Reflx Lab says their respooled films could be discontinued

MCB18 · Feb 23, 2025

Prest_400 said:
I would love 220 for travel! Cinestill are in cahoots with EK, or have a special agreement at least for the remjetless manufacturing. IMO it's good they are filling the gap of Kodak branded chemistry as a distributor but their films are even more expensive than KA's own.

Oh boy, you got me started. I believe that 220 was a publicity stunt pure and simple, they never intended to make it. I have a pretty good idea of how much it would cost to make today (probably would have been similar or less when 400D launched), and to you and me it’s a lot but the crowdfunding would have covered making it, IIRC stretch goal was 25k more. I could be wrong about the stretch goal, but I’m not wrong about this.

$21,000. MOQ 10,000 rolls $2.1 each, plus shipping to/from Shanghai and whatever fees that entails, let’s call it $4000 to make the math simple. That’s how much confectioning 220 would have cost. And hey would you look at that, that’s $25K!

Let’s do some math. Assuming that 120 250D costs the same as 65mm, $4.09/roll
(It’s almost certainly around there if not lower if they are buying master rolls), 220 costs twice as much at $8.18/roll. Plus $2.5/roll for confectioning into 220 that’s $10.68/roll. They sold it for $30/roll. They would have made a 65% profit from each roll. They would have paid for confectioning the entire batch of 220 by selling 2,340 rolls. And I’m going off the confectioning cost because they were buying the film regardless, the film cost in this situation is moot.

And let’s not kid ourselves, they would have absolutely sold that much. Influencers would have peddled it, the people most likely to buy it are already shooting 220 capable cameras, and they have the money to buy the backs even if they go up in price. I mean look at Reflx, 220 is popular enough now that not only are they making it with Aerocolor but they’re making it with 250D abd 500T! They wouldn’t be doing that if people didn’t buy it, and they have just a fraction of the market and influence CineStill does!

TL;DR: 220 Cinestill is never happening because they never planned for it to happen.

Don_ih · Feb 23, 2025

Prest_400 said:
If I may simplify the user groups, the traditional boomer to X generation saw film as substitute (digital vs film), whereas nowadays it has become subsitutive or we just have it serve a niche.

Facebook drove the last nail in the coffin of consumer use of film, pushing millions and millions of young families to buy Canon (or equivalent) point-and-shoot digital cameras, so they could upload those photos for their friends and family back in Gitchagoomie to see. It suddenly made no sense to get pictures developed or printed since that completely replaced the "sending photos to Uncle Bobby" (only people in Canada know who Uncle Bobby is).

Digital was practical - far more practical than film - not just because of the cost of film but because of the endpoint of the photos. Has nothing to do with generations, other than who happened to be alive at the time. It seemed to the average consumer that film, like 8-track tapes, was a thing of the past. So it's not that digital was an alternative - it was the only apparent option.

Ben Hutcherson · Feb 23, 2025

MCB18 said:
And let’s not kid ourselves, they would have absolutely sold that much. Influencers would have peddled it, the people most likely to buy it are already shooting 220 capable cameras, and they have the money to buy the backs even if they go up in price. I mean look at Reflx, 220 is popular enough now that not only are they making it with Aerocolor but they’re making it with 250D abd 500T! They wouldn’t be doing that if people didn’t buy it, and they have just a fraction of the market and influence CineStill does!

I agree and honestly I'm surprised the market for 220 isn't stronger.

Even back when the major makers made it, it was almost always the more economical option. Kodak and Fuji use to charge about 1.5x the price of 120 for it-heck in 2016 or so I bought some in-date Velvia 100 out of Japan(actually still have some...) and paid $60/box back when you could buy all the Velvia you wanted from B&H for $40/box. The lab I was using then charge $10 for 120/35mm E6, and $15 for 220. That made my total cost for 120 frame through the SQ-A I was using then, or the 500C I got a little later, $135. The same number of frames in 120 were $180. My Pentax 645N, which I didn't have then, gave me a nice little surprise the first time I ran 220 through it of squeezing 33 frames onto the roll.

