- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,192
- Format
- Multi Format
It is not just one shop. We know from Henning's info that demand for C41 colour films started to rise dramatically in 2017 and has continued to do so despite the pandemic.
Even before the pandemic there was a worldwide backlog of hundreds of thousands of films.
Fuji are more secretive but no doubt have their own problems.
Portra and Ektar are usually in stock because they sell in smaller numbers.
It is Color Plus, Gold and Fuji C41 films which have had trouble keeping up with demand. And it pre-dates the pandemic.
Kodak explicitly have stated that they needed to invest a lot of money into increasing production facilities to keep up with demand - and that was the reason for at least one of the price increases.
Not only do I listen to what Henning says, with his great contacts within the industry. I also talk with several photo/camera retailers around the UK who tell me exactly the same thing. They are unable to get hold of Color Plus, Gold, Fuji 160 and 400 (I know the latter is now cancelled). The suppliers who actually sell Kodak film to the retailers (they're not able to deal with K-A directly) report the same thing, unable to get sufficient supplies of Color Plus, Gold and sometimes Ektachrome as it was way more popular than expected. Some retailers have been waiting *two years* for unfulfilled 35mm and 120 C41 film orders from suppliers. These same retailers tell me that some time around late 2017 or early 2018 demand for colour film sharply increased and has remained at that high level. Kodak's B&W films have been affected too, albeit to a lesser extent. Ilfrod and Foma managed to keep up with demand is the increase in demand for B&W film was less than that for colour film.
It's because they are off, of you compare against C41. Individual channel gamma's are different for ECN2 film stocks, because the characteristics of the duplicating medium are different from the response curve of RA4 paper. Translated into today's world of scanners and digital processing: all (consumer) film scanners expect C41 curves, but ECN2 curves are quite different. This results in color accuracy problems with most scanners and software used. In principle this can all be corrected in digital post processing, but it's quite a chore to set up a reliable color profile for this. Hence the many examples of oddly greenish ECN2 scans, weird magenta/green crossover etc.
Slitting and cutting to size, edge printing, loading into cassettes or marrying with backing paper and rolling on to spools, packaging, boxing.So what is film "confectioning," as opposed to coating?
So what is film "confectioning," as opposed to coating?
I was trying to get some Portra 160 and Ektar 100 in 35mm 5 paks. One store has one, but not the other. Another store has neither. Seeing down the list many color 35mm films are out of stock. Is this because of Covid, or more because Millenials are shooting this stuff like crazy now, along with us only diehards? I was forced to choose some rolls in 120 instead, which is still in stock.
@Henning Serger do you see Fuji getting back to manufacturing motion picture film stocks (ECN-2 or E-6)? As far as I know, those sales have skyrocketed as well. Kodak is having issues supplying enough 16mm film (especially Vision3 500T), apparently they even had to give to their clients some contacts of their private customers who had bough larger quantities as they themselves had none available to sell.
FilmoTec is apparently going to get into color negative motion picture film business next year....
Why don't Fuji and Kodak sell bulk rolls of C-41 film. If confectioning is so expensive for them I'd gladly buy 400ft of Portra/Ektar for 1/3 (still more expensive than ECN-2 movie film) of the price of boxed 135 rolls.
Relatively speaking (per unit cost), it costs Eastman Kodak a fortune to make 100 foot bulk rolls. Unlike 35mm cassettes, it is a very manual, and very expensive procedure.I'm really not interested in how much bigger the BW is than C-41 and that nobody is shooting C-41 anymore...
The word around here is that there is a HUGE bottleneck in putting the film into canisters and how expensive that has become for Fuji and (especially?) Kodak. Are they doing so well financially that they don't want to make money on bulk rolls? Ok then...
Relatively speaking (per unit cost), it costs Eastman Kodak a fortune to make 100 foot bulk rolls. Unlike 35mm cassettes, it is a very manual, and very expensive procedure.
There is no custom edge printing (frame numbers) on motion picture film, and there is no practical infrastructure to support people who might consider buying C41 films in 400 foot rolls, without frame numbering.
I wouldn't buy still film without them.Why do you need those?
I wouldn't buy still film without them.
And labs certainly would not want to see a lot of film without frame numbers - they are critical to dealing with customers.
For those interested in how film is made the book "Making KODAK Film" is available.
www.makingKODAKfilm.com
Relatively speaking (per unit cost), it costs Eastman Kodak a fortune to make 100 foot bulk rolls. Unlike 35mm cassettes, it is a very manual, and very expensive procedure.
So the wholesale costs are very high.
So the retail costs are very high.
So the sales are low.
And with low volumes, the manufacturing cost is very high.
The confectioning costs of all films make up a huge proportion of the price.
People were buying Cinestill films just as much even when they still had the regular Vision3 markings. Photolabs were developing them with no problem. I have a minilab Noritsu LS-600 scanner and it doesn't care about the (lack of) frame numbers. The only thing that is a bit inconvenient is a reordering of a scan/print of a single frame from such film.
Cinestill volumes are tiny little exceptions to the market. Interesting, but not capable of supporting the sort of costs associated with setting up an entirely different confectioning line.
And with respect to labs, it isn't the developing that is impacted. It is that old fashioned action of making and sorting of prints (and scans) for which the frame numbers are critical.
While you may not feel the need for frame numbers, many won't agree. And the number of people world wide who do their own scanning and who don't need frame numbers is too small to make such a product economically viable.
The only two reasons that the motion picture films are cheaper per foot are that the confectioning is simpler and cheaper in the lengths that are sold, and because the volume of those sales is sufficiently high. If you wanted the same from C41 films, you would need similar volumes, in the packaging that works for still photographers. Kodak can't even do that in black and white (because of low volumes) so I can't see it happening in colour.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?