Reflx Lab says their respooled films could be discontinued

[Radost]

Yeah, it sounds like Kodak is trying to protect their motion picture film market by offering different pricing tiers based on actual production use. They want to make sure the film goes to filmmakers, not just respooled for other uses, which would hurt their margins. Reflex seems to be caught in the middle, buying at the lower price and reselling, so Kodak's probably tightening up the rules to maintain their core business. It's all about keeping the motion picture market alive while still making money off other sales

I am sure CineStill asked them to do it so they can sale their crappy films.

 

[Film-Niko]

I suspect some of the owners have connections with movie producers who use film.

Any real evidence for that? So far Kingswood had not had any investments at all in neither the photo film, nor the movie film industry. No film related business has been listed in their portfolio of companies they have bought or invested in.

In any case, you can be a film enthusiast and a good businessman at the same time.

Generally yes. But there are no film enthusiasts at Kingswood. If they were real film enthusiasts, we would have seen them with film related activities during the last 10-15 years. But no activities at all by them.
They have just appeared recently when they saw a monopoly which could be exploited by raising prices significantly above the normal levels in markets with competition.

 

[Film-Niko]

Well, it was pure speculation when someone here said that the new owners are going to suck Alaris dry and throw it away because the new owners raised prices. That didn't seem fair to me.

No one has said that.
But fact is that Kodak Alaris has increased their prices to the end consumer much more than Eastman Kodak has increased their prices to Kodak Alaris.
Besides the evidence for that you get if you talk to film shops and labs, you can see the evidence in all the cases when Kodak Alaris first raised prices for certain films to absolutelly insane levels, in reaction to that then customers stopped buying, sales volume crashed, and Kodak Alaris had to lower the insane prices by 30-40% to get back business.
If you have the space in your price range to lower prices by 30-40%, it is totally obvious that your pricing has nothing to do with real production costs. It is about getting max. profit.
Period.

 

[Film-Niko]

Yeah, it sounds like Kodak is trying to protect their motion picture film market by offering different pricing tiers based on actual production use. They want to make sure the film goes to filmmakers, not just respooled for other uses, which would hurt their margins.

But Eastman Kodak is not protecting their motion picture film market by stop selling to respoolers for the photo film market.
These two markets are completely different and separate!
Movie film that is respooled in 35mm cassettes for photo use does not harm at all their sales to filmmakers, because 135 film cassettes cannot be used in movie film cameras.

Eastman Kodak sales of their normal, regular bulk rolls of movie camera film to respoolers for photo still film is an additional and profitable business for Eastman Kodak. They are benefitting from that. It does no harm at all to them, just the opposite!
Now most probably Kodak Alaris and maybe also CineStill (we remember their struggle with some respoolers some time ago) have made pressure on EK to stop that.
Because they fear the cheaper film from the respoolers could damage their higher margin business.

What is being ignored (see my explanations above) is the fact that color film has become so expensive that in many markets the growth trend for color film crashed, because in a low-income market the average Joe cannot pay the current monopoly prices. Respooled movie film is at least helping to keep film alive in such markets.
If we look at that topic from the perspective of a sustainable, long-term healthy film market, it is clear that we simply need more consumer friendly priced color film, especially in the emerging markets in Asia. And if Kodak Alaris do not want that this is served by respooled Eastman Kodak film, they could make these markets an attractive offer by their own. Without the monopoly mark-up.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Kodak Alaris is more than film:

Kodak Alaris Announces Acquisition by Kingswood Capital Management - Kingswood Capital Management, L.P.

Kodak Alaris announced today that Kingswood Capital Management, LP ("Kingswood") has acquired the company from the United Kingdom Pension Protection Fund

www.kingswood-capital.com

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

I strongly believe the VERY NICE GUYS at CIneStill are driving this!!! I will "NEVER" give them my money!
I wish I can use the actual language but don't want to be in trouble with the mods

Aside from holding my nose and buying some 400D(Vision3 250D) to compare to the real stuff, the only Cinestill product I’ve bought more than once is 120 Double X.

There are ways to shoot real Vision3 in my Hasselblads and my Pentax 645N by shooting bulk 65mm, and fortunately the person I buy that from(in 50 or 100ft rolls) charges about half the cost of Porta or Cinestill per frame, or actually a bit less if I buy the 100ft rolls(last I bought was ~$150 for 50ft or $250/100ft).

Unfortunately, although Double-X was coated on 65mm for Oppenheimer, current word is pretty emphatic that it will never be made again in that format. 200T 65mm also reportedly hasn’t been coated since 2016(when the roll I have was made) and there’s speculation it may be gone too. 50D, 250D, and 500T are likely around in 65mm for the long haul, and Zach at Mercury Works(who I’d go out on a limb and say most of the guys like me shooting 65mm still buy from) has indicated that he’s in good shape to continue buying from Kodak.

