I remember in the mid-1980s when a Fuji representative came by the studio and gave me a roll of 35mm Fujicolor to try. He listened to my concerns regarding having to test every new batch of Kodak professional film for color balance. Then I saw a Kodak rep at at trade show and told him about the testing problem, but he wasn't concerned and said Kodak's interest was in consumer products. I told him he should pay more attention to pros, because we were often asked by consumers what film we thought was the best. The Fuji rep came by a few weeks later with a ten-sheet box of Fujichrome Professional 4x5 for me to try. The quality was astounding and I started using it exclusively. After that, whenever an amateur photographer asked me what film I liked, I always said "Fuji".
Granted that's only 2 employees out of the thousands that would've been working at Fuji and Kodak, including hundreds of reps, but Fuji clearly won that one for customer service and I'm sure the individual reps were trained that way so Fuji had a better business structure.
Totally agree. Fuji reps were attentive and accommodating. And their large format film was very close between batches. Where Kodak could often be out by 20-40 cc every new batch.
There was a Kodak line that I used in the 90’s that produced gorgeous deep color. I can’t remember the name. I later shot on Fuji and Agfa and don’t think I ever went back.
@@studiomwgI wonder what the Kodak film was that had such color. Was it chrome film…maybe the E100V, E100VS, or E100SW? (Vivid, Vivid Saturated, Saturated Warm)
I remember selling 120 & 220 pro packs and bricks of Kodak film to photographers because they needed the same emulsion for a shoot. (Or they got a few 50 sheet boxes of 4x5.) Fuji Provia and Velvia were my personal faves to shoot. I also liked Fuji’s NPS better than Kodak’s VPS for color negative images.
Regarding the state of the film industry for photography, it's ironic that, as of 2023, Fujifilm is rumored to be selling film products that are made by Kodak in USA.
@@ARM963 A lot of Japanese electronic companies do this now too. Their Japanese and overseas products are completely different, and often times the name is leased out to a third party to make the overseas products which may even be junk.
I believe the rumor has been confirmed to be true. The only film that Fujifilm still make is the one sold to the domestic market (rumored) and their Instax Film.
I worked for Kodak in the 2000's . I joined accidentally through a joint venture Kodak was involved in. As an amateur photographer I am amazed how much technology Kodak had developed that is now in almost every Digital Camera on the market. It is very sad to see that Kodak was unable to capitalize on its investment while Nikon and Canon moved forward. I was not privy to the decision process of upper management, but I can tell you, that middle and lower management had an oversize effect on Kodak's unwillingness to embrace a new corporate strategy. Several CEO's had come and gone, unable to implement successfully implement their strategies to move Kodak away from it's monopolistic lethargy. It is very hard to describe the arrogance, the Kodak long timers exhibited. Part of that attitude is embedded in the culture of Rochester NY, Kodak's "home town". Rochester, is a small city surrounded by dairy farms. It is quite literally, a cultural island in a sea of farm land. To the north is Lake Ontario, which provides the city with extreme winters. These to things create a population that is insular and embattled. You have to be pretty tough to survive in Rochester, NY. These factors are ingrained in most Kodak middle managers. Their intransigence kept Kodak from evolving, imho. I wish someone would do a study on Kodak, from the perspective of corporate psychology. Just my opinion.
I wouldn't give upper management there a pass either. It is well documented that instead of making use of their ability to fire the non-union sticks-in-the-mud who were standing in the way they instead caved in to the insistence of shareholders to part the company out (short-term jolts of income which benefited the few at the cost of the many) in the same way that Sears, Roebuck, & co. was effectively destroyed by the short-term quest for easy profits and by dumping funds into subsidiaries.
Monopolies are by nature thick headed and prone to fall on their own swords seeing no need to innovate although being in possession of the needed resources. That is why monopolies must be resisted and broken up as soon as possible. Apple anyone?
@@terrieterblans7027 Breaking up a monopoly (Kodak wasn't one IMO as a professional film photographer) has nothing to do with the corporate mentality of not being willing to change directions as times change. If a company chooses to fail because of thick headedness, it is their prerogative. I do wish that Kodak had changed and continues to be a major player in photography. The opportunities were abundant.
So what about all the BIS and EKTACHEM stuff? About every county court, clerk and recorder had RECORDAK microfilmers and then scanners for well over 100 years. Kodak made many moves to branch out, they just needed to not give up. I mean working on an EKATCHEM DT-60 analyzer in a veterinary office is about as diversified as you can get.
I can imagine an engineer at Kodak passionately arguing that the company needs to change direction… and a manager flatly responding with “We don’t do that here.”
@@IronBridge1781 It is interesting, because Kodak has been very important for starting off the digital photography revolution, and used to be an important designer and supplier of imaging sensors.
