Reflx Lab says their respooled films could be discontinued

MattKing · Feb 6, 2025

Wolfram Malukker said:
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.

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.

This is an entirely valid complaint. It is also where there is likely room for a change in because Kodak Alaris is unlikely to have any interest in tungsten balanced emulsions, because the market for tungsten balanced still film would be incredibly tiny.
Approach Cinestill about this - they have the existing relationship with EK for access to film stock that is far, far outside the norm.

Wolfram Malukker said:
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.

Not quite.
The price paid by the productions also covers EK's cost of marketing, sales and distribution. And in the relatively tiny, rather focused marketplace that traditionally was the film based motion picture business, those costs are relatively low when considered on a 'per foot" basis, or even on a per order basis.
When that marketplace begins serving a much greater number of customers, who mostly each are buying much smaller volumes of film, those related costs go way up, when considered on a 'per foot" basis.
When it comes to still film, those related costs are born by Kodak Alaris, not EK. When considered on a per roll basis, they significantly exceed the costs of manufacturing the film itself.

Wolfram Malukker · Feb 6, 2025

Matt, you miss part of the point. I'm not suggesting that Kodak sell single rolls of Vision3-I'm saying there is absolutely no loss of profit to sell to a film respooler like Reflx, Flic, Silberstalz, etc. They're buying the same amount-the minimum order. Kodak sets that minimum order, and they aren't spending anymore money on marketing or packaging, because the respoolers are ordering direct from Eastman Kodak-exactly the same as the movie studios. Just like if I was to call up and order a roll of Aerocolor IV, there is a minimum order, no matter who I am.

Now, if Kodak Alaris is upset that they're missing out on such a tiny segment of sales that it can't be profitable for Eastman Kodak, then Alaris needs to handle sales of *all* film, including the segments they deem unprofitable, but still profitable enough to buck up about Eastman filling the gap.

MattKing · Feb 6, 2025

Wolfram Malukker said:
Now, if Kodak Alaris is upset that they're missing out on such a tiny segment of sales that it can't be profitable for Eastman Kodak, then Alaris needs to handle sales of *all* film, including the segments they deem unprofitable, but still profitable enough to buck up about Eastman filling the gap.

Other way around - Kodak Alaris don't care about the tungsten balanced stuff, so that is where people need to get together and try to convince them to provide the same sort of exception to the contract language that Cinestill benefits from due to the remjet omitted nature of the entire master rolls that they buy from EK.
Offer to buy a Master roll of tungsten balanced ECN film and to attend to the edge printing and other finishing steps as well, and you can probably start up meaningful discussions to that end.

cmacd123 · Feb 6, 2025

Wolfram Malukker said:
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.
Volume pricing is volume pricing.

I belive that their are SEVERAL levels of Pricingdepending on the Status of the end user. If you are a Famous Cinematographer, and you say you are doing a test using such and Such a Lens, a roll of film may magically apper at the rental House with your name on it.

if you are a student at a film school, you may get to buy enough film for your school Project at far below the price in the MP catalogue. (after all Kodak would like you to be happy to PUSH for doing your first real project on film.)

the studios have a contract where they prepaid and agreed to take a certain number of rolls of filmevery year so Kodak could Justify continuing to make film. they get a special rate. they proably also estimate the number of rolls of each stock they will use and when they will need it, so Production of that film can be scheduled at Building 38 between other batches.

Joe average Music Video director may pay the full freight.

mshchem · Feb 6, 2025

Volume pricing. I suspect Cinestill buys more (cine) film from Kodak than all the others combined.

Logan Roy (EKCo) to reflexx labs

Wolfram Malukker · Feb 6, 2025

MattKing said:
Other way around - Kodak Alaris don't care about the tungsten balanced stuff, so that is where people need to get together and try to convince them to provide the same sort of exception to the contract language that Cinestill benefits from due to the remjet omitted nature of the entire master rolls that they buy from EK.
Offer to buy a Master roll of tungsten balanced ECN film and to attend to the edge printing and other finishing steps as well, and you can probably start up meaningful discussions to that end.

