Reflx Lab says their respooled films could be discontinued

[MattKing]

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.

I was thinking more in terms of consultation and exchange of scientific and technical information - the stuff that isn't proprietary.

 

[Don_ih]

I was thinking more in terms of consultation and exchange of scientific and technical information - the stuff that isn't proprietary.

Aw, go on - that's fraternizing with the enemy

 

[MattKing]

Aw, go on - that's fraternizing with the enemy

If my Dad was still with us, and I told him that Kodak was making film for Fuji, he would be aghast!
It occurs to me that I don't know whether the Kodak lab he worked at for nearly a quarter century (as customer service manager) would have accepted a roll of E6 Fujichrome for processing.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Kodak isn't stopping competition. There are dozens of film companies that can make color film if they wish. It's not proprietary or patented. It's been around a hundred years. If Kodak raises their prices. others will jump in looking to make profits too. There;s no way Kodak could be found guilty of a monopoly in the USA. Also, the fact they're a superior product and there's no attempt to exclude others willfully also releases them from being a monopoly. As an aside, we don't know what their profit margins are. Apple cellphones have a profit margin of around 40% which is huge. Yet Apple fans aren't complaining when they shell out $800 every two years for the next update that's marginally better than the last. And all they get is digital photo files. I bet Kodak margins are a lot lower.

 

[JParker]

Kodak does not have a monopoly.

You have quoted my post. Please read what I have written. I have written that Kodak has a monopoly position in the color negative film market (not a general monopoly). And that monopoly position in the CN film market is just a fact, as the competition in CN film is only some very rare shipments by Inoviscoat, and Harman Phoenix / Harman Red. And when I talk about that topic with my labs, film shops and film photographer community than it is very clear that Kodak meanwhile owns about 99% of the CN film market.

People can switch to other manufacturers or to digital.

No, they can't: The offers by the two others are just much too limited to be a realistic alternative.
And switching to digital is also no alternative if you want to use film (digital has never been a 100% alternative to film, as both mediums are very different in their characteristics). If digital would be a 100% alternative or replacemet, than film would have died long ago.

Probably even die-hard CN film shooters will either stop CN photography completely, or switch to digital if the massive price increase of Kodak film will continue in the way of the last 3-4 years. But where this limit is remains to be seen.
Kodak Alaris is currently definitely testing the limits, testing the price elasticity to find out how far they can go until shrinking demand will overcompensate the increased profits by increased prices.

And no one has claimed that Kodak Alaris is responsible for the monopoly situation. But they are responsible for exploiting this situation by massive price increases. And they are responsible for damaging the film revival in many emerging markets (see my explanations concerning the very important Asian markets).
Also no one has claimed that Kodak is excluding the competition. That would also be more a legal aspect relating to anti-trust measures. From an economic point of view it is not relevant at the currrent situation, as there simply is no significant (in volume and variety) competition.

 

[JParker]

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

Thanks.
Sorry, I have not seen your former postings.

What Kodak Alaris is currently doing with exploiting their de-facto monopoly in CN film is almost 100% from the economic textbook / educational book. It is taught in the first semester in micro-economics.
For people without economic background economic dynamics like price elasticity are perhaps not easy to understand.

 

[JParker]

Kodak went bankrupt because of digital.

That is a narrative often told, but nevertheless it is wrong. Kodak has been one of the most active and dominant players in digital imaging in the first decade of this century.
They produced digital sensors by their own, and were even market leader with digital cameras in North America with their Easy Share camera line.
Their problems were not caused by digital in general, but by wrong decisions in running the business as a whole. For example very profitable business units (like chemical manufacturing) have been sold, instead of keeping it.

 

[JParker]

Kodak isn't stopping competition. There are dozens of film companies that can make color film if they wish.

No, there are not dozens of film companies that can make color film (there is not even one dozen being able to produce BW film).
Besides Kodak, Fujifilm (instax) and Polaroid are producing very high volumes of color film (but no color negative film at the moment).
InovisCoat is producing tiny amounts of CN film. Same for Harman technology.
Lucky: We will see.
Film Ferrania and Adox have at least the (long-term) potential to produce color film. But also only in very small amounts.
That's it.

So there is definitely no "dozens" at all. Not even one single dozen.

