So Just What Do They Mean By "Re-Branded" Films...??

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
179,580
Messages
2,472,780
Members
94,843
Latest member
ocieb
Recent bookmarks
0

DF

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
424
I was recently told, for instance, CineStill 50D is actually old movie film. Is this true, and if so, how do "they" get away with selling something old as new?
It doesn't surprise me when I saw my results, and this time, for the very first time in my life, I'm 'gonna blame the film, not me.
 
Last edited:

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
9,060
Location
Humboldt Co.
Shooter
Large Format
Years ago, several companies re-packaged Ilford film as their store brand. Freestyle sold FP4 as Arista 100 for many years. I could tell no difference with 8x10 sheets, except for the notch code. Best deal around for awhile!
 

Pieter12

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
3,866
Location
Magrathean's computer
Shooter
Super8
I was recently told, for instance, CineStill 50D is actually old movie film. Is this true, and if so, how do "they" get away with selling something old as new?
It doesn't surprise me when I saw my results, and this time, for the very first time in my life, I'm 'gonna blame the film, not me.

I am not sure it is old in the sense that it's expired. I don't know, but it could be left-over short ends, but it should be fine. They have just packaged it under a new name. Cinestill film should have an expiration date on the package.
 

momus

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
4,819
Location
Lower Earth
Shooter
Medium Format
And now the Arista 100 is repackaged Foma 100. Arista Premium used to be repackaged Tri-X, and Agfa Vista film could have been who knows what? They tried to stuff all maner of films in those cannisters, waved a magic wand over them and shazam, Agfa film lives again. So rebranded films has a wide latitude for definitions.

I used to shoot color movie film in Portland, think it was sold by Seattle Films. You had to use their lab for developing though.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,756
Location
Germany
Shooter
Multi Format
How do "they" get away with selling something old as new?

You did not indicate where you are located respectively where you bought the film. But I am not aware of an obligation to put on the film a "use before" date (if you refer to such). Though it is usual meanwhile. Keep in mind that even Harman still do not so with their papers.
 

woodlandSerenade

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
Messages
65
Location
Michigan
Shooter
Analog
Cinestill is fresh Eastman Vision 3 film that has the anti-static, anti-halation and lubricitive remjet backing removed so that it can be cross-processed in C-41 chemistry. I highly recommend developing the films in ECN-2 chemistry to see them really shine
 

MultiFormat Shooter

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 24, 2016
Messages
391
Shooter
Multi Format
I was recently told, for instance, CineStill 50D is actually old movie film. Is this true, and if so, how do "they" get away with selling something old as new?
It doesn't surprise me when I saw my results, and this time, for the very first time in my life, I'm 'gonna blame the film, not me.

It's new production, without the remjet, not "old" film. I took this image, with Cinestill 50D, and the film seems fine, to me. What issues did you have with your film?
 

Attachments

  • Nadia Ruslanova #1-17.jpg
    Nadia Ruslanova #1-17.jpg
    458.2 KB · Views: 57

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,756
Location
Germany
Shooter
Multi Format
Your thread title is about re-branding as such and you hinted at Cinestill only "for instance".

Re-branding is about as old as the dry plate. And used for various purposes on various levels.

Starting already with the manufacturer themselves offering same film under two brands, one cheaper than the other, to reach different markets with different price expectations.

Re-branding also may be used at converting a film into a format not offered by the manufacturer of the film itself.

But re-branding is also used to give a common film an exotic heritage yielding higher retail price than the original. Even though this may be seen as annoying, even at this forum people willingly bought such for their nicer packaging.
 
Last edited:

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
7,196
Location
Scottsdale Az
Shooter
Multi Format
Rebranding is not new, GAF made film under the Focal label for Kmart. After GAF closed up shop in 1977 or so 3M made Kmart color film, 3M split off it's film division, Ferraina, who sold it's film under different labels. In 90s and early 2000s Fuji repackaged film for Polaroid and Samsung to name just a few. Lucky repackaged film for Moto Photo. When the film market collapsed in 2009( I think 2009 is around the right time frame) even Kodak sold rolls to Freestyle as did Fuji and ILford. Ultrafine has sold many different films under it's house brand. Currently, as mentioned above, Freestyle is selling rebranded Foma, Cinestill is selling Kodak movie film, it is not outdated, my guess bought as entire rolls then cut finished and packaged, maybe Kodak is packaging as Cinestill color film is is Dx coded. Others buy Kodak movie film and preflash it to change the color? Others buy Kodak and other specialty 35mm black and white films and finishes and labels such as Cinestill 200 which is Kodak 35mm black and white movie film.
 