This is exactly what's happening to me right now too. The board are just to clueless than the engineers who understand the technology. I have filed my resignation this month though 😂
As a stubborn nerd I resisted the trasition to digital for over a decade. I was the "target consumer" that truly believed that digital *did not* have the quality of film. I shot whole rolls of 36 with the certainty that only 4, maybe 5, images would be good enough to print. The wait for developing, the contact sheet. The interaction with the lab guys to get the prints as "just" as I wanted them... was part of the hobby. I loved the grain in the enlarged photos, using a magnifying glass to find the grain when I could not see it. Planning ahead with fast film for night outings. I hauled around my SLR above my head while walking into a flooded cave. The confused looks I got from friends and family when I was geeking with exposure lock or manual focus. Fun times. Having said *that*. When digital became "good enough" I switched. I still have my lenses and film camera, but they are now part of someone that is not today's me. Solid content.
Digital finally became "good enough" about 10 years ago. Not it's got to get it's s**t together and stop obsoleting fully functional equipment. I can still shoot almost any film camera ever made. Digital gear hardly lasts a decade.
They can't make money by selling film and improving that when they can, so now they have to be improving the cameras to keep up the cash flow going. @@ometec
In Australia in the late 90's Kodak reps went to many independent print labs and told them "If you don't switch to Kodak we'll set up across the street and undercut your prices, even if we have to run at a loss". This caused a great amount of resentment. Since most of those print labs also sold camera equipment it's likely Kodak weren't exactly preferenced by sales reps / purchasing. It probably wasn't a major cause in their demise but Kodak did create a lot of bad will during their later years.
100%. Kodak were absolutely ruthless operators in the minilab game. Forced a whole bunch of labs to upgrade to APS systems at the worst possible time-the rise of digital.
@@400TXI had to look up that, didn't realize they had come out with that format, or maybe I just totally forgot about it. I do remember the other failed disc based film format Kodak made. My friend got one in the mid 80's for Christmas present, I remember it didn't seem to produce as sharp a pic on prints and they didn't come in 36 exposure much less 24 exposure, only 15.. It seemed like you paid more per exposure, less value for your money. Why did they come out with APS when it was obvious they were going to discontinue disc based film in only free years by 1999 and had already stopped making cameras for Kodak disc film in 1988!
I remember when I was little, Kodak is do well in Indonesia, but somehow Fujifilm & Konica Minolta is the top two choices, and those Fujifilm Frontier Minilab is sprawling across the land, which you can sometimes spot the stores everywhere, and they are easy to recognize with big green & white facade. Nowadays, if you lucky, you still can see those facade. Fujifilm also uniquely not really died in here during the digital camera wars, they do sold digital compact camera, but you will see not that much unlike Kodak, Sony, or Samsung. But After Fujifilm X100 is launch, suddenly they gain branding footing again here... And the success with X line-up, Fujifilm bring some of their product as well, Like Astalift, X-Ray devices, and Printings as well. Astalift is the quite shocker in here, as Astalift branding use Fujifilm logo everywhere, so most people see it like "what, Fujifilm make skincare?"; which now help set Astalift as high-end skincare brand in here.
You know this whole topic is worthy of academia and journalistic records. Kinda lethargic of all the WW2 and 1800s history, give me some 90s imaging technology business history.
A friend spent most of his career at 3M. For a few years, he found himself working at Kodak as a result of Kodak's acquisition of the 3M product line he worked on. He said Kodak's management was utterly Neanderthal compared with 3M's.
True. Failed leadership causes this. If you ever watched "Undercover Boss," you see that most CEO's are real blundering idiots who can't even do the most common jobs at their own factory. That's morally wrong and people suffer because of it.
I worked at Centronics Data Computer in the late 70s early 80s. I was unprepared for how fast technology companies can go from their best year to out of business. Centronics pioneered dot matrix impact printing but missed the transition to non-impact printing. The Kodak saga is sad but pretty common in the high tech industry.
Then you have companies like "American Can" who as late as the early 1980s made cans for American canned goods transitioning into...Citibank. That was a smart move...for the insiders, before it 'blew up' like a spoiled can left in the sun around 2008.
I remember Centronics. Every printer used to connect to the computer through a centronics port on the printer, back in the good old days of 8 pin and 24 pin dot matrix printers.
What fuji did with the fuji was brilliant. Re-purposing their base product for other markets. I always wondered about fujitsu corporation. We used their scanners for our document scanning in elections registration forms. I used to be a elections programmers designing software for elections processing. Best scanners i ever used. Strong and high quality components. Their maintenance kits were excellent. Guyana Elections Commission.
Well, when you have the whole Japanese government behind you, who help you lock up and protect the large Japanese market, and actively work to keep "gaijin white devil" competitors OUT, it's not that hard.
When in grad school in 1982, I applied for a summer internship at Kodak in Rochester, it was my first choice. When they didn't get back to me, I took a position at Marathon Oil--it was OK, but Kodak would have been great (I figured). Finally, when their first choice went elsewhere, they called me, too late. I thought it might be possible to spend my career working for Kodak, glad now it didn't work out. Whew, a close one.
I think this fall of Kodak is symptomatic of us business and investment culture, to separate growth business to "free investor capital" and allow growth. Another example of this is HP, which since the 90s has split into no less than 4 businesses, HP, HPE, Agilent technologies and Keysight technologies for this very reason.
