I am sure CineStill asked them to do it so they can sale their crappy films.
Yeah, it sounds like Kodak is trying to protect their motion picture film market by offering different pricing tiers based on actual production use. They want to make sure the film goes to filmmakers, not just respooled for other uses, which would hurt their margins. Reflex seems to be caught in the middle, buying at the lower price and reselling, so Kodak's probably tightening up the rules to maintain their core business. It's all about keeping the motion picture market alive while still making money off other sales
I suspect some of the owners have connections with movie producers who use film.
In any case, you can be a film enthusiast and a good businessman at the same time.
Well, it was pure speculation when someone here said that the new owners are going to suck Alaris dry and throw it away because the new owners raised prices. That didn't seem fair to me.
Yeah, it sounds like Kodak is trying to protect their motion picture film market by offering different pricing tiers based on actual production use. They want to make sure the film goes to filmmakers, not just respooled for other uses, which would hurt their margins.
I strongly believe the VERY NICE GUYS at CIneStill are driving this!!! I will "NEVER" give them my money!
I wish I can use the actual language but don't want to be in trouble with the mods
Kodak Alaris is more than film:
Kodak Alaris Announces Acquisition by Kingswood Capital Management - Kingswood Capital Management, L.P.
Kodak Alaris announced today that Kingswood Capital Management, LP ("Kingswood") has acquired the company from the United Kingdom Pension Protection Fundwww.kingswood-capital.com
Of course, Alan, we all know that.
But for us as film photography lovers the focus and main interest is on their film distribution business, because that is really relevant for us.
Same here. I only got xx120 once. I wish they sold XX120 cinema rolls.Aside from holding my nose and buying some 400D(Vision3 250D) to compare to the real stuff, the only Cinestill product I’ve bought more than once is 120 Double X.
There are ways to shoot real Vision3 in my Hasselblads and my Pentax 645N by shooting bulk 65mm, and fortunately the person I buy that from(in 50 or 100ft rolls) charges about half the cost of Porta or Cinestill per frame, or actually a bit less if I buy the 100ft rolls(last I bought was ~$150 for 50ft or $250/100ft).
Unfortunately, although Double-X was coated on 65mm for Oppenheimer, current word is pretty emphatic that it will never be made again in that format. 200T 65mm also reportedly hasn’t been coated since 2016(when the roll I have was made) and there’s speculation it may be gone too. 50D, 250D, and 500T are likely around in 65mm for the long haul, and Zach at Mercury Works(who I’d go out on a limb and say most of the guys like me shooting 65mm still buy from) has indicated that he’s in good shape to continue buying from Kodak.
As much as I like Double-X, my future 120 use is likely in jeopardy with it only being available from Cinestill. I have a few dozen rolls in 35mm from a few different respoolers, so can continue using it for a little while. I just wish I’d bought a 400ft roll when I still could.
What is being ignored (see my explanations above) is the fact that color film has become so expensive that in many markets the growth trend for color film crashed, because in a low-income market the average Joe cannot pay the current monopoly prices. Respooled movie film is at least helping to keep film alive in such markets.
If we look at that topic from the perspective of a sustainable, long-term healthy film market, it is clear that we simply need more consumer friendly priced color film, especially in the emerging markets in Asia. And if Kodak Alaris do not want that this is served by respooled Eastman Kodak film, they could make these markets an attractive offer by their own. Without the monopoly mark-up.
I have to agree with you based on my experiences with travelling in Asian countries: Before Kodak Alaris' massive price increases of the last four years there has been a huge film resurgence in Asia. But that has been severly damaged by this Alaris monopoly price inflation.
In these markets lots of photographers switched to respooled film, just to keep going with film. Regular Kodak Alaris branded film has become too expensive for them.
From an economic point of view it is very clear what KA is doing with their price policy to exploit their color negative film monopoly: They are testing the price elasticity of their products in the market. To get the maximum profit. If customers leave the market, they don't care, as long as the profit is optimised.
When you have a price elasticity of 1, then an e.g. 10% price increase would lead to 10% less demand. That is often the case in very competitive markets with products with identical features.
But in monopoly markets that is not the case, the price elasticity is generally lower because there is no competitor product you can switch to. Most customers get angry, but they buy nevertheless because there is no alternative (up to a certain limit of course).
Kodak Alaris has increased the prices in several steps and monitored their income: In most cases so far the increased price has overcompensated the losses in demand (example: you increase the price by 10%, but demand is only dropping by 4%). That had worked for the color films.
Alaris tried the same for BW, but it has not worked there: Customers switched to the competition in masses, and Alaris had to lower the price to 30-40% to get customers back.
We can watch here economic theory in real action.
Kodak does not have a monopoly. People can switch to other manufacturers or to digital.
For those who want to shoot color film, there's not all that much of an alternative though. It's very close to a strict monopoly, and in practice it pretty much works that way. The fact that digital is an alternative doesn't do away with this fact. If there was only one car manufacturer on the world, people would be able to bike to work, but the car co. would still be a monopoly.
Besides, the reflection of @JPaker on price elasticity makes good sense - although we cannot strictly speaking know whether Alaris is deliberately testing it. I've offered a similar argument a few times before on the forum and in the same context. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...o-focus-on-moving-forward.196708/post-2637328
A bicycle isn't an alternative to an automobile.
When people say "Kodak has a (practical) monopoly on colour film" they mean just that. Digital is not an alternative to film if what you want is to use film.
I don;t think I made my point clear about Kodak not being a monopoly. The fact that there is digital and it's an an option, Kodak has to be careful when pricing their products or they'll chase away their last remaining customers
I don;t think I made my point clear about Kodak not being a monopoly.
I don;t think I made my point clear about Kodak not being a monopoly. The fact that there is digital and it's an an option, Kodak has to be careful when pricing their products or they'll chase away their last remaining customers. The fact digital practically killed film is proof that that is real, and Kodak is not a monopoly. In a true monopoly, people have nowhere to go at all like making the only drug that cures a particular disease. Then the company charges whatever it wants and isn't concerned with prices.
I wouldn't be the least surprised to learn that the Kodaks are supportive of Harman's work with Phoenix
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?