Reflx Lab says their respooled films could be discontinued

[foc]

I saw the following and thought it may be of interest.

Kosmo Foto

Reflx lab the case for respooled film

 

[koraks]

Kodak’s decision to crack down on respooled film sales runs counter to the spirit of innovation, accessibility, and community that has driven the revival of film photography.

Errr. Right. Not sure how respooling film or people putting a 3rd-party branded cassette with Kodak film inside amounts to "innovation".

While some may argue that respooled film competes with Kodak’s still photography products like Gold, Ultramax and Portra, the reality is more nuanced. Respoolers purchase bulk rolls from Kodak, which generates significant revenue, especially as demand for respooled film increases. Without these sales, Kodak forfeits that income entirely. If Kodak retains the film for direct consumer sales and maintains high prices, the market may not absorb the stock, resulting in diminished profits. Simply put, consumers drawn to respooled Vision3 and 5294 Ektarchrome are unliky to transition fully to Kodak's still film. They may just shoot digital or black and white film.

The argument here relies on the unverifiable and unsubstantiated assumption that the entire consumption of respooled motion picture film would somehow/for some reason have to be redirected to still-camera film. From a business perspective, this is a shortsighted and irrelevant argument. From a viewpoint of short-term profitability, only a partial redirection back to the more profitable still-camera products may still yield the same financial returns for Eastman. If you include its business partners in the consideration and expand the argument to the strategic level, the statement becomes even more doubtful, as there are several understandable reasons why Eastman might want to put a stop to respooling.

Don't get me wrong - I lament the decision Eastman has made just the same, and I've enjoyed shooting Vision3 in the past few years. But Reflex Lab's statement amounts to an exceptionally beautiful illustration of the concept of 'crocodile tears'.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

As far as I understand (from some official and not so official sources), what is really happening is that Kodak sells their motion picture films in two general ways: people that can prove they are indeed making motion pictures and then for everyone else (like spoolers).

Since Eastman wants to keep their motion picture film business going, they film sell to motion picture producers with some concessions that won't seems like good business practice otherwise (like quantity and lower margins), otherwise those who consume motion picture film for their intended use may be tempted to go digital and crack the motion picture film business.

And there is everyone else, who purchase motion picture for experimental/respooling/you name it purpose. They charge a different price to that market, so they can recover some of what they lose on the film makers market. You can still buy the stuff but at a different price range, which may not be as attractive for business like Reflx.

If you can't prove that you are actually using Eastman film on a motion picture production, you are denied to buy the film at the motion picture price (like Reflx seems to be doing). You need to make an agreement on how much you will be buying and estimate the price (which may be higher quantities and higher prices that respoolers can use and still make a profit). This would definitely impact prices of respooled film and affect prices for business like Reflx.

So, what I think it is really happening is that Reflex is buying their film stock saying it is using for a motion picture project but using it for respooling and making a profit, and Eastman is trying to stop that to keep their business going.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Kodak Alaris has the exclusive right to sell Eastman Kodak photo film. Alaris's lawyers probably told Eastman to stop selling film for re-spooling or Alaris will sue them. Don't blame Eastman. Their contracts legally bind them.

 

[mshchem]

Alaris and Cinestill (I'm sure) have voiced concerns. There's been a bit of a "Wild West" market for this stuff. I think EK is protecting it's brands, and even the consumer from getting mishandled film. I suspect it is also helpful to processing labs to not have unexpected remjet crud.
The new owners of Alaris must have put their foot down too.

Kodak is going to have plenty of competition, prices will come down, especially when China fully comes in to the market.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Kodak is going to have plenty of competition, prices will come down, especially when China fully comes in to the market.

Yeah, either prices go down or they go out of business. If China fully comes into the market, it will make things really hard for Eastman (just ask European automakers how they are dealing with Chinese electricals).

I guess the only thing preventing that is patents.

 

[mshchem]

Yeah, either prices go down or they go out of business. If China fully comes into the market, it will make things really hard for Eastman (just ask European automakers how they are dealing with Chinese electricals).

I guess the only thing preventing that is patents.

And over a century of producing superior products, Kodak and Ilford (Harman) for sure and certain!