Pieter12

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
3,866
Location
Magrathean's computer
Shooter
Super8
You did not indicate where you are located respectively where you bought the film. But I am not aware of an obligation to put on the film a "use before" date (if you refer to such). Though it is usual meanwhile. Keep in mind that even Harman still do not so with
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
39,631
Location
Delta, BC, Canada
Shooter
Multi Format
The current Cinestill film doesn't even have the remjet removed. Instead, it is modern, top notch film designed originally for motion picture use that Eastman Kodak has produced in a custom run for Cinestill, where the remjet was never applied in the first place. Cinestill buys one or more really, really big rolls of the film, and then uses their facilities (or the facilities of 3rd party contractors) to "finish" it - meaning they cut it down into individual rolls, edge print it, put it into cassettes, label and box it and put it into a separate distribution chain.
To buy a custom run from Eastman Kodak, you need a big chunk of cash! And a good business plan.
I don't know that re-branding is a very good term for most of the other examples mentioned. In most cases, those films are available for wholesale purchase by anyone who wishes to market them under their own name. In many, but not all cases, the manufacturer can also supply custom "finishing" services as well. In many cases the manufacturer will also sell a version under its brand. That approach to the market has been common for many years - GAF/3M and Ferrania were major players in that market for years.
The same or similar approaches have been used in many industries for a long time. Automobiles and home appliances come to mind
For our UK friends, Harman (producers of Kentmere and Ilford) refer to "finishing" as "confectioning".
 

madNbad

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Messages
688
Location
Portland, Oregon
Shooter
35mm RF
I have a roll of Seattle Film Works. It was a repackaged movie film and they took care of the developing and printing. I never actually use them, I got the roll in a bunch of Kodak Snap Caps but I remember they had really great ads. In addition to film, they sold a lot of aero-graphic cameras and film. They were the first place to look if you needed a K-24 or a 4"x500' roll of aerial film
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,756
Location
Germany
Shooter
Multi Format
I don't know that re-branding is a very good term for most of the other examples mentioned.

It is the commonly applied term.
Well, if a manufacturers from the starts offer a film under two brands, then double-branding would be mire applicable. Also when a film is modified beying a different type of conversion, actually a new film comes into existence, as when a film is offered for a different use, by application of a proprietary, own process.
 

tokam

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
486
Location
Sydney, Aust
Shooter
Multi Format
Around 1980, in NZ, I worked with a couple of people who used Seattle Filmworks film and processing. Used to be quite a long wait to get the film processed and shipped back to NZ. From memory you had the choice of prints and/or mounted slides as the end product, (along with your negs, of course). Naturally they included a fresh film to get you on your way again. I wonder how those slides held up over time. I guess they were the movie print film as the Filmworks stock was a cine film.

I didn't try it myself as it seemed a bit exotic and I would have been too impatient to wait for the results from across the Pacific.
 

koraks

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
3,939
Location
Europe
Shooter
Multi Format
It is the commonly applied term.

The Cinestill example that @MattKing mentioned does explore the borderline between rebranding and contract manufacturing though. I'd still consider it rebranding because the basic material is unchanged Vision3, but it's kind of a grey area because the actual product properties are in fact adjusted specifically for Cinestill. It's not Vision3 anymore, it's sold under Cinestill brand only, and hence, it's debatable if it's still rebranding! For clarity of the discussion it probably doesn't help that at least Kodak and Ilford have a history of marketing film under their own brands as well as performing contract manufacturing for various other brands.

how do "they" get away with selling something old as new?