This too. Keysight was really what HP was when it was founded, but together they have the opportunity to show knowledge, and learn and spread out into new areas. Investors just want a fat wallet right now though.
Kodak is typical of many US, Canadian and UK firms- complacent, stagnant, over sized, backward looking, inward looking, corporately inverted and out of touch with the marketplace.
yea, kodak ended because "kodak" was essentially a profitable shell for investors to pour their money into. when that money was no longer profitable, kodak ceased to exist. fuji by contrast was apparently seen as a business worth preserving for its own sake (even if they now had to seek their profits elsewhere) it's largely a difference in philosophy as to what a company is and what it exists for
@@MCArt25 And the differences in culture and government. The Japanese are about the most homogeneous, xenophobic people on the planet. The people, the company, and the government operate as ONE to succeed and to keep the "gaijin white devils" out of "their" market. Always. It's official state policy and law.
A great thing Fujifilm did is application of chemical processes that they learnt in film R&D. You covered some of these area such as pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. Another area is medical diagnostics. Dry Chemistry analyzers for blood/medical testing are a growing area for Fujifilm allowing for medical diagnostic testing. Ironically, Kodak used to own Ortho Clinical Diagnostics which is a major manufacturer of dry chemistry analyzers. And although much smaller in the film business, companies like BASF that really focused on the industrial application could be argued were the more successful of these 2.
I loved those little Fuji "disposable" cameras. They were cheap and you could drop them off at the local drug store and be back in an hour with all of your photos developed. Best part is that the photos almost always came out looking good. In the days before digital camera were affordable even a complete amateur's like myself could take good photos of important life events. And by important life events i mean photos of my friend flipping me off when we went camping.
Fuji and Kodak teamed up with major camera makers in 1996 to create the Advanced Photo System (APS). They thought it was going to be a great new film format that would replace 35mm. Kodak and Fuji where going make big money selling the more expensive rolls of film while Canon, Nikon, and Minolta could sell all new camera systems to consumers. The problem was that it never caught on with professionals and amateurs didn't see the need to replace their 35mm cameras with more expensive APS. Digital photography finally killed it off in the early 2000s. Even when working together, big companies can make the wrong choices.
The same APS format got its evolution in digital era as APS-C, unsurprisingly Fujifilm stuck with that instead of going Full Frame - only about 15 years later.
Didnt Kodak come up with that to sell smaller film /with/ some features of digital slapped on so higher profit margins, smaller cameras, and locked in film technology?
@@hypercube33 It was all an attempt by the photography industry to make more money. There were a few small improvements over 35mm, but image quality wasn't one of them since the negative was significantly smaller than 35mm.
@TheCyberSpidey They were pretty canny in the end pulled a Nintendo in the digital camera world, refusing to compete with the dominent players. Sony, Canon and Nikon were pushing full frame hard and neglecting APS-C as consumer. Fujifilm developed it by arguing that smaller lenses and mirrorless cameras coupled with improvements in sensors made for lightweight cameras tgat could get professional results. Then when they remade their name as a camera brand they swing to affordable professional medium format in the digital realm, which none of the big three were doing either. As such their imaging department survived, subsidised by the wildly popular instax instant film, and became well regarded.
Yeah i'm still disappointed the APS format was a flop. I loved the ability to shoot 3 different formats on the same film type. But i sadly never had a camera for it. I only saw this format on compact sized cameras anyway and never saw it seriously being embraced in SLR cameras. So it really only remained a novelty. Like these 16mm cassettes for these micro cameras.
Yes, I was gobsmacked that they're still in the business of producing 1960's 35mm colour film. Are people still stuck in the 20th Century in America???
We invented a single chip solution for digital cameras. I wanted to keep the technology here in the US. We held a high level meeting at Kodak when Fisher was CEO. We demostrated a working digital camera with the new chip. We were stopped mid-way through the presentation and were informed "Kodak is a chemical company and we have no interest in digital cameras and frankly they will never replace chemical based film cameras.
Well researched and presented. The strange fall of Kodak, when they had a huge lead in their CCD sensors, remains a case study in corporate lethargy. The emphasis on smart diversification at Fuji explains how they continue to find success in the world of the digital image reality. Kodak does still make film and has actually seen an upturn in their film business in recent years, yet remain a shadow of their former self. Rumors float that some retail Fujifilm 35mm is now made on contract by Kodak. 😮 This is a good follow up video to your previous one, where you explained how Sony has ridden their CMOS sensor technology to dominance in the high end consumer and professional cameras. 😊
I used to work in SG Fujifilm factory in 2008 for a short time. I was astonished to see their document dept fabricating false DHL/FedEx documents for the banks and buyers' LC. The senior document processing executive was promoted not by either good working experience or excellent performance but by joining the same country club and playing golf with the GM. Usually, an rank and file employee was required to give a one month notice for resignation after he/she received confirmation after probation. But in Fujifilm, an rank and file employee is required to give two months notice for resignation after confirmation.
