Kodak films direct from Eastman Kodak (was: Kodacolor 100. New)

[brbo]

Again, nobody cares about frame numbers and especially not about perforations. Not even Lomography, Adox, Foma, Lucky (OK, they will figure out edge markings eventually), Orwo…

But, yeah… we know, there IS that one Photrio member

 

[MattKing]

I wouldn't buy a film without frame numbers. That just doesn't suit my needs, and I've been using bulk film off and on for decades.
I agree about the perforations. It is more just a consequence of the fact that the 400 foot load finishing lines combine the motion picture perforating and keycode edge printing processes, and frame numbers aren't a possibility.

 

[koraks]

All of the current c-41 films were designed for optical printing onto RA4 paper. Aren’t the Vision films optimized for scanning or am I mixing that up with something else?

The issue with the 'optimized for' line of thinking is that the optimization really is at the system level, not so much the level of the individual product. If we ignore scanning for a moment, C41film together with RA4 paper were optimized for each other. They worked as an integrated system. Similarly, the motion picture camera films were part of an optimized system / family of products that allowed all manner of workflows following camera capture, involving intermediate copies of the originals, for editing and ultimately distribution. Here, too, the optimization was/is not so much within the individual product, but the products are all made to work in unison.

Scanning is a rather flexible process especially in terms of the contrast range, slope/steepness, alignment and even curve shape of the individual color channels - you can pretty much do 'whatever' regardless of what you feed into it. It's so flexible that in this regard, the material that needs to be scanned barely has to be optimized for this purpose.The flexibility in scanning essentially acts as a substitute or alternative to the co-specialization of the different film and/or paper products. There are some small optimizations to make films easier to scan without artifacts, but those are relatively minor. In this regard, it can't be said that contemporary C41 is more optimized for scanning than ECN2/Vision3, or vice versa. Of course, the vast majority of both end up being scanned and never printed optically, even though both still can on their respective (more or less optimized for the purpose) media.

The plot thickens a little if you take into account that today's RA4 paper is no longer 'optimized for' optically printing from C41 negatives, and instead has aimed more specifically at digital exposure. However, at a very fundamental level (and to a large extent) it still maintains a compatibility with C41 film.

If you look at it this way, it's indeed conceivable that Kodak would in due course grow towards a single product type for both cinema and still photography. In particular because of the very limited need for physical/optical compatibility with their respective analog follow-up media (intermediate films for cinema and paper for stills), it could prove to be feasible to go to e.g. a single C41/CD4-based 'architecture', but perhaps with the lower gamma and wide exposure latitude of the present Vision3 films. It's conceivable - but, as it would constitute a reasonable investment in product development, it's also quite conceivable that they deem the benefits don't weigh up against the cost and they maintain two separate product families.

 

[isaac7]

Except that the production lines for the 400 foot rolls perforate differently and don't provide frame numbers.

Other than communicating with a lab about printing instructions I don’t think I have ever paid attention to frame numbers on negatives before. I have never heard of issues with sprockets with respooled films. Of course I haven’t looked for them or used the film yet so maybe I missed them.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Up until 2-3 years ago, when they still hadn't tightened things up enough, I used to order single 400ft boxes directly from Kodak. I went through the quotation procedure - since I ordered only single units, the quotes always came at the catalog price. For example, a 400ft roll of 35mm E100 cost me €564, and a 100ft roll of 16mm E100 was €84.85. That was the total price, including delivery to my door in Bulgaria. And there were no tricks involved - everything was completely straightforward.
Even now, many items in the catalogs are not quantity-restricted. In fact, for some products they have even removed the minimum order quantities.
It's true that production companies order in large volumes. But they also receive substantial discounts below the catalog prices, which have already been removed from the newer catalogs…

My understanding is that Eastman now requires buyers to affirm in writing that the purchases will be used only for filming movies. They sell to companies mainly, not individuals. Has anyone experienced this issue?

