Kodak no longer selling E100D directly to customers?

[Alan Edward Klein]

Uhm, I think we're OK if people want to discuss it as long as it remains politics/policy-free, but please do it in the Lounge etc.


Things are moving around at the EK pension fund/entity. That doesn't have much (or any) bearing on what happens in the business proper. They're different entities; other than that they share the same name, they have little to do with each other.

Not so. Kodak stands to reap big bucks that can be used for film production investments. That's important to us film users.

From the article: "Kodak said that even after capitalizing a replacement pension and paying an excise tax, it expected to get $530 million to $585 million of proceeds from the moves. That was more than than the company’s market capitalization on Friday."

The stock value nearly doubled it;s capitalization helping out it;s long term prospects. And ours as well as film users. Ektachrome might be the only chrome film left if Fuji keeps eliminating their emulsions like Velvia 50 in large format. With this extra capital, Kodak wouldn't be pressed to raise prices and cut film production.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

I am a niche respooler of 65mm , I cut 120 and 220 lengths under the title "Analog Abduction". Mercury Works is doing glorious work engineering hardware to make it possible to shoot 61mm because it really is absolutely stunning! I can't imagine how much work and time is put into the equipment offered. I've sort of built my personal style on the Vision3 120 , I can't imagine not having access to it now. As it seems, no luck on obtaining 65mm for the time being. The word came down from the VP one day. My official Kodak dealer and I had a wonderful relationship, they were supportive of the respooling and I had plans to keep it on the market for still photographers to try. Great hangs at the Kodak House. It was an abrupt stop, an unfortunate forced end to a relationship.

Sorry to hear that's the word from your dealer, and yes that will be a big loss for people like and for people like Mercury Works.

I guess I'll be scraping together a few hundred dollars and going over to Mercury to stock up on 65mm film from them...

 

[brbo]

With this extra capital, Kodak wouldn't be pressed to raise prices and cut film production.

Price and production of film is not a function of cash at hand at EK.

 

[koraks]

Not so. Kodak stands to reap big bucks that can be used for film production investments.

You're right; I thought this was a separate entity that was split off 20 years ago and only had its liabilities towards pensioners. Looks like it's still wholly owned by Kodak.

Price and production of film is not a function of cash at hand at EK.

Well, it shouldn't be at least.

None of all this relates directly to the sales of Cine film for still purposes.

 

[MattKing]

Eastman Kodak is a printing services business with a division that we are interested in because it is involved with photography.
Any dealing with an investment asset won't directly be related to their photography business, so is no more relevant to Photrio than if they have a change to their printing plate manufacturing business.

 

[Cholentpot]

I thought it might have to do something with the way the Alaris situation. Any way Kodak can work their way around that deal eventually? I want Kodak to make decisions on what and how to sell to customers again. They did pretty good for 120 years or so.

 

[MattKing]

I thought it might have to do something with the way the Alaris situation. Any way Kodak can work their way around that deal eventually? I want Kodak to make decisions on what and how to sell to customers again. They did pretty good for 120 years or so.

No real connection. And we have discussed the reasons for the Eastman Kodak bankruptcy extensively in past threads, as well as how the arrangement with Kodak Alaris saved the film manufacturing itself.
Can we get back to the subject of the thread itself please.

 

[Cholentpot]

No real connection. And we have discussed the reasons for the Eastman Kodak bankruptcy extensively in past threads, as well as how the arrangement with Kodak Alaris saved the film manufacturing itself.
Can we get back to the subject of the thread itself please.

Isn't the main subject of the thread Kodak Alaris at its core? We can't get bulk film anymore because of Kodak Alaris playing games.

 

[MattKing]

Isn't the main subject of the thread Kodak Alaris at its core? We can't get bulk film anymore because of Kodak Alaris playing games.

Unless there are specific exceptions in the agreement, Kodak Alaris owns the rights to market and distribute Kodak branded still film.
They paid hundreds of millions of dollars for that, and assumed liabilities worth probably that much as well.

 

[mshchem]

My opinion is that it's not in Eastman Kodak's or Kodak Alaris' best interest to have unofficial (???) spoolers selling repackaged movie film. Cinestill has established itself as a major player, they're not at risk.

On the pension, sounds like EK made some $$$ playing in the stock market and now is cashing in, the stock went up. Weird how things work.

 

[koraks]

My opinion is that it's not in Eastman Kodak's or Kodak Alaris' best interest to have unofficial (???) spoolers selling repackaged movie film. Cinestill has established itself as a major player, they're not at risk.

What's the difference between 'unofficial' respoolers and Cinestill, apart from the likely much larger volume of the latter compared to the combined former? It's still a massive channel conflict that reduces financial returns on the production operation.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Isn't the main subject of the thread Kodak Alaris at its core? We can't get bulk film anymore because of Kodak Alaris playing games.

It's business, not games. Alaris has exclusive rights from Eastman to sell their 35mm photo film. When Eastman sells cine film converted to 35mm photo film by third parties, it violates their agreement with Alaris, reducing Alaris' sales and profits. If your employer gave 10% of your salary to someone else, would you be happy?

 

[OrientPoint]

What's the difference between 'unofficial' respoolers and Cinestill, apart from the likely much larger volume of the latter compared to the combined former? It's still a massive channel conflict that reduces financial returns on the production operation.

The difference is that Cinestill is essentially a contract coating client selling stocks distinct from Kodak's photo offerings, and in volume. Just like Lomography. The numbers seem to work for Kodak when it comes to toll coating.

The Cinestill offerings are based on Kodak motion picture stocks; they're not Portra or Tri-X so they are not (at least in theory) going to significantly cannibalize sales of Kodak's primary offerings. Just as Lomography sells Kodak-coated color film that sure seems like it would be a problem for Kodak, but isn't. The pricing to Cinestill (and Lomography) allows Kodak to get its cut and keep facilities utilized.

Contrast this with the respoolers, who are essentially "free riding" on the bulk pricing Hollywood receives in large part due to the Studios commitment to purchase tens of millions of dollars of stock each year. I seriously doubt the respoolers and hobbyists buying 400ft rolls of Vision 50d put anything more than the tiniest dent in Kodak's bottom line, but once noticed it's hard to ignore.

 

[koraks]

The Cinestill offerings are based on Kodak motion picture stocks; they're not Portra or Tri-X so they are not (at least in theory) going to significantly cannibalize sales of Kodak's primary offerings.

That argument would also apply to other minor operations and private individuals repurposing motion picture film for still photography. Yet, they're specifically being targeted with this new policy.

who are essentially "free riding" on the bulk pricing Hollywood receives in large part due to the Studios commitment to purchase tens of millions of dollars of stock each year.

We don't know the nature of the deals that these minor players have with Eastman. I personally don't think they're free-riding on anything else than what Cinestill is also benefiting from, which is a combination of a few things: some economies of scale in production, some slightly more lax QA and less costs involved in confectioning.

All considered there's something 'special' about the Cinestill deal that has nothing to do with the product as such. What that is...that's between Eastman, Alaris and Cinestill.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

...which is a combination of a few things: some economies of scale in production, some slightly more lax QA...

Interesting,* I would have thought movie film quality-control would be tighter, due to studio demands for the exact same result throughout a production.


* not being a troll, I am genuinely surprised

 

[koraks]

Interesting,* I would have thought movie film quality-control would be tighter, due to studio demands for the exact same result throughout a production.


* not being a troll, I am genuinely surprised

I don't know if QA is more lax, but I suspect it is, in particular w.r.t. isolated coating/emulsion defects. I've come across one or two particulate inclusions on Vision3, but never, ever on any of Kodak's still films. At 24fps, a single spec doesn't hurt all that much, especially given the fact that virtually all motion picture recording film is scanned and then digitally processed anyway, making it easy to correct a minor problem on a single frame. However, the same defect on an Ektar frame that someone wants to blow up to 16x20" and put on the wall...painful.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

I don't know if QA is more lax, but I suspect it is, in particular w.r.t. isolated coating/emulsion defects. I've come across one or two particulate inclusions on Vision3, but never, ever on any of Kodak's still films. At 24fps, a single spec doesn't hurt all that much, especially given the fact that virtually all motion picture recording film is scanned and then digitally processed anyway, making it easy to correct a minor problem on a single frame. However, the same defect on an Ektar frame that someone wants to blow up to 16x20" and put on the wall...painful.

That makes sense, thanks!

 

[Cholentpot]

Unless there are specific exceptions in the agreement, Kodak Alaris owns the rights to market and distribute Kodak branded still film.
They paid hundreds of millions of dollars for that, and assumed liabilities worth probably that much as well.

It's business, not games. Alaris has exclusive rights from Eastman to sell their 35mm photo film. When Eastman sells cine film converted to 35mm photo film by third parties, it violates their agreement with Alaris, reducing Alaris' sales and profits. If your employer gave 10% of your salary to someone else, would you be happy?

Because it's bad for the overall field of film. The more people shooting film the better. This is not a market where you can afford to kill off a segment. When my stock of short ends runs out I'm done shooting color. There are many I personally know just like me. Either they shoot shortends or were getting bulk rolls and re-rolling it. I myself have rolled down 400 foot rolls. It's a shame that due to reasons they're going to shoot themselves in the foot.

Like Jobs said when the Ipad came out and Apple bean counters complained that it would take Ipod sales away 'You're worried about taking Apple sales from Apple?'

It's all Kodak film in the end. The more film sold the better for Kodak no matter how its sold. I think Alaris is acting in bad faith for the overall future of film.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Because it's bad for the overall field of film. The more people shooting film the better. This is not a market where you can afford to kill off a segment. When my stock of short ends runs out I'm done shooting color. There are many I personally know just like me. Either they shoot shortends or were getting bulk rolls and re-rolling it. I myself have rolled down 400 foot rolls. It's a shame that due to reasons they're going to shoot themselves in the foot.

Like Jobs said when the Ipad came out and Apple bean counters complained that it would take Ipod sales away 'You're worried about taking Apple sales from Apple?'

It's all Kodak film in the end. The more film sold the better for Kodak no matter how its sold. I think Alaris is acting in bad faith for the overall future of film.

It's bad enough that Alaris has to compete with Ilford. So now they should also compete with Eastman, their exclusive supplier. You are arguing it does not matter to Eastman because it's all their film is true. But what's not true is that Alaris makes its money from distribution. Alaris is a different company. What Eastman earns has no effect on Alaris's bottom line.

 

[Cholentpot]

It's bad enough that Alaris has to compete with Ilford. So now they should also compete with Eastman, their exclusive supplier. You are arguing it does not matter to Eastman because it's all their film is true. But what's not true is that Alaris makes its money from distribution. Alaris is a different company. What Eastman earns has no effect on Alaris's bottom line.

'What Eastman earns has no effect on Alaris's bottom line'

Great, so Eastman should sell film under the Eastman label and Alaris can fly a kite. Business doesn't get locked down forever because of an agreement 20 odd years ago. At some point the markets have changed, revisit the contract and make a new deal. If Eastman can't pull a profit then Alaris can't make money either. If Eastman does well Alaris does well. Alaris is cutting their nose off in spite of their mug.

I don't really agree that Alaris is competing with Ilford. There's enough room in the market for everyone. It's not 1995 anymore where people are diehards. We shoot what's available and affordable. This week is Kodak, next week is Fuji, after that something from Ukraine.

One theory I have is Alaris sees the writing on the wall and is trying to maximize short term profit before the whole current establishment crumbles.

 

[MattKing]

'What Eastman earns has no effect on Alaris's bottom line'

Great, so Eastman should sell film under the Eastman label and Alaris can fly a kite. Business doesn't get locked down forever because of an agreement 20 odd years ago. At some point the markets have changed, revisit the contract and make a new deal. If Eastman can't pull a profit then Alaris can't make money either. If Eastman does well Alaris does well. Alaris is cutting their nose off in spite of their mug.

I don't really agree that Alaris is competing with Ilford. There's enough room in the market for everyone. It's not 1995 anymore where people are diehards. We shoot what's available and affordable. This week is Kodak, next week is Fuji, after that something from Ukraine.

One theory I have is Alaris sees the writing on the wall and is trying to maximize short term profit before the whole current establishment crumbles.