Yes i saw this on a couple of episodes of Smarter Every Day where they walked you through a fully running film factory showing the entire process of making film from start to finish, really interesting stuff. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HQKy1KJpSVc.html First episode in the series and here is a prequel sort of how film itself and the development process works ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TCxoZlFqzwA.html
@@MrLU2000 Wrong. Kodak is reintroducing old lines; more film choices is good. Film is increasingly expensive, unfortunately. The old cheap consumer neg films now run $12-14 from the big photo houses. Plus developing for about the same.
I like what Fujifilm is doing in the digital camera market. Currently, most high-end digital cameras all have great specs and fundamentally can all take brilliant images, so other things such as usability, features, lenses and design are what set each camera brand apart. What makes Fuji special are the film simulations and dials reminiscent of the ones found on film SLRs. When I use a Fuji camera, it makes photography fun again, and it makes me want to take more photos. I think they carved out a niche in that corner of the market quite well.
I think Kodak missed a gigantic chance by dismissing the digital imaging business. They could have invested the big money into digital imaging devices, and could have been a huge player in selling digital image sensors for devices like cell phones. It could have been Kodak, not Sony, that would be providing 8, 12 and eventually 48 megapixel sensors for the Apple iPhone in the last 10 years.
Should have been Kodak on top of the digital image market. Should have never licensed or sold any of the patents to the Japanese. Do what the Japanese do to the rest of the world. Make them buy the U.S.-made product.
@@davidb2206 Unfortunately, Wall Street has a one quarter mind. If its not useful with in a quarter its of no use at all, I think short term thinking over long term longevity has caused a lot of dumb decisions in US business since at least the 1980s.
Fuji in Brazil , early to mid eighties , had a photo and film processing lab in São Paulo. Specifically the city’s south side by the river , around Santo Amaro. I did a quick temp there. But as an observant I was , I took notice to a few subtetlies … 1. Management , all strictly Japanese , or Nissei at the lowest , wore green lab overcoats. Everyone else, including gang supervisors , who were mostly Brazilians , wore different uniform colors. 2. At lunch break , management assembled in a see through meeting room. We , the peons , could only speculate what they talked about. They seemed to go extensively on passing samples around, shop talk , and shooting breeze. 3. I was tasked on maintenance with some Italian kid. They had these huge machines where negatives were washed into baths. We processed negatives and print. 4. Those days , motion video was super 8, 8mm. So honeymooners , in print and in motion , sent their recordings through independent mom pop retail outlets , scattered throughout the country. From remote regions in the Amazon , to large urban centers , no one processed film at the store. Most of these stores were run by Japanese and their descendants , mostly Nissei. They would sell film, process print orders , wristwatches , Knick knacks. 5. Our lowly rank, most of them were kids , age 18-25 , all non Japanese. . As soon as something spicy came out of the parcel envelopes and got processed everyone in our group got a wind of , and congregated by the “ screening room” , a small room where lights were turned off and all kinds of color comments would fly. All X Rated stuff, no less. 6. One young Nissei who was closer to us , Akira , was about to leave the company, impatient with the poor outlook on any promotion. As soon as management got a wind of it, they called him in, and gave him the promotion. 7. One of the many prints we got a wind of , a group of Japanese managers had hired a stripper to perform at their shindig. Everyone of them got a turn at hauling the saucy dancer at their arms, smiling , as if he was holding a big reeled in fish.
Thank you for this fascinating video essay! My first digital camera in 2005 was a Fujifilm S9000 (US marketed). You could go really in depth with the digital camera topic and sensor technology, and it would be greatly appreciated! I sometimes wonder of the odd chance of digital cameras making a comeback.. There are so few people to converse with on this subject!
Excellent job as usual. I also very much enjoyed your video on image sensors (CCD vs CMOS). A related subject that I found fascinating, and may fit nicely as a chapter to your digital imaging series, is the development and ultimately the failure, of the first DLSR - the Kodak DCS... a cutting edge, yet severely flawed, Frankenstein of a camera. Their technical approach/solution made sense, and serves well to explain what it took to turn an SLR (film) into the first DSLR. Kodak's making Nikon a partner on this almost certainly helped Nikon bring the first successful DSLR to market - and perhaps, Nikon would not have been as prepared as needed to survive the digital transition, otherwise.
When I started shooting in the early 90s I started with Fuji film. My photography teacher in high school swore by it. It was the film we used in school. I always shot Fuji Velvia. I didnt realize the quality until I tried shooting so regular Kodak and regular Fuji. I missed the Kodachrome though. That is a bummer.
I can shed some light on why Kodak producing lot of patents around digital technology but seldom beyond that. They had a way of incentivize an engineer's they're in their company which was very similar to it Polaroid and a few other media companies. Like today at Google they have a way of starting projects that never come to a fruition. One of the first companies to produce a full-frame digital camera was Kyocera with their Contax N1. They thought they had it made, with their Partnership of with Carl Zeiss of Germany. The Contax name is venerated anyway very few names are in a certain industry. What sank them was pure hubris. All these people they could have gotten to migrate to the new camera but were hobbled by a new lens mount. Looking at Nikon, that's another company that got sunk through hubris. However, even their oldest AI lenses still work on their most modern digital cameras. If you want a modern riches to rags story, going to Nikon and how the threw away their lead as an industry leader in photography.