 

[OrientPoint]

My understanding is that Eastman now requires buyers to affirm in writing that the purchases will be used only for filming movies. They sell to companies mainly, not individuals. Has anyone experienced this issue?

Yes, I have experienced this as recently as a few months ago. We only buy cine film sporadically in my line of work (to test old equipment). No frequent orders.

Kodak now requires production company information and verification for all sales of 35mm cine film. Last time I ordered it was not required for 8mm or 16mm material, only 35mm. The Kodak staff is very nice to deal with and the verification process is not onerous. They just don't want people buying 35mm in bulk and selling rolls in a secondary market. I suspect they don't restrict 8 or 16 sales because there's no secondary market for those products.

 

[MattKing]

Other than communicating with a lab about printing instructions I don’t think I have ever paid attention to frame numbers on negatives before. I have never heard of issues with sprockets with respooled films. Of course I haven’t looked for them or used the film yet so maybe I missed them.

I'd hate to be a photography teacher with a class full of students using bulk film without frame numbers.
Teacher: "Which negative are you going to post-process/print?"
Student: "The one where the cat looks most upset".
Admittedly, a few decades ago, I used to manually write job/customer numbers on to the rebates of my medium format negatives with a technical pen before delivering them to my professional lab for enlargements ......

 

[isaac7]

I'd hate to be a photography teacher with a class full of students using bulk film without frame numbers.
Teacher: "Which negative are you going to post-process/print?"
Student: "The one where the cat looks most upset".
Admittedly, a few decades ago, I used to manually write job/customer numbers on to the rebates of my medium format negatives with a technical pen before delivering them to my professional lab for enlargements ......

We always discussed which picture to print via contact sheets. Good old fashioned circles! I assume you found some use for frame numbers in the situation you mentioned but I don’t understand what the teacher knowing the number helps. Do most people get frame numbers in their scans? Thought showing sprockets/borders was something you had to go out of your way to do. Like I said, I only found numbers handy when I had to write down an order being sent to a lab. I never looked at them in classes or doing my own printing.

 

[MattKing]

A small portion of my negatives - these are from the 1970s.

No budget back then for contact sheets.
When I started to digitize film images, I assigned a file number to each image which references a roll number and the associated frame number for that image.
Different digital versions of the same negative or slide have a letter attached to the frame number, plus potentially some useful additional info.
For example, this is 45d-2025-04-12-res 1280.jpg:

I have over 13,000 digital images, with the majority being scanned from film. Most of them are 2010 or later, but the oldest are from the 1940s.
I have many, many additional rolls of (never digitized) film where the reference prints have date and frame numbers imprinted on the back.
ALL OF MY filing and recording systems depend on the frame numbers.
And I know many others whose systems also depend on frame numbers.
I also have done printing for others, where the communication between myself and my "customers" was entirely dependent on frame numbers.

 

[mshchem]

The issue with the 'optimized for' line of thinking is that the optimization really is at the system level, not so much the level of the individual product. If we ignore scanning for a moment, C41film together with RA4 paper were optimized for each other. They worked as an integrated system. Similarly, the motion picture camera films were part of an optimized system / family of products that allowed all manner of workflows following camera capture, involving intermediate copies of the originals, for editing and ultimately distribution. Here, too, the optimization was/is not so much within the individual product, but the products are all made to work in unison.

Scanning is a rather flexible process especially in terms of the contrast range, slope/steepness, alignment and even curve shape of the individual color channels - you can pretty much do 'whatever' regardless of what you feed into it. It's so flexible that in this regard, the material that needs to be scanned barely has to be optimized for this purpose.The flexibility in scanning essentially acts as a substitute or alternative to the co-specialization of the different film and/or paper products. There are some small optimizations to make films easier to scan without artifacts, but those are relatively minor. In this regard, it can't be said that contemporary C41 is more optimized for scanning than ECN2/Vision3, or vice versa. Of course, the vast majority of both end up being scanned and never printed optically, even though both still can on their respective (more or less optimized for the purpose) media.