That's what I'm saying. If Alaris is so concerned about Eastman selling a film that Alaris *doesn't want to handle* then Alaris needs to pipe down and let Eastman sell the film to whoever wants to buy it at whatever price Eastman sets for it, or put up the money to market the film themselves.

MattKing · Feb 6, 2025

Wolfram Malukker said:
That's what I'm saying. If Alaris is so concerned about Eastman selling a film that Alaris *doesn't want to handle* then Alaris needs to pipe down and let Eastman sell the film to whoever wants to buy it at whatever price Eastman sets for it, or put up the money to market the film themselves.

It is the other way around.
Eastman Kodak will need to make the request.
Kodak Alaris paid hundreds of millions of dollars for their rights, as well as effectively taking over millions and millions of dollars worth of Eastman Kodak's obligations, which together allowed Eastman Kodak to emerge from bankruptcy and therefore continue to make film. So if Eastman Kodak wishes to circumvent those rights for a particular product, they will need Kodak Alaris to give them up.
Most likely at a cost.

koraks · Feb 7, 2025

Lachlan Young said:
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.

Moderator note: No trolling, please. This will be met with formal warnings and ultimately account restrictions.

brbo · Feb 7, 2025

Wolfram Malukker said:
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.

They do sell it. It's called Portra 800.

And if it must be exactly the same film, buy Lomography CN 800, it's the same thing the rest of us take out of Kodak disposable cameras.

Lachlan Young · Feb 7, 2025

Wolfram Malukker said:
Kodak, put some tungsten-balanced films back on the market

From what I understand, Portra 100T (for example) was essentially gen-1 160NC with the relative speeds of the relevant layers adjusted (which is probably rather understating the real-world complexity) - and I suspect that current Vision-3 200T/250D cinema stocks may have been achieved by similar means.

That said, I don't think a lot of Portra 100T (which disappeared at the Gen-1/ Gen-2 shift of Portra) was sold for people needing tungsten balance - quite a lot of its market seems to have been those who had used VPL for the 'L' characteristics, not the tungsten balance - and they seem to have jumped to 160NC/ VC etc as it did away with filtration headaches. I'm not sure how much of Portra 100T's market was really actually using it in studios under tungsten sources.

And now there are noises about a new cinema stock from Kodak - but it's highly likely to be fast daylight balance (probably a fork from 500T - with an 85B on, you're only 1/3 up from 250D) owing to changes in cinema lighting habits etc (HMI, LED). I'd bet it's somewhere in the 640-800 range.

The upshot is that Kodak would probably happily make a tungsten variant of many of their C-41 stocks if you underwrote the research costs and committed to buying a whole coating run - but could you sell it in a timely fashion?

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 7, 2025

MattKing said:
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.

MAtt do you have access to the contract? Can it be publicly posted?

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 7, 2025

Don_ih said:
View attachment 390289

You seriously need to find a new hobby.

KitKat is discontinuing its vegan version. Maybe Reflx could make it for them.

KitKat fans urged to stock up on popular Nestlé chocolate bar before it's discontinued this summer

After news that Vegan KitKats will be discontinued this summer, shop the popular dairy-free chocolate bar here (before it sells out).

www.ladbible.com

Agulliver · Feb 7, 2025

brbo said:
They do sell it. It's called Portra 800.

And if it must be exactly the same film, buy Lomography CN 800, it's the same thing the rest of us take out of Kodak disposable cameras.

Have you seen the insane prices of Lomography CN800 lately? It's lovely stuff and if I really wanted to pay £30 for a roll of CN film it would be my first choice for high speed colour photography. Portra 800 just doesn't look good for my purposes (photographing gigs mostly in a small club). What really works well - almost as well as Lomography CN 800 - is Vision 3 500T with or without the remjet.