Nikon was sunk, I think, by Canon's invention and patent of silent, strong, slow ultrasonic motors for autofocus. I believe Nikon had 75% of the pro market in 1985 before those were introduced in 1987. After a decade Canon was at 90% of the pro market. Rarely has an entire market leadership changed so phenomenally. Even when other makes started using ultrasonic motors in the late 90s I think they were paying huge royalties to Canon for the license. Canon then was beat by Sony, Nikon, and even Fuji into high-quality non-SLR cameras, though Canon dominated the market for non-pro non-SLRs. Canon also was late with in-body image stablization (IBIS) and had worse sensors for several years. They finally played catch-up 2019-2021 and with the introduction of the R5 now had probably the best camera/lens system again, for the first time since about 2015 when their old SLR line started being eclipsed by non-SLRs.
You state they had incentives for innovation at some point but later didn't, but you don't elaborate how or what that is. This comment feels rather ironic in that sense; feels like we're missing something lol.
Interesting thread. There is a disconnection between what a company can do and what a company should do next. The decision makers look at profitability as the drive. But because profitability measures only what has already happened, it is a very bad indicator of what will happen next. This is why Kodak failed and the strategy of diversification (hedging) by Fujifilm worked. Fujifilm knew the market was changing and it had to find another way to make profit. The engineers of these companies had figured out what the next generation products could be (as described in their patents) -- but to make them in large scale requires capital investment by the company (so the numbers are always negative in the first few years). This was why the long term games could seem surprising afterwards. Same stories for Xerox, IBM, Blockbuster, etc. They all missed what they could have done by focusing on existing profitability and eventually lost golden opportunities.
@poppinc8145 if you look into Tom scholz of Boston, he detailed some of the inner workings at Polaroid and how their corporate culture stymied innovation
I just wanted to use the occasion of beeing really early to thank you for, what I think is, one of the best quality content on this platform. Huge thanks, I enjoy your analysis so much, I can not put it in words properly.
As a photography nerd, I still shoot quite a bit of film. Fuji has been my go-to for as long as I can remember, I still keep a 6-pack of Experia 400 in my fridge for when I get the itch to go on a walk and take some pictures (even if I use my phone for anything else). It has honestly saved my ass, I lost a bunch of photos due to a *ehem* technical failure, but all the photos taken on film survived. Kodak still produces good film, and they seem to have found a niche that works for them post bankruptcy; but fuji still is my favourite.
If you're losing photos to technical glitch, that says more about you and your personal slopiness or stupidity than it does about issues with digital. Since the 90s I've had all my photos backed-up off site. No house fire or robbery could cost me my digital photos (which were then scans of film, which I typically then threw away).
Eastman Kodak makes the film, Kodak Alaris sells it (at least, they sell the consumer still photography film that Eastman makes, Eastman Kodak still sells professional motion photography film themselves).
I remember when I first designed a phone with a camera. I realized it would be the real gamechanger everyone was waiting for. It's insane others didn't learn from my words.
This is SO well done. I'm still *carefully* working my way through 500 rolls of RDP III in my freezer. Worth mentioning that Fujifilm's digital cameras are thriving, if anything, in a market in which many other traditional players are flat at very best, and some gone entirely. In part that success is due to the fantastic "color science" in the Fuji system - and that system was developed by the only one of the camera manufacturers who had any experience in photographic chemistry.
Kodak still makes film in Rochester. I applied for a job and got the tour, it's an amazing place. Extremely smart people and impressive knowledge of the process. Sadly it looks like fuji is discontinuing their last remaining film lines and sell rebranded (get this) Kodak film now.
I would love to shoot a roll of Kodak's kodachrome film, but sadly I don't think there are any labs around that can process that film. Irony is that Fuji's high end X-Series digital cameras have a simulation for this film called Classic Chrome. I do also recall that when Trump was president there was a big talk that Kodak would copy Fuji's medical business and somehow do something in that space, but guess that was all talk. Oh, and the museum in Tokyo's Fuji HQ is wonderful, showing many of the historical cameras and how much they love the idea of taking pictures.
As professional photographer from the late 80s to the early 2000s, Kodachrome was my go-to for image fidelity. Wii sensors like Fujifilm gfx series of cameras, you can now mimic the look of Kodachrome film on these large format sensors. Some of my favourite images I took were off of 70 mm film I got from a friend who worked at a film studio who would save up little pieces of film that were not useful for motion picture camera, but we're fine for a 250 frame Hasselblad magazine.
I also have a big Fuck You for Hasselblad and how they went and screwed over all the people that bought their film equipment and made sure that you had to buy new lenses for it. Great way to get adoption for your new standard
Trump was going to make Kodak, using the national defense act, make all sorts of pharmaceutical material. Bought stock the moment he said it, it went up maybe 200%, then dumped it. Kodak turned into Carestream for digital medical Imaging and xray
I think someone mentioned this, but I love my Fuji digital camera because they were able to transfer the feel of their films by using the film simulation. It’s just amazing being able to apply the b&w acros film on digital shots
Learned more from this one video than years at Business school. nice work John. It seems to me that Fujifilm had a CEO and leadership team where committed to keeping the company alive and in one piece, whereas the (i'm guessing) Harvard MBA type CEOs that ran Kodak in it's final years just did the 'maximise shareholder value' mantra that is taught in B-school, and sold off whichever parts of the business which was profitable for a quick buck, and let the rest of the company die.