Not so much here, but all the time on places like Reddit I'll read someone getting 500C/M, RB67, or some other system camera without a back and wondering about putting 120 film through a 220 back. It's easy to understand why someone would ask that-I'm very out of touch on RB pricing, but Hasselblad A12 backs start at about $150 for a beat up, non-matching one, and I've seen $500 for really nice condition late model backs. The camera store where I hung out all the time back in Louisville for a while wouldn't buy 220 backs because they were worth so little, and I had a standing offer of $50 each on number-matching A24s. I coughed up a bit more a few times for 24-button examples, but bought more than a few nice ones for $50(and paid $25 a couple of times for mismatched, missing dark slides, or other faults). They're not QUITE that cheap now, but I have a lot more A24s than I do A12s, and have also sold a fair few in the time since.

MCB18 · Feb 23, 2025

I think one of the big hurtles for 220 is that the sellers right now charge twice as much. Reflx Labs still gets a lot of flak for actually changing MORE for 220.

I charge about 1.75 as much for 220 because it takes a bit longer to make a 220 roll. Preparing the paper takes more time than with 120 because it needs to be measured and cut (Although it is less of a PITA to actually roll 220). But at economies of scale this shouldn’t be an issue.

Honestly I think if sellers started charging less for 220 than more people would buy it than they already do.

pentaxuser · Feb 23, 2025

Don_ih said:
.

Don_ih said:
Facebook drove the last nail in the coffin of consumer use of film, pushing millions and millions of young families to buy Canon (or equivalent) point-and-shoot digital cameras, so they could upload those photos for their friends and family back in Gitchagoomie to see.

Is that the Gitchagoomie that Gordon Lightfoot sings about? I believe it may be extremely wet there all the year and frozen some of the time

pentaxuser

Prest_400 · Feb 23, 2025

Sorry not sorry for having derailed the discussion towards 220; but well, it would be affected if Reflx cannot source 65mm film.

MCB18 said:
Oh boy, you got me started. I believe that 220 was a publicity stunt pure and simple, they never intended to make it. I have a pretty good idea of how much it would cost to make today (probably would have been similar or less when 400D launched), and to you and me it’s a lot but the crowdfunding would have covered making it, IIRC stretch goal was 25k more. I could be wrong about the stretch goal, but I’m not wrong about this.
(...)

TL;DR: 220 Cinestill is never happening because they never planned for it to happen.

Ben Hutcherson said:
I agree and honestly I'm surprised the market for 220 isn't stronger.

Even back when the major makers made it, it was almost always the more economical option. Kodak and Fuji use to charge about 1.5x the price of 120 for it-heck in 2016 or so I bought some in-date Velvia 100 out of Japan(actually still have some...) and paid $60/box back when you could buy all the Velvia you wanted from B&H for $40/box. The lab I was using then charge $10 for 120/35mm E6, and $15 for 220. That made my total cost for 120 frame through the SQ-A I was using then, or the 500C I got a little later, $135. The same number of frames in 120 were $180. My Pentax 645N, which I didn't have then, gave me a nice little surprise the first time I ran 220 through it of squeezing 33 frames onto the roll.

Not so much here, but all the time on places like Reddit I'll read someone getting 500C/M, RB67, or some other system camera without a back and wondering about putting 120 film through a 220 back. It's easy to understand why someone would ask that-I'm very out of touch on RB pricing, but Hasselblad A12 backs start at about $150 for a beat up, non-matching one, and I've seen $500 for really nice condition late model backs. The camera store where I hung out all the time back in Louisville for a while wouldn't buy 220 backs because they were worth so little, and I had a standing offer of $50 each on number-matching A24s. I coughed up a bit more a few times for 24-button examples, but bought more than a few nice ones for $50(and paid $25 a couple of times for mismatched, missing dark slides, or other faults). They're not QUITE that cheap now, but I have a lot more A24s than I do A12s, and have also sold a fair few in the time since.