What I do understand is Alaris trying to protect their own agreement and contract with EK, which was supposed to give Alaris exclusive rights to distribute and advertise Kodak's still photography products. If they feel that includes preventing people like Reflx Lab (and others such as Candido) from getting hold of Vision 3 products and reselling them in 135 cassettes (with or without Remjet) that is certainly an argument I can see even if it might not stand everyone's close scrutiny. What I'd love to see, in that case, is Alaris offering a 500T product based on Vision 3 500T. Because CineStill frankly have exhibited shady business practises and seem to charge the proverbial arm and leg.

brbo · Feb 7, 2025

Agulliver said:
Have you seen the insane prices of Lomography CN800 lately? It's lovely stuff and if I really wanted to pay £30 for a roll of CN film it would be my first choice for high speed colour photography.

It's 20 EUR per roll. 14 EUR if you wait for out of date rolls, because they don't sell much of the fresh 20 EUR rolls.

Or just shop around for fresh disposables for 14 EUR or even less. That way you get 2 extra exposures and only support EK. Get them before our bellowed Alaris forces EK to stop selling them...

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 7, 2025

Agulliver said:
Have you seen the insane prices of Lomography CN800 lately? It's lovely stuff and if I really wanted to pay £30 for a roll of CN film it would be my first choice for high speed colour photography. Portra 800 just doesn't look good for my purposes (photographing gigs mostly in a small club). What really works well - almost as well as Lomography CN 800 - is Vision 3 500T with or without the remjet.

What I do understand is Alaris trying to protect their own agreement and contract with EK, which was supposed to give Alaris exclusive rights to distribute and advertise Kodak's still photography products. If they feel that includes preventing people like Reflx Lab (and others such as Candido) from getting hold of Vision 3 products and reselling them in 135 cassettes (with or without Remjet) that is certainly an argument I can see even if it might not stand everyone's close scrutiny. What I'd love to see, in that case, is Alaris offering a 500T product based on Vision 3 500T. Because CineStill frankly have exhibited shady business practises and seem to charge the proverbial arm and leg.

Alaris doesn't package. So Eastman has to have enough sales to make it worthwhile for them to package a new 135 photo film with very limited sales. After all, they already package Ektar, Portra, Gold, and the chromes.

mshchem · Feb 7, 2025

Why would anyone want a tungsten balanced film , there's no hot lights anymore. I'm not sure if you can still buy photofloods? I suppose that it's useful to cinematographers (and their labs) for certain situations.

Of course I look for color negative to produce "normal" colors, so I'm definitely not the target customer,

MattKing · Feb 7, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
MAtt do you have access to the contract? Can it be publicly posted?

No I don't have the contract itself, just extremely reliable snippets of information on some of what is in it.
I expect that it is very, very long though.
I also expect that it includes commitments on Alaris' part to buy certain minimum quantities, and problems with those sorts of terms is what led to it having to be re-negotiated during/after the massive COVID related disruptions.
Eastman Kodak was mostly able to continue operations throughout Covid, other than some furloughing of management and research staff, but the disruptions to the world wide shipping and distribution and retail channels apparently played havoc with Kodak Alaris' business.

Donald Qualls · Feb 7, 2025

BobUK said:
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.

Look at the eBay prices for FP100c 3x4 pack film for Polaroid Type 100 cameras, and eBay listings for other films that haven't been made in ten or more years. It's already happening in some corners.

cmacd123 · Feb 7, 2025

mshchem said:
I suspect Cinestill buys more (cine) film from Kodak than all the others combined.

BUT CineStill is NOT buying "cine film" they are buying a custom made coating of various "Cine Film" emusions on a base which has not be coated withe the REM-Jet Anti-Hallo backing. they then apperently have that film slit/perforated/packaged by another company. (with tipical still film edge print and KS perforations) Once it is coated for CineStill, it is NOT even sutable to be converted into Cine film, and the rem jet is presumably added to the base (support) before or at the same time as the Cine film is coated.

the various other firms who are converting cine film, are taking film manufactured for Cine Use, (Key Kode, BH perfs, REM-Jet, footage numbers) and just re-winding it into Cassettes / Cartriges /Magazines that will fit still cameras.