 

[brbo]

And no one has claimed that Kodak Alaris is responsible for the monopoly situation. But they are responsible for exploiting this situation by massive price increases. And they are responsible for damaging the film revival in many emerging markets (see my explanations concerning the very important Asian markets).

To be fair, no one has done more damage than Fuji. If it wasn't for Alaris (which enabled Kodak film production to continue and is now expecting to get paid for that) colour film would be effectively dead. We would be fighting to get hold of what shitty film others can produce (at twice the price Alaris is charging) and some would probably be paying 100 EUR for a roll of expired Kodak/Fuji colour film.

Basically, like peel apart film, but worse.

I don't like the prices of film going up, but I much prefer what we have now than no colour film. If colour film was 5 EUR there would be no Inoviscoat, Adox, Harman, Lucky... colour film.

 

[pentaxuser]

I don't like the prices of film going up, but I much prefer what we have now than no colour film. If colour film was 5 EUR there would be no Inoviscoat, Adox, Harman, Lucky... colour film.

None of us like it in film or anything else but the point of the this phase of the discussion is whether (a) Kodak is in a monopolistic position and (b) is this being exploited either right now or leaves the consumer vulnerable in the future to such action

What is likely to be the case or is in my opinion is that Kodak like any other company is in the business of maximising its profit and it is that aspect of business behaviour in a monopolistic situation that is a real worry

I wonder, as may yourself, what the price of energy, water, etc would be if it was in the control of one company.

Now this is an extreme example, you may say, using the essentials of life and film is not one of them. I'd have to agree but while consumers may not be in the position of having to pay any price to stay alive in the case of film, a monopolistic position does give any company far greater scope to charge prices that exploit customers and is beyond what is required for the business to be viable

pentaxuser

 

[MCB18]

I skimmed through the thread but I didn’t read everything, so it’s entirely possible all of my points have already been addressed. But, I think I might have a bit of insight on this, as I have been reselling Agfa and Tasma film branded as Astrum/Svema for a while now at a small scale.

First things first: this isn’t anything innovative. I am not the first, and I won’t be the last, to sell Aviphot and other areal film stocks, or microfilm stocks. Saying that respooling or reselling is innovative is like saying that making a lemonade stand is innovative. Maybe you could consider me being able to sell a bunch of weird formats innovative, but honestly I don’t. If other places wanted to they could sell custom film sizes from 2x3 sheets to huge bulk rolls of 9.5” areal film, but they don’t, because hardly anyone asks. I’m just good at finding the people that will buy it.

Second of all, buying motion pictures film for stills photography and lying about it is not cool. I bought a can once, before it was cool I guess, in Feb 2022. They never asked, and I never told. But now that they do clearly ask, I could not in good conscience lie about it. Unfortunately, I’m definitely in the minority there.

And finally, the elephant in the room, CineStill. Yes, I believe they almost certainly had their finger in the pie. I do not like them as a company for reasons that are not relevant to the discussion. But I think it’s worth noting that, from what I’ve read and been told, no one will ever get bulk cine deals like CineStill. No one will ever get bulk pricing on any film like CineStill. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t been paying very much attention.

Now that I’ve put that out there, I can go about enjoying my evening, hopefully figuring out a way to cut rollfilm backing paper that doesn’t require several thousand dollars of equipment.

 

[JParker]

To be fair, no one has done more damage than Fuji. If it wasn't for Alaris (which enabled Kodak film production to continue and is now expecting to get paid for that) colour film would be effectively dead.

So you think it is fair to critize Fujifilm for serving the market with color negative film much much longer than Agfa, Konica, Ferrania and Lucky?
The current monopoly situation is a result of the fact that all those five have not been able to continue production.
But I would not be surprised if Fujifilm is restarting their color negative film production next year. When their latest huge 30 Mio. $ investment in their (instax) film production is finished (due to their press release these factory upgrades should be completed this year).

At least Fujifilm as a monopolist is behaving much much more consumer friendly than Kodak Alaris:
- Fujifilm has now a de-facto monopoly in silver-halide RA-4 photo paper. But despite that they have kept their prices extremely low. No monopoly mark-up at all.
- Almost the same in instant film: Fujifilm has more than 90% market share. Nevertheless their instant films have become even much cheaper over the years (if you consider and calculate inflation, about 30% cheaper than 15 years ago!).

