ImagingInfo.com |

Online Article Page

  

News
Even Still, Kodak Clings to Film
source: Democrat and Chronicle (NY)


kodak
Doug Pasono of Greece is an operator in the Main Control Room for film making at Kodak. Kodak expects to still have a film business in 10 years but acknowledges it will be smaller.
(ANNETTE LEIN staff photographer)



Rochester, New York--January 2009-- The Ektar 100 comes in a little yellow box, like generations of Eastman Kodak Co. camera film before it.

A fine-grain film aimed particularly at nature and travel photographers, Ektar 100 was launched in October, and batches of it are churned out regularly from Building 38 at Eastman Business Park - Kodak's sprawling manufacturing site straddling Rochester and Greece.

Little yellow boxes of camera film were long the building blocks of Kodak - which in turn was the major force in the Rochester area economy for much of the 20th century. But between 2004 and 2007, Kodak spent $2 billion in cash and took $3.3 billion in restructuring charges as it shed 27,000 jobs, demolished numerous manufacturing buildings and worked to remake itself into a digital imaging business.

Yet even as sales of Kodak's consumer and professional camera films continue their rapid spiral downward due to digital photography, the company continues to invest in new lines of films and the revamping of others. And the company remains steadfast that camera film will continue to be a part of its business, though admittedly increasingly a niche product.

"You come back in 10 years, there will be a film business here," said Joel T. Proegler, general manager of film capture and a vice president in Kodak's film, photofinishing and entertainment group. "It'll be smaller. Maybe there will be a bigger space between innovations."

Kodak's film business doesn't come cheap. The company would not say what kind of costs come with putting out a product such as the Ektar 100. But for the company's third quarter of 2008, ending Sept. 30, its film, photofinishing and entertainment group spent $11 million on research and development, as well as $93 million on operating that group. For that same three-month span, according to documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Kodak spent $583 million on the cost of goods sold, such as raw materials and production expenses.

Along with rolling out Ektar last year, Kodak revamped its Portra line of professional photography film in 2006 and its T-Max 400 professional photography film in 2007. In 2008, Kodak put out new lines of Portra 400NC and 400VC film, with a finer grain.

More than half the professional photography market still uses camera film occasionally, said Scott R. DiSabato, marketing manager for Kodak's professional film operations. "We call it the 'and' world," DiSabato said. "We know the professional use will be significant enough the next couple years, we'll get the investment (into those film lines) back."

Amy Postle, a New York City-based professional photographer, shoots both film and digital, using film about 75 percent of the time, and Kodak product exclusively.

"When I dreamt of being a photographer as a child ... it was to be a photographer, not a digital technician," she said. Photographers now "spend countless hours on the computer making the images look like they were shot on film," she said.

Influence

Meanwhile, at the Photo Marketing Association's 2008 international trade show held in early 2008 in Las Vegas, Kodak introduced one-time-use cameras loaded with its new 800-speed film. Last year it started a new business line of personalized one-time-use cameras with specialty label printing for such events as weddings. The company plans to do a larger launch of the cameras, sold in batches of 10, in 2009. The company comes out with new or revamped film products yearly, Proegler said.

All Kodak's film capture products are in decline, "but all are profitable," Proegler said. "The only problem we have is we're getting smaller."

Much of that profitability came as Kodak did its massive, four-year restructuring that largely wrapped up in 2007, taking out costs well beyond what the company needed to at the time, building in future declines in film, Proegler said.

The revamped and new film lines are aimed at helping keep the film customers the company still has, Proegler said. "We're not walking away from film," he said. By coming out with new or improved film products, "it gives people the incentive to continue to use film," he said. "If we acted like film was going away, we kind of influence it."

1 2 next

   


Visitor Comments
Sort by Post: Most RecentFirst Comment

Posted by JBA in Tokyo
Back with film for good!
I returned to film photography a couple of years ago when I looked into purchasing a DSLR and discovered that nothing about the medium or equipment of digital suited either the way I see or shoot. Instead, I invested in mechanical film cameras and manual focus lenses, and now shoot film exclusively at the rate of 5-10 rolls per week.

I have just started shooting Kodachrome again after 20 years and its like falling in love! There is a distinct difference between film images and digital images, and I far prefer the former.

The films now available from Kodak and other makers are some of the best films ever made, so hats off to them! I hope these films continue to be available as long as Im alive and still have strength to press a shutter release.
(03/26/09 - 10:23 PM)


Posted by Bill Burkholder in Charlotte, NC
Whats the difference? KNOWLEDGE!
Its all photography --- writing with light. If you understand your tools correctly, you can make *phenomenal* images with either tool set, digital or film.