As said before, it's not old, so that's not the issue. As to how companies 'get away' with selling something they didn't manufacture themselves, well...there wouldn't be all too many products on the shelves if companies were stuck to selling only in-house manufactured products. I assume you have a basic awareness of the complexity of today's supply chains and the massive number and heterogeneity of business-to-business relationships (ranging from joint ventures to spot purchase contracts and literally everything in-between and to all sides of that dimension!) As a result, you could argue that total in-house production like we know from the early days of industrialization is not a reality anymore, and hasn't been for decades.

It doesn't surprise me when I saw my results, and this time, for the very first time in my life, I'm 'gonna blame the film, not me.

I don't know about your results, but if had to go out on a limb, I would put the blame on treating the product like something it was never intended to be. Vision3 is a product aimed at the cine market, to be developed in ECN2 process and optimized scanning while it's still possible to print it optically onto projection film. It is NOT a still image film intended for C41 processing or optical printing onto RA4 paper. If treated as such, any kind of weirdness may/will happen, which may or may not be fixable with liberal application of digital tools. I think the example of @MultiFormat Shooter is a nice one where digital post-processing has almost resulted in a natural-looking end result if you ignore the remaining magenta-green crossover that in this image shifts the shadows into the green direction (I've seen, and made, far worse though!)
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,756
Location
Germany
Shooter
Multi Format
The Cinestill example that @MattKing mentioned does explore the borderline between rebranding and contract manufacturing though. I'd still consider it rebranding because the basic material is unchanged Vision3, but it's kind of a grey area because the actual product properties are in fact adjusted specifically for Cinestill.
To me rebranding is left the moment the masterrolls are different in the characterisrics of the film.

Others may argue that a different conversion, not available from the original manufacturer alread is more than rebranding, which would be the opposite extreme position to yours.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
7,196
Location
Scottsdale Az
Shooter
Multi Format
Around 1980, in NZ, I worked with a couple of people who used Seattle Filmworks film and processing. Used to be quite a long wait to get the film processed and shipped back to NZ. From memory you had the choice of prints and/or mounted slides as the end product, (along with your negs, of course). Naturally they included a fresh film to get you on your way again. I wonder how those slides held up over time. I guess they were the movie print film as the Filmworks stock was a cine film.

I didn't try it myself as it seemed a bit exotic and I would have been too impatient to wait for the results from across the Pacific.

I shot a few rolls in the 70s, had both prints and slides made, the slides are very faded, have not looked at the prints in many years, needs to see if I can find them. Overall I was never impressed with SFW, compared to Kodak of the day I thought the prints lacked contrast, colors were not spot on, hard to say if the problem was the film or the processing and printing.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
39,631
Location
Delta, BC, Canada
Shooter
Multi Format
For clarity of the discussion it probably doesn't help that at least Kodak and Ilford have a history of marketing film under their own brands as well as performing contract manufacturing for various other brands.

Technically, Ilford wasn't much of a re-brander.
Harman doesn't do it with their Ilford branded materials, but does apparently do it with its Kentmere branded materials.
And Kodak didn't do it - except when they were on the verge of bankruptcy (Plus X and Tri X sold briefly by Freestyle as Arista), and in that case was probably more related to having inventory on hand that greatly exceeded the suddenly revised projections of possible sale before the material became too old.
IMHO, contract manufacturing of a product version that they don't sell under their own name is an entirely different animal.
Eastman Kodak right now is doing a large amount of business coating in support of the manufacture of electronic circuits, using some of the same equipment that makes photographic film. None of that material ever has a Kodak brand on it. In my mind, that isn't much different than contract coating of unique film products for other parties, who don't put "Kodak" on the result.
The Cinestill example that @MattKing mentioned does explore the borderline between rebranding and contract manufacturing though.

IMHO, the part that puts this closest to the borderline is the fact that Cinestill is permitted to identify the material as a version of Kodak Vision 3.

I wonder what some of the people posting to this thread would have thought about the fact that Eastman Kodak for many years manufactured many of the film components that went into Polaroid films?
 

madNbad

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Messages
688
Location
Portland, Oregon
Shooter
35mm RF
Technically, Ilford wasn't much of a re-brander.
Harman doesn't do it with their Ilford branded materials, but does apparently do it with its Kentmere branded materials.
And Kodak didn't do it - except when they were on the verge of bankruptcy (Plus X and Tri X sold briefly by Freestyle as Arista), and in that case was probably more related to having inventory on hand that greatly exceeded the suddenly revised projections of possible sale before the material became too old.
IMHO, contract manufacturing of a product version that they don't sell under their own name is an entirely different animal.
Eastman Kodak right now is doing a large amount of business coating in support of the manufacture of electronic circuits, using some of the same equipment that makes photographic film. None of that material ever has a Kodak brand on it. In my mind, that isn't much different than contract coating of unique film products for other parties, who don't put "Kodak" on the result.


IMHO, the part that puts this closest to the borderline is the fact that Cinestill is permitted to identify the material as a version of Kodak Vision 3.

I wonder what some of the people posting to this thread would have thought about the fact that Eastman Kodak for many years manufactured many of the film components that went into Polaroid films?

When the Impossible project started, many of the dyes and other components that had been made by Kodak and other manufacturers had been discontinued. When they looked into replicating them, most of the chemicals were banned by the EU.
 

pentaxuser

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,340
Location
Daventry, No
Shooter
35mm
For our UK friends, Harman (producers of Kentmere and Ilford) refer to "finishing" as "confectioning".
I can never get the image of rows of high quality sweets rolling off a series of U.K. producers production lines whenever I hear the word confectioning

It just sounds slightly comical to me when applied to film production😄

On a more serious note the problem is that some rebranding may be honest rebranding and other rebranding seems to be part of a philosophy of " fooling all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time" - usually for inflated prices

It's the latter that "sticks in my craw"

pentaxuser
 
Last edited:
OP
OP

DF

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
424
If you like looking at old faded Agfachrome slides from the 60's - then Cinestill 50D is for you, paper bag not included.
Now I know.
 

Huss

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
6,646
Location
Hermosa Beach, CA
Shooter
Multi Format
On a more serious note the problem is that some rebranding may be honest rebranding and other rebranding seems to be part of a philosophy of " fooling all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time" - usually for inflated prices

It's the latter that "sticks in my craw"

pentaxuser
Japan Camera Hunter Street Pan 400..
 

Huss

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
6,646
Location
Hermosa Beach, CA
Shooter
Multi Format
If you like looking at old faded Agfachrome slides from the 60's - then Cinestill 50D is for you, paper bag not included.
Now I know.

MultiFormat’s pic was taken on 50D is nothing like what you describe.
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
22
Location
EU
Shooter
4x5 Format
It is done all over, so I don't have a problem with re-branding per se. If I go shopping for groceries I will likely be able to find some packs of flour or bottles of water that have been re-branded (and often sold for cheaper as store brands). Now, actually getting to know what film stock is used is definitely a plus to me to make processing easier, however, I do tend to see the upsides of it being done.
Maybe a smaller store could not manage meeting the order req's from the original manufacturer, buying their stocks (do let me know what kind of MOQs there are if ordering from one of the bigger manufacturers?) and as a customer it can sometimes make it possible for you to try a stock out where you might not even want to buy a "short" reel to spool yourself.
I also enjoy printing on photopolymer plates where the same thing is often done. You can buy just a couple of 8x10 sheets from a "rebranded" or reseller rather than buying a box of say 20 plates or so (which might end up costing you hundreds or even thousands).
 

dourbalistar

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
413
Location
Bay Area, CA
Shooter
Analog
I can never get the image of rows of high quality sweets rolling off a series of U.K. producers production lines whenever I hear the word confectioning

It just sounds slightly comical to me when applied to film production😄

On a more serious note the problem is that some rebranding may be honest rebranding and other rebranding seems to be part of a philosophy of " fooling all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time" - usually for inflated prices

It's the latter that "sticks in my craw"

pentaxuser
Japan Camera Hunter Street Pan 400..
I'll add some Lomography films to this latter philosophy. Take Berlin Kino 400 for example, where Lomography's own marketing materials show a picture of negatives with ORWO N74 on the edge markings.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab
Top Bottom