Dave at Flic film says in one of his videos that you may be able to buy Cheeper Vision film but you can't buy Better Vision film {than what he sells} the fact that apperently Kodak was willing to sell him the stock he used for the Aurora 800 and Street Savvy 400 c-41 film, does imply that he has been cooperating closely with EK.

Agulliver · Feb 8, 2025

mshchem said:
Why would anyone want a tungsten balanced film , there's no hot lights anymore. I'm not sure if you can still buy photofloods? I suppose that it's useful to cinematographers (and their labs) for certain situations.

Of course I look for color negative to produce "normal" colors, so I'm definitely not the target customer,

brbo said:
It's 20 EUR per roll. 14 EUR if you wait for out of date rolls, because they don't sell much of the fresh 20 EUR rolls.

Or just shop around for fresh disposables for 14 EUR or even less. That way you get 2 extra exposures and only support EK. Get them before our bellowed Alaris forces EK to stop selling them...

£20 per roll then add Lomography's rather high postage costs and it's at least £25 a roll. Which isn't attractive. Even though it's a unique and very high quality product.

Sure, my use of tungsten balanced film in a still camera is very niche. I mostly use it in a small music club which has red backlighting and they only even put mild spotlighting on the musicians because I'm there taking photos. The lights get hot so they're probably not exactly modern. And 500T-derived film looks absolutely gorgeous there. But I do have to acknowledge that is a niche within a niche use of the film. Possibly a further depth of niche even.

What I've done is experimented with Ultramax 400 and a f1.8 lens. But that limits the cameras I can use. No more using the Voigtlander Vitomatic II which just seems to make 500T in that club perfectly capture the atmosphere.

mshchem · Feb 8, 2025

cmacd123 said:
BUT CineStill is NOT buying "cine film" they are buying a custom made coating of various "Cine Film" emusions on a base which has not be coated withe the REM-Jet Anti-Hallo backing. they then apperently have that film slit/perforated/packaged by another company. (with tipical still film edge print and KS perforations) Once it is coated for CineStill, it is NOT even sutable to be converted into Cine film, and the rem jet is presumably added to the base (support) before or at the same time as the Cine film is coated.

the various other firms who are converting cine film, are taking film manufactured for Cine Use, (Key Kode, BH perfs, REM-Jet, footage numbers) and just re-winding it into Cassettes / Cartriges /Magazines that will fit still cameras.

Dave at Flic film says in one of his videos that you may be able to buy Cheeper Vision film but you can't buy Better Vision film {than what he sells} the fact that apperently Kodak was willing to sell him the stock he used for the Aurora 800 and Street Savvy 400 c-41 film, does imply that he has been cooperating closely with EK.

If you process the Cinestill film in ECN-2 chemistry it's pretty much Vision-3 film. As you say no carbon black Remjet to contend with, not needed in at all in still cameras. Kodak Standard perfs, don't need Bell and Howell perfs in still cameras.

Flic film is not my favorite.

pentaxuser · Feb 8, 2025

MattKing said:
It is the other way around.
Eastman Kodak will need to make the request.
Kodak Alaris paid hundreds of millions of dollars for their rights, as well as effectively taking over millions and millions of dollars worth of Eastman Kodak's obligations, which together allowed Eastman Kodak to emerge from bankruptcy and therefore continue to make film. So if Eastman Kodak wishes to circumvent those rights for a particular product, they will need Kodak Alaris to give them up.
Most likely at a cost.

Matt, following Wolfram's argument, if KA does not consider it to be worth its while to sell one kind of film then doesn't charging EK to sell said film amount to an unfair market restriction on EK.

Is such a market restriction legal?