 

[mshchem]

Yeah, either prices go down or they go out of business. If China fully comes into the market, it will make things really hard for Eastman (just ask European automakers how they are dealing with Chinese electricals).

I guess the only thing preventing that is patents.

I have zero interest in Lucky, (try our film you might get lucky). I have zero interest in respooled cinema negative films. I shoot EK color negative, EK and Fujifilm reversal films, and Kodak and Ilford black and white film.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I have zero interest in Lucky, (try our film you might get lucky). I have zero interest in respooled cinema negative films. I shoot EK color negative, EK and Fujifilm reversal films, and Kodak and Ilford black and white film.

You and I are mostly on the same boat. Unfortunately, my film budget gets diminished every year.

On the other one, I think it will be unwise to think that China is only able to produce crappy films. I know firsthand that Chinese industry is fully capable of producing quality goods. It just boils down to how much you are willing to pay. If China believes film market is lucrative enough to compete against EK or Ilford, it is certain they would be able to produce items that compete/outmatch what Ilford/Kodak produce. Again, check the European electric cars market scenario. A few years ago, NOBODY thought Chinese electrical cars would be able to compete against European car manufactures and then again, here we are.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yeah, either prices go down or they go out of business. If China fully comes into the market, it will make things really hard for Eastman (just ask European automakers how they are dealing with Chinese electricals).

I guess the only thing preventing that is patents.

Tariffs on Chinese film will keep them less competitive.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have zero interest in Lucky, (try our film you might get lucky). I have zero interest in respooled cinema negative films. I shoot EK color negative, EK and Fujifilm reversal films, and Kodak and Ilford black and white film.

I love Fuji Velvia 50 but they're hard to get in 120 and no longer available in large format.

 

[MattKing]

Tariffs on Chinese film will keep them less competitive.

And for us here in Canada, the same will probably end up applying to US film.
Isn't the world wonderful?

 

[Terrence Brennan]

And for us here in Canada, the same will probably end up applying to US film.
Isn't the world wonderful?

Hopefully the tariffs, if applied, won’t be on Ilford products, as they are manufactured in the UK. If our government applies tariffs on Ilford products imported from the US, I for one will start buying my Ilford products from Canadian suppliers, such as Vistek. And there are others.

 

[Wolfram Malukker]

Tariffs are the least of our problems regarding buying Chinese-sold film now. With the de minimis exception removed, unless we're buying 800$ of film at a time, the new minimum price is 32$ per order, for customs fees.

This means that GP3, Lucky, Whatevergraphy (has lots of 120 format Vision3 stocks) and Reflx Labs have a +32$ price tag added on top of whatever the sales price was.

 

[Donald Qualls]

FWIW, I'll shoot whatever film I can afford. For B&W, that's been Fomapan and the legitimately rebranded Arista .EDU Ultra for nearly twenty years, and now will likely include Kentmere since it's similarly priced and now available in 120. For color, it's been Kodak consumer stocks because it was available, or Fuji when it was, or Kodak professional stocks in 120 since Fuji seemingly left that market. Cinestill's license-reconfectioned Vision3 stocks have been more expensive than Kodak consumer stocks, so I haven't tried them, never mind the potentially dodgy respooled stuff with remjet still on.

If (as seems likely) respooled Vision3 35 mm goes up in price to leave some margin at the "non-production" pricing, I likely won't buy any (haven't done up until now, anyway). I might still look for short ends for my own bulk loading, but it seems likely (IMO) that Kodak will start requiring return of short ends or especially of surplus full spools from production companies as part of this initiative to better control how their Vision3 stocks are sold -- which would dry up the short end market.

If I have to abandon color due to costs, I won't weep -- concentrating on B&W darkroom work would probably be a good thing for me, but there are images that really want to be recorded in color...

 

[BobUK]

Nico's Photography Show on Youtube discusses this problem at length.

The Remjet fouling mini labs etc. is mentioned.
Also the surprising balance between still film sales and the professional motion picture sales.

Nico's Youtube video.

 

[MattKing]

Hopefully the tariffs, if applied, won’t be on Ilford products, as they are manufactured in the UK. If our government applies tariffs on Ilford products imported from the US, I for one will start buying my Ilford products from Canadian suppliers, such as Vistek. And there are others.