As much as I like Double-X, my future 120 use is likely in jeopardy with it only being available from Cinestill. I have a few dozen rolls in 35mm from a few different respoolers, so can continue using it for a little while. I just wish I’d bought a 400ft roll when I still could.

 

[Film-Niko]

Kodak Alaris is more than film:

Kodak Alaris Announces Acquisition by Kingswood Capital Management - Kingswood Capital Management, L.P.

Kodak Alaris announced today that Kingswood Capital Management, LP ("Kingswood") has acquired the company from the United Kingdom Pension Protection Fund

www.kingswood-capital.com

Of course, Alan, we all know that.
But for us as film photography lovers the focus and main interest is on their film distribution business, because that is really relevant for us.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Of course, Alan, we all know that.
But for us as film photography lovers the focus and main interest is on their film distribution business, because that is really relevant for us.

You're confirming my point. The owners aren't only concerned about film. Maybe we have to get over ourselves. The customer is king. But there are other customers.

 

[BrianShaw]

Amen, brother Alan. Preach.

It seems a bit counterproductive to speculate about corporate intent when not looking at the big picture or having any real insight into the corporation, especially when it is described as primarily funding infusion. Kodak Alaris seems to be operating as they have in the past. Looking at their public filings, there has been bit of turnover on their board but that’s not unusual. Key leadership appears stable. Many acquisitions feature quick and harsh leadership transition… which whe haven’t seen. That’s actually a good sign that the goal is continuous corporate improvement rather than corporate raiding.

 

[Radost]

Aside from holding my nose and buying some 400D(Vision3 250D) to compare to the real stuff, the only Cinestill product I’ve bought more than once is 120 Double X.

There are ways to shoot real Vision3 in my Hasselblads and my Pentax 645N by shooting bulk 65mm, and fortunately the person I buy that from(in 50 or 100ft rolls) charges about half the cost of Porta or Cinestill per frame, or actually a bit less if I buy the 100ft rolls(last I bought was ~$150 for 50ft or $250/100ft).

Unfortunately, although Double-X was coated on 65mm for Oppenheimer, current word is pretty emphatic that it will never be made again in that format. 200T 65mm also reportedly hasn’t been coated since 2016(when the roll I have was made) and there’s speculation it may be gone too. 50D, 250D, and 500T are likely around in 65mm for the long haul, and Zach at Mercury Works(who I’d go out on a limb and say most of the guys like me shooting 65mm still buy from) has indicated that he’s in good shape to continue buying from Kodak.

As much as I like Double-X, my future 120 use is likely in jeopardy with it only being available from Cinestill. I have a few dozen rolls in 35mm from a few different respoolers, so can continue using it for a little while. I just wish I’d bought a 400ft roll when I still could.

Same here. I only got xx120 once. I wish they sold XX120 cinema rolls.

 

[Radost]

Still have 350 feet of XX 5222.
55 rolls of 250D
but only 2-3 rolls of 500T left.
I have to buy another 400feet of 500T soon. Or get a short end.
I want some 50D as well.

 

[JParker]

What is being ignored (see my explanations above) is the fact that color film has become so expensive that in many markets the growth trend for color film crashed, because in a low-income market the average Joe cannot pay the current monopoly prices. Respooled movie film is at least helping to keep film alive in such markets.
If we look at that topic from the perspective of a sustainable, long-term healthy film market, it is clear that we simply need more consumer friendly priced color film, especially in the emerging markets in Asia. And if Kodak Alaris do not want that this is served by respooled Eastman Kodak film, they could make these markets an attractive offer by their own. Without the monopoly mark-up.

I have to agree with you based on my experiences with travelling in Asian countries: Before Kodak Alaris' massive price increases of the last four years there has been a huge film resurgence in Asia. But that has been severly damaged by this Alaris monopoly price inflation.
In these markets lots of photographers switched to respooled film, just to keep going with film. Regular Kodak Alaris branded film has become too expensive for them.

From an economic point of view it is very clear what KA is doing with their price policy to exploit their color negative film monopoly: They are testing the price elasticity of their products in the market. To get the maximum profit. If customers leave the market, they don't care, as long as the profit is optimised.
When you have a price elasticity of 1, then an e.g. 10% price increase would lead to 10% less demand. That is often the case in very competitive markets with products with identical features.
But in monopoly markets that is not the case, the price elasticity is generally lower because there is no competitor product you can switch to. Most customers get angry, but they buy nevertheless because there is no alternative (up to a certain limit of course).
Kodak Alaris has increased the prices in several steps and monitored their income: In most cases so far the increased price has overcompensated the losses in demand (example: you increase the price by 10%, but demand is only dropping by 4%). That had worked for the color films.
Alaris tried the same for BW, but it has not worked there: Customers switched to the competition in masses, and Alaris had to lower the price to 30-40% to get customers back.
We can watch here economic theory in real action.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have to agree with you based on my experiences with travelling in Asian countries: Before Kodak Alaris' massive price increases of the last four years there has been a huge film resurgence in Asia. But that has been severly damaged by this Alaris monopoly price inflation.
In these markets lots of photographers switched to respooled film, just to keep going with film. Regular Kodak Alaris branded film has become too expensive for them.

From an economic point of view it is very clear what KA is doing with their price policy to exploit their color negative film monopoly: They are testing the price elasticity of their products in the market. To get the maximum profit. If customers leave the market, they don't care, as long as the profit is optimised.
When you have a price elasticity of 1, then an e.g. 10% price increase would lead to 10% less demand. That is often the case in very competitive markets with products with identical features.
But in monopoly markets that is not the case, the price elasticity is generally lower because there is no competitor product you can switch to. Most customers get angry, but they buy nevertheless because there is no alternative (up to a certain limit of course).
Kodak Alaris has increased the prices in several steps and monitored their income: In most cases so far the increased price has overcompensated the losses in demand (example: you increase the price by 10%, but demand is only dropping by 4%). That had worked for the color films.
Alaris tried the same for BW, but it has not worked there: Customers switched to the competition in masses, and Alaris had to lower the price to 30-40% to get customers back.
We can watch here economic theory in real action.

Kodak does not have a monopoly. People can switch to other manufacturers or to digital.

 

[koraks]

Kodak does not have a monopoly. People can switch to other manufacturers or to digital.

For those who want to shoot color film, there's not all that much of an alternative though. It's very close to a strict monopoly, and in practice it pretty much works that way. The fact that digital is an alternative doesn't do away with this fact. If there was only one car manufacturer on the world, people would be able to bike to work, but the car co. would still be a monopoly.

Besides, the reflection of @JPaker on price elasticity makes good sense - although we cannot strictly speaking know whether Alaris is deliberately testing it. I've offered a similar argument a few times before on the forum and in the same context. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...o-focus-on-moving-forward.196708/post-2637328

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For those who want to shoot color film, there's not all that much of an alternative though. It's very close to a strict monopoly, and in practice it pretty much works that way. The fact that digital is an alternative doesn't do away with this fact. If there was only one car manufacturer on the world, people would be able to bike to work, but the car co. would still be a monopoly.

Besides, the reflection of @JPaker on price elasticity makes good sense - although we cannot strictly speaking know whether Alaris is deliberately testing it. I've offered a similar argument a few times before on the forum and in the same context. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...o-focus-on-moving-forward.196708/post-2637328

Kodak went bankrupt because of digital. So much for their near monopoly of the film industry. You're not a monopoly if there are reasonable alternatives. A bicycle isn't an alternative to an automobile. If prices get too high, even dedicated film users will move to the digital alternative.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

A bicycle isn't an alternative to an automobile.

Well, it is on the sense it gets you moving. Same with digital vs film, it gets you an image, although on different way.

 

[Don_ih]

When people say "Kodak has a (practical) monopoly on colour film" they mean just that. Digital is not an alternative to film if what you want is to use film.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

When people say "Kodak has a (practical) monopoly on colour film" they mean just that. Digital is not an alternative to film if what you want is to use film.

And I think "practical monopoly" is a perfectly viable description.

Fuji is the only maker as of February 2025 that compete with the quality of Kodak color film, but as I understand it they have all but exited the color negative film game(with current Fuji consumer negative being rebranded Kodak). Fuji still has two or maybe 3 color products in their portfolio(I've lost track of Velvia 100 since we can't get it in the US anymore), all of them E6 and at least from reports coming from the US and Europe, availability is sporadic. I know I have a small amount on back order, and the retailers seem to get small shipments every few months, but short of paying huge prices from Japanese seller on Ebay it would be difficult to shoot depend on Fuji for any sort of volume.

Harman and Orwo have color emulsions, but at best they are both several generations behind Kodak or the last Fuji films. I know Adox has made some and is supposed to be working on more, as are Lucky and maybe Ferrania(if they're still around). Each of those have at best one or maybe two color offerings.

