The remjet makes a significant and positive difference w.r.t. image quality though. If Cinestill is what remains of Vision3 available for still shooters, I'm out and will probably cut back on CN photography and go back to C41 for the rest. Or digital of course.
Any firm is totally free to refuse to sell to whomever they like.
Any two firms are also totally free to come to agreements in which they impede each other's access to certain markets. It's very common, too.
Yes and no. In the film market where there are so many manufacturers and distributors, you're right. But in an exclusive market, a company could be violating US monopoly legislation. For example, let's say nVidia only sold AI products to Amazon locking out everyone else like Apple, Adobe, etc from buying their product. There would surely be a lawsuit by these other firms claiming monopolization of an industry. The US government might even sue.
Wasn't Wolfram contending that KA has no interest in selling the tiny amount of the film market that the respooled film can be sold to and I had contended that as long as this small amount did not involve any cost on KA's part then I couldn't see why this would matter to KA or to whomsoever KA, as was, has sold its interestOn the other hand, if EK came out with a new model that reduced the sale of its different models and kept KA from selling it, KA would have a claim since EK violated its exclusivity contract.
Depending on the Market, In some places two firms colluding to restrict sales of some product could be considered "Restraint of Trade" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade naturaly many agreements claim to be for other resons.Any firm is totally free to refuse to sell to whomever they like.
Any two firms are also totally free to come to agreements in which they impede each other's access to certain markets. It's very common, too.
I question if Remjet makes a huge difference in still photos, I understand the anti-halation bit, 35mm still cameras don't have innards that create a lot of reflections. I will not argue the point.
I question if Remjet makes a huge difference in still photos
Me too; I only scan Vision3 for digital archiving (quasi-contact print) and technical examples. Its main purpose is to get printed optically, which it does wonderfully well on today's papers.I'm also still interested in color prints from my enlargers so this also puts me into the Ektar/Portra camp.
And it isn't about KA trying to stop sales of motion picture film.
It is about KA protecting their sales of still film.
I question if Remjet makes a huge difference in still photos,
Seems to me it isn't a coincidence that the takeover of KA and Kodak's refusal to sell MPF to low volume users happened subsequently. KA wants to put a kabash on the competition since they apparently don't get a piece of MP sales.
You can't even get 35mm MPF at B&H anymore but they still sell other sizes. That could also be because of demand though. Time will tell.
Wasn't Wolfram contending that KA has no interest in selling the tiny amount of the film market that the respooled film can be sold to and I had contended that as long as this small amount did not involve any cost on KA's part then I couldn't see why this would matter to KA or to whomsoever KA, as was, has sold its interest
It just appeared to me that the film consumer was not being well served by what appears to be an agreement designed not to work in the consumer's favour in this instance and yet does little or no harm to the KA position
Control of the market by means of restrictions in favour of one entity is always the goal of that entity but this needs to be kept in check by rules and regulations for the consumer's sake doesn't it
I can only speak for myself of course but I'd hate to be in a position where we, as consumers and as society ended up with unrestricted market control by monopolies
I fear that some of those may then exhibit behaviour that was not very nice
pentaxuser
One thing I don't understand....why is KA upset about people like us using Vision 3 derived stocks for still photography if the volume is insignificant?
And if the volume is in fact not insignificant, why not simply sell via KA? I doubt most of us would have any problem with buying Kodak branded Vision 3 derived stocks for still photography. Would KA worry that 500T might take away from sales of Portra 800? They're very different films with very different colour paletes.
Anyway, I just ordered some more Candido 800. I hope I am still able to do so when I next need it.
I wonder if it'll work that way in reality? The abundance of respooled motion picture film not only supplied a market, it also helped make one. Ending the sale of that will have the immediate impact of reducing the available supply of products and also removing something that some users may actually prefer. A large part of using film, for a large number of people, is getting an "imperfect" result. Kodak still colour film may be too "perfect" for those people. Such people may drop film entirely. An expensive hobby (fad) really doesn't draw more people in by becoming more expensive. Kodak may ultimately see a drop in sales of film by doing this.
What if they have to drop Portra 800 because too many people are using 500T? I can't imagine there's huge market for it.
It's more that there's demand for an 800D ECN-2 stock within the film/ TV/ streaming industry.
Stop trying to cut corners and buy Eastman Kodak photo film distributed by Alaris. Alaris has a legal right to protect their market. If you don't like how they run their business, buy another brand.
The jury based on Photrio would seem to be very much still out as to whether respooling is adversely affecting trad non cine still film sales
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?