The plot thickens a little if you take into account that today's RA4 paper is no longer 'optimized for' optically printing from C41 negatives, and instead has aimed more specifically at digital exposure. However, at a very fundamental level (and to a large extent) it still maintains a compatibility with C41 film.

If you look at it this way, it's indeed conceivable that Kodak would in due course grow towards a single product type for both cinema and still photography. In particular because of the very limited need for physical/optical compatibility with their respective analog follow-up media (intermediate films for cinema and paper for stills), it could prove to be feasible to go to e.g. a single C41/CD4-based 'architecture', but perhaps with the lower gamma and wide exposure latitude of the present Vision3 films. It's conceivable - but, as it would constitute a reasonable investment in product development, it's also quite conceivable that they deem the benefits don't weigh up against the cost and they maintain two separate product families.

Do you know how much if any that Fujifilm RA-4 paper became "un optimized" for optical printing when the paper was improved for digital exposure? I always suspected that improvements around reciprocity for short exposure times was a factor.

 

[isaac7]

A small portion of my negatives - these are from the 1970s.
View attachment 424177

No budget back then for contact sheets.
When I started to digitize film images, I assigned a file number to each image which references a roll number and the associated frame number for that image.
Different digital versions of the same negative or slide have a letter attached to the frame number, plus potentially some useful additional info.
For example, this is 45d-2025-04-12-res 1280.jpg:
View attachment 424178
I have over 13,000 digital images, with the majority being scanned from film. Most of them are 2010 or later, but the oldest are from the 1940s.
I have many, many additional rolls of (never digitized) film where the reference prints have date and frame numbers imprinted on the back.
ALL OF MY filing and recording systems depend on the frame numbers.
And I know many others whose systems also depend on frame numbers.
I also have done printing for others, where the communication between myself and my "customers" was entirely dependent on frame numbers.

Incorporating the frame number into a filing system makes a lot of sense. I’m not that prolific or organized lol. I did QC at a slide duping lab and as part of the intake procedures we would affix numbers to slide mounts. All slides had to be removed from paper mounts in order to get clean edges. The new mounts all had corresponding numbers as well and both were returned to the photographer. We could then go back to specific slides to reshoot with the proper adjustments. The color guy would list numbers with the needed color adjustments and the camera operator would just reshoot the specific images.

So yeah, we didn’t use frame numbers but we did use numbers. And yes, frame numbers were important for ordering prints. I still maintain that modern usage of film and the smaller amount shot now means that frame numbers wouldn’t be much of an issue for most folks. I would gladly trade them for bulk Double x!

 

[mshchem]

A small portion of my negatives - these are from the 1970s.
View attachment 424177

No budget back then for contact sheets.
When I started to digitize film images, I assigned a file number to each image which references a roll number and the associated frame number for that image.
Different digital versions of the same negative or slide have a letter attached to the frame number, plus potentially some useful additional info.
For example, this is 45d-2025-04-12-res 1280.jpg:
View attachment 424178
I have over 13,000 digital images, with the majority being scanned from film. Most of them are 2010 or later, but the oldest are from the 1940s.
I have many, many additional rolls of (never digitized) film where the reference prints have date and frame numbers imprinted on the back.
ALL OF MY filing and recording systems depend on the frame numbers.
And I know many others whose systems also depend on frame numbers.
I also have done printing for others, where the communication between myself and my "customers" was entirely dependent on frame numbers.

How did you scan all these things? You folks have real camera shops still but they would charge an arm and a leg to scan those. All my negatives are in Printfiles, if I get ambitious I can proof each sheet, not gonna happen.

 

[gbroadbridge]

How did you scan all these things? You folks have real camera shops still but they would charge an arm and a leg to scan those. All my negatives are in Printfiles, if I get ambitious I can proof each sheet, not gonna happen.