Alaris is a fair bit larger and employs considerably more people all around the world than the photographic film parts of Eastman Kodak. And if Eastman Kodak somehow made Kodak Alaris disappear, they would have to turn around and either contract with someone else to do what Kodak Alaris does, or increase their expenses hugely - the latter of which is not within the cards for Eastman Kodak and its current shareholders and Directors.
The things that Kodak Alaris does are critically important to having film available to end users all around the world. It costs real money to do what Kodak Alaris does. If Eastman Kodak did it, they would have to charge for it too.
The back door availability of relatively small quantities of motion picture film was originally in place to support users who normally bought large quantities of motion picture film and, to a small extent, to support motion picture film education. It never was intended for supplying the still film world.

 

[OrientPoint]

The back door availability of relatively small quantities of motion picture film was originally in place to support users who normally bought large quantities of motion picture film and, to a small extent, to support motion picture film education. It never was intended for supplying the still film world.

Yes, exactly. And Kodak will still sell small quantities of 8mm, 16mm and 35mm (yes that too) for both production and educational purposes. My first-hand experience is that Kodak is being quite reasonable. If you explain what you're doing they'll work with you. It's a bummer for respoolers, but the motion picture sales program was never intended to support that use.

 

[bfilm]

What's the difference between 'unofficial' respoolers and Cinestill, apart from the likely much larger volume of the latter compared to the combined former? It's still a massive channel conflict that reduces financial returns on the production operation.

The difference from the user's perspective is that they are getting cleaner and higher-quality film from CineStill because the films are specially coated and converted by Kodak for CineStill to photography standards instead of cinematography standards.

For example, reference again the CineStill FAQ I quoted earlier:

"It is important to note that CineStill's color negative films are NOT simply 'repackaged' motion picture film. We utilize some of the same advanced emulsion technology found in Motion Picture film to create still photography color negative film without rem-jet, optimized for archival C-41 processing, RA4 printing, and still photography film scanning. CineStill color film not only has higher speed and preserved qualities, but is also now manufactured for still photography with tried-and-true 135 steel cassettes with DX codes or premium 120 paper backing, edge-printed frame numbers, and stronger KS (Kodak Standard) perforations; without the rem-jet, contamination, motion picture edge signing, or BH (Bell and Howell) perforations -- which were prone to tearing."

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

'What Eastman earns has no effect on Alaris's bottom line'

Great, so Eastman should sell film under the Eastman label and Alaris can fly a kite. Business doesn't get locked down forever because of an agreement 20 odd years ago. At some point the markets have changed, revisit the contract and make a new deal. If Eastman can't pull a profit then Alaris can't make money either. If Eastman does well Alaris does well. Alaris is cutting their nose off in spite of their mug.

I don't really agree that Alaris is competing with Ilford. There's enough room in the market for everyone. It's not 1995 anymore where people are diehards. We shoot what's available and affordable. This week is Kodak, next week is Fuji, after that something from Ukraine.

One theory I have is Alaris sees the writing on the wall and is trying to maximize short term profit before the whole current establishment crumbles.

Alaris was bought last summer for millions by a private investment firm in California. I assume they did their homework and expect to make money from it. I also suspect it was the new owners who told Eastman to stop selling movie film that's converted to still film by third parties or they will sue for damages in court for violation of their contract with Eastman. It;s that contract that keeps Alaris in business. Without it, they'd have to fold their company.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alaris is a fair bit larger and employs considerably more people all around the world than the photographic film parts of Eastman Kodak. And if Eastman Kodak somehow made Kodak Alaris disappear, they would have to turn around and either contract with someone else to do what Kodak Alaris does, or increase their expenses hugely - the latter of which is not within the cards for Eastman Kodak and its current shareholders and Directors.
The things that Kodak Alaris does are critically important to having film available to end users all around the world. It costs real money to do what Kodak Alaris does. If Eastman Kodak did it, they would have to charge for it too.
The back door availability of relatively small quantities of motion picture film was originally in place to support users who normally bought large quantities of motion picture film and, to a small extent, to support motion picture film education. It never was intended for supplying the still film world.

You don't really know what Eastman would do without Alaris contract. They could use other middlemen who already distribute competitors' films to stores around the world. If that happened, the prices might be cheaper to final users as us.

I once held exclusive distribution rights in NYC for a piece of computerized control equipment. After successfully selling for three years, the manufacturer decided to open a branch office in NYC and ended my license. Live and learn. I should have had a better contract; my fault. Without the contract, Eastman could do the same.