Fujifilm's 35mm film had very vibrant, saturated color, but Kodak had unsurpassed slide film that digital still can not touch and rich, more natural color print film... so very sad they're gone. (Agfa fell somewhere in-between.)
When Fuji came out with Velvia many decades ago, photographers loved that unnatural saturation. The counterpoint was that it was exactly that, unnatural.
In terms of growth into different sectors, yes Fuji won. But Fuji stopped producing many of its film stock. Whereas Kodak even reintroduced some film stock. So for analog photographers, Kodak won..
I owned a small camera store from 1996 to 2014. I can reinforce the idea that everything Kodak did was with their film segment as a priority. Their early digital products, good as they were, got little support, and little further development.
Would be cool if Fujifilm or Canon made a modular sensor+DSP unit in the form-factor of a 35mm film roll or frame insert, so users could convert their vintage cameras into digital ones.
I worked at a K14/E6 lab back in the 80's. Back then it was Kodachrome vs Velvia. Velvia pretty much won hands down. It was a moot point as digital was just around the corner. My boss who designed all the processors had already written off silver and was deep into digital.
There is some irony here in that Fujifilm is whithering away in the film industry and Kodak is becoming a monopoly after years of underinvestment where Fuji is no longer able to produce film and now has to sell Kodak film packaged as Fujifilm
My company ‘David Myers & Associates’ was the very first Digital Photographic Imaging Systems retailer in Australia in the early 90’s. We sold Kodak and Fujifilm $30,000+ dye sublimation photo quality digital printers, scanners and cameras. I can only say, “Guess which brand needed the most repairs and service calls?”
When i had film cameras, I loved Fujifilm! The colors came across better than Kodak, and they had some that had much higher ISO levels. Glad they were able to pivot, survive, and succeed.
"survived" in 2019 a 3 pack of 35mm 36 exposure superia 400 cost $9.99 at B&H currently (June 2023) is is listed as discontinued on the B&H (this stock's discontinuation is not confirmed it is just listed as that on B&H) but a few months ago I saw it at around $30 I don't heavily use film, its mostly an expensive novelty to me, its just fun using the different more mechanical equipment, creating a heavily stylized image only possible through film but every year there is more pushback in terms of price. The camera market has its own issues with a large switchup in the asking price of anything still working, I believe that this is largely due to film photography becoming "trendy" with celebrities and it trickling down. Though this does support the film industry and gives new life to cameras that would have been sitting on shelves. I think because of price increases I might just switch to exclusively black and white film for the foreseeable future where the budget options hover around $5 for a roll of 36 35mm frames or a roll of 120, Fujifilm does not offer any black and white only budget options. It is a real shame that I didn't get into photography before Fuji discontinued their FP-100 peel apart film, though I recommend to any photographer to do a psychological evaluation first before purchasing large format equipment. 15:19 I have to commend the Fuji higher ups to committing to preserving legacy photography, it may be niche but I believe film still has much artistic value, the future of film seems rocky but maybe one day it will get better, Ricoh - Pentax announced that they are working on a completely new point and shoot camera with even potentially more complex models in the future. "I haven't forgotten what you've told me boss, we have no tomorrow but there's still hope for the future. In our struggle to survive the present we push the future further away. Will I see it in my lifetime? Probably not, which means there's no time to waste. Someday the world will no longer need us, no need for the [camera], or the hand to pull the [shutter release]. I have to drive out this demon inside me, build a better future. That's what I, hmm, what 'we' will leave as our legacy. Another mission, right boss?" - Venom Snake Thank you @Asianometry for covering another topic I hold dear
Never write off a technology just because it’s not ‘current’ or trendy. How many people wrote off the archaic phonograph record format, some saying digital will always be superior. Only to find that the vinyl record’s popularity are actually growing again and so are sales of record players! How many audiophiles trashed their expensive record collections in favor of CD’s? The same goes for the old 1960s-1970s vacuum tube stereo amplifiers and stereo components which many are now saying give a much ‘warmer’ sound. I think an equilibrium will be reached between digital and analog technologies. Phone cameras are very easy to use, quick and very convenient but they’re also very easy to misuse if you’re looking for high quality or artistic work. There are many digital professionals who are now pickup up old analog cameras precisely because of the quality they can yield. The trade off is skill, high artistic quality requires skill and practice something most amateurs by definition don’t have and which digital can’t easily replace with in-built ‘settings’ or fancy AI driven fake images.
I had the kodak home printer that you could dock with a digital camera. I think one cartridge got you like five photos and they were pretty overpriced. It's pretty smart that they figured out how to repurpose the raw materials and byproducts into other products..