I spent about 6 months during COVID lockdowns scanning around 10k photos from negatives

 

[mshchem]

I spent about 6 months during COVID lockdowns scanning around 10k photos from negatives

Crazy, how did you do it? I'd have a heart attack using film holders etc.

 

[koraks]

Do you know how much if any that Fujifilm RA-4 paper became "un optimized" for optical printing when the paper was improved for digital exposure? I always suspected that improvements around reciprocity for short exposure times was a factor.

The digital optimization did not necessarily have any adverse effects on suitability for optical enlargement. Later cost reductions (simplification of the emulsion) introduced a small amount of crossover, which is not a problem if the paper is printed digitally as it can be calibrated away. So it was deemed acceptable. This applies to the papers made in Europe; I don't know if it also applies to e.g. FujiFlex.

 

[mshchem]

The digital optimization did not necessarily have any adverse effects on suitability for optical enlargement. Later cost reductions (simplification of the emulsion) introduced a small amount of crossover, which is not a problem if the paper is printed digitally as it can be calibrated away. So it was deemed acceptable. This applies to the papers made in Europe; I don't know if it also applies to e.g. FujiFlex.

Thanks

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'd hate to be a photography teacher with a class full of students using bulk film without frame numbers.
Teacher: "Which negative are you going to post-process/print?"
Student: "The one where the cat looks most upset".
Admittedly, a few decades ago, I used to manually write job/customer numbers on to the rebates of my medium format negatives with a technical pen before delivering them to my professional lab for enlargements ......

Couldn't the students just number the pictures on the contact sheet with a pen?

 

[MattKing]

How did you scan all these things? You folks have real camera shops still but they would charge an arm and a leg to scan those. All my negatives are in Printfiles, if I get ambitious I can proof each sheet, not gonna happen.

One roll - or in some cases - one negative, slide or print at a time. Essentially over the last 20 years.
I have a flat bed scanner that does a decent job - better with medium format than 35mm.
I used to have a Minolta Multi medium format scanner that worked very well, but slowly.
Relatively recently I added a decent and cheap used Primefilm scanner which is good with 35mm
Generally after I've developed each roll, but there have been a few batches of scanning old ones.
Most of my old film remain unscanned, including all of them in that 1970s binder.
That 13,000 number does include some images from cel phones and digital cameras - I add some details to the folders that those are stored in to indicate that.
But those folders are in the same computer folder that the folders containing scans are, so I let the computer count them all and just shared the total

 

[MattKing]

Couldn't the students just number the pictures on the contact sheet with a pen?

They probably can't make contact sheets - many don't get to learn to print.
Even if they can, they would need to write the corresponding numbers in the rebates of the negatives as well.

 

[mshchem]

One roll - or in some cases - one negative, slide or print at a time. Essentially over the last 20 years.
I have a flat bed scanner that does a decent job - better with medium format than 35mm.
I used to have a Minolta Multi medium format scanner that worked very well, but slowly.
Relatively recently I added a decent and cheap used Primefilm scanner which is good with 35mm
Generally after I've developed each roll, but there have been a few batches of scanning old ones.
Most of my old film remain unscanned, including all of them in that 1970s binder.
That 13,000 number does include some images from cel phones and digital cameras - I add some details to the folders that those are stored in to indicate that.
But those folders are in the same computer folder that the folders containing scans are, so I let the computer count them all and just shared the total

Clear that my dislike of anything computer is a hindrance. I have a couple beautiful Nikon scanners, I've used these to scan some of my father's amazing Kodachrome slides. Software is a pain, I use VueScan but it kinda sucks. I have a Canon flatbed scanner that I use to scan 6x17 Ektachrome/Fujichrome, it really does a nice job. I think I paid $150 for it from B&H, must have been a close out.
Color negative scanning is impossible for me. It's easier for me to make a color print. Thus I rarely shoot much color negative film.

 

[FredK]

I think you misunderstand. I am wondering why Kodak doesn’t release existing motion picture film packaged for the still market. Sellers have been respooling it for years. I want Kodak to sell it directly. Prepackaged 35mm film of existing motion picture stock seems like an easy thing for them to offer. It would be even easier for them to sell bulk 100’ rolls to consumers like they already do with some of their still films.

