the film business ASAP.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 9, 2005
    #5
  6. Your nuts at least I hope you are!! If I had to rely on Kodak solely for
    B&W film I would cut my throat or start making wet plates.
     
    Gregory Blank, Nov 9, 2005
    #6
  7. Keith Tapscott

    Scott W Guest

    Gregory Blank wrote:

    You may well be right but Ilford has had problem in the past, I don't
    think it would take a lot to put them under, Kodak has pretty deep
    pockets.

    Also at some point in time Ilford might dicide they just want to do ink
    jet paper.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 10, 2005
    #7
  8. If it doesn't there won't be a Kodak around to do the
    getting rid of.

    For the usual hem-&-haw:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/ap/business/mainD8DCTGKG2.shtml
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Nov 10, 2005
    #8
  9. Anybody that cares about the future of silver paper should be buying
    Ilford -Imop, last year I bought 600 bucks worth of 4x5 and 8x10 film
    when the company first announced bankruptcy & I just bought a 16x20 box
    of Multigrade VC chosing it over other papers and will buy more when
    needed as needed, although one can't predict the future I say to hell
    with the big yellow fodder in regards to B&W if they can't stick with
    and support the roots of photo then to hell with them. (end of rant).

    Ilford is a known, they have good QC and a dependable
    quality product unlike some.
     
    Gregory Blank, Nov 10, 2005
    #9
  10. Keith Tapscott

    Scott W Guest

    Kodak said the exact samething in fact, that if they are not making
    most of their income from digital by 2007 it won't matter if film is
    still around or not.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 10, 2005
    #10
  11. All Kodak has to do Imop to win me is sell an affordable printer
    on par with a desktop Durst Lambda maybe 16x20 capable and have it sell
    for under 3k with prints having a lifespan of traditional chemical
    prints or better, something I can attach via Fire wire or USB-compatible
    with OSx. Something I can use regular old RA-4 paper with.
     
    Gregory Blank, Nov 10, 2005
    #11
  12. Its just a guide for former Kodak users who are looking
    for replacements for discontinued Kodak papers. If Agfa
    really does go out of business I would expect to see a
    similar chart for Agfa papers.
     
    Richard Knoppow, Nov 10, 2005
    #12
  13. Kodak's other businesses are profitable now. There
    continues to be a good market for film, particularly motion
    picture film. While the industry has been experimenting with
    digital (read television) imaging systems for theaters they
    are currently much too expensive for most exhibitors and
    film makers still like working with film. Ilford is a much
    smaller company than Kodak and can operate profitably with a
    smaller market. Remember, Kodak was a behemoth depending on
    enormous markets for its operation. Even by cutting its
    losses there is no way it could make up the lost revenue
    from photographic materials. Its stock holders expect a
    certain return and that in turn is generated by the revenue
    from sales. Kodak has been scrambling to find a new business
    or businesses to supply that revenue and IMO has been
    reasonably successful at it. Ilford, OTOH, can probably
    maintain a reasonable return on investment by absorbing the
    remaining market for conventional photographic materials,
    which it appears to be attempting to do. Once the great rush
    to digital finishes there will remain a stable market for
    conventional materials, which, while much smaller than the
    original market, will still be substantial, and probably
    sufficient to support some smaller players. Remember, Ilford
    needs less to continue at its old level than Kodak.
    I agree that Kodak will probably eventually discontinue
    or sell its film business but not in the immediate future.
    If it does, the most likely buyer would seem to be Fuji, who
    has been their chief rival for some time now. Fuji does not
    seem to be interested in abandoning the chemical
    photographic business but their interests in it are in areas
    that have remained fairly stable, certainly more so than
    Kodak's, namely motion picture materials and photofinishing
    equipment and supplies where it has been the low-end amateur
    stuff that is the rug pulled out from under Kodak.
     
    Richard Knoppow, Nov 10, 2005
    #13
  14. Keith Tapscott

    Scott W Guest

    Boy are you in for a surprise, all the US movie houses are switching
    over to digital projection, and fairly soon. There is a huge waist of
    money in making optical prints, something like $2B/year. The cost to
    replace all the projectors is estimated to be around $6B. This year
    the movie producers and the theater owners came to an agreement on how
    to pay for all of this. The sanders are in place and the hardware is
    being worked on as I write this.

    As for film makers liking to work with film, not so much. Currently
    almost all movie footage is scanned and edited digitally, "filming" in
    digital removes this step.
    What makes you think the rush to digital will finish? It would appear
    that not only has
    the decline of film not slowed down yet it is speeding up.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 10, 2005
    #14
  15. Keith Tapscott

    UC Guest

    Digital projection that I have seen in theatres sucks and sucks badly.

    If they stop using film, no more theatre-going for me. Besides, the
    movies now are crap anyway....
     
    UC, Nov 10, 2005
    #15
  16. Unlike the previous chart, this one also list comparable films and chemicals
    as well as papers.
     
    Keith Tapscott, Nov 10, 2005
    #16
  17. UC spake thus:
    True that.

    The only film I've seen that was done digitally (produced digitally but
    projected conventionally on film) was Spike Lee's "Bamboozled". A great
    film, but it looked like crap, like a huge television screen, with
    visible scan lines and all.


    --
    .... asked to comment on Michigan governor George Romney's remark that
    the army had "brainwashed" him in Vietnam—-a remark which knocked Romney
    out of the running for the Republican nomination—-McCarthy quipped,
    "I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient."

    (Eugene McCarthy, onetime candidate for POTUS)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Nov 10, 2005
    #17
  18. Keith Tapscott

    Scott W Guest

    Well it might be the only film that you knew was shot digitally, did
    you see that last of the
    Star War movie?

    It is coming there is no doubt.
    http://informationweek.com/story/sh...SNDBCSKHSCJUMEKJVN?articleID=173601111&pgno=2
    http://www.techweb.com/wire/hardware/173601376
    http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173402813

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 10, 2005
    #18
  19. Scott W spake thus:
    No, I generally avoid overhyped, commodified, product-tie-in,
    mass-culture stuff like that.


    --
    .... asked to comment on Michigan governor George Romney's remark that
    the army had "brainwashed" him in Vietnam—-a remark which knocked Romney
    out of the running for the Republican nomination—-McCarthy quipped,
    "I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient."

    (Eugene McCarthy, onetime candidate for POTUS)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Nov 10, 2005
    #19
  20. I think you mean standards. If they are being worked on
    they do not exist yet. In digital TV we still do not have a
    "standard" more like 31 of them.
    Digital editing has been around for a long time. I am
    concerned with what the results look like on screen. You
    will find that even stuff shot digital is often processed to
    make it look like film.
    You sound very definite, what is the source for these
    statistics?
    I think the strongest virtue of digital for the movie
    industry is control of distribution particulary reducing
    pirating.
     
    Richard Knoppow, Nov 11, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.