I grew up with black-and-white chemical stains on my clothes in the 1960s and 70s. I learned E6 in the early 1980s and shot slides for a living for years. Ive been a key player in managing the transition from an optical lab to a 100% "no-film" digital lab at one of the nations premier school photography companies. Before digital cameras were really good and cheap, I calibrated nine Kodak HR-500 film scanners to turn Portra film images into excellent digital images. I currently train school photographers in an all-digital process.

So with that experience and knowledge, it is with a great deal of certainty that I state that digital photographic processes are AT LEAST the equal of film-based processes. The dirty little secret is that you have to invest the time to learn the variables, and to learn to control the variables. You also have to invest in the appropriate tools, and use them wisely. Once youve spend what Malcolm Gladwell refers to as the "10,000 hours," youll know its simply a matter of knowledge.

With digital tools, you can control imaging characteristics that Kodak controls for you when they manufacture the film and the paper... Are you up to the task of understanding and taking advantages of such subtleties?
(01/27/09 - 10:57 AM)


Posted by Tankred
Whit digital you can see immediatly your photo - and see thats mediocre. I would be so happy if digital output were at least on par with film, but sadly it isnt: I the last 3 years I looked at my digital photos, on screen they were ok, but when printed they were all disappointing: they were sharp ok, with nice colours - but they lacked depth, they were all without the perspective I found on film.
So I buyed an F-1 N and started again with film - sure, digital photography will achieve what I miss now, but until then, I hope there will be film.
(01/26/09 - 01:35 PM)


Posted by Tankred
Whit digital you can see immediatly your photo - and see thats mediocre. I would be so happy if digital output were at least on par with film, but sadly it isnt: I the last 3 years I looked at my digital photos, on screen they were ok, but when printed they were all disappointing: they were sharp ok, with nice colours - but they lacked depth, they were all without the perspective I found on film.
So I buyed an F-1 N and started again with film - sure, digital photography will achieve what I miss now, but until then, I hope there will be film.
(01/26/09 - 01:18 PM)


Posted by Scott Wittenburg in http://www.scottwittenburg.com
There is still room for digital AND film
Photographers have been arguing about film vs. digital for a long time now and we are all entitled to our opinions. As former pro-photographer and current high school photography teacher, I have concluded that there is a clear need for BOTH mediums. My current students have all literally grown up with digital technology (Ive actually had a couple of students who arent really sure what film is!) but once theyve enjoyed the sheer magic of producing their own art from the ground up in a darkroom using black and white film, they are hooked! They like getting "down and dirty" with the chemicals and the excitement of waiting to see their images come to life in the red glow of the safelight. For this reason alone, I am happy that film still exists and now realize that its up to "old school" photography teachers like myself and our young students to keep film, particularly black and white film, alive. And of course, we can still shoot digitally when its super sharp color images and instant gratification we seek. But either medium may be used for creating great photos and it really doesnt matter which is being used at the time as long as we are still creating art in the form of still images.
(01/15/09 - 09:17 PM)


Posted by David Williamson in Wilmington, Delaware
Kodak is still a quality film supplier
As with all changes in technology,the most exciting ones seem to be those that get the most advertising and the adulation of the audience. I have been taking pictures for sixty-four years, I grew up with Kodak, got my hands stained with Dektol, used Kodachrome ASA 10 and love film. I have three digital cameras and many more film cameras. I will never give up film as a medium, there is a place for film and digital, just as there are those who still make images on daguerreotypes and collodion glass plates. I applaud Kodak for not abandoning the film business, it would be a travesty to inflict the death blow to all those early Nikons, Canons, Pentaxes etal.
(01/15/09 - 09:11 PM)


Posted by Joe Lavee in Toronto, Canada
Stuck in the past
""When I dreamt of being a photographer as a child ... it was to be a photographer, not a digital technician,"
What nonsense.
Images were always manipulated. It was done in the darkroom and now it is done with the computer.
Having full control of the final output, in post processing, isnt a disadvantage. It should be appreciated as creative tool.
(01/14/09 - 12:56 PM)


Posted by Jan Heller in Canton, Il.
Film VS Digital
Ive been taking pictures sense 2nd grade..and have been a professional photographer since 1960. Although I have a digital camera ...I would never give up my film and film camera for anything. I started with black and white and still love the mood and the real-ness that you achieve with black and white. Yes I shoot color too. But as I used to teach my students in my photo classes...what you see with color is coolor...and what you see with black and white...is the photo.
Im hanging on tight to my film and film camera and am hoping they wont do away with film.
(01/14/09 - 01:25 AM)