 

[koraks]

- Fujifilm has now a de-facto monopoly in silver-halide RA-4 photo paper. But despite that they have kept their prices extremely low. No monopoly mark-up at all.

This is (1) because the pressure of substitute products is far larger than on color film, (2) the bargaining power of a small number of major customers is massive, (3) manufacturing volumes are still very significant, (4) it's a simpler product than CN film, and a few more reasons. Comparing these quasi-monopolies is really comparing apples & oranges.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I think Fuji is still making colour negative film but little of it reaches Western countries. A few years back I used to buy Fuji Superia Premium from Japan, I love that film, and I can see it for sale with expiry dates of November 2026. Fujicolor 100 is also available with dates of february 2027 with no indication that they are made in USA. Those dates are about the same as for the newest rolls of Provia and Velvia currently reaching Europe.

 

[JParker]

This is (1) because the pressure of substitute products is far larger than on color film, (2) the bargaining power of a small number of major customers is massive, (3) manufacturing volumes are still very significant, (4) it's a simpler product than CN film, and a few more reasons. Comparing these quasi-monopolies is really comparing apples & oranges.

I disagree at least partly, because to
1) After Kodak Alaris and Sino Promise failure in the RA-4 market Fujifilm gained their market share in addition completely independent from potential substitute products. Nevertheless Fujifilm has not exploited that lucky situation (for them) by big price increases.

And the pressure of substitute products (inkjet and thermo-transfer) is also not a "100% pressure", as these alternatives are not 100% substitutes because of their quality and cost limitations. The price-performance ratio of RA-4 in general is unsurpassed and limits the attractiveness of potential alternatives.

3) The production volume in color negative film is again quite significant. Due to Kodak themselves demand has doubled from 2015 to 2019 alone. And the meanwhile much higher production volume also means much higher economy-of-scales, with lower per unit costs.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That is a narrative often told, but nevertheless it is wrong. Kodak has been one of the most active and dominant players in digital imaging in the first decade of this century.
They produced digital sensors by their own, and were even market leader with digital cameras in North America with their Easy Share camera line.
Their problems were not caused by digital in general, but by wrong decisions in running the business as a whole. For example very profitable business units (like chemical manufacturing) have been sold, instead of keeping it.

Yes Eastman Kodak developed and even marketed digital. But their heart and wealth was in film. The people at Kodak fought digital to preserve their film advantages and markets. The loved film much like many of the photographers here.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No, there are not dozens of film companies that can make color film (there is not even one dozen being able to produce BW film).
Besides Kodak, Fujifilm (instax) and Polaroid are producing very high volumes of color film (but no color negative film at the moment).
InovisCoat is producing tiny amounts of CN film. Same for Harman technology.
Lucky: We will see.
Film Ferrania and Adox have at least the (long-term) potential to produce color film. But also only in very small amounts.
That's it.

So there is definitely no "dozens" at all. Not even one single dozen.

Existing film companies could invest in color if they see they can make money in it. So that's on Eastman's and ALaris's minds when they raise prices. They don't want to invite competition. If Alaris can be bought by a rich private equity firm, so can those other film companies. This is one of the reasons why they're not monopolies. It's not like a drug company with a patent on a new miracle drug that no one else can make for 17 years.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

None of us like it in film or anything else but the point of the this phase of the discussion is whether (a) Kodak is in a monopolistic position and (b) is this being exploited either right now or leaves the consumer vulnerable in the future to such action

What is likely to be the case or is in my opinion is that Kodak like any other company is in the business of maximising its profit and it is that aspect of business behaviour in a monopolistic situation that is a real worry

I wonder, as may yourself, what the price of energy, water, etc would be if it was in the control of one company.

Now this is an extreme example, you may say, using the essentials of life and film is not one of them. I'd have to agree but while consumers may not be in the position of having to pay any price to stay alive in the case of film, a monopolistic position does give any company far greater scope to charge prices that exploit customers and is beyond what is required for the business to be viable

pentaxuser

But you're arguing against your own point. Film isn't water. Ask the people who live in the desert. No water, no life. Digital is a substitute for film. BW is a substitute for color. Life will go on. 99% of film users already left for digital before film prices escalated. How does any film compete with near zero cost digital? How much did you pay for the last 36 exposure "roll" of digital? Also, other companies will go into the color film business if prices go up too much. So Eastman and Alaris are limited, otherwise film would be $100 a roll now, or more.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes Eastman Kodak developed and even marketed digital. But their heart and wealth was in film. The people at Kodak fought digital to preserve their film advantages and markets. The loved film much like many of the photographers here.