Compare that to Kodak, where you have a reversal film, 4 cinema stocks, and by my quick count 8 different C-41 films(9 if you count the 800 speed film in disposables, 10 if you count Aerocolor). If you look at everything color we know about coming out of Rochester, I think we could get to 16 different film stocks if we count Cinema print film.

There's no contest, plus the Portra, Ektar and Vision films are basically as advanced as color gets. The others are special purpose films(Aerocolor, Cinema print) or less advanced films that are a bit more budget friendly. Best of all, too, if any of them are out of stock, more is usually just a shipment away, or maybe shopping around to a different retailer.

Someone who wants a color film work flow and needs to be able to consistently deliver results IMO would have a difficult time using anyone other than Kodak at this point. Maybe some of the other makers will get to where their products are competitive with Kodak, maybe Fuji will become more consistently available, but whatever happens I don't see it as being a short term answer.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don;t think I made my point clear about Kodak not being a monopoly. The fact that there is digital and it's an an option, Kodak has to be careful when pricing their products or they'll chase away their last remaining customers. The fact digital practically killed film is proof that that is real, and Kodak is not a monopoly. In a true monopoly, people have nowhere to go at all like making the only drug that cures a particular disease. Then the company charges whatever it wants and isn't concerned with prices.

 

[Don_ih]

I don;t think I made my point clear about Kodak not being a monopoly. The fact that there is digital and it's an an option, Kodak has to be careful when pricing their products or they'll chase away their last remaining customers

I doubt there is anyone who doesn't understand. Digital being an option for photo taking doesn't have much to do with Kodak's almost-complete monopoly of colour film. The key word is "film". Digital is irrelevant in this instance.

Yes, if film prices itself too high, people opt for digital. That's obvious.

But talking about any monopoly Kodak has is only in reference to other film manufacturers. Digital is unrelated.

 

[koraks]

I don;t think I made my point clear about Kodak not being a monopoly.

Yes, you did. But what we disagree on is the willingness of a certain group of photographers to move away to digital for the work they presently do in film. I do agree with you that a decent chunk of people will in fact walk away from film if it just gets too darn expensive. However, looking at the price development of Kodak CN film so far, it shows a surprisingly low elasticity. It's not zero, let alone negative (the definition of 'luxury goods'), so sure, they can take it too far. How far that is, we don't really know. We can't see the [volume * price] data that Alaris has. We can glean something from their annual reports, but those are aggregated to a pretty high level - however, insofar as we can tell anything from that, they've only shown growth during the period of price increase. Mind you - growth in terms of revenue, not volume per se. But for EK and Alaris, what matters is cashflow and profitability, not no. of rolls sold. The whole discussion on whether or not they're a monopoly isn't so relevant.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I don;t think I made my point clear about Kodak not being a monopoly. The fact that there is digital and it's an an option, Kodak has to be careful when pricing their products or they'll chase away their last remaining customers. The fact digital practically killed film is proof that that is real, and Kodak is not a monopoly. In a true monopoly, people have nowhere to go at all like making the only drug that cures a particular disease. Then the company charges whatever it wants and isn't concerned with prices.

Talking about the cinema film, this is pretty accurate. Kodak is very careful about their pricing of cinema film since movie makers are the only practical customer they have and that niche is always tempted to go digital for their movies. Only think keeping them from going digital is the particular perceived look they get from film, but there may be a point that this become irrelevant if cost is too high.

I don't think bulk loaders and customer like Cinema Still don't really make much of their market but still a source of customers, but my guess is that Kodak can do without them. They can't with movie makers.

For still images, well, digital another way of making pictures. People that buy film will mostly keep up buying it even if the have the digital option so they mostly setup their prices as they see fit.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The fact that Kodak lost 95 plus percent of its film users to digital is, ipso facto, the proof it is not a monopoly. Just because there are a few die hard users of film still doesn't make it a monopoly and even they to a large degree will switch to digital if the prices get too high.

 

[MattKing]

It depends on how you use the term "monopoly".
The definition I tend to use is essentially this one:
"monopoly: exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that especially is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill"
That of course comes from the sort of approach that anti-trust legislation is founded upon.
I see no effort on the Kodaks' part to "exclude competition". The fact that they (in EK's case) actually seem to make film for the entity that is their major colour film competitor argues the opposite.
I wouldn't be the least surprised to learn that the Kodaks are supportive of Harman's work with Phoenix - because success there will expand the user base, and a significant percentage of that base would consider spending more for "better" film.

 

[Don_ih]

I wouldn't be the least surprised to learn that the Kodaks are supportive of Harman's work with Phoenix

If you think about it, restricting the use of the motion picture film actually helps Harman sell their colour film, since it reduces the number of alternatives.