I’m sure it comes to no surprise to anyone in the digital photography industry that Eastman Kodak has filed for bankruptcy.
Kodak is a company founded in 1888 that became the iconic brand in photography for professionals and amateurs alike. It survived many challenges over those years, and was an early pioneer in digital photography, but for a variety of reasons the company simply couldn’t get a strong foothold in a digital world.
The prospect of losing Kodak is a sad one for me, as I’m sure it is for many photographers. For so many of us (even those who had been using Fuji films), the Kodak brand was one that often stirred feelings of respect. I suppose now those feelings are more of nostalgia, which I suppose only underscores that the decline of Kodak is something that has been going on for quite a number of years.
Several years ago I visited Rochester, and it was truly a sad and difficult experience. A company that epitomized photography for me when I first got started working in a wet darkroom in high school, was now partially represented by a large number of empty buildings.
While my expectations aren’t high, I hope Kodak is able to work its way out of bankruptcy, and perhaps find a way to reinvent itself as a viable and meaningful company that photographers will once again look to for leadership in this industry. Part of me just wants that brand to stick around, if for no other reason than so I can hold on to a piece of the past that is so meaningful to me.
Best of luck, Kodak. And thanks for the memories you’ve provided, and the memories you’ve helped me retain through photography over the years.
So sad! Kodak could be counted on to manufacture a film for just about any purpose that one could imagine. My favorite was Kodachrome 25 for its beautiful fine grain and accurate color. And then came digital.
Hopefully, Kodak can renew itself and come out of bankruptcy with a new lease on life.
Maybe Kodak’s missteps will cause the leaders of digital photography companies to pause and reflect on what they need to do to stay ahead of the curve of change.
Are the IPhone and its clones a threat to the digital camera, lens and imaging businesses?
Bill Brennan
Well said Tim … My first roll of film was the 110 formatted Kodacolor, 12 Exposures !! When I got the prints back 4 days later I was ecstatic – and hooked for life !! … later on I ended up in a very darkroom with only red light and the sweet smell of stop bath. Kodak was permenantly embedded into my passion ! … I have one of their first digital cameras and I will have this in my museum along with the rest of my film equipment
In respect of Kodak > On a positive note:
For those that invest or have invested in Eastman Kodak, now is a great time to purchase stock in Eastman Chemical [They are, and always have been, doing incredible advancements in the chemical industry] This bankruptcy, restructuring, will provide Eastman Chemical a boost into capital gains.
I thought they had patents on licenses that were worth billions. If true, the sale of those assets might turn the trick and give them a new lease on life.
Robert – Kodak does indeed own a large number of patents, and part of their bankruptcy plan is to sell a portion of their patents. Of course, selling patents also eliminates the potential of licensing revenue down the road, so the fear would be that such an approach is short-sighted. Obviously the core issue is finding a way to be profitable in a world that is dramatically different than the one Kodak was profitable in originally.
My sympathy for Kodak is pretty limited, and my reasons go a long way back. Without denying the central role they played in the development of photography, I had some experiences with them years ago that convince me that there has been rot in the organization for a very long time.
Around 1960, I was still in my teens, I bought a Kodak Master View Camera for $300.00. It was a difficult decision since in those days you could by a serviceable used car for that kind of money. A couple of years later I broke a knob. I wrote to Kodak to enquire about a replacement, but was told that they no longer manufactured the camera and that the design and tools had been sold to a third party, whom they didn’t name. Right about then I saw the original Calumet monorail advertised in a photography magazine. I was pretty sure that it was the same machine as mine, so I wrote to Calumet. Yes, they told me, they had bought it form Kodak and yes, the price was $89.95. They enclosed the knob I need at no charge as well as a much improved ground glass. As for the latter, they told me that if I liked it I could send them three dollars.
Jumping forward more than a decade, when the camera’s price had gone up to $129.95, I had another Kodak experience. Someone brought me a Kodak Colour Densitometer for repair. A small fitting had been broken and the sensor turret wouldn’t stay in position as you changed colours. So I phone Kodak. No, they don’t stock parts for that instrument. It isn’t meant to be repaired. Should they send me a new one, retail $299.95? Well the problem was that, having had a good look at the thing, a moulded plastic bass that would have shamed a child’s toy, a few pieces of metal, three scraps of gelatin filter and a couple of mirrors – oh yes, a light bulb of uncertain colour temperature too. The thing would have been overpriced at thirty dollars.
And speaking of $299.95, a sum of which Kodak seemed very fond indeed, do we remember the Instamatic Reflex? It was an unbelievably obsolete camera from the get go. In those days you could be a Pentax or a Minolta for under two hundred.
And I’ve got lots more Kodak Moments.
If Kodak can’t recover it will hurt the High Schools and Colleges who use there products in the wet darkroom.
I know some Colleges have gone all digital, but they are not teaching the basics of photography starting with Black & White.