 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / June 2005Agfa-Photo is bankrupt
German media announced today that Agfa-Photo, the photographic division of Agfa that had been branched off in a management buyout just a year ago, has declared bankruptcy. Some 1800 employees, 870 of which are working at the Leverkusen headquarters, will not receive their pay for the coming month. Ralf  SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses Wow, no paychecks? > German media announced today that Agfa-Photo, the photographic division > of Agfa that had been branched off in a management buyout just a year [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ralf > Ralf R. Radermacher writes ... > >German media announced today that Agfa-Photo, the photographic >division of Agfa that had been branched off in a management buyout >just a year ago, has declared bankruptcy. When they split off last year the anti-digital zealots on this newsgroup claimed this split was proof that film had a bright future ... something about a "cash cow" for profits. Guess not. So no more Scala? | So no more Scala? and no more APX, Rodinal, ... ?!?!? >| So no more Scala? > > and no more APX, Rodinal, ... ?!?!? First, remember that just because a company is going into bankruptcy protection doesn't mean that the company or its products will go away. Witness Ilford, which went into bankruptcy just a few months ago but is now out and continuing to do business. Of course, this isn't to say that Agfa (or even Ilford) will survive; I'm just saying that the sky MIGHT not be falling on Agfa just yet. We'll just have to wait and see. Second, for Rodinal specifically, there are other sources of Rodinal, albeit by other names: - Calbe R09, available in the US from http://www.jandcphotography.com, in England from http://www.retrophotographic.com, and I'm sure from other sources. - Formulary Paraminophenol (Rodinal), available in the US from http://www.photoformulary.com. I believe B&H also resells it. - Mix it yourself. There's a formula in Anchell's _Darkroom Cookbook_, and I'm sure I've seen it online, too, but I don't happen to have a URL handy. There are probably other sources, too, which I'm sure will become more prominent if Agfa bites the dust. None of this helps with APX film, of course. I've heard that Fomapan 100 is similar to APX 100, but I've never shot Fomapan 100, so I can't comment from personal experience. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking "satbunny" <tom.zunder@gmail.com> schrieb: >So no more Scala? Way too early to tell. Agfa-Photo GmbH filed for insolvency, to be protected for the moment from those the company owed money - and that seems to be not a bank but Agfa-Gevaert AG, who gave the new owners a credit when they split off the new company. There are no figures given publicly and it might not be so bad at all - there are a few parts of Agfa-Photo making stuff that is highly competetive, like those producting the d-lab line of lab equipment (f´up to rec.photo.darkroom) "Ich fuehle Portraits. ich schmecke Landschaften. Frei von Belichtungsmesser, und Tiefenschaerfe." (aus "Pecker") > Agfa-Photo GmbH filed for insolvency, to be protected for the moment > from those the company owed money - and that seems to be not a bank > but Agfa-Gevaert AG, who gave the new owners a credit when they split > off the new company. The whole thing stinks. Ten miles against the wind. As we learned later today, the legal procedure was already initiated last week and they then waited until late Wednesday night to inform the company's trade union representatives. By that time, all of the staff had already left for an extended weekend since Thursday was a bank holiday and most people had taken Friday off. Clever timing... :-/ Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > > Ralf R. Radermacher writes ... > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anti-digital zealots on this newsgroup claimed > film had a bright future ... "cash cow" for profits. The zealots need to brush up on B-School terms. Agfa/Film now fits into the 'Dog' position on the BCG matrix. http://www.netmba.com/strategy/matrix/bcg/ Twenty-fifty years ago it was a 'Cow'. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >> Ralf R. Radermacher writes ... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >newsgroup claimed this split was proof that film had a bright future >... something about a "cash cow" for profits. Guess not. Agfa film marketing has been mis-managed for a very long time. Unfortunately this isn't solely an Agfa problem. I hold little hope that the old-school management of any film company can adapt to the new market demands. Unfortunately. We're seeing an echo of what happened to the steel industry here in the US in the 1970's. Several inefficient companies who previously depended on large corporate or government contracts hold onto hopes that the can find clients to fill in the accounts that they have lost and therefore maintain the status quo. That's no way to run a business today and hasn't been for a very long time. When Agfa, Kodak, Ilford and others were started there was no option to photographic materials. Remember that this accounted for both movie-films and still-image materials. In 1975 Sony put the Betamax into reach of the public and since that time video and digital imaging have eaten the lunches of film manufacturers. IMO, what film manufacturers have to do is to make huge modifications to their business model and understand that they are going to be dealing with a whole new set of customers. Customers that are very demanding, have very little skill and also want quality products in minimal quantities at bargain-basement prices. As I told Kodak 5 years ago, the only way to accommodate this is to go to a direct sales model such as what Dell, Inc. has done. I believe that web-based sales account for a very large percentage of Dell's sales. Direct-sales gives a manufacturer direct feedback and simultaneously removes the margin-eating middleman. Unfortunately Kodak tried this out but the pricing on the limited materials they made available was about 30% over retail. To the best of my knowledge they never made any B-&-W papers available. Also note that Kodak is a very big promoter of digital as can best be seen at http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/3316&pq-locale=en_US This link is to the Kodak Online Store and there is not a single roll of film on the front page. Now try putting "film" into the FAQ's search utility. I didn't get anything. "We're sorry, we are not able to locate any questions or answers that match your search." JD - www.puresilver.org > > Ralf R. Radermacher writes ... > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > newsgroup claimed this split was proof that film had a bright future > ... something about a "cash cow" for profits. Guess not. I am not "anti-digital", but I did look at the financial data the main company provided at the time of the sale. The odd thing at the time was that top executives arranged the deal, and it was not open to any outside bidding. Did they have something to hide? What I wonder about now is if those top executives lied about the numbers to get the sale to go through, thereby lining their own pockets with money. The only other explanation is that they mismanaged the company; if the profits at the time of sale were real, that is the only other explanation. This involves a large chunk of money, several investors, and lots of employees. Will they liquidate, or reorganize? Will any of the upper management be prosecuted? Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > I am not "anti-digital", but I did look at the financial data the main > company provided at the time of the sale. The odd thing at the time was > that top executives arranged the deal, and it was not open to any > outside bidding. Did they have something to hide? Look beyond that. They at one time, a couple of years before they finally managed to sell the division, even offered their film division for sale through press statements. Made a general appeal to all the world to please take that division off their hands. No takers then. > What I wonder about now is if those top executives lied about the > numbers to get the sale to go through, thereby lining their own pockets > with money. The only other explanation is that they mismanaged the > company; if the profits at the time of sale were real, that is the only > other explanation. See that other thread for a (there are many more possible) diferent explanation. > This involves a large chunk of money, several investors, and lots of > employees. Will they liquidate, or reorganize? Will any of the upper > management be prosecuted? No chance. It's still perfectly legitimate to milk a company until it bleeds, and then declare it just has got to be closed bacuase it has become commercialy unviable, a liability. The top of the company goes on to other things, richer for the experience, and richer in their pocket books. The workers, and suppliers, are left to bear the pain. > > I am not "anti-digital", but I did look at the financial data the main > > company provided at the time of the sale. The odd thing at the time was [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > and richer in their pocket books. The workers, and suppliers, are left to > bear the pain. The MG / Rover group just tried that. Now the top management is under investigation. Sure, it is done, but not without consequence. Former top executives at Mannesmann was recently investigated, though basically cleared of wrong doing. AGFAPhoto executives could face the same scrutiny, and it would surprise me if they did not. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > The MG / Rover group just tried that. Now the top management is under > investigation. Sure, it is done, but not without consequence. Former top > executives at Mannesmann was recently investigated, though basically cleared > of wrong doing. AGFAPhoto executives could face the same scrutiny, and it > would surprise me if they did not. Ah, they perhaps will be scrutinized. It only takes one person wanting to to start legal proceedings. But the chance that that will lead to prosecution is extremely small.. > > Ralf R. Radermacher writes ... > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > newsgroup claimed this split was proof that film had a bright future > ... something about a "cash cow" for profits. Guess not. The whole film industry is in a crisis time, simply saying that film is better then digital does not change the fact that people are buying far less film each year. Main stream photography is going digital and this will have an impact on film. The film industry is still alive but it is in no way healthy, it would be fair to say that the industry is in a nosedive. Scott > The whole film industry is in a crisis time, simply saying that film > is better then digital does not change the fact that people are buying > far less film each year. Main stream photography is going digital and > this will have an impact on film. It amuses me when people state the obvious. So what's your point? You may as well talk about the inevitability of gravity. > It amuses me when people state the obvious. So what's your point? You may as > well talk about the inevitability of gravity. Oh, but there is a point. The obvious apparently needs to be stated over and over again. And again. Want to see for yourself? Just start a "film is (or will be) dead" thread, and you will see how obscure the obvious is to otherwise quite sensible people. >> It amuses me when people state the obvious. So what's your point? You may > as >> well talk about the inevitability of gravity. > > Oh, but there is a point. > The obvious apparently needs to be stated over and over again. And again. Only the very stupid repeat themselves for the benefit of the very stupid. It is merely self serving. I will not repeat myself in this matter. > > Oh, but there is a point. > > The obvious apparently needs to be stated over and over again. And again. > > Only the very stupid repeat themselves for the benefit of the very stupid. > It is merely self serving. I will not repeat myself in this matter. I'm glad you agree that there is a point. ;-) >> Only the very stupid repeat themselves for the benefit of the very stupid. >> It is merely self serving. I will not repeat myself in this matter. > >I'm glad you agree that there is a point. ;-) there's always a point: even stating there is no point is a point ;) regards, SignatureIng. Gianni Rondinini Icem s.r.l. - http://www.icem.it Tel: +39 0545 78036 Fax: +39 0545 78727 I'm not so sure it's about film not having any future, but it sure isn;t a bright one. I bet it has a lot to do with the financing costs for the 220 million it cost the investors to buy the photo portions of the business from Agfa. Even at todays lower interest rates, that's a big debt to service. And if you listen to Kodak and Fuji, consumer film which was the real "cash cow" has dropped off and is continuing to drop off at rates of 25% a year and greater. If you think the small amount of B&W film or professional color films the folks on this newsgroup purchase would keep these companies in the green, it's just not going to happen. >> Ralf R. Radermacher writes ... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > newsgroup claimed this split was proof that film had a bright future > ... something about a "cash cow" for profits. Guess not. > If you think the small amount of B&W film or professional color films the > folks on this newsgroup purchase would keep these companies in the green, > it's just not going to happen. Maybe not "these companies" but there are other places where film can be produced that it would be profitable. IMHO there are too many film cameras on the planet for there to not be a market for it worth someone's while to produce some to fill the need. It won't be as cheap or as many varieties but I can't see it disappearing either. That said, I've probably only shot 5-6 rolls of film this year so I'm not helping much anymore... SignatureStacey > Maybe not "these companies" but there are other places where film can be > produced that it would be profitable. Sure. Croatia. And the company should be private so it's not run over by the greedy stockholders. Looks like we have a winner already. >> Maybe not "these companies" but there are other places where film can be >> produced that it would be profitable. > >Sure. Croatia. And the company should be private so it's not run over by the >greedy stockholders. Looks like we have a winner already. I'm a late comer to the thread but keep in mind that if AGFA goes under there's others to take up the slack. To name a few: * Efke * Foma * Forte * Ferrania * Fujifilm * Ilford * Imation (3m) * Kodak * Konica * Lucky * Maco * Orwo * Polaroid * Svema * Tasma * Tura Film costs vary but the biggest factor is the rate of exchange. Chinese films may be expensive to the average Chinaman but if the exchange rate is good for us its cheap for us. Much of Germany's industry is playing this game and moving to countries where the exchange rate makes labor cheaper for them. of course AGFA's problem could be good ole incompetant management and greed. THOM > I'm a late comer to the thread but keep in mind that if AGFA goes > under there's others to take up the slack. To name a few: > * Efke > * Foma > * Forte Gone > * Ferrania > * Fujifilm > * Ilford Pretty well gone > * Imation (3m) > * Kodak Pretty well gone > * Konica Gone > * Lucky > * Maco [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > THOM >> * Efke >> * Foma [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> * Kodak > Pretty well gone Huh? Is Forte really gone? And Kodak/Fuji too? Golly whiz, I better stock up on film and paper then. But I don't believe you. Sure, I'll have to pay more for film and paper 10 years from now, but it will still be available. >Huh? Is Forte really gone? And Kodak/Fuji too? > >Golly whiz, I better stock up on film and paper then. But I don't believe >you. Sure, I'll have to pay more for film and paper 10 years from now, >but it will still be available. Don't count on it. And certainly don't count on a variety. JD - www.puresilver.org In rec.photo.darkroom John <jd@darkroompro.com> wrote: : >Huh? Is Forte really gone? And Kodak/Fuji too? : > : >Golly whiz, I better stock up on film and paper then. But I don't believe : >you. Sure, I'll have to pay more for film and paper 10 years from now, : >but it will still be available. : Don't count on it. And certainly don't count on a variety. As long as I can get Tmax-100 I'll be happy. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com >: >Huh? Is Forte really gone? And Kodak/Fuji too? >: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >As long as I can get Tmax-100 I'll be happy. No products are safe. I doubt Kodak sells more than a couple million rolls of TMX in the US per year. Not enough to assure its availability through the digital onslaught. I give it 5 ~ 10 years before Kodak kills it completely and I think that's optimistic. JD - www.puresilver.org In rec.photo.darkroom Blaze <> wrote: : >: >Huh? Is Forte really gone? And Kodak/Fuji too? : >: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : > : >As long as I can get Tmax-100 I'll be happy. : No products are safe. I doubt Kodak sells more than a couple million rolls of TMX : in the US per year. Not enough to assure its availability through the digital onslaught. I : give it 5 ~ 10 years before Kodak kills it completely and I think that's optimistic. Just wondering were you got the quantity of TMX that kodak sells per year. Speaking with salepeople at a few local camera stores (Calumet, Helix, and Central) I understand that sales of TMX is very strong. This includes 135, 120 and sheet. Another local mom&pop store has a hard time keeping the stuff on the shelf and a regularly out of stock. In my never humble opinion B&W film is going to do alright for a number of years. It's c41 that's going to be rolled over by digital. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > No products are safe. I doubt Kodak sells more than a couple million rolls of TMX > in the US per year. Not enough to assure its availability through the digital onslaught. I > give it 5 ~ 10 years before Kodak kills it completely and I think that's optimistic. Digital will replace film and make it disappear exactly the way film made painting disappear. Or the way color made B&W disappear. Or ... In rec.photo.darkroom xyzzy <nevermind@neverland.net> wrote: > > No products are safe. I doubt Kodak sells more than a couple million rolls > of TMX > > in the US per year. Not enough to assure its availability through the > digital onslaught. I > > give it 5 ~ 10 years before Kodak kills it completely and I think that's > optimistic. > Digital will replace film and make it disappear exactly the way film made > painting disappear. Or the way color made B&W disappear. Or ... He didn't say B&W film would disappear; he said said Kodak would drop TMX. I don't think film will be going away in the foreseeable future, but I can easily see Kodak leaving the market. They don't seem to be very good at making money with low-volume products. Kodak leaving the film market to other producers is something I feel is possible. SignatureMark Cudworth >He didn't say B&W film would disappear; he said said Kodak would drop TMX. >I don't think film will be going away in the foreseeable future, but I can >easily see Kodak leaving the market. They don't seem to be very good at >making money with low-volume products. Kodak leaving the film market to >other producers is something I feel is possible. And deeply regrettable, if it happens. Making and coating tabular-grain emulsions is a lot harder that mixing up a batch of something that gets dark when exposed to light and can be coated on paper to print on -- the loss of the state-of-the-art film emulsions would hurt much, much more than the already painful loss of many choices of printing paper. Not to mention that TMX basically doesn't suffer reciprocity effects (at least, when compared to most other films). It's awfully close