@@cdwilliams1 There was a RU-vid video made in the past few months of 35mm film being made in a Kodak factory in Rochester, NY. They had people working in that factory for decades. It's also possible other companies make products marketed under the licensed Kodak name. Business is sometimes complicated.
Did some work for FujiFIlm in the late 80s. They told me that film was on its way out, and that they were putting most of their new investment capital into something called a "digital camera". THAT is why they survived.
Thanks for making this video. I worked in the photo finishing industry in the 90s. I began as a maintenance tech at a large centralized photo finishing lab that was eventually acquired by FujiFilm USA. I left that job to take a job with Gretag, a Swiss company that sold photo finishing equipment. Gretag bought Kodak's line of large, high speed photo printers. I had to spend two winter months in Rochester at Kodak headquarters leaning their printers. That was not fun. I think Gretag lost a lot of money in the deal. Kodak use to practically give the printers away if the lab signed a long-term paper deal. Since Gretag didn't make or sell paper, they couldn't offer that deal. I got out of the industry in 1999. I wish I could say I saw the writing on the wall, but that wasn't it. I was just tired of the travel. It was brutal.
I brought a single-use film camera to a party trip with my friend back in 2005. Viewing the pictures after coming home is priceless. We had no idea what we'd find. Me chugging a redbull can. Not just the liquid. The whole f*cking can stuffed.
You live through these eras of massive change, such as, for me, the ‘70s to the present, but you’re a consumer so you don’t really know what’s going on. Thanks for clearing this up! Good video.
In retrospect, the way that a lot of companies could have thrived is how Corning did. Gorilla glass is a mark of quality in handheld devices. Similarly Kodak camera components could have been a marketing win in the late 1990s onwards, as well as Energiser or Duracell lithium ion batteries.
I remember in the early 90's the artist David Hockney was friends with the Kodak company & their cutting edge R+D department....They gave him a digital camera to produce a series of people portrait images he was working on, where the subject either sat or stood, & David imaged them in three landscape shots (top, middle & bottom) & then digitally joined them together to create the final image... Then he showed the camera he was given by Kodak....!!! The camera itself was like this huge Cine8 type camera, in a biege or light cream colour. This camera had an umbilical cord that linked it to the processor, which resembled a huge Xerox machine on caster wheels, this thing was huge...! It was certainly NOT cutting edge whatsoever...
One thing special about Fuji is how she targets a small niche market to stay alive. If you can’t fight the giants, just avoid them Even for their X series cameras, the selling point is the old dials and film simulation which the big three brands refuses to do. That’s how she survive and now Fuji is gaining market share
No film or image will ever surpass the lovely colour renditions of Kodachrome. The colour encapsulated the quality of memory. Fujifulm was always a trifle cold and harsh. My Kodachrome slides are a great personal treasure. I was very sad that the last Kodak lab in Switzerland was closed down. Unlike E6, it seems that Kodak processing was more complex.
So many in the film community are all hating on fuji for cancelling their filmstocks (calling them fuji-not-film). Without ever mentioning how they are one of the LAST companies to have held on. Cancelling filmstocks obviously sucks, but I applaud fujifilm for staying true to film for as long as they have been.
It seems what doomed Kodak was a lack of vision where they couldn't imagine a world where people didn't share physical photos or take pictures with a camera instead of a phone. They had such dedication to the profitable business of photography that they couldn't imagine a world where they wouldn't be in the photography business It's like selling your oil well and dumping the proceeds into making one more go of your buggy whip business. I can understand because when digital photography entered the picture it was such a superior technology it immediately dominated, just like flat screen TVs eliminated tube TVs very quickly.
as a retired photo/video teacher who did most of my graduate work in rochester starting in 1990. admittedly, it is a far different kodak that exists today, but they do exist. a quick glance at their website, here’s some of the recent releases shot entirely on kodak film: oppenheimer (65mm!!!), poor things, maestro, killers of the flower moon, past lives, all of us strangers, saltburn, succession, asteroid city, godland, fallen leaves etc. etc. that reflects on the imaging choices by a very discerning group of directors/dp’s…
I worked at Agfa-Gevaert in the late 90s in Antwerp, Belgium. At the time they were knocking down their film production lines and trying to go down the digital line. was very odd walking through these old production halls now silent and empty.
Fujifilm has stopped producing most of their films... It's basically all Kodak now. (Fuji also seems to be selling rebadged Kodak film in a few cases...)
@@Lucarios111 I actually think I read somewhere about another film Fuji has put back on the market, albeit at a higher price, but there is still hope. Both companies have iconic products. Fuji however exited the motion picture market completley which has only been beneficial to Kodak.
@@ARM963 Fujifilm stopped production of all color film. Any Fujifilm labeled product arriving on our shelves that is color film was made by under contract by Kodak in Rochester, New York. They had a whole press release about the discontinuation.
Great video i would like to add to the end that Fuji now interestingly has a healthy digital camera division, and finally ended their film business "suspending" sales of film in the japanese market (and selling kodak film elsewhere).
