Kodak Filing For Bankruptcy ??

[gsgary]

Ive just read a great article in Pro Photo about a wedding photographer that has gone back to shooting film because it makes his workflow faster, he can have photos back to his client in 3 hours or on line for veiwing before with digital it was normally 2 weeks, he also has more people asking for his services because he has gone back to film. So is film dead ? i don't think so by a long way Annie Leibovitz only shot a full shoot on digital last year. This Christmas i shot 6 rolls of 120 and no digital
http://www.ashtonjeanpierreblog.com/

[TPF Sponsor]

[O|||||||O]

This Christmas, I shot film exclusively (35mm and 120). Normally, in situations like that (where I'll be taking a lot of pictures, and most of them will just be snap-shots), I would shoot digital. I have to say, there are no times that I shot film and wished I had shot digital. There are plenty of times when the opposite is true though.

I know it's my fault for not having better back-ups, but I have 'lost' a lot of digital pictures - children being born, birthday parties, etc... I feel more comfortable shooting film knowing that the negatives will be around for hundreds of years unless I just lose them all, or my house burns down or something.


As far as Kodak goes... They dropped the ball when digital came around. So maybe they are a victim of the digital age in a way, but I don't see it that way. They are a victim of bad marketing or the inability to stay competitive. The film side of Kodak is still healthy, so that's a good sign.

What this whole Chapter 11 thing is, is them trying to buy time to sell off some patents. I don't think selling patents alone will be enough though - they will have to change their whole way of doing business. What happens when they run out of patents to sell, and find themselves low on cash again?

If Kodak were to go bankrupt, their films would still be made (the chemicals are all outsourced - since 1920) - there just might be a different name on the box.

[imagemaker46]

I don't believe that film will ever be completely dead, at least I hope it never is. For the record, I grew up shooting Kodak, but switched to Fuji for many events. During the Olympics that I had the pleasure of covering (eight of them) Kodak had a great setup, processing all the film onsite, offering back film one for one, and there were never any charges, they always ran a slick operation with great people and good friends. I believe that the 2000 Olympics may have been the last lab for Kodak. Fuji had smaller off-site labs that offered the same, they were trying to make in-roads with the professionals, and did pretty well. It was always a gathering point for all the worlds best sports photographers. It was a different generation when film was still king. My first experience with digital was at the 1992 Olympics, Kodak had a first generation camera and huge backpack attached. My Dad and I were allowed to give it a little test run, I still have that first digital image of myself shot by my dad, it's a grainy and off colour 4x5. It means more than it used to, being as it was the beginning of the early digital age, for lack of a better expression, it was like seeing the the first wheel. At that time, it was a gimmick that we figured would never last.

[gsgary]

This Christmas, I shot film exclusively (35mm and 120). Normally, in situations like that (where I'll be taking a lot of pictures, and most of them will just be snap-shots), I would shoot digital. I have to say, there are no times that I shot film and wished I had shot digital. There are plenty of times when the opposite is true though.

I know it's my fault for not having better back-ups, but I have 'lost' a lot of digital pictures - children being born, birthday parties, etc... I feel more comfortable shooting film knowing that the negatives will be around for hundreds of years unless I just lose them all, or my house burns down or something.


As far as Kodak goes... They dropped the ball when digital came around. So maybe they are a victim of the digital age in a way, but I don't see it that way. They are a victim of bad marketing or the inability to stay competitive. The film side of Kodak is still healthy, so that's a good sign.

What this whole Chapter 11 thing is, is them trying to buy time to sell off some patents. I don't think selling patents alone will be enough though - they will have to change their whole way of doing business. What happens when they run out of patents to sell, and find themselves low on cash again?

If Kodak were to go bankrupt, their films would still be made (the chemicals are all outsourced - since 1920) - there just might be a different name on the box.

As long as we can get Tri-x

[djacobox372]

People are quick to call kodak a "dinosaur" or a victim of the "digital age."

Dont forget that kodak invented digital photography, and the kodak dcs was the first viable dslr. Kodaks problem is that they were too early, their first digital enteries didnt do well and they let off the gas and were passed.

[Hereindallas]

I believe that the bankruptcy would be for reorganization to unload debt, pension commitments, etc. I believe they would still make film and other products. However, I suppose it remains to be seen as to watch actually transpires.

[djacobox372]

I expect that the statements are correct, but the average person associates Kodak with film. Before the digital age, pre 2000, Kodak was film. I know that Kodak worked in partnership with Nikon developing the early and very expensive digital cameras used by the Associated Press, but it was still a "film" company. They are still a victim of the digital age.

Kodak basically invented digital photography, what they didnt do well is protect their patents.

[O|||||||O]

Flickr: Discussing Kodak Gets to 2013 to Reorganize in I Shoot Kodak Film