Medium format appears interesting, in 2023 there were the price decreases on the consumer level for Gold and Lomo CN films with the latter crying for "Don't let 120 go extinct". It's more niched, but it also has its solid user base.
The big factor for 220 as I understand is, if it is to be done in an industrial scale aka finishing by the Manufacturers Kodak, Harman, Foma etc. or an alternative finishing can be done. Ilford's conclusion on not being able to bring back 220 has been well published in APUG, where they dismissed the manual finishing approach for quality reasons. Even some mechanically oriented individual might be able to build an automated 220 spooler. MOQ for paper backing is also cited as a hurdle, but an advantage is that the film is not in contact. PE mentioned 220 would not be having backing paper offset or mottling because it is not in contact/barely with film. Anyways, it's very interesting how apparently easy things are in reality very complex in film manufacturing.

I asked a Photographer who was in direct contact with Tim Ryugo of Kodak, with the question of 220. Not much details but 220 appears as not possible from Kodak Alaris' side. I wonder if they even mothballed whatever 220 finishing equipment they might have had. Fuji were the latest to offer the format but I guess we have a possible answer given to what happened to the Instant peel apart line.

Don_ih said:
Has nothing to do with generations, other than who happened to be alive at the time. It seemed to the average consumer that film, like 8-track tapes, was a thing of the past. So it's not that digital was an alternative - it was the only apparent option.

Not the best choice to explain it, I've got some memories about my uncle being very skeptical about me picking up film in the late 2000s as well as the "why would you even bother with B&W having color?". My point was more on the substitutive vs complementary nature of film for a percentage of the film user base at two points in time. In the 2000s it was convenience and digital sweeping it away; whereas nowadays whoever is shooting film knows what they are up to, or are curious about the medium. —With some schadenfreude I find amusing how mobile photography has affected the digital camera, and read on some threads that had a similar tonality to the film vs digital discussions during the digital revolution.

MCB18 · Feb 23, 2025

Prest_400 said:
they dismissed the manual finishing approach for quality reasons.

This is a valid concern, but I think it’s worth pointing out that film has been finished by hand for a long time, and still is today. Kodak sheet film packs were supposedly made by hand until the late 1970’s (and maybe I’ll be working on refilling them soon…). All the 220 on the market today is hand finished, semi-automated at most. But aside from a few issues with early rolls, most new 220 is very good quality. I guess it’s just a matter of what level of quality is required.

Prest_400 said:
Even some mechanically oriented individual might be able to build an automated 220 spooler.

I am sure Shanghai has jigs to line up the film and paper, and a dispenser that gives an exact length of film every time now. I have thought about trying to make something like this as well, but unfortunately I don’t have the funds. Shanghai definitely have more equipment than I have, but I haven’t had any issues with my rolls. Although my sample size is admittedly small, maybe 200 rolls, so probably not representative.

Prest_400 said:
MOQ for paper backing is also cited as a hurdle, but an advantage is that the film is not in contact. PE mentioned 220 would not be having backing paper offset or mottling because it is not in contact/barely with film.

Funny enough, I actually found some backing paper, and if I can find a way to slit it to size then I’ll definitely try and start making 220 with this paper. I made a thread about it, even my poorly cut roll worked exceptionally well so I know the paper is good.

Prest_400 said:
Anyways, it's very interesting how apparently easy things are in reality very complex in film manufacturing.

Definitely. Confectioning film has definitely given me a ton of respect for the folks that design the automated systems that do this stuff.

It might be worth moving this discussion to a new thread if people have more to say.

MattKing · Feb 23, 2025

Prest_400 said:
I asked a Photographer who was in direct contact with Tim Ryugo of Kodak, with the question of 220. Not much details but 220 appears as not possible from Kodak Alaris' side. I wonder if they even mothballed whatever 220 finishing equipment they might have had.

