# Kodak declares bankruptcy



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

Rumors of Kodak preparing to declare bankruptcy have been circulating since November and seemed like an eventual certainty given how they've made so many missteps in turning the company around. The inevitable's finally happened and Kodak's filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US:

Globe and Mail

Toronto Star

Personally, I'm going to continue to buy and shoot the Kodak films I enjoy using as long as they're available but it's totally unknown how long that will be.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sad, but as you say, not unexpected.

I guess Fuji will fill the void in the future.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

They completely dropped the ball when it came to digital photography even though they created one of the first digital camera's... 

Seems like they thought film was just so much superior and that digital was a passing phase that they didn't keep up.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

If you don’t evolve, you die.


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

Its sad to see the whole film industry die. But it does prove the whole evolution and innovation of technology. And like Joker said; if you don't evolve you die.


----------



## yeeeha (Feb 16, 2007)

Very good article in The Economist.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

yeeeha said:


> Very good article in The Economist.


Thanks for the link, it is a good article.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

If Kodak was smart they'd make a "Brownie Box" digital camera collectable,
They'd sell millions, Shame though, It's probably too late.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Poor Kodak, Should have kept up the relationship with Nikon.
Nikon and Kodak DSLR history


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Well, _poor _Kodak wanted close to $40,000 CAD for those early digital cameras. Out of reach for everyone except the big media companies and the funny thing was so much of that early digital output ended up in film recorders. LOL


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

kps said:


> Well, _poor _Kodak wanted close to $40,000 CAD for those early digital cameras. Out of reach for everyone except the big media companies and the funny thing was so much of that early digital output ended up in film recorders. LOL


Then there is the little problem of...
Apple claims ownership of digital photography patents asserted by Kodak

I can't believe Kodak would do such a thing,
Quite an eye opening story.


----------



## serenitynow (Feb 4, 2012)

It was so sad at one of the 2010 TIFF events to see Kodak pushing their film to young filmmakers. They were offering $5000 work of film to the first filmmaker to cut a first-time deal at TIFF. No one was interested, despite Kodak's claims that all top filmmakers still shoot on film (which is mostly true). Sad because it was 2010, not 1990, things have changed dramatically of course in film, no one new into film is shooting with film anymore. Everyone is shooting on HD cameras and even then, it's done on Canon or Nikon DSLR's now.

Kodak was the king for over 120 years, they should at least be proud of that. They didn't anticipate the HD market would explode as quickly as it did and with as many players coming into it. By the time they got into the game, it was way too late. Too bad for Kodak but it's business... the customers have spoken.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> Seems like they thought film was just so much superior and that digital was a passing phase that they didn't keep up


Film is superior to digital files and required in some applications. It's still used and will continue to be used in some areas because for all it's convenience digital photography isn't photography, the principles don't apply. You're creating a digital file and in certain applications it's not good enough. Even that 40K Hassy doesn't cut it. 

Kodak didn't die because they failed to see what digital photography was becoming or going to be, they failed to take care of their primary business - film. There is still a large market for film, always will be. Digital is convenient and great for media and mass publication output, but it fails horribly in many ways because of what it isn't and will never be. Yep, too bad they didn't see what was coming, or react to it correctly, which should have been to just keep on doing what they did best. They would have had to downsize no doubt about that, but they would have survived and still been on top of the professional film market.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> Film is superior to digital files and required in some applications. It's still used and will continue to be used in some areas because for all it's convenience digital photography isn't photography, the principles don't apply. You're creating a digital file and in certain applications it's not good enough. Even that 40K Hassy doesn't cut it.
> 
> Kodak didn't die because they failed to see what digital photography was becoming or going to be, they failed to take care of their primary business - film. There is still a large market for film, always will be. Digital is convenient and great for media and mass publication output, but it fails horribly in many ways because of what it isn't and will never be. Yep, too bad they didn't see what was coming, or react to it correctly, which should have been to just keep on doing what they did best. They would have had to downsize no doubt about that, but they would have survived and still been on top of the professional film market.


All true. However the amateur market was a huge part of their film sales and this has dried up almost completely. Kodak saw what happened to the sale of super 8 film when video cams were introduced. In three years the film was no longer available at most retail outlets. By 2003 the writing should have been on the wall, since by that time digital cameras were available at a competitive price. The least expensive of them could produce 4x6 and 5x7 prints as good as any amateur film camera. That left Kodak with just three years to massively scale back production. 

In the meantime Kodak had lost a lot of ground to Agfa, Ilford and Fuji in the various professional markets. So today most of Kodaks film market revolves around the movie industry. Most movies are still distributed on film and a large portion of them are still shot on film. However the movie industry is now as much, or even more about the digital aftermarket, as it is about the first run. Fewer theatres and shorter runs mean fewer prints. On top of that TV, which at one time was a major consumer of 35mm movie film has almost completely abandoned the medium.

In plain English, Kodak had from 2004 through 2007, to handle a drop in demand of at least 90%. Major companies like big government simply are not that agile.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Thanks for the reassurance, I was afraid I'd have to rush out and buy a film camera.
But if film is always going to be around, Then I'll put it off for a little longer.

I did however kick myself when I sold my matt black AE-1 to pay the rent all those years ago.
Oh well, I'll get it back someday.

I went all over Europe with that camera, It never missed a good shot,
Digital is just too easy and lazy compared to film camera's.

BTW...My avatar was shot with my old Canon AE-1 back in the 70's.
(It was a crap shoot, I rewound the roll and did double exposures)


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Film is dead...film at 11. 