to being the perfect film; I will be very sad to see it go, if it does. SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky In rec.photo.darkroom Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@panix.com> wrote: > >He didn't say B&W film would disappear; he said said Kodak would drop TMX. > >I don't think film will be going away in the foreseeable future, but I can > >easily see Kodak leaving the market. They don't seem to be very good at > >making money with low-volume products. Kodak leaving the film market to > >other producers is something I feel is possible. > And deeply regrettable, if it happens. Making and coating tabular-grain > emulsions is a lot harder that mixing up a batch of something that gets > dark when exposed to light and can be coated on paper to print on -- the > loss of the state-of-the-art film emulsions would hurt much, much more > than the already painful loss of many choices of printing paper. My hope would be that Kodak would sell the production facilities to make some extra cash if they did decide to leave the B&W film market. SignatureMark Cudworth In rec.photo.darkroom Mark Cudworth <usenet@markc.users.panix.com> wrote: : In rec.photo.darkroom Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@panix.com> wrote: : > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : > >making money with low-volume products. Kodak leaving the film market to : > >other producers is something I feel is possible. : > And deeply regrettable, if it happens. Making and coating tabular-grain : > emulsions is a lot harder that mixing up a batch of something that gets : > dark when exposed to light and can be coated on paper to print on -- the : > loss of the state-of-the-art film emulsions would hurt much, much more : > than the already painful loss of many choices of printing paper. : My hope would be that Kodak would sell the production facilities to make : some extra cash if they did decide to leave the B&W film market. I've said it before and I'll say it again. As long as it's profitable to make TMX someone somewhere will make it. Kodak isn't going to shutdown a profitable division. They would sell the asset off first. Don't forget that Kodak has a lot of money tied up in it. Not to mention that if they stop manufacturing film at their facilities they will have to clean up the site. I remember back in the days when I worked as a EE. I spent time in plants that used to make product X. There was no longer any profitable demand for the stuf but they still made a few hundred pounds of the stuff a year at a loss because if the stopped they would have to clean the site to EPA standards and it was cheaper to continue production at a loss then stopping production and cleaning the site!! Of course one way to ensure the continued production of film is for us to continue buying and using it. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > I've said it before and I'll say it again. As long as it's profitable to make > TMX someone somewhere will make it. Keep in mind that it takes more than a formula and some equipment to make a good film. EK has the best minds in the industry. Unfortunately they aren't in management. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org In rec.photo.darkroom John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: : > I've said it before and I'll say it again. As long as it's profitable to make : > TMX someone somewhere will make it. : Keep in mind that it takes more than a formula and some equipment to make : a good film. EK has the best minds in the industry. Unfortunately they : aren't in management. I may be alone in this group in thinking that EK management is doing a good job transitioning Kodak into the digital age. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > I may be alone in this group in thinking that EK management is doing a > good job > transitioning Kodak into the digital age. Dunno, Frank but they just abandoned their high end camera. Quit making it and they claim they aren't getting into that line again. In rec.photo.equipment.large-format johnboy <okaynow@nospam.no> wrote: : > I may be alone in this group in thinking that EK management is doing a : > good job : > transitioning Kodak into the digital age. : Dunno, Frank but they just abandoned their high end camera. Quit making it : and they claim they aren't getting into that line again. When I go to the local stores and look at the "photo kiosks<SP?>" and they're made by Kodak. They use Kodak paper and Kodak ink. I also understand that Kodak owns and licenses a significant amount of sensor technology. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > When I go to the local stores and look at the "photo kiosks<SP?>" and they're > made by Kodak. They use Kodak paper and Kodak ink. I also understand that Kodak > owns and licenses a significant amount of sensor technology. And this has what to do with analog photography and the continued availability of materials ? SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org In rec.photo.darkroom John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: : > When I go to the local stores and look at the "photo kiosks<SP?>" and they're : > made by Kodak. They use Kodak paper and Kodak ink. I also understand that Kodak : > owns and licenses a significant amount of sensor technology. : And this has what to do with analog photography and the continued : availability of materials ? It has to do with the survival of Kodak as a company. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > In rec.photo.darkroom John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It has to do with the survival of Kodak as a company. Which will probably have very little, if any, bearing on the field of artistic photography in that when they decide to leave, they will leave a nice vacuum. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org In rec.photo.darkroom John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: : > In rec.photo.darkroom John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: : > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : > : > It has to do with the survival of Kodak as a company. : Which will probably have very little, if any, bearing on the field of : artistic photography in that when they decide to leave, they will leave a : nice vacuum. ??? If Kodak doesn't survive as a company they can't make film of photographic paper. The survival of Kodak as a company therefore has a lot to do with "artistic photography". SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- > In rec.photo.darkroom John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > paper. The survival of Kodak as a company therefore has a lot to do with > "artistic photography". So I guess we're saying that Kodak cannot survive by selling film, chemistry and paper. Hmmmm, I guess it's back to Efke and other non-American companies again. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org > Hmmmm, I guess it's back to Efke Might be good news for DuPont. :-) Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses In rec.photo.darkroom John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: : > In rec.photo.darkroom John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: : > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] : > paper. The survival of Kodak as a company therefore has a lot to do with : > "artistic photography". : So I guess we're saying that Kodak cannot survive by selling film, : chemistry and paper. Hmmmm, I guess it's back to Efke and other : non-American companies again. That's what you're saying. I'm saying that Kodak can't survive without getting involved in digital photography. There's also no reason that Kodak can't make film and film related products while also making digital products. Like it or not digital photography is here to stay. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- > [...] There's also no reason that Kodak can't make > film and film related products while also making digital products. Sure there is; it's name is Greed. Kodak will be dead by 2007. Totally gone. In rec.photo.darkroom johnboy <okaynow@nospam.no> wrote: : > [...] There's also no reason that Kodak can't make : > film and film related products while also making digital products. : Sure there is; it's name is Greed. Kodak will be dead by 2007. Totally gone. I'm not following you. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- >: Sure there is; it's name is Greed. Kodak will be dead by 2007. Totally gone. > > I'm not following you. I do and I agree about the greed part. I see it up close and personal every single day. Too many greedy managers and aging baby-boomer stockholders want their ROI "and it better damn well be over 16%". Yeah, that would take a miracle. I think 2007 is a little to soon but perhaps 2010 the Eastman Kodak Company that has produced photographic materials since 1878 will be completely out of the photographic field and solely focused on digital imaging and subsequently the company will be a shadow of itself in the "glory days" which spanned approximately 100 years between the 1890's and the 1990's. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org > Kodak will be dead by 2007. Totally gone. Prediction Correction - Kodak will discontinue B&W paper this fiscal year - next week. >> Kodak will be dead by 2007. Totally gone. > > Prediction Correction - Kodak will discontinue B&W paper this fiscal year - > next week. You and Carnac the Magnificent ! A: Until he gets caught. Q: How long does a United States Congressman serve? SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org >> I may be alone in this group in thinking that EK management is >> doing a good job transitioning Kodak into the digital age. > Dunno, Frank but they just abandoned their high end camera. Quit > making it and they claim they aren't getting into that line again. Kodak have been `getting out' of the high end digital photo biz for a decade. Their stuff never quite got it all together, so Site (ex Tektronics) and others ate their lunch. And their ability to piss off life time customers is breath taking! SignaturePaul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd., +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda. West Australia 6076 comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked. EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be. prep@prep.synonet.com > Kodak have been `getting out' of the high end digital photo biz > for a decade. Their stuff never quite got it all together, so Site > (ex Tektronics) and others ate their lunch. So now they are buying those Others. And continue selling their digital technology to the other Others they haven't bought. On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:20:59 -0500, in rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format you wrote: > I may be alone in this group in thinking that EK management is doing a good job > transitioning Kodak into the digital age. As can best be observed by the number of people who are leaving the company. Yeah, great job E.K. !! SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org > Kodak isn't going to shutdown a profitable division. They would sell the asset > off first. I wouldn't put any of my money on that. Sometimes it pays to kill something profitable to gain even more somewhere else. Just think of the effect a sudden death of TMX would have on the analog world and the boost it would give those who're telling us that digital is the way to go. I'm pretty sure investors would love the idea. Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > Just think of the effect a sudden death of TMX would have on the analog > world and the boost it would give those who're telling us that digital > is the way to go. Like Zero effect. B&W people ain't but a rash on the butt of Kodak. In rec.photo.equipment.large-format Ralf R. Radermacher <fotoralf@gmx.de> wrote: : > Kodak isn't going to shutdown a profitable division. They would sell the asset : > off first. : I wouldn't put any of my money on that. Sometimes it pays to kill : something profitable to gain even more somewhere else. : Just think of the effect a sudden death of TMX would have on the analog : world and the boost it would give those who're telling us that digital : is the way to go. My guess is that most of the users of TMX would switch to a different B&W film. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > My guess is that most of the users of TMX would switch to a different B&W > film. And that it would not be made by Kodak, right ? SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org In rec.photo.darkroom John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: : > My guess is that most of the users of TMX would switch to a different B&W : > film. : And that it would not be made by Kodak, right ? Correct. Hence there would be little incentive for Kodak to drop TMX in the hopes that the customers of TMX would go to a different company. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > Correct. Hence there would be little incentive for Kodak to drop TMX in the hopes > that the customers of TMX would go to a different company. Must be a new principal of management I'm not familiar with. Sending ones customers to ones competitors. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org In rec.photo.equipment.medium-format John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: : > Correct. Hence there would be little incentive for Kodak to drop TMX in the hopes : > that the customers of TMX would go to a different company. : Must be a new principal of management I'm not familiar with. Sending ones : customers to ones competitors. ??? That's why I don't think that Kodak would close down their film division rather then sell it. BTW - It would be easier to follow the thread if you didn't delete the context of the thread. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- >> : > My guess is that most of the users of TMX would switch to a different B&W >> : > film. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That's why I don't think that Kodak would close down their film division rather then > sell it. Ya lost me. I believe they would do both, close the film division and sell the equipment along with a lease on the IP. One other thought is that they could make the emulsion available for someone to coat, roll, cut and distribute under a different brand. > BTW - It would be easier to follow the thread if you didn't delete the context of the > thread. I guess that's better for you but I find it less clear. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org One thought that has crossed my mind is the idea that "Joe(sephine) Q Average" likely stores the majority of his/her digital photos on their hard drive. A 40, 80 or 120 gig hard drive holds a lot of images, all arranged by date. Far too convenient. Hard drives, however, do fail. What's their life? Seven years? Ten years? Slightly longer than digital photography has been mainstream? I have to wonder if there will be wistful memories of the permanence of color film again, over the next few years, as consumers find their most important images being lost due to drive failure. There is a certain amount of comfort to be gleaned from knowing that all my black and white work, even the atrocious stuff, is safely stored in archival sleeves and tucked away in loose leaf binders. Not so with my color snapshots of the dog, Aunt Sally, and the orange sunset at the beach. They were all taken with my digital point and shoot, and they all reside on my hard drive...........which lies just below my rarely used CD-R drive...... Regards, Joe Q >Michael J Rodney writes ... > > ... "Joe(sephine) Q Average" likely stores the majority of his/her >digital photos on their hard drive. ... Hard drives, however, do fail. Most of us shooting much digital are now using external HD's as backup, these are as cheap as 50 cents/GB on sale. I keep one 250 GB external on my desk, another off-site so always have three copies of key files stored in different locations. So while most people aren't doing it (yet) there is an easy backup strategy. I know the disks will fail eventually but not all at once. >There is a certain amount of comfort to be gleaned from knowing that all my >black and white work, even the atrocious stuff, is safely stored in archival >sleeves and tucked away in loose leaf binders. But since it's in a single location it's susceptible to fire or flood or theft or ? There's also comfort in having multiple *exact* copies of original digital RAW files stored in multiple locations :) >>Michael J Rodney writes ... >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > or theft or ? There's also comfort in having multiple *exact* copies > of original digital RAW files stored in multiple locations :) I also store multiple backups on hard drives. But I'm a little more paranoid than Bill. I also make DVD copies, one set stored off site, one on site, as well as 3 sets of hard drives. I currently have about 500 megabytes of images on two 300 GB drives. I backup to a linux server as files are created/modified then periodic backups to two 300 GB USB hard drives. One pair of 300GB drives is stored off site, the other on site, and I rotate backups sets. The linux box is simply an old 600 MHz Pentium I machine and it runs quite fast. The windows PC connects the linux disks via samba, so the linux disks look like a drive on the PC. Backup is simply a drag and drop copy. I store my original 4x5 transparencies in a fire resistant safe, and that forms the 6th backup (of my film images). One scanned 4x5 image uses up several GBytes: 1 GByte per scan, plus several interpolated images for various print files color balanced for that printer and paper. I'm now looking at RAID 5 arrays for backup. A RAID 5 enclosure that holds 4 disks is about $800 last time I checked. With 400 GB drives, that is 1.6 Terabytes (about 1.2 TBytes usable space) for about $2000. Raid 5 can lose one disk, which you can hot swap and not lose any data. Roger Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com >I'm now looking at RAID 5 arrays for backup. A RAID 5 enclosure >that holds 4 disks is about $800 last time I checked. With 400 GB drives, >that is 1.6 Terabytes (about 1.2 TBytes usable space) for about $2000. >Raid 5 can lose one disk, which you can hot swap and not lose any >data. You should think of RAID as providing enhanced reliability (when used for mirroring, or RAID 5), not backup. You still need to backup files stored on a RAID system. You'll also need to keep spare disks on hand, either as hot spares already installed in the RAID box, or cold spares sitting on a shelf. In order for cold spares to be of any use you'll need to be sure that your RAID box and software allows hot swapping of disks. Backups will save you from multiple disk failures. At work we recently had three out of four disks of the same type (IBM Ultrastar) in the same box fail in under two weeks. We had spares, and backups (needed when both sides of a two way mirror failed while waiting for additional spares), so we didn't lose anything but time. SignatureBrian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship. reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan NAR# 54438 | > At work we > recently had three out of four disks of the same type (IBM Ultrastar) > in the same box fail in under two weeks. Ah the Deathstar Drives are still killing data. I'll never forget when they started failing a little over 4 years ago. They provided me with a good amount of overtime. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org > Backups will save you from multiple disk failures. At work we > recently had three out of four disks of the same type (IBM Ultrastar) > in the same box fail in under two weeks. The more discs you have, the more failures you will have. Fact of life. So far, my shoeboxes of negatives haven't crashed. >So far, my shoeboxes of negatives haven't crashed. yesterday evening one of my shoeboxes of negatives fell down the table and actually crashed on the floor, but the data didn't get damaged as much as when a server crashes ;) regards, SignatureIng. Gianni Rondinini Icem s.r.l. - http://www.icem.it Tel: +39 0545 78036 Fax: +39 0545 78727 >Backups will save you from multiple disk failures. At work we >recently had three out of four disks of the same type (IBM Ultrastar) >in the same box fail in under two weeks. We had spares, and backups that's why who prepare raid volumes should buy disks far in advance, in different times --hoping to get disks from different production lots-- and spin them up one per week. in this way, it's far more difficult they will fail all together. i've had the same problem you had with a bunch of fujitsu scsi disks and, later, with a software raid made with ibm dtla --sorry, i didn't check ibm website often and i didn't know they were all failed--. regards, SignatureIng. Gianni Rondinini Icem s.r.l. - http://www.icem.it Tel: +39 0545 78036 Fax: +39 0545 78727 > Kodak leaving the film market to > other producers is something I feel is possible. And like others who've posted on this thread, I hope that doesn't happen either. Companies that have good products can go under just companies with bad products. But I have hope that there are enough folks associated with Kodak that understand they have good products and if they aren't making money at it, management and operating changes can fix that. And if Kodak chooses to deal only with high volume materials, there's always the chance they'll either sell the operation to someone who can make a success of it or spin it off as an independent. > And if Kodak > chooses to deal only with high volume materials, there's always the chance > they'll either sell the operation to someone who can make a success of it or > spin it off as an independent. Actually this is what I thought Ilford might do. Kentmere would be the logical purchaser. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org In rec.photo.darkroom Mark Cudworth <usenet@markc.users.panix.com> wrote: : In rec.photo.darkroom xyzzy <nevermind@neverland.net> wrote: : > > No products are safe. I doubt Kodak sells more than a couple million rolls : > of TMX : > > in the US per year. Not enough to assure its availability through the : > digital onslaught. I : > > give it 5 ~ 10 years before Kodak kills it completely and I think that's : > optimistic. : > Digital will replace film and make it disappear exactly the way film made : > painting disappear. Or the way color made B&W disappear. Or ... : He didn't say B&W film would disappear; he said said Kodak would drop TMX. : I don't think film will be going away in the foreseeable future, but I can : easily see Kodak leaving the market. They don't seem to be very good at : making money with low-volume products. Kodak leaving the film market to : other producers is something I feel is possible. I don't care who makes my TMX as long as I can get it. The reality is that Kodak isn't going to shutdown the production of film or photochemistry as long as it's profitable to make. I know of very few companies that have shutdown profitable divisions. As an asset of the company they would sell it off first. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > I don't care who makes my TMX as long as I can get it. If Kodak doesn't make it, you don't get it. > The reality is that Kodak > isn't going to shutdown the production of film or photochemistry as long as it's > profitable to make. I know of very few companies that have shutdown profitable > divisions. It's not whether it makes a profit, but how large that profit is, and what they expect the future will bring. Smart companies do not wait for a division to start writing in red ink before they decide to shut it down. Now i'm aware that some people do not rank Kodak among the smart companies... ;-) > As an asset of the company they would sell it off first. But to whom? Agfa as tried to get rid of their chemical photography division for years, and finally just about had to give it away. And apparently they did so to someone who didn't look at the size of the profit nor had any idea of what the future would bring. How many of that type of buyer can you find? And would then Kodak (in some people's minds not a very smart comany) not be a likely candidate to 'buy' the Kodak film division? ;-) In rec.photo.darkroom Q.G. de Bakker <qnu@tiscali.nl> wrote: : > I don't care who makes my TMX as long as I can get it. : If Kodak doesn't make it, you don't get it. : > The reality is that Kodak : > isn't going to shutdown the production of film or photochemistry as long : as it's : > profitable to make. I know of very few companies that have shutdown : profitable : > divisions. : It's not whether it makes a profit, but how large that profit is, and what : they expect the future will bring. : Smart companies do not wait for a division to start writing in red ink : before they decide to shut it down. : Now i'm aware that some people do not rank Kodak among the smart : companies... ;-) : > As an asset of the company they would sell it off first. : But to whom? : Agfa as tried to get rid of their chemical photography division for years, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : a likely candidate to 'buy' the Kodak film division? : ;-) The problem with Agfa is that they were losing money. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com In rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote: > The problem with Agfa is that they were losing money. The problem with agfaphoto is / was money flow, not profitability. SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ >Digital will replace film and make it disappear exactly the way film made >painting disappear. Or the way color made B&W disappear. Or ... Or TV made radio disappear, or lite beer made real beer disappear... HHMmm - lite beer = digital? real beer = film? HHmmm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I like; Large Format Photography www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >Digital will replace film and make it disappear exactly the way film made > >painting disappear. Or the way color made B&W disappear. Or ... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > www.destarr.com > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In my rather vast experience Very few beers equal a good home brewed one. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> I'm a late comer to the thread but keep in mind that if AGFA goes >> under there's others to take up the slack. To name a few: >> * Ilford >Pretty well gone You've not been following events. Ilford emerged from receivership in February. http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pr/prht.html >> I'm a late comer to the thread but keep in mind that if AGFA goes >> under there's others to take up the slack. To name a few: >> * Efke >> * Foma >> * Forte >Gone since when? >> * Ferrania >> * Fujifilm >> * Ilford >Pretty well gone reforming >> * Imation (3m) >> * Kodak >Pretty well gone Right, funny but They seem to be turning out film OK >> * Konica >Gone Gone where? Heard about the Konica/Minolta relationship. My local discount stores are full of Konica film. THOM >> * Lucky >> * Maco [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >> THOM >> I'm a late comer to the thread but keep in mind that if AGFA goes >> under there's others to take up the slack. To name a few: >> * Efke >> * Foma >> * Forte > Gone efke gone? since when? In rec.photo.darkroom Thom <tomlyons@melbpc.org.au> wrote: >>> Maybe not "these companies" but there are other places where film can be >>> produced that it would be profitable. >> >>Sure. Croatia. And the company should be private so it's not run over by the >>greedy stockholders. Looks like we have a winner already. > I'm a late comer to the thread but keep in mind that if AGFA goes > under there's others to take up the slack. To name a few: > * Efke > * Foma > * Forte Forte is still under insolvency. Still has troubles to deliver on time when one the biggest german reseller of Forte is to be belived. > * Ferrania Ferrania is only alive because the government of the region it's located helped when they went into insolvency. > * Fujifilm > * Ilford Well, was in insolvency just a few month ago, lets see what happens. > * Imation (3m) Do they still make film? I thought they stopped when they sold Ferrania. > * Kodak > * Konica > * Lucky > * Maco Maco never made any film or paper by itself. They resell Agfa, Efke, Foma etc.. > * Orwo Isn't anymore. Last film sold as "Orwopan 125" was Ilford FP4+ iirc. > * Polaroid Gone, at leas in the 35mm bussines. The 35mm C41 film labeled "Polaroid" is Agfa. > * Svema > * Tasma > * Tura Tura went bankrupt about 3 month ago. They still produce, but future seems dark. Tura stopped production of own films decades ago, they resold Agfa the last years. And with Agfa gone, Tura is gone. > Film costs vary but the biggest factor is the rate of exchange. > Chinese films may be expensive to the average Chinaman but if the > exchange rate is good for us its cheap for us. Much of Germany's > industry is playing this game and moving to countries where the > exchange rate makes labor cheaper for them. In fact, Agfa APX was cheaper than Lucky here in Germany. And I bet it wasn't the b/w-stuff that broke Agfas neck (it's way too low volume to do that), but the impact digital had on cn-films. Remember, Agfa was one of (if not the) biggest reseller for house-brand film. Christian HI, All this having been said, what is the storage life of stock Rodinal in an unopened bottle. I have heard said that it will last several years, albeit as a thick brown syrup but still very good when diluted 1:50 or 1:100. Would refrigerator storage help. I feel like going out and buying a doz bottles of Rodinal and storing it in the fridge. When APX 25 went under, I managed to fill the freezer compartement with 120. Now I need to make sure I have Rodinal to develop the APX 25. Does this also apply to Agfa paper? Are they in the same division as the film? I might have to start stocking up on Agfa Classic paper. Thanks for any information. Regards, Bogdan >>If you think the small amount of B&W film or professional color films the >>folks on this newsgroup purchase would keep these companies in the green, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That said, I've probably only shot 5-6 rolls of film this year so I'm not > helping much anymore... Signature__________________________________________________________________ Bogdan Karasek Montréal, Québec e-mail: bkarasek@videotron.ca Canada "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" Ludwig Wittgenstein ________________________________________________________________ > I feel like going out and > buying a doz bottles of Rodinal and storing it in the fridge. Remember that Rodinal (or at least minor variants of Agfa's current version) are available from others. There's Calbe R09 (available from J&C in the US -- see http://www.jandcphotography.com) and Formulary Paraminophenol (see http://www.photoformulary.com). The original Rodinal formula is over a century old and is well known -- it's in Anchell's _Darkroom Cookbook_ and I've seen it on the Web (although I don't recall any URLs, offhand). Thus, you can mix it yourself if you like. In sum, even if Agfa and its entire product line were to vanish (which is far from certain at this point), products that are almost identical to the current Rodinal will continue to be available. I wouldn't bother to hoard the stuff. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > even if Agfa and its entire product line were to vanish (which is far from > certain at this point), products that are almost identical to the current > [xxx, yyy, zzz] will continue to be available ... Agfa vanished some time ago: Brovira, Portiga, APX25, Isolette & Co. ... SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > and I've seen it on the Web (although I don't recall >any URLs, offhand) http://www.puresilver.org/darkroom/formulas/filmdevs/index.html JD - www.puresilver.org Bogdan Karasek <bkarasek@videotron.ca> schrieb: >All this having been said, what is the storage life of stock Rodinal in >an unopened bottle. Decades. Agfa documented some examples of 50 year old Rodinal that worked just fine. One story was of an Englishman who found a bottle in his attic in 1962, sent it to Agfa who checked it, dated it to 1912 and ran a few control strips with it. Slightly loss of activity if compared with fresh stuff, that´s it. That Rodinal was packed in glass bottles, of course. >albeit as a thick brown syrup but still very good when diluted 1:50 or >1:100. No. Once diluted it detioriorates within a few hours. > Would refrigerator storage help. No. It´s a highly concentrated solution - the contained salts won´t be soluble in lower temperatures and thicken up, probably destroying the bottle and you won´t be able to bring that sludge back into solution. > I feel like going out and >buying a doz bottles of Rodinal Do just that. And don´t open them, Agfa packs them with an inert gas on top. > and storing it in the fridge. Don´t. > When APX >25 went under, I managed to fill the freezer compartement with 120. Now >I need to make sure I have Rodinal to develop the APX 25. Tetenal Neofin Blau works with APX25, too. >Does this also apply to Agfa paper? What? The imminent danger of vanishing from our supplies? Yes. > Are they in the same division as >the film? Yes. Agfa Photo took over most photographic ressources from Agfa-Gevaert (but the Copex |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message