Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/07/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Kodak 2nd quarter woes and what should film dinosuars do now?
From: nathan.wajsman at planet.nl (Nathan Wajsman)
Date: Fri Jul 22 22:09:47 2005
References: <9b678e05072108206cbe192b@mail.gmail.com> <70b017389d50a6d99f8682851757e022@ncable.net.au> <D8A16125-551F-49B5-A7A1-9E2B0C4582C9@earthlink.net>

Well, Kodak is not a charity so of course the decision to discontinue a 
film is a business decision, driven mainly by sales and by realistic 
prospects for the relevant product. Contrary to popular opinion on the 
LUG and elsewhere, Kodak's decision to discontinue Kodachrome 25 was not 
a sinister plot to deprive photographers of their favorite film, but a 
sound business decision based on declining sales and no prospect for a 
reversal of that trend. For Kodachrome, the issue is further complicated 
by the specialized chemistry required. For that reason, I am sure K64 
and K200 will go the same way in the next couple of years.

When it comes to B&W film like Tri-X, that is a much more popular 
emulsion which can be developed by anyone, anywhere, and which is likely 
to remain popular with at least a certain subset of photographers for a 
long time. That product (and other negative films) now has the status of 
"cash cow" at Kodak--no more investment but as long as sales are stable 
or declining in a managed fashion, then the product will continue to be 
profitable (sometimes highly profitable). Sort of like dial-up service 
for ISPs: it is obviously a declining product as everyone switches to 
broadband, but it still exists and the margins are huge. No ISP actively 
markets it or otherwise invests in it, but it remains available if you 
want it for some reason.

Nathan

feli wrote:

> I think we still have some time. If I read the article correctly they  
> are still selling billions of dollars worth of film.
> It's just that they are a bunch of accountants, who see anything but  an 
> increase in sales as a disaster.
> ;-)
> 
> feli
> 
> On Jul 22, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Alastair Firkin wrote:
> 
>>
>> funny, only today I was talking with Helen about where I might get  
>> b/w film in the future and came down on Ilford for just these  
>> reasons. I have not used Ilford film much and so now is a good time  
>> to change. Fuji b/w does not make it big in Oz and Efke is still  
>> obscure. Kodak will I think have trouble justifying film if they  
>> cannot justify paper.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Alastair
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________
> feli2@earthlink.net                 2 + 2 = 4                
> www.elanphotos.com
> 
> 
> NO ARCHIVE
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 

-- 
Nathan Wajsman
Almere, The Netherlands

General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com
Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com
Stock photography: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman
http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=507
Prints for sale: http://www.photodeluge.com



In reply to: Message from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] Kodak 2nd quarter woes and what should film dinosuars do now?)
Message from firkin at ncable.net.au (Alastair Firkin) ([Leica] Kodak 2nd quarter woes and what should film dinosuars do now?)