Even Hollywood is mostly CG and HD video these days. Poor Panavision and Arriflex, I think they'll be history in less than 15 years as well. Good bye 70mm and 35mm cine stock. The 16mm cine stock will no doubt be gone sooner. I'll give most of it 5 years, after that you may be able to get 1 or 2 film stocks in 16mm and that'll be it.

Even big time pros are all digital these days, some may do film only if required by the client or as a personal preference...but not as a necessity. Even that 80 foot billboard off the Gardiner Expressway came from a digital file.

If you're a purist with a 8x10 view camera, you better stock up on film and chemistry now. Hope you have a large freezer.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

kps said:


> Film is dead...film at 11.
> 
> Even Hollywood is mostly CG and HD video these days. Poor Panavision and Arriflex, I think they'll be history in less than 15 years as well. Good bye 70mm and 35mm cine stock. The 16mm cine stock will no doubt be gone sooner. I'll give most of it 5 years, after that you may be able to get 1 or 2 film stocks in 16mm and that'll be it.
> 
> ...


Sadly it's Kodak that may be missing the band wagon,
Since Fuji, Agfa and ilford are still peddling their wares.

I used to love shooting in Black and white before the Hunt brothers tried to corner the silver market,
But I divest, Those were the older years and with digital I can switch back and forth now with the flip of a switch.

The thing I do hate about digital broadcast film is the breakups that occassionally happen,
Those scattered squares of breakup and the stalling, Never saw that crap with film broadcasts.

Oh well...We have a long road ahead of us.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> Even big time pros are all digital these days, some may do film only if required by the client or as a personal preference...but not as a necessity. Even that 80 foot billboard off the Gardiner Expressway came from a digital file.


One example of where film is not required because of the requirements for the job, billboards don't require what film brings, digital is fine. Exactly as I said, certain jobs don't require film, certain ones do. 



> Film is dead...


Makes me laugh every time.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

kps said:


> Film is dead...film at 11.
> 
> Even Hollywood is mostly CG and HD video these days. Poor Panavision and Arriflex, I think they'll be history in less than 15 years as well. Good bye 70mm and 35mm cine stock. The 16mm cine stock will no doubt be gone sooner. I'll give most of it 5 years, after that you may be able to get 1 or 2 film stocks in 16mm and that'll be it.
> 
> ...


I was unable to even give away an excellent 16mm set-up way back in 1992. Even the arts schools did not want it.


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

Its an odd feeling only being 24 and knowing an obsolete skill. I mean when I tell my younger cousins about developing film in a black bag, or hanging newgatives to dry... they just look at me with screwed up confused faces. I think its very unfortunate that this has come to pass; but what can I do?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> I was unable to even give away an excellent 16mm set-up way back in 1992. Even the arts schools did not want it.


I have a Beseler enlarger I can't sell. At one time I had an old WWII vintage 16mm Bell&Howell newsreel camera with a 3 lens turret and a hand crank motor. A guy bought it off me back in the 80's...wish I kept that now.


----------



## serenitynow (Feb 4, 2012)

Physical film should be dead... it's an environmental nightmare. 

Studios were hestitant to switch from film to digital in the beginning but then it's like the junior school dance... once one person gets on the dancefloor, others start to follow.

Steven Soderbergh shot with film originally, now, you couldn't find a bigger supporter for the Red camera. 

Hollywood will go all digital soon enough... the vets are clinging to it but it will happen one day, guaranteed.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Another step on this unfortunate march. Not that I use any film cameras anymore, from Kodak or any of its competitors.

If I could only get my hands on some instant film for my Polaroid Spectra though. T'would be a bit of fun...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The Doug said:


> Another step on this unfortunate march. Not that I use any film cameras anymore, from Kodak or any of its competitors.
> 
> If I could only get my hands on some instant film for my Polaroid Spectra though. T'would be a bit of fun...


Note they are also discontinuing their line of digital cameras, which is a bit of a shame. Kodak established a well-earned reputation for superb promotion of inferior cameras starting with the original 126 Instamatics and continuing right into the digital era. However my last camera purchase was a Kodak. I liked the physical design. It also had the best anti-shake system going and there is almost no shutter lag. Coupled with the 10:1 Schneider zoom it was definitely the best of the bunch in the $200 range and I looked at everything from Panasonic to Nikon, Fuji and Canon. Ironically once Kodak had a couple of good digital cameras to offer they failed miserably at promoting them.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I think Kodak did somewhat anticipate the decline of amateur film sales, after all they saw how quickly the sales of Super 8mm film tanked after the introduction of the Video Camera. I think they miserably failed to anticipate how quickly the movie industry would convert to digital.

Even in our small town almost all of the Movies are now being projected digitally. Easy to tell as there is a flaw in the film projector's lens. At 10,0000+ feet per print and 100s or even 1000s of prints per movie, that is a hit from which Kodak just could not recover.

Ironically production cost of a digital print is small compared to that of a film print. However having to purchase new digital projection equipment forced our local theatre to increase prices by about 50%.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I'll miss the early Kodak DC 290 series camera's,
You could actually hack them to play video games on them.
Tried to buy one on ebay, But at the last second I was out bid.



> The DC290 is a good camera to have around for impromptu events or casual rambles, perfect for those consumers who don't want to mess with the technical side of things too much. On the other hand, its scripting capability makes it a natural for system integrators or tinkerers interested in developing custom applications. (As a complete aside, we recently learned of an individual who's coded a complete videogame emulator for the DC290, letting you run old video games like PacMan on your camera!)


Source: Imaging Resource


----------