Eastman Kodak is the one with the issues.
The 220 equipment was worn out, and the minimum order requirements for the leaders and trailers were many years worth of supply - far more capital tied up than the corporate management would agree to.
Tied up capital concerns motivate everything.
The same applies to Harman/Ilford.

Agulliver · Feb 24, 2025

Unfortunately 220 really is that niche within a niche within a niche....with the added misfortune that many cameras capable of using 220 can also be used with 120. Demand is orders of magnitude too low for Harman, Kodak, Foma or anyone else to begin production on an industrial/automated scale. And the apparently hand spooled 220 coming from Shanghai has questionable quality/consistency due to the manual nature of their 220 production.

While there are quite a few here who would love to see it back, out there in the big world it was always a low seller and the demand hasn't been there for 20 or more years....certainly pre-dating the big collapse in volume film sales.

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 24, 2025

Don_ih said:
Not in the context of this discussion, which is about colour film to be used in film cameras.

BW film and digital are substitutes from the standpoint of a monopoly. If prices get too high, even diehard users will switch because they have a place to go even it it;s not the preferred place to be. Plus it induces competitors to manufacture the product as well. That forces filmmakers to watch their pricing. It's not the same as a patented drug with no competitors that will cure your disease. That's a real monopoly because you have to pay whatever they'e asking, there are no substitutes, and no one else can produce it.

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 24, 2025

pentaxuser said:
In the capitalist market that philosophy however commendable it may be to we die-hard film consumers sounds much like the one that the gas mantle producers used against the then very primitive and possible less robust invention of Mr Edison

What's worse is that the above philosophy may have led to Kodak's near demise which ironically would have done none of us any good

pentaxuser

It might also be true that we only have film now because a US bankruptcy court ordered Eastman to produce film for Alaris to distribute in order that British retirees continue to get their Alaris pensions. Those pensioners may have saved film for all of us.

Don_ih · Feb 24, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
BW film and digital are substitutes from the standpoint of a monopoly.

They are substitutes from a photographic standpoint, but not from the actual material standpoint. The material being talked about is colour film. While you can use digital as an alternative to take photos, digital is not itself film and is not the consumable used by a film camera. Black and white is also not colour. You are making a false equivalency.

Sirius Glass · Feb 24, 2025

MCB18 said:
Oh boy, you got me started. I believe that 220 was a publicity stunt pure and simple, they never intended to make it. I have a pretty good idea of how much it would cost to make today (probably would have been similar or less when 400D launched), and to you and me it’s a lot but the crowdfunding would have covered making it, IIRC stretch goal was 25k more. I could be wrong about the stretch goal, but I’m not wrong about this.

$21,000. MOQ 10,000 rolls $2.1 each, plus shipping to/from Shanghai and whatever fees that entails, let’s call it $4000 to make the math simple. That’s how much confectioning 220 would have cost. And hey would you look at that, that’s $25K!

Let’s do some math. Assuming that 120 250D costs the same as 65mm, $4.09/roll
(It’s almost certainly around there if not lower if they are buying master rolls), 220 costs twice as much at $8.18/roll. Plus $2.5/roll for confectioning into 220 that’s $10.68/roll. They sold it for $30/roll. They would have made a 65% profit from each roll. They would have paid for confectioning the entire batch of 220 by selling 2,340 rolls. And I’m going off the confectioning cost because they were buying the film regardless, the film cost in this situation is moot.

And let’s not kid ourselves, they would have absolutely sold that much. Influencers would have peddled it, the people most likely to buy it are already shooting 220 capable cameras, and they have the money to buy the backs even if they go up in price. I mean look at Reflx, 220 is popular enough now that not only are they making it with Aerocolor but they’re making it with 250D abd 500T! They wouldn’t be doing that if people didn’t buy it, and they have just a fraction of the market and influence CineStill does!