Are you really sure about that? Their “heart and wealth” was/is profit. How did/does film stack up against other direct and subsidiary products/profits?

 

[koraks]

Nevertheless Fujifilm has not exploited that lucky situation (for them) by big price increases.

And the pressure of substitute products (inkjet and thermo-transfer) is also not a "100% pressure", as these alternatives are not 100% substitutes because of their quality and cost limitations.

Based on what I learned about this market, also in direct contact with people at Fuji, the points above do not accurately capture the present dynamics in this market. There has been at least one fairly dramatic price increase about a year ago. The pressure of substitute products is indeed very high as they truly are substitutes, and very attractive ones indeed. Moreover, those substitutes continue to improve w.r.t. quality, availability and cost, while RA4 is stagnant quality-wise (it's a mature technology) while cost goes up and availability has gone down (reduction of manufacturing sites).
RA4 is presently a steadily declining market. At some point, this decline will accelerate. The main reason is exactly those alternatives you mention and underestimate.

 

[brbo]

So you think it is fair to critize Fujifilm for serving the market with color negative film much much longer than Agfa, Konica, Ferrania and Lucky?

Yes, I do. If you think that it is fair to criticise Kodak for being "guilty" of killing the film renaissance then I think Fuji is a much bigger target than Kodak. Kodak is selling film at quantities Fuji can only dream of. And so you know, keeping price artificially low in certain markets is one of the practices that is forbidden by most anti-monopoly legislations. Kodak has monopoly in colour negative film. But it's not abusing this position.

But I would not be surprised if Fujifilm is restarting their color negative film production next year. When their latest huge 30 Mio. $ investment in their (instax) film production is finished (due to their press release these factory upgrades should be completed this year).

Your little photo club has been on the "I wouldn't be surprised by Fuji releasing two new films" for the last 10 years. What happened is that Fuji dropped half a dozen films in that time.

Btw, if you think $30m investment in a $1bln per year business is huge then there is a huge possibility that you don't know what huge means.

- Fujifilm has now a de-facto monopoly in silver-halide RA-4 photo paper. But despite that they have kept their prices extremely low. No monopoly mark-up at all.

Because the low price is what keeps them in business. Which you seem to acknowledge yourself...

The price-performance ratio of RA-4 in general is unsurpassed and limits the attractiveness of potential alternatives.

... but for some reason you can't stop contradicting yourself.

But your inability to understand this market is beside the point. The real trouble is that the equipment RA-4 prints come from (and that is still using huge amounts of RA-4 paper) is on the way out. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when" it will be replaced. You can be sure when that time comes Fuji will not keep RA-4 around for the few home darkroom printers.


So, yes, Kodak is still in a state where it needs to produce colour film in quantities and at price that will keep most of us happy (or at least happier than we would be if they could quit film and do something more profitable). Sadly, Fuji is in a much better shape and does not need us.

 

[Don_ih]

Digital is a substitute for film. BW is a substitute for color.

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

 

[Prest_400]

I agree to 100%.
From my experience travelling especially in these SEA emerging markets, and talking there to film shooters, labs and film shops, the film revival has been really huge in these countries, with yearly growth rates for color film in the 20-40% range. And we are talking about markets with a total population of about 2 billion people.
This growth is now completely gone, killed by Kodak Alaris price increases. Even worse, the demand is declining now there.
Respooled film has been a way to at least attenuate the negative effects on demand in these markets. When this will not be possible anymore, too, the decrease in general film demand will be even more significant.
And both EK and KA will suffer from that in the mid- and long-term.

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.

I've had the interesting experience of being a millenial that picked up film during the digital revolution and great recession, so bridge the experience of legacy cheap film with digital as a substitute to have become a very valued media for its qualities and flaws as well as getting high price increases post pandemic. I've never been a user of respooled film (except one roll of Cinestill 800T) so I have all but ignored ECN2 and still keep buying Brand Kodak C41. However, being a Medium format shooter limits this quite a bit.
It was positive that when I had film developed at a small HK lab, that their perception was that film has been quite booming and them being a 2 person operation, were having a lot of work; plus they said that film is much appreciated nowadays. Also, about the price differences of 2020-2025.

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. Yes I have a great phone, compact, digital set of cameras but it's not the same as film on my medium format camera.

If my Dad was still with us, and I told him that Kodak was making film for Fuji, he would be aghast!
It occurs to me that I don't know whether the Kodak lab he worked at for nearly a quarter century (as customer service manager) would have accepted a roll of E6 Fujichrome for processing.

I bet it would be incredible if we'd tell that to the past! I recently saw an interview to the owner of a photographic chain, which paraphrasing him, Digital swept the business very quickly and swiftly and then came the 2008 crisis to nail the coffin. As it has been discussed elsewhere (I think even PE validated it), the Photographic industry had huge margins then and after all this time even standalone digital cameras have declined.
Do recall myself the pessimistic, discontinuation after discontinuation period. But had come myself to late as to be able to try Agfa, Konica and other color film by the bygone manufacturers. We will have to see how long the progress will be for Harman to bring something to that quality.

And finally, the elephant in the room, CineStill. Yes, I believe they almost certainly had their finger in the pie. I do not like them as a company for reasons that are not relevant to the discussion. But I think it’s worth noting that, from what I’ve read and been told, no one will ever get bulk cine deals like CineStill. No one will ever get bulk pricing on any film like CineStill. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t been paying very much attention.

Now that I’ve put that out there, I can go about enjoying my evening, hopefully figuring out a way to cut rollfilm backing paper that doesn’t require several thousand dollars of equipment.

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.

So you think it is fair to critize Fujifilm for serving the market with color negative film much much longer than Agfa, Konica, Ferrania and Lucky?
The current monopoly situation is a result of the fact that all those five have not been able to continue production.
But I would not be surprised if Fujifilm is restarting their color negative film production next year. When their latest huge 30 Mio. $ investment in their (instax) film production is finished (due to their press release these factory upgrades should be completed this year).

At least Fujifilm as a monopolist is behaving much much more consumer friendly than Kodak Alaris:
- Fujifilm has now a de-facto monopoly in silver-halide RA-4 photo paper. But despite that they have kept their prices extremely low. No monopoly mark-up at all.
- Almost the same in instant film: Fujifilm has more than 90% market share. Nevertheless their instant films have become even much cheaper over the years (if you consider and calculate inflation, about 30% cheaper than 15 years ago!).

Bless and hoping that Fuji come back in C41, with additional availability of E6 and not just cash cow Instax. As to the same lines at the beginning of the post, I tend to remember how in the late 2000s there were discussions around here about who would be the "last standing" film manufacturer; and at that time the odds were given to Fuji. Top of my mind, it seems Kodak brought back more color (roll) film products in the 2015-20s than Fuji. E100 and Gold 200 120 whereas Fuji progressively discontinued 160NS, 400H, Superia, etc. Not much is said to Jeff Clarke, the CEO who avoided the plan of Kodak's board to just shut down the whole film operation; Kodak film was to be no more if that had happened in 2014/5.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes Eastman Kodak developed and even marketed digital. But their heart and wealth was in film. The people at Kodak fought digital to preserve their film advantages and markets. The loved film much like many of the photographers here.

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

 

[MattKing]

The reason that Kodak didn't end up dominating in digital photography is that they were seeking the same margins and profits that they traditionally had earned from film and operating and supplying labs - particularly supplying labs. It was clear that those margins were never gong to be found with the new technology, so they went looking for entirely different products and markets, with disastrous results.
If those pesky shareholders hadn't been so demanding, it turns out Kodak could have probably downsized and weathered the storm. Instead, they had to seek the protection of bankruptcy, and hive off almost all of their business and employees, leaving just a tiny fraction of manufacturing capability at the original location.
Eastman Kodak, at its heyday, was much more a worldwide marketing and distribution company than it was a manufacturer. And George Eastman's brilliance was in the marketing realm, along with a keen eye for R&D and manufacturing talent to support that marketing. He also had a particularly strong ability to recognize value in competitors, and to then buy up and absorb them.