Exists mostly as a way to msrket that name that still recognized among Boomers and people my age in their late 40s and late 50s. A bit like Pyrex from Corning is right now.
In my opinion film died for the reason that both Kodak and Fuji are publicly traded companies. None of them ever stated to produce at loss. They still made profit. It is just that for shareholders profit is not enough. The shareholder migrates from a profitable company to a company whose shares produce more revenue. This is why Fuji had to migrate. Not for film not being profitable but for pharmaceuticals and cosmetics being even more so. I contradict the author of this clip about: - Fuji holding the legacy of film. No, they do not. They chopped instant packfilm (FP-100c, FP-3000B, FP-400B, etc.) and destroyed the machinery, although a buyer was avaible for them. They considered somebody producing instant packfilm would damage their profit. (Yes, I guess it would have minimally impacted Instax, although I have my doubts.) That is not "preserve and sustain the culture of photography" 15:38 at least not of film photography. They also chopped a lot of emulsions and it was never about producing them at a loss. Profit still was there. -
You're presenting a video on photography but I'm looking at this dusty camera lens @9:50 and it's giving me Twitchy Eye! :) I always used different films for different types of photographic contexts--honestly i shot Ilford a lot, but for color Fuji's price was always better than Kodak's, tho if i wanted vibrant daytime colors and didn't want to shoot slide film, i always felt stuck between the 'palette' of Kodak's occasional too-pale-ness or Fuji's sometimes ultra vibrant saturation that could look 'bloody'.
this video is weird considering that at least in the film photography space kodak has survived and has a major technical lead over fuji who looks to be on the way out. Fuji doesnt even produce their most popular film stock in some markets, instead they just resell kodak film [fuji C200]. They have also stoped producing film stocks phtographers loved like pro 400h and provia and countless others in recent years.
But the film photography space is TINY compared to what a $100billion+ corporation needs to survive. Sure Kodak can still eke out the odd few million a year in profit from it, so if they have the machinery and expertise they might as well keep it. After all, someone somewhere is still finding it profitable to make buggy whips. But it is nowhere near enough to be a core business for the firm.
A good film, which as a former sales rep of 30 years with Fujifilm, I much enjoyed. A few things you could have mentioned: * Fujifilm sponsorship of Los Angeles 1984 Olympics (Kodak's heartland) * Kodak's expensive illegal foray into instant film. Cost them heavily for patent infringement. * Fujifilm rolled out instant film and cameras as soon as Polaroid's patents expired. Today INSTAX is a core part of Fujifilm's business. * Kodak's PhotoCD system which was incompatible with other readers/players.
thanks for highlighting Antonio Perez's incompetence.. when examining the rise and fall of organizations, too often the poor decisions of leadership goes uncommented.. these companies aren't lines on a graph, individuals made these bad calls and they should be remembered for them just as much as we celebrate those who made the right call
It's a very interesting story. Although I think in some ways, Kodak is having the last laugh. With the recent surge in interest in film photography, Kodak is once again picking up serious clout as a pre eminent photographic film producer, whereas every time Fujifilm makes it on the headline it's about them discontinuing or suspending sales of a another film stock.
Thanx for this video, but it’s very weird that you started explaining history of Fujifilm without saying any word about Konishiroku/Konica. For many decades Fuji was behind Konica, but due to some issues in the technology process of film/paper production at Konica forced them to loose leading positions and Fuji became #1 in Japan. And by the way, since Konica was found in 1873, emperor family was shot only on Konica film and paper since 1873 till now, as I know, even KM is not producing film and paper now…
I sold industrial film to the oil and gas business in the late '80s. It was so profitable that DuPont even tried getting into the business for awhile, but in the end Fuji took over the industry because their imaging quality was so much better.
It only took a few years to go from 35mm to disposable to digital. I still have some undeveloped film from college, I keep meaning to get it developed....although I don't know where to get it done anymore.
A deep and accurate analysis, very interesting. With regard to photography, the comparison between digital and analog images, my personal opinion is that NEVER will a digital photo be able to surpass the analog one. the keyword, in this sense, is rendering.
Kodak died to take with it all the pension and other liabilities while the innovation and patents and innovation survived as other companies with no baggage
Whats even more interesting is how cellphones and social media have made point and shoot camera's essentially extinct now day's, iPhones and Samsung Galaxy's take incredible pictures and people don't print pictures anymore. The most recent photos I've printed are from my wedding, I cant think of the last time i printed a picture before that.
I bought my first SLR camera in 1988. My first 135 film was Fuji and since then, i got less than 5 films from other brands. I stopped using them around 2013, though i still have some in the refrigerator. For over 25 years, i was sure i was on the "right" side. This video confirmed my estimation. Kodak films however were more popular among the Greek (amateur) population. It was the most famous brand to them.
I have a lot of respect for the CEOs of Fujifilm who looked at the fact that digital imaging sensors were being developed and instead of brushing it off as a passing fad like many people did for computers at first, their first response was "Oh shit, this is going to eventually end out main business market, we have to prepare for this." Kodak saw this too, and even helped it along, but they didn't manage to do enough to escape it.