TL;DR: 220 Cinestill is never happening because they never planned for it to happen.

That will be a loss for many. Sorry to learn about it.

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 24, 2025

Don_ih said:
They are substitutes from a photographic standpoint, but not from the actual material standpoint. The material being talked about is colour film. While you can use digital as an alternative to take photos, digital is not itself film and is not the consumable used by a film camera. Black and white is also not colour. You are making a false equivalency.

Read my #185 post for a complete explanation.

Marcelo Paniagua · Feb 24, 2025

Probably I'm not representative, but I wouldn't buy much of 220 . When it was available decades ago, I would buy 220 for very specific situations. If I needed a lot of frames, like on sports or an event, I would use 35mm. 120 wasn't practical because the additional steps you needed. I needed to be more careful with focus since medium format has a shallower DOF for example.

I know for sure 220 was really useful for strictly controlled situations, like fashion or commercial products sessions (my father shooted food and other stuff for publicity and used 220 a lot), since subject tended to stay on one place and light was more controlled. For action photography 35mm was more practical. Today, I think digital fill that market.

I have rolled hundreds of 120 rolls but none 220 (even though I have about 10 cameras that can use it) because its not practical for me.

Like I said, probably not representative.

Don_ih · Feb 24, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
Read my #185 post for a complete explanation.

I've read all the posts in this thread.

Also, I was responding to that post.

You are talking about something different. This thread is about film. For people who want to buy colour film, the only considerations are kinds of colour film - not black and white film and not digital anything. So, when someone says Kodak has a practical monopoly on colour film, they're not even close to implying Kodak has any kind of monopoly on colour photos. By far, by billions per day, more colour digital are taken than colour film photos.

MattKing · Feb 24, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
It might also be true that we only have film now because a US bankruptcy court ordered Eastman to produce film for Alaris to distribute in order that British retirees continue to get their Alaris pensions. Those pensioners may have saved film for all of us.

Usually the horse goes on the front of the carriage .
The Eastman Kodak unsecured creditors wanted access to assets that the UK Pension authorities had first claim on.
But if those assets had been sold to satisfy the UK Pension authorities, there would still have still been a shortfall there, and when the rest of the assets were sold to satisfy other claims, it would have meant everyone would have suffered huge losses, including in particular the many EK and subsidiary employees.

So some creative people came up with a plan to keep most of Kodak's film business operating - the marketing and distribution businesses that were eventually Kodak Alaris - and to allow the other parts of the business to keep operating as well. Those other parts included the remaining, relatively small part of Eastman Kodak that was still making film.
It was the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Kodak Limited Pension fund paid in (in return for the substantial assets that Kodak Alaris ended up with) that meant that Eastman Kodak could continue thereafter as a going concern. Most of that business, of course, wasn't directly related to photography, but some was.

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 24, 2025

Don_ih said:
I've read all the posts in this thread.

Also, I was responding to that post.

You are talking about something different. This thread is about film. For people who want to buy colour film, the only considerations are kinds of colour film - not black and white film and not digital anything. So, when someone says Kodak has a practical monopoly on colour film, they're not even close to implying Kodak has any kind of monopoly on colour photos. By far, by billions per day, more colour digital are taken than colour film photos.

We apparently have different definitions of monopoly, Don. Let's leave it at that.

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 24, 2025

MattKing said:
Usually the horse goes on the front of the carriage .
The Eastman Kodak unsecured creditors wanted access to assets that the UK Pension authorities had first claim on.
But if those assets had been sold to satisfy the UK Pension authorities, there would still have still been a shortfall there, and when the rest of the assets were sold to satisfy other claims, it would have meant everyone would have suffered huge losses, including in particular the many EK and subsidiary employees.

So some creative people came up with a plan to keep most of Kodak's film business operating - the marketing and distribution businesses that were eventually Kodak Alaris - and to allow the other parts of the business to keep operating as well. Those other parts included the remaining, relatively small part of Eastman Kodak that was still making film.
It was the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Kodak Limited Pension fund paid in (in return for the substantial assets that Kodak Alaris ended up with) that meant that Eastman Kodak could continue thereafter as a going concern. Most of that business, of course, wasn't directly related to photography, but some was.

Well, the Brits also ride on the wrong side of the street so anything could happen, and did.

MattKing · Feb 24, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
Well, the Brits also ride on the wrong side of the street so anything could happen, and did.

I would be careful about describing driving on the left hand side ("LHT") as wrong, if you happen to be in those parts of the world who do - 75 countries use LHT, which account for about a sixth of the world's land area, a quarter of its roads, and about a third of its population.
{Thanks to Wikipedia for the stats}

Don_ih · Feb 24, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
We apparently have different definitions of monopoly, Don. Let's leave it at that.

The word is easily defined. An entity has a monopoly if they have sole ownership or control of the production and distribution of some kind of thing or service.

Film is a kind of thing. Digital is a different kind of thing.

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 24, 2025

MattKing said:
I would be careful about describing driving on the left hand side ("LHT") as wrong, if you happen to be in those parts of the world who do - 75 countries use LHT, which account for about a sixth of the world's land area, a quarter of its roads, and about a third of its population.
{Thanks to Wikipedia for the stats}

The first car I owned was a 1948 right-handed drive Buick while I was stationed in the USAF in left-handed drive Japan in 1965-67. It was really challenging driving it on the left side of the road, especially after downing a few sakes. I had a Japanese friend, Satosan, who would stick his head out the right side window to check if traffic was coming when I turned or changed lanes. Keeping it Photrio related, I did buy my first SLR in Tokyo while there, a Nikon F Photomic T .

Sirius Glass · Feb 24, 2025

In high school my brother's friend brought a right hand drive car. If they were out driving and someone followed too close, his friend would let my brother know. My brother was in the left seat and turn completely around waving his fists over his head and shouting. The other driver reacted in various ways that were celebrated over pizza and drinks.

axestrata · Feb 25, 2025

Don_ih said:
Facebook drove the last nail in the coffin of consumer use of film, pushing millions and millions of young families to buy Canon (or equivalent) point-and-shoot digital cameras, so they could upload those photos for their friends and family back in Gitchagoomie to see. It suddenly made no sense to get pictures developed or printed since that completely replaced the "sending photos to Uncle Bobby" (only people in Canada know who Uncle Bobby is).

Digital was practical - far more practical than film - not just because of the cost of film but because of the endpoint of the photos. Has nothing to do with generations, other than who happened to be alive at the time. It seemed to the average consumer that film, like 8-track tapes, was a thing of the past. So it's not that digital was an alternative - it was the only apparent option.

I would say even before the easiness of sharing online, digital cameras allowed users to get an immediate preview of their images which was novel but also came with other obvious advantages over film for the average person.

axestrata · Feb 25, 2025

MattKing said:
I would be careful about describing driving on the left hand side ("LHT") as wrong, if you happen to be in those parts of the world who do - 75 countries use LHT, which account for about a sixth of the world's land area, a quarter of its roads, and about a third of its population.
{Thanks to Wikipedia for the stats}

I would simply chalk that up to good ol colonial influence. Nothing more nothing less

Reflx Lab says their respooled films could be discontinued

MCB18

Don_ih

Ben Hutcherson

MCB18

pentaxuser

Prest_400

MCB18

MattKing

Moderator

Agulliver

Alan Edward Klein

Alan Edward Klein

Don_ih

Sirius Glass

Alan Edward Klein

Marcelo Paniagua

Don_ih

MattKing

Moderator

Alan Edward Klein

Alan Edward Klein

MattKing

Moderator

Don_ih

Alan Edward Klein

Attachments

Sirius Glass

axestrata

axestrata

Reflx Lab says their respooled films could be discontinued

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency