Kodak committed to making film "as long as there's demand"

[cmacd123]

I wonder what Cinestill pays to EK for exclusive rights to Remjet free Vision 3 films?

Holy guacamole!

do they have an exclusive or are they just a first mover with a large contract? perhaps others just realize that halos are best not found in photos.

 

[mshchem]

do they have an exclusive or are they just a first mover with a large contract? perhaps others just realize that halos are best not found in photos.

Yeah, good question. I can't imagine trying to process the stuff Flic Film spools without a dedicated ECN-2 setup. I'm a dedicated Kodak Alaris (distributed) customer. Alaris earns their money. The remainder of Eastman Kodak's global distribution network and then some.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

'I'll make it as long as there is demand' is really a nonsens statement. I might as well say:'I'll form shit into small balls as long as you pay bookoo bucks for it. Sorry but that really got me.

 

[Don_ih]

'I'll make it as long as there is demand' is really a nonsens statement. I might as well say:'I'll form shit into small balls as long as you pay bookoo bucks for it. Sorry but that really got me.

It is a meaningless statement. It also makes them sound impotent. The fact is, they should be trying to create demand - they should have been trying to do that for decades.

But anyway- you're about 6 pages too late to mention the topic of the thread.

 

[cmacd123]

well the inverse stament would be a given, if they have NO demad for a product they would expect a stakeholder revoult if they did continue to make that product.

BUT I willgive you the point that Kodak is not used to HAVING to try to create demand for their products, and so they are not very good at the effort. basicaly besides holiday promotions, they in the past only advertised when they had something NEW to offer.

 

[bjorke]

Reminds me of Shell's commitment to renewable energy as long as it's more profitable than oil (seriously, they wrote this as PR)

 

[MattKing]

If Alaris was distributing other manufacturers' films beside Kodak's, I think we would know about it. After all, they would be distributing to retailers and wouldn't want to keep it secret. Is anyone aware this is happening?

Kodak Alaris doesn't sell to retailers, or end users.
They sell to local distributors only.
So if you are a retailer in, eg. Portugal, you buy Kodak film from a distributor trading into the market in Portugal.
Kodak Alaris and that distributor handle all of the details getting product into that market.

 

[MattKing]

do they have an exclusive or are they just a first mover with a large contract? perhaps others just realize that halos are best not found in photos.

Cinestill were the ones who got enough money together to convince Eastman Kodak to make for them master rolls of motion picture film without remjet.
Prior to that, they were the ones who got enough money together to convince Eastman Kodak to sell them master rolls of motion picture film that Cinestill would then take the steps required to strip remjet off it prior to finishing/confectioning it.

 

[MattKing]

'I'll make it as long as there is demand' is really a nonsens statement. I might as well say:'I'll form shit into small balls as long as you pay bookoo bucks for it. Sorry but that really got me.

For motion picture film, Eastman Kodak does the marketing, so they are the ones who can gage the demand and they are the ones marketing to increase the demand.
For still film, they and Kodak Alaris only sell into a distribution system. So they require third parties to both gage the demand, and support its growth. They can, and do support those third parties.

 

[koraks]

I freely admit to a lack of familiarity with corporate law in the UK

It's not a legal matter. Nevermind though. A proper explanation would be offtopic anyway.

 

[koraks]

is it the right decision to offer cinematic film in the detriment of still photography film?

They likely sell more film and thus satisfy greater demand by doing so. Many people may buy two rolls of portra instead of 5 rolls of Cinestill.

Also, most amateurs don't care much about archival stability and/or don't realize it's an issue to begin with, and from a heritage perspective I wonder if that's a problem, really.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I dont know what the long term archivability of these motion picture emulsions are.

It's not print film that deteriorates.

 

[brbo]

As Eastman Kodak continues to extravigantly raise prices

Again, there is zero evidence to support this. Revenue from the deal with Alaris has indeed risen by about 20m from 2020 to 2022. If we assume that Kodak Alaris buys 20m rolls per year, Eastman Kodak improved their average price by about $1 per roll from 2020 to 2022.

In 2020/12 I paid 9,62 EUR for a roll of Ektar, in 2023/05 I paid 16,10 EUR.

 

[Anon Ymous]

My understanding is that remjet backed film is not print film. Why would print film have a remjet coating?

I don't know if print film has remjet or not, I was merely pointing out that print film isn't archival, but these repurposed - rebranded films aren't print films and there's nothing to suggest that their archival properties are any worse than those of typical photographic films.

 

[koraks]

My understanding is that remjet backed film is not print film.

Correct.

there's nothing to suggest that their archival properties are any worse than those of typical photographic films.

Well, there's the issue of the stability of the dyes themselves. Vision3 films use dyes that rely on CD3, which makes it likely that they're similar or identical to E6 dyes. These require a stabilizer bath for optimal long-term stability. However, in normal processing, which is aimed at C41, such a stabilizer bath may not be employed, since contemporary C41 films no longer require it. Furthermore, there's the issue of C41 relying on CD4 and it's simply unknown if the dyes in Vision3 films formed with oxidized CD4 have the chemical stability of the dyes as they are originally intended.

There are a number of unknowns that give rise to reasonable suspicions to those concerned with archival stability of these films.

 

[Anon Ymous]

@koraks Ah, yes, processing ECN2 films in C41 chemicals would give no guarantees whatsoever about their archival properties. I've considered using some ECN2 films, but would never process them in C41.

 

[Don_ih]

Given the fact that a large percentage of both C41 and ECN films are developed at-home using relatively new and untested kits, chances are "archival stability" is a pipe dream.

Scans, however, are archival until they stop being archived (i.e., deleted) and that's what's relevant for the majority of colour film use, anyway. Almost no one needs colour film to be archival.

 

[koraks]

I've considered using some ECN2 films, but would never process them in C41.

I've been shooting a lot of Vision3 250D lately and process in ECN2 developer with extended development time. I find this gives the best match for optical RA4 printing. The negatives I feel might have any value for the longer term, I treat to a final rinse of demineralized water with a few drops of formalin.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Moderators: Can we just have the anti-Kodak hate posts deleted? Those posts are based on what the poster had for breakfast and nothing to do with reality.

 

[Don_ih]

Can we just have the anti-Kodak hate posts deleted?

Yes, I'm all for deleting the pro-Kodak posts, also.

 

[MattKing]

Moderators: Can we just have the anti-Kodak hate posts deleted? Those posts are based on what the poster had for breakfast and nothing to do with reality.

Yes, I'm all for deleting the pro-Kodak posts, also.

Quoted, just in case anyone thinks being a Moderator is easy ........
This is, of course, a thread about Kodak.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I freely admit to a lack of familiarity with corporate law in the UK...

It's not a legal matter. Nevermind though. A proper explanation would be offtopic anyway.

Unless there's a legal mandate for corporate entities to be serious about the non-profit items you previously enumerated, they're all nothing more than PR fluff. It's entirely a legal matter.

...As Eastman Kodak continues to extravagantly raise prices...

Again, there is zero evidence to support this...In 2020/12 I paid 9,62 EUR for a roll of Ektar, in 2023/05 I paid 16,10 EUR.

A 67% price increase in just over two years seems pretty extravagant to me!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Kodak Alaris doesn't sell to retailers, or end users.
They sell to local distributors only.
So if you are a retailer in, eg. Portugal, you buy Kodak film from a distributor trading into the market in Portugal.
Kodak Alaris and that distributor handle all of the details getting product into that market.

OK. Thnaks for the clarification of their distribution arrangements. But would we know if Alaris was distributing film other than Kodak?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For motion picture film, Eastman Kodak does the marketing, so they are the ones who can gage the demand and they are the ones marketing to increase the demand.
For still film, they and Kodak Alaris only sell into a distribution system. So they require third parties to both gage the demand, and support its growth. They can, and do support those third parties.

So there's a third markup not two as I assumed (not including the final retailer). Does that cause higher prices than other films? How many markups do other films have?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's not a legal matter. Nevermind though. A proper explanation would be offtopic anyway.

Not really. Understanding how corporations operate helps us understand markups, profits, and why products cost what they do and why they may be discontinued. These things don't happen in a vacuum.