Technically, tariffs and duty rates are based on country of origin, not country where the retail purchase occurred.
But that requires accurate and knowledgeable preparation of customs documentation ......

 

[Romanko]

Kodak is doing a wonderful job (again) destroying their own business. It's back to digital for me.

 

[BobUK]

Kodak is doing a wonderful job (again) destroying their own business. It's back to digital for me.

Reminiscent of the book 1984, when Smith manages to find some ink pen nibs and writing paper in a junk shop.
We may get to the stage were we end up scouring junk shops for any film when it is no longer being produced or available anymore.

 

[MattKing]

I'm never impressed when an article includes multiple spellings for the same name or word.
AFAIK, Eastman Kodak wrote a specific exception into Kodak Alaris' contract rights when they re-negotiated their contract recently - the exception that supplies Cinestill with their modified for special purpose, large volume product.
So if Reflx/Reflex Lab, or whatever their name might be, wishes to re-spool, they should do what is necessary to take advantage of that exception themselves.

 

[Romanko]

We may get to the stage were we end up scouring junk shops for any film when it is no longer being produced or available anymore.

We might as well start right now.

 

[cmacd123]

Back when Almost all Dramatic TV shows (remember TV?) were shot on 35mm Film. the studios sold off a ton of "short ends" which were respooled, and "sold" by small Movie labs. those days are Long Gone. The typical deal was for about 5 dollars (20 in todays Money) the lab would develop and print the negative of Movie pint stock. the positives were mounted as slides. Since the slides were made as contact prints the emulsion was on the wrong side and one had to use a "Flat Field" lens in the slide projector as the film would curl the wrong way. Some of the print stocksin those days also were not made to hold up for Long storage, being designed to look great for the 6 months that a Typical Theater print survived.

the recent batch of re-spooling is an arbitrage of the price of Movie Stock vs Stil stock. would be tempted to belive the story that actuall Movie productions do get a better rate than folks who are strictly re-spooling.

the ONE stock that really overlaps is the current 5294 Ektachrome 100D. Double X 5222 is also fairly compatible with Normal Still techniques. the Vision stocks have the rem jet back and the ECN2 process is just different enough from C-41 that the redition may not be optimal. even the big labs don't do much printing onto Movie Print stock, and so seldom are "One light" slides still made.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Reflx and others were lying to Kodak about their intended use of the product - and profiteering off the result. They got caught.

All the people who are indulging in entitled whining on here are the architects of their own misfortune. Either pay a sustainable price (the price charged to large productions is only sustainable via the volume used) and cut your cloth accordingly, or take up another hobby to complain about.

 

[Don_ih]

All the people who are indulging in entitled whining

You seriously need to find a new hobby.

 

[Wolfram Malukker]

Reflx and others were lying to Kodak about their intended use of the product - and profiteering off the result. They got caught.

All the people who are indulging in entitled whining on here are the architects of their own misfortune. Either pay a sustainable price (the price charged to large productions is only sustainable via the volume used) and cut your cloth accordingly, or take up another hobby to complain about.

Happy to pay the price. That's why I spend *the same amount* for a roll of vision3 200T in 120 as I would Portra 100T...Oh wait, the latter is NO LONGER AVAILABLE. Kodak, put some tungsten-balanced films back on the market and I won't go around your fence to get them. Put out a color film that happily lives at 800ISO so we don't have to scour the DP's leftover pile to get it, and we won't go around the back door to get it. Sell the 800ISO film you already confection into 35mm spools for your instant cameras, and I won't go to a respooler to buy it.

Produce what we ask for for sale, and we won't look for other ways to get it. Otherwise, expect people to find ways to get the product you won't sell directly, but still sell to a select few.

And what is this bullshit of "the price charged to large productions is only sustainable via the volume used". The production cost is the same, regardless of it's sold to a production film company or a reseller. If Kodak is selling at less than a profitable price to movie production, they're cutting their own throat. They aren't discounting film below a profit, no matter who they are selling to. If a respooler is buying the same amount as a movie production, they deserve the same price. If they're buying a single 400ft roll, then they deserve the single 400ft roll price, same as any of the rest of us.

Volume pricing is volume pricing.