Late to this thread but I had to answer issac7.

A typical roll of VISION3 Color Negative will yield around 460 units at 400 ft. There still is sufficient volume for those films that the company can profitably produce that many in a given production run, but please remember a production run within coating would have to be more than one or two large rolls to remain profitable. A coating machine where upwards of 16 layers are being coated simply cannot create one or two rolls without start and end waste on the film and in the kettles, so volumes are required.

Within any company's production system there has to be both manufacturing and financial accounting and how those streams are designed is very important whether they are split up by business units, product families, etc. Although it sounds very easy to "go grab a few rolls of film X and make them for a different customer base", within the manufacturing systems that may be in place, that is not so easy. Entire product data streams for both financial and manufacturing as well as inventory management and real dollars in inventory all are required to create a "product Y" from a "product X". Sarbanes Oxly and good accounting practices mandate such.

So, going back to my beginning, say you want VISION3 50D in 135 spoools direct from Kodak. The company would have to create a manufacturing bill of materials, computer routing to get the roll through the manufacturing systems, inventory management to get the made film from finishing plant to distribution centers, update / change component supply testing to include the new product to screen for things like photohgraphic activity, update the requirements / potential size changes for coating of many master rolls, update all specification, manufacturing & testing documentation to include the new product, and finally any internet documentation, technical sales training and information for customer interface. All new packaging and graphic arts materials would be required for the suppliers, updates to labeling systems and inventories of those components would be required.

It makes a simply request for a product much more complex than meets the eye for one who may not have worked in a complex manufacturing business. And what about that volume? Looking at the example, spooling an entire roll into 135 36 exposure units would yield over 32,000 units per roll. Would sales be enough to cover that make?

Within the new Kodak, post bankruptcy, many of the internal systems designed for different business units could not be changed because of the Alaris split and the costs associated with reprogramming many complex systems in production and accounting. Perhaps that has changed but I would wager it still is a very costly endeavor to create product Y from product X.

 

[isaac7]

Late to this thread but I had to answer issac7.

A typical roll of VISION3 Color Negative will yield around 460 units at 400 ft. There still is sufficient volume for those films that the company can profitably produce that many in a given production run, but please remember a production run within coating would have to be more than one or two large rolls to remain profitable. A coating machine where upwards of 16 layers are being coated simply cannot create one or two rolls without start and end waste on the film and in the kettles, so volumes are required.

Within any company's production system there has to be both manufacturing and financial accounting and how those streams are designed is very important whether they are split up by business units, product families, etc. Although it sounds very easy to "go grab a few rolls of film X and make them for a different customer base", within the manufacturing systems that may be in place, that is not so easy. Entire product data streams for both financial and manufacturing as well as inventory management and real dollars in inventory all are required to create a "product Y" from a "product X". Sarbanes Oxly and good accounting practices mandate such.

So, going back to my beginning, say you want VISION3 50D in 135 spoools direct from Kodak. The company would have to create a manufacturing bill of materials, computer routing to get the roll through the manufacturing systems, inventory management to get the made film from finishing plant to distribution centers, update / change component supply testing to include the new product to screen for things like photohgraphic activity, update the requirements / potential size changes for coating of many master rolls, update all specification, manufacturing & testing documentation to include the new product, and finally any internet documentation, technical sales training and information for customer interface. All new packaging and graphic arts materials would be required for the suppliers, updates to labeling systems and inventories of those components would be required.

It makes a simply request for a product much more complex than meets the eye for one who may not have worked in a complex manufacturing business. And what about that volume? Looking at the example, spooling an entire roll into 135 36 exposure units would yield over 32,000 units per roll. Would sales be enough to cover that make?