If KA has full control over the sale of the full range all current EK films including cine stock does KA also have sole control over
whether EK can make a new film of any kind and veto such a film if it believes that its subsequent sales will not be sufficient to justify its subsequent revenue to KA? I assume that the pre-production and production costs of a new film are solely the responsibility of EK

You'd assume in that case or in the case of a current film that KA has no interest in that KA would simply say that its marketing, sales and distribution is 100% down to EK so no additional cost that is involved for KA

It is quite breath taking if KA has been able to buy from EK a contract that ties EK's hands to such an extent. Let's assume that instead of EK.s future existence as a corporate body we were talking about a real live body that was about to,say, run out of air. I(KA) agree to give it the means to live ( relief from its pensions obligations or in this case air as it is a living body) then in that case, should that entity(KA) be able to determine the future health of the rescued entity or person should that entity or person decide to do something that the rescuer(KA) decides will not be in its ínterest but knows that such an act (allowing film to get to Reflex Lab\) will not adversely affect it ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

koraks · Feb 8, 2025

mshchem said:
If you process the Cinestill film in ECN-2 chemistry it's pretty much Vision-3 film.

The remjet makes a significant and positive difference w.r.t. image quality though. If Cinestill is what remains of Vision3 available for still shooters, I'm out and will probably cut back on CN photography and go back to C41 for the rest. Or digital of course.

pentaxuser said:
Is such a market restriction legal?

Any firm is totally free to refuse to sell to whomever they like.
Any two firms are also totally free to come to agreements in which they impede each other's access to certain markets. It's very common, too.

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 8, 2025

pentaxuser said:
Matt, following Wolfram's argument, if KA does not consider it to be worth its while to sell one kind of film then doesn't charging EK to sell said film amount to an unfair market restriction on EK.

Is such a market restriction legal?

If KA has full control over the sale of the full range all current EK films including cine stock does KA also have sole control over
whether EK can make a new film of any kind and veto such a film if it believes that its subsequent sales will not be sufficient to justify its subsequent revenue to KA? I assume that the pre-production and production costs of a new film are solely the responsibility of EK

You'd assume in that case or in the case of a current film that KA has no interest in that KA would simply say that its marketing, sales and distribution is 100% down to EK so no additional cost that is involved for KA

It is quite breath taking if KA has been able to buy from EK a contract that ties EK's hands to such an extent. Let's assume that instead of EK.s future existence as a corporate body we were talking about a real live body that was about to,say, run out of air. I(KA) agree to give it the means to live ( relief from its pensions obligations or in this case air as it is a living body) then in that case, should that entity(KA) be able to determine the future health of the rescued entity or person should that entity or person decide to do something that the rescuer(KA) decides will not be in its ínterest but knows that such an act (allowing film to get to Reflex Lab\) will not adversely affect it ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

EK and KA are not enemies but partners. Eastman makes the product and Alaris distributes it. They have to talk to each other to see what sells and how both can improve sales. If EK thinks that reintroducing Ektachrome might be worthwhile, as they did, I;m sure they spoke to KA about it beforehand and KA was very interested in selling a new product model. On the other hand, if EK came out with a new model that reduced the sale of its different models and kept KA from selling it, KA would have a claim since EK violated its exclusivity contract.

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 8, 2025

koraks said:
The remjet makes a significant and positive difference w.r.t. image quality though. If Cinestill is what remains of Vision3 available for still shooters, I'm out and will probably cut back on CN photography and go back to C41 for the rest. Or digital of course.

Any firm is totally free to refuse to sell to whomever they like.
Any two firms are also totally free to come to agreements in which they impede each other's access to certain markets. It's very common, too.

Yes and no. In the film market where there are so many manufacturers and distributors, you're right. But in an exclusive market, a company could be violating US monopoly legislation. For example, let's say nVidia only sold AI products to Amazon locking out everyone else like Apple, Adobe, etc from buying their product. There would surely be a lawsuit by these other firms claiming monopolization of an industry. The US government might even sue.

Reflx Lab says their respooled films could be discontinued

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency