Kodak no longer selling E100D directly to customers?

Cholentpot · Nov 28, 2024

Alan Edward Klein said:
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.

Investment firms tend to drive businesses into the ground trying to flail every drop of cash out of it before leaving a deflated corpse behind. I don't trust they know what they're doing. They see a short term opportunity to make some quick cash off what is seen as a flash in the pan trend. Unless there's someone in there who's a die hard film shooter I don't see this ending well. The bottom line is all that counts. Death by bean counting.

Alan Edward Klein said:
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.

I mean imagine if Eastman Kodak sold out their door film. Set up a shop in Rochester, I'd make a pilgrimage there once a year to stock up on cheap film, bad batches and short ends. I worked on campus a while back, they had massive storage that used to be used just for batches that were slightly off. These would be kicked into storage and then recycled for the silver and other stuff. Imagine now if they made a batch of Gold 200 and the speed was off or there was a color hue, instead of trashing it they could just do a funky rebrand limited release and the consumers would eat it up.

cmacd123 · Nov 28, 2024

As far as I can tell, the CineStill product is coated with a the motion picture negative emuslion, and without any rem jet. the only cine still product I have purchased was their XX negative. the film I received showed every sign of having been slip, perforated and packaged by Harman Technologies. that would also explain the ability of them offering a 120 version of their films. the implication is of course that Cne still is buying the full width of film coming off the coater, with at least a major length between the splices. (probaly they roll would have to be at least 1000 ft to make it worthwhile to run on the Ilford packing machines.)

there are a few places that do repackage movie film up till now. I suspect that Kodak (eastman Kodak that is ) will be selective on who they deal with.

George Mann · Nov 28, 2024

Cholentpot said:
Investment firms tend to drive businesses into the ground trying to flail every drop of cash out of it before leaving a deflated corpse behind. I don't trust they know what they're doing. They see a short term opportunity to make some quick cash off what is seen as a flash in the pan trend. Unless there's someone in there who's a die hard film shooter I don't see this ending well. The bottom line is all that counts. Death by bean counting.

Your analysis best describes the truth of what is happening here.

MattKing · Nov 29, 2024

Cholentpot said:
Investment firms tend to drive businesses into the ground trying to flail every drop of cash out of it before leaving a deflated corpse behind. I don't trust they know what they're doing. They see a short term opportunity to make some quick cash off what is seen as a flash in the pan trend. Unless there's someone in there who's a die hard film shooter I don't see this ending well. The bottom line is all that counts. Death by bean counting.

That happens.
And the converse happens - with one very good example seeming to be what Pemberstone has been doing for the last few years with Harman Technology, the makers of Ilford and Kentmere and Harman films.
There really isn't much cash in a marketing and distribution entity, unless the plan is to earn money with it over a long period of time.

mshchem · Nov 29, 2024

These private equity guys know treasure when they find it. Alaris does a great job, global reach. Lots of potential. I suspect that the employees are eager to see what's going to happen.
The Harman story shows what can be done.

koraks · Nov 29, 2024

bfilm said:
The difference from the user's perspective

That's like trying to understand how paper is made by reading a crime novel that's printed on paper: tangentially related at best.
You're not going to make sense of the channel conflict and Cinestill's position in this regard by regurgitating Cinestill's marketing speak - which includes at least one blatant lie and the remainder consists of mostly irrelevant 'improvements'. But that's an entirely different matter.

The question still remains: how is Cinestill's sales of motion picture film (which is what it is, regardless of the smoke & mirrors they try to conjure up) is any different from the same activity by smaller players in terms of the channel conflict between motion and still picture film? The answer is that it really isn't any different. The explanation isn't in Cinestill's half-baked sales pitch. Don't even bother looking there.

richyd · Nov 29, 2024

Instead of playing corporate, legal hard arses, Alaris might want to look at why this respooling activity has mushroomed over recent years and address that. I would put down to 1- Pricing, 2- Availability, 3- Choice.

Availability is in the hands of EK coupled with increased demand and not helped by Fuji’s weird strategy of death by a thousand cuts.

Choice - with increased demand people are looking to ECN films and others like Aerochrome which I was happy to have the opportunity to try in 120 will will do so again, if available.

So a mini industry has developed even to the extent of chemical manufactures such as Bellini producing ECN developing kits.

The demand is there, which leaves pricing and if you price your product so that customers look elsewhere for cheaper products maybe you need to adjust your pricing strategy. Because a proportion of total sales of still film are taken by this newer channel does not mean to say that if you stop this channel those customers with buy from you. Look at the reason why they sought an alternative in the first place. Maybe if you reduced your prices you would increase sales and stifle the new channel anyway.

Two years ago I bought a few packs of 120 E100 at a good price, older stock before the next 20% price increase. That film is now twice the price. I have a good stash of frozen E6 but with Fuji nowhere to be seen and Kodak the only name in the game when my stock runs out I won’t be buying any more unless for a very special occasion and with rationed use. For most colour I think I will have to go digital.

As Koraks says Cinestill is still allowed to obtain and produce films under their brand name. All of the other resooplers also have to market the film under a name other than Kodak. Eastman even coat film for Fuji. Without seeing the contract between EK and Alaris one does’t know how this selectivity takes place.

koraks · Nov 29, 2024

richyd said:
Because a proportion of total sales of still film are taken by this newer channel does not mean to say that if you stop this channel those customers with buy from you.

Not all of them, but a part of them will. And that part may very well turn out to be much more profitable than the loss of those who are not willing to switch (back) to Gold, Portra etc. This is important to keep in mind, as it looks like Alaris and/or Eastman are primarily trying to stop the bleeding. No doubt they'd like it if they could somehow actually grow the film business, but I suspect they recognize that the bargain bottom of the market is difficult to build a sustainable industry on anyway.

Supercine · Nov 29, 2024

koraks said:
The question still remains: how is Cinestill's sales of motion picture film (which is what it is, regardless of the smoke & mirrors they try to conjure up) is any different from the same activity by smaller players in terms of the channel conflict between motion and still picture film? The answer is that it really isn't any different. The explanation isn't in Cinestill's half-baked sales pitch. Don't even bother looking there.

I agree that the CineStill product is essentially EK Vision 3 stock. However it would appear that CineStill order a contract coating of an existing emulsion, BUT with KS perforations not BH and also no Remjet. Either of these (or both) must be sufficiently different to the stock offered to movie production to not anger KA or infringe contracts. EK are after all allowed to contract coat. So, by this rationale, I can, to some extent, see KA not being happy with respoolers who sell unmodified movie film, but not with the casual small market home 'enthusiast' who does DIY from short ends or 100' rolls. It's all about the volume and adjustments to the coating and confectioning event that place Cinestill outside of the stop sell of Vision 3 stocks. I wonder if Reflx Lab order a contract coat, or remove the Remjet themselves? A quick look on the CineStill website shows that they don't sell Remjet film (confectioned raw movie film), however, they do (currently) sell bulk Ektachrome 100D! So confectioned, ready to roll(!) unmodified Vision 3 maybe the issue as this potentially impacts on KA sales. Clear as mud!!

Also what about Kodak Aerocolor IV? this is a bulk film intended for use other than what stills photographers use it for.....

koraks · Nov 29, 2024

Supercine said:
So, by this rationale, I can, to some extent, see KA not being happy with respoolers who sell unmodified movie film, but not with the casual small market home 'enthusiast' who does DIY from short ends or 100' rolls.

By your rationale the main problem is Cinestill given their volume. Evidently Eastman has seen the opportunity to work outside of the contractual agreement with Alaris.

Supercine said:
I wonder if Reflx Lab order a contract coat, or remove the Remjet themselves?

I don't think they remove remjet.

Supercine said:
So confectioned, ready to roll(!) unmodified Vision 3 maybe the issue as this potentially impacts on KA sales.

The same is true for modified/remjet-less Vision3. Even more so.

Supercine said:
Also what about Kodak Aerocolor IV?

Good question. I expect its sales to respoolers may likewise be affected in the future. But I think the bleeding is a lot heavier on the motion picture front.

Milpool · Nov 29, 2024

Cholentpot said:
Investment firms tend to drive businesses into the ground trying to flail every drop of cash out of it before leaving a deflated corpse behind. I don't trust they know what they're doing. They see a short term opportunity to make some quick cash off what is seen as a flash in the pan trend. Unless there's someone in there who's a die hard film shooter I don't see this ending well. The bottom line is all that counts. Death by bean counting.

Correctamundo.

Supercine · Nov 29, 2024

koraks said:
By your rationale the main problem is Cinestill given their volume. Evidently Eastman has seen the opportunity to work outside of the contractual agreement with Alaris.

No, I think it's due to the variances in the coating event and end product confectioning that make it sufficiently different to not infringe agreements. To some extent, there is also the fact that CineStill has been doing this longer and more successfully than others. It is, in someways a 'loop hole' that has been exploited but thats something for the contract lawyers to fight out!
Be in no mistake, I am no fan of CineStill, their prices or business practices. I am just saying as I see it.

koraks said:
I don't think they (Reflx Lab) remove remjet.

If this is true, and they order a coating from EK, it will be interesting to see if they continue to sell modified Vision 3

koraks said:
The same is true for modified/remjet-less Vision3. Even more so.

You are right! However, as it's a sufficiently 'different' product (as in a contract coating, [No Remjet, different perfs etc]), it doesn't impact the contract. Grey areas, but ones that are again used to circumvent contractual obligations!

These sort of shenanigans are what keep lawyers in business!

Cholentpot · Nov 29, 2024

George Mann said:
Your analysis best describes the truth of what is happening here.

Milpool said:
Correctamundo.

koraks said:
Not all of them, but a part of them will. And that part may very well turn out to be much more profitable than the loss of those who are not willing to switch (back) to Gold, Portra etc. This is important to keep in mind, as it looks like Alaris and/or Eastman are primarily trying to stop the bleeding. No doubt they'd like it if they could somehow actually grow the film business, but I suspect they recognize that the bargain bottom of the market is difficult to build a sustainable industry on anyway.

MattKing said:
That happens.
And the converse happens - with one very good example seeming to be what Pemberstone has been doing for the last few years with Harman Technology, the makers of Ilford and Kentmere and Harman films.
There really isn't much cash in a marketing and distribution entity, unless the plan is to earn money with it over a long period of time.

Harmon was taken over by enthusiasts. Think of how Polaroid was resurrected. I know nothing of the investment firm that Kodak is dealing with but I do know if they were die hard film folks we would have known by now. People like to have choices, they like variety and multiple avenues of purchase. Shutting down the small guy to pick up some theoretical extra cash is dumb business. You know why? No one needs film any more. I know it's not the popular thing to say here but it's the truth. The tides can shift very quickly. Pro DSLRs are verging on 'Vintage' territory.

'Hey Youtube, I'm here to tell you guys that I'm switching things up. Film will always be my first love but I've recently discovered the joys of DSLRs. It's like shooting film but without film. Today I'm reviewing the excellent Canon EOS 5D line. These can be had used for a song and their image quality is still excellent. You'll still get that wonderful electro mechanical feel of the mirror and shutter, none of that sterile mirrorless stuff. You can even shoot JPEGs straight out of camera and there's no need for photoshop or messing with RAW files. Over the next few months we'll be reviewing all the big names in DSLRs from the past few decades.'

And with that, what's left of the film industry goes kaput. The film surge ends and we'll talk about The Great Comeback and final bowout of film. First to die will be color, then oddball stuff. 110 goes, 120 is next and last standing will be B&W 35mm film.

brbo · Nov 29, 2024

Supercine said:
I agree that the CineStill product is essentially EK Vision 3 stock. However it would appear that CineStill order a contract coating of an existing emulsion, BUT with KS perforations not BH and also no Remjet.

Perforations are not part of film coating process and everything points to the conclusion that EK does not do perforations and finishing for Cinestill. Even if they were doing the perforation and finishing for Cinestill, KS perforation would be deemed closer to existing still film and the opposite.

Supercine said:
CineStill website shows that they don't sell Remjet film (confectioned raw movie film), however, they do (currently) sell bulk Ektachrome 100D! So confectioned, ready to roll(!) unmodified Vision 3 maybe the issue as this potentially impacts on KA sales.

Cinestill does not sell 35mm 100D (5294) and there are very very very few people that consider 8mm and 16mm 100D rolls as "ready to roll" for still cameras.

Supercine · Nov 29, 2024

brbo said:
Perforations are not part of film coating process and everything points to the conclusion that EK does not do perforations and finishing for Cinestill. Even if they were doing the perforation and finishing for Cinestill, KS perforation would be deemed closer to existing still film and the opposite.

Perfs are not part of the coating, but Remjet is. I said either, or both must make it sufficiently different in the eyes of those that care. The fact is that something is legally different, these are the 2 obvious ones, maybe there are others... The fact is that (modified) Vision 3 emulsion/coating/confectioning with KS perfs, no Remjet and not the same emulsion as those marketed by KA is not legally deemed an infringement of the agreement, but straight sales of unmodified Vision 3 and Ektachrome for the stills market is.

brbo said:
Cinestill does not sell 35mm 100D (5294) and there are very very very few people that consider 8mm and 16mm 100D rolls as "ready to roll" for still cameras

My mistake on the 35mm Ektachrome, I saw the can and assumed 35mm. However, I was not talking about S8 & 16mm film as ready to roll in a still camera. it's the 35mm unmodified stock that is the problem. We can play semantics all day long (best left to the lawyers), but there is a legal difference and that's what makes CineStill able to do what they do. I have surmised to the possible differences and the 'workaround' employed. Others are welcome to add theirs.

Milpool · Nov 29, 2024

Cholentpot said:
Harmon was taken over by enthusiasts. Think of how Polaroid was resurrected. I know nothing of the investment firm that Kodak is dealing with but I do know if they were die hard film folks we would have known by now. People like to have choices, they like variety and multiple avenues of purchase. Shutting down the small guy to pick up some theoretical extra cash is dumb business. You know why? No one needs film any more. I know it's not the popular thing to say here but it's the truth. The tides can shift very quickly. Pro DSLRs are verging on 'Vintage' territory.

'Hey Youtube, I'm here to tell you guys that I'm switching things up. Film will always be my first love but I've recently discovered the joys of DSLRs. It's like shooting film but without film. Today I'm reviewing the excellent Canon EOS 5D line. These can be had used for a song and their image quality is still excellent. You'll still get that wonderful electro mechanical feel of the mirror and shutter, none of that sterile mirrorless stuff. You can even shoot JPEGs straight out of camera and there's no need for photoshop or messing with RAW files. Over the next few months we'll be reviewing all the big names in DSLRs from the past few decades.'

And with that, what's left of the film industry goes kaput. The film surge ends and we'll talk about The Great Comeback and final bowout of film. First to die will be color, then oddball stuff. 110 goes, 120 is next and last standing will be B&W 35mm film.

I’m alone on this but I’ve already expressed I’m also unconvinced when it comes to the more recent developments at Harman/Pemberstone.

OrientPoint · Nov 29, 2024

koraks said:
The question still remains: how is Cinestill's sales of motion picture film (which is what it is, regardless of the smoke & mirrors they try to conjure up) is any different from the same activity by smaller players in terms of the channel conflict between motion and still picture film? The answer is that it really isn't any different. The explanation isn't in Cinestill's half-baked sales pitch. Don't even bother looking there.

The difference is that EK is making money in its deal with Cinestill. It does not generate significant revenue selling rolls of motion picture film to enthusiasts and small respoolers – if it did it would not be kneecapping them now.

Cinestill is functioning in a sense as a technology licensor. They sell EK's technology/product under their own brand, handling marketing and differentiation. In return, EK gets a cut through their pricing to Cinestill. It surely yields a better return than selling bulk-priced stock to all comers. In return EK provides Cinestill with a product that is clearly different than anything else on the market.

I'm not a fan of Cinestill either. Their products (esp. chemicals) are mostly marketing hype, and their business practices are troubling. But their film is clearly differentiated from both Kodak's and respoolers. You can get wonky ECN colors in C41 without having to deal with remjet. Clearly, that's worth something... maybe not to me or you, but there's a market for it.

Cholentpot · Nov 29, 2024

Milpool said:
I’m alone on this but I’ve already expressed I’m also unconvinced when it comes to the more recent developments at Harman/Pemberstone.