Posted by Margaret Murray in High Point, NC
Kodak Film
A few years ago, I cleaned up my 35mm film cameras and packed them away. The medium format cameras I sold while I could still get a good price. After reading this piece, I will unpack my cameras and use them. Digital will never replace film. I love the photos I shot were with film. Digital photos today look awful. Bad shots are called "Art". With film you had to think your shots. Thank you Kodak. Like Apple you will once again reign.
(01/14/09 - 12:29 AM)


Posted by Nick Jahn in Seattle, WA
Film
I have been a commercial photographer for over thirty years.I had my first camera, a Brownie Starflash 50 years ago. About ten years ago, I switched to digital shooting for commercial work because that is what customers wanted but continue to use film for my personal work, mainly landscape and still life. I enjoy digital shooting and editing; its nice to be able to see instantly what you shot and to know that I have control of what the final image will look like in print. All that said, I prefer to have my personal work on something real, a piece of film I can hold in my hand and store carefully. With digital, you are at the mercy of your digital storage devices (media and hard drives) which can easily become unreadable (Its happened to me) in the short term and in the long term who knows if todays file formats will be compatible with future hardware and software. Ill keep my most personal/important work on film as long as I can buy it and have it processed.
(01/13/09 - 08:50 PM)


Posted by Bob Friedman in Deerfield Beach, Florida
Film vs. Digital
Why do you care if it "looks like film", As long as its not oversharpened and over contrast and you like the way it looks, who cares. Basic principals of photography still apply. I sometimes use soft focus filters for thaqt mistical, fantasy look just like I did with film. Yeah you can blur in photoshop and I do afterwards sometimes as digital is just to sharp for some brides.

there is no doubt that film is seriously declining and I dont understand Kodak recommitting to film. after deciding to close R&D for film 3 years ago, unless its just ego. Maybe they just couldnt stand that Fuji has become synanomous with film. Glad I sold my Kodak stock also.

Buy the way I own 3 Kodak dye sub printers and their work in digital pinters and digital capture chips is great. Enough nastalgia, digital is the now, and future.
(01/13/09 - 07:26 PM)


Posted by david
Sorry Jennifer...

I can make a digital image look like film. But I cant make an image shot on film look like digital. There is no comparison to the quality and options available with high end digital photography.
(01/13/09 - 07:22 PM)


Posted by Stanley Kerns in Greeley, CO
Kodak Film
What my thought is about the above wedding experience above is that the fellow didnt park his b*tt in a chair for 8-10 hours and individually color balance what he shot--we do--it looks great. Lets us fix exit signs, open an occasional eye--even do a face transplant (sometimes you need to). What else I will say is that if I know I am going to be making a 30x40 or a 40x60 I will grab a yellow box and shoot it on film.
(01/13/09 - 06:44 PM)


Posted by Jennifer Marshall in Indianapolis, IN
Film vs Digital
I have been a professional photographer for almost 20 years. Recently, I attended my nephews wedding in Los Angeles. I wanted to enjoy the event so we hired a local photographer to handle the actual work. I was really disappointed with the results of their digital photography. (Keeping in mind that the hired help was NOT cheap). The photos looked flat and...well...digital. There was no warmth or substance. They just looked amateur.

I still shoot the important portraits of a wedding in film. The quality beats digital - no exceptions. I encourage Kodak to continue to manufacture high quality film. Its just better...period.

www.mgphotos.com
(01/13/09 - 05:59 PM)


Posted by John MacLean in CA
look like film - NOT
""When I dreamt of being a photographer as a child ... it was to be a photographer, not a digital technician," she said. Photographers now "spend countless hours on the computer making the images look like they were shot on film," she said."

I stopped shooting film in 2002 and dont miss it a bit. I dont try to emulate the look of film at all. I couldnt wait to get rid of that grainy mess.

John MacLean
http://www.johnmaclean.com/

(01/13/09 - 05:24 PM)


Posted by Alan in Salt Lake City, UT
This is why I sold my Kodak stock
Is there anyone on the planet besides Kodak who thinks this makes sense? Kodak continues to be a company focused more on who they were than who they need to become. Is it just me or does this smack of Polaroids inspired management?
(01/13/09 - 03:52 PM)



Submit a Comment

 
Name: *
Subject:
City, State:
 
 
   
 
For verifcation purposes, please enter the characters you see in the image below
 
 
   
 
   
* = required
(comments will appear after this article, as well as on our Visitors Respond Page)






PTN Dailes HERE