Within the new Kodak, post bankruptcy, many of the internal systems designed for different business units could not be changed because of the Alaris split and the costs associated with reprogramming many complex systems in production and accounting. Perhaps that has changed but I would wager it still is a very costly endeavor to create product Y from product X.

Sorry, I do not find that at all convincing. Kodak has a limited number of film products these days. In decades past they had thousands of SKUs and were a behemoth of a company. Modern supply chain automation simplifies things dramatically compared to the way things were done even in the 90s. As in years past, still photography uses far less film than cine does. Making use of relatively small amounts of excess cine film for the still market would seem like a way of eking out more efficiency.

Obviously there would be a cost to repackaging and marketing a new line of still film. I maintain that the fixed costs of repackaging cine film for stills (edge numbers notwithstanding) has largely already been paid and what remains would not be much. It isn’t clear to me what manufacturing processes would have to be changed since presumably the same machines can be used for packaging. Marginal costs could conceivably be lowered if there is some consolidation of color stocks. There is a thread in the Industry News section about the new cine film and how it is remarkably close to Portra 400. Managing inventory of the film stock and directing it to the different markets is what the business does, that is literally their job. If taking an existing product they already make and putting into an existing packaging process they already do adds tremendous costs and complexity I think it’s fair to question how Kodak runs their business.

There might be other reasons to not distribute cine films for still photographers but manufacturing and marketing complexity is not a credible one IMO. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is consolidation of Kodak’s professional color emulsions in the future. My main wish has been Double X. I think it is a different enough film than the rest of their B&W offerings to not cannibalize existing sales. I will admit that Kodak is in a lot better position to judge that than I am lol.

 

[blee1996]

Late to this thread but I had to answer issac7.

A typical roll of VISION3 Color Negative will yield around 460 units at 400 ft.

I think the math might be slightly off. A 100ft roll can reliably yield 18 rolls of 135-36, taking into account of wastage on both ends. So 400 ft can yield 72 rolls of 135-36.

 

[MattKing]

I think the math might be slightly off. A 100ft roll can reliably yield 18 rolls of 135-36, taking into account of wastage on both ends. So 400 ft can yield 72 rolls of 135-36.

I expect @FredK is referring to the number of 400 foot rolls that a typical master roll will yield.
That is what is meant by a "unit" - a 400 foot roll (in the motion picture film world)

 

[bfilm]

Sorry, I do not find that at all convincing. Kodak has a limited number of film products these days. In decades past they had thousands of SKUs and were a behemoth of a company. Modern supply chain automation simplifies things dramatically compared to the way things were done even in the 90s. As in years past, still photography uses far less film than cine does. Making use of relatively small amounts of excess cine film for the still market would seem like a way of eking out more efficiency.

Obviously there would be a cost to repackaging and marketing a new line of still film. I maintain that the fixed costs of repackaging cine film for stills (edge numbers notwithstanding) has largely already been paid and what remains would not be much. It isn’t clear to me what manufacturing processes would have to be changed since presumably the same machines can be used for packaging. Marginal costs could conceivably be lowered if there is some consolidation of color stocks. There is a thread in the Industry News section about the new cine film and how it is remarkably close to Portra 400. Managing inventory of the film stock and directing it to the different markets is what the business does, that is literally their job. If taking an existing product they already make and putting into an existing packaging process they already do adds tremendous costs and complexity I think it’s fair to question how Kodak runs their business.

There might be other reasons to not distribute cine films for still photographers but manufacturing and marketing complexity is not a credible one IMO. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is consolidation of Kodak’s professional color emulsions in the future. My main wish has been Double X. I think it is a different enough film than the rest of their B&W offerings to not cannibalize existing sales. I will admit that Kodak is in a lot better position to judge that than I am lol.

I have wondered if there might be an agreement with CineStill Film that Eastman Kodak won't sell the motion picture film packaged for photography. If there is, of course it could potentially change at some point, but I have wondered if this might have something to do with it.

Also, you can get Eastman Double-X film packaged for 35mm and 120 format from CineStill as BWXX.