I haven't been following so I have no idea. Agfa I think is a bunch of film geeks.

Alan Edward Klein · Nov 29, 2024

Cholentpot said:
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.

Despite Alaris's contract with Eastman, nothing is stopping them from licensing Kodak to sell film to others, including CInestill, for re-spooling into whatever photo film they want. They could license Eastman to sell Kodak film under the Ilford brand. Maybe that's why Eastman is upgrading their film plant this month. So they can make more film. Of course, Alaris will take their cut as a license fee or markup profit. It appears to me that the current Eastman direct sales to Cinestill were making Alaris nothing in fees and lowering the amount of Alaris sales of standard Kodak photo film. So they told Eastman to shut it down. We'll see what happens with all these arrangements in the future. I;m sure the new Alaris owners want to expand sales and profits. Claiming they're acting in bad faith because they're protecting their contractual rights seems to be a strange way to do business.

brbo · Nov 29, 2024

Supercine said:
The fact is that (modified) Vision 3 emulsion/coating/confectioning with KS perfs, no Remjet and not the same emulsion as those marketed by KA...

KA doesn't and never have marketed any Vision film.

Supercine · Nov 29, 2024

brbo said:
KA doesn't and never have marketed any Vision film.

Obviously! And that’s the difference…

Cholentpot · Nov 29, 2024

Alan Edward Klein said:
Despite Alaris's contract with Eastman, nothing is stopping them from licensing Kodak to sell film to others, including CInestill, for re-spooling into whatever photo film they want. They could license Eastman to sell Kodak film under the Ilford brand. Maybe that's why Eastman is upgrading their film plant this month. So they can make more film. Of course, Alaris will take their cut as a license fee or markup profit. It appears to me that the current Eastman direct sales to Cinestill were making Alaris nothing in fees and lowering the amount of Alaris sales of standard Kodak photo film. So they told Eastman to shut it down. We'll see what happens with all these arrangements in the future. I;m sure the new Alaris owners want to expand sales and profits. Claiming they're acting in bad faith because they're protecting their contractual rights seems to be a strange way to do business.

Seeing the writing on the wall of the future of film but pointing to a generation old contract and forcing the supplier to stick to it is a bad way to protect the future of that business. It's not 2008 anymore. The world of photography has had a massive shift. Almost as big as the shift from film to digital. Give the customers what they want, not what cooperate made a deal with. Imagine if Coke comes out and says 'We can't see Vanilla Coke anymore because only McDonalds has the distribution for Vanilla and there's nothing we can do about it.' A strong company always finds a way to satisfy their customer base. Pointing to Alaris is a lame excuse.

How about Eastman starts their own line of film? Eastman Original.

Supercine · Nov 29, 2024

Cholentpot said:
How about Eastman starts their own line of film? Eastman Original.

Because the contract won’t allow it and nothing is that simple.
If the contract needs changing, both parties need to agree to it, otherwise breach of contract is expensive and conversely changing a contract is expensive!

MattKing · Nov 29, 2024

Cholentpot said:
Harmon was taken over by enthusiasts.

Nope. Harman was started by enthusiast, as a vehicle to purchase assets from the bankrupt former Ilford Imaging. A few years later they sold the business they rebuilt to Pemberstone, who are an investment business with no particular previous connection with photography.
And it is Pemberstone who have been in the ownership chair while Harman has invested in the colour film market - potentially a huge expansion (if they are successful).

MattKing · Nov 29, 2024

The contract between EK and KA was re-negotiated, and the Cinestill/toll coating businesses are apparently expressly provided for in the result.
But sale of exactly the same film as a current Kodak branded still film, with a slightly different set of packaging and perforations out of the proverbial "back door" - that appears to be still included in the very valuable rights that KA bought.

Kodak no longer selling E100D directly to customers?

Cholentpot

cmacd123

George Mann

MattKing

Moderator

mshchem

koraks

Moderator

richyd

koraks

Moderator

Supercine

koraks

Moderator

Milpool

Supercine

Cholentpot

brbo

Supercine

Milpool

OrientPoint

Cholentpot

Alan Edward Klein

brbo

Supercine

Cholentpot

Supercine

MattKing

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

Kodak no longer selling E100D directly to customers?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency