• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Velvia 100 Discontinued in the U.S.

Interestingly, the darkroom.com website makes no mention of this new policy. There is no warning of any sort that I could find. I wonder what they would do if a roll of Velvia 100 was shipped to them.
 
Wallendo said:
Interestingly, the darkroom.com website makes no mention of this new policy. There is no warning of any sort that I could find. I wonder what they would do if a roll of Velvia 100 was shipped to them.
Click to expand...

yeah, I saw someone on LFF mention that the Darkroom wasn't processing Velvia 100 any more, so I headed to their website and couldn't find anything about it. For a primarily web based business, you'd think they'd post it on their website.
 
 
When I was working in a US university lab in the naughties I took part in some health and safety training. Regarding the EPA they drilled it into us that each instance of wrong doing the EPA discovers will lead to a fixed fine. For the university that was a fairly high number. I don't recall, but it was something like $15000 (or maybe 50k?).

I don't think the EPA will care much about this, but it would be unwise for a lab to defiantly state that they will continue to develop RVP100. Nothing might happen, or coincidently an enforcement agent might be confronted with it and decides to do a brief check.

If a small lab operates under the radar and customers send in some of the 100, why not. But if an inspector came to the lab and discovers that two rolls have been developed; in the above case that would be 2x $15000. That's what you call tail risk. They are unlikely to be hit, but if they are it will hurt.
 
By the way, Fuj USA people gathered with EPA people to discuss an issue concerning this substance already in early 2017. Though this was not even about the homeopathic content we are talking about here.
 
AgX said:
By the way, Fuj USA people gathered with EPA people to discuss an issue concerning this substance already in early 2017. Though this was not even about the homeopathic content we are talking about here.
Click to expand...
I was going to suggest that the epa became aware of the film because people made such a big stink about it, but now it sounds like Fuji's been actively concerned about this regulation.
 
This substance was used so far in such ammounts that amongst all firms concerned Fuji likely even is one to be concerned the least. They just wanted to be able to sell a stock of some product already stored within the USA. (Seemingfly no one considered exporting it again...)


Basically firms could have been alerted long before. But seemingly firms making/trading products where this substance is just a miniscule component thought not to be affected legally. But EPA did not install a threshold but just prohibited it all. The same time they allow recycling of affected material. And it is not hazardous waste. This is one reason I called this all nonsense.

At best the idea of EPA seems to be to stop influx of this substance, in cases where it is known to be contained in the final product. The same time ignoring existing sources when it seems hard (read: costly) to identify it being contained.
If someone from EPA reads this he might chime in and I shall be eager to listen.
 
Last edited:
Somehow, when reading that story, I can’t help thinking it has something to do with the re-release of Ektachrome 100, announced late 2017.
The US have been known to be very protective of their own products, coming up with “safety” rules to cause competitors to drop out of the race. French car manufacturer Citroën knew it well, when the directional headlights, hydraulic suspension, etc. that made its DS and SM cars most innovative in Europe, stayed banned in the US (until some US manufacturer integrated these in their own cars and lobbied successfully to lift the bans).
Of course this may or may not what happened, but I wondered why the EPA would care about such a tiny amount of a chemical present only in the 100ASA version..
 
Ektachrome 100 is made by Kodak Alaris, a British company.
 
Said this earlier but the owner of my e6 lab said less than 10% of what he sees is Velvia 100, that he gets more old stuff, and that he doesn’t think Fuji cares about Velvia 100
 
The respective contract never was made public. But Kodak is likely rather just a toll-manufacturer for Kodak Alaris.
 
Mackinaw said:
Kodak Alaris does not make film. They're strictly a marketing company. Ektachrome is made by Eastman Kodak in the U.S.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the same as saying Foxconn makes the iPhone, not Apple.
 
Alan Edward Klein said:
Ektachrome 100 is made by Kodak Alaris, a British company.
Click to expand...
Mackinaw said:
Kodak Alaris does not make film. They're strictly a marketing company. Ektachrome is made by Eastman Kodak in the U.S.
Click to expand...
Alan Edward Klein said:
Isn't that the same as saying Foxconn makes the iPhone, not Apple.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. Both are correct statements. However, Apple designs its crapple, then contracts manufacture to Foxcon. Marketing entity Kodak Alaris relies entirely on Eastman Kodak for Ektachrome 100 design and manufacture.
 
i just picked up 20 220 rolls of velvia 100 for very very cheap, exp date 12/19 so not old at all. guess the guy ran into development issues and just wanted to dump them. I develop at home, so ill be a little guilty when i develop the rolls. I guess im a bad guy for still developing velvia 100. I just cant throw out perfectly good film. so lock me up!

but what are we, film shooters who have the film, supposed to do? maybe the EPA should buy back all of our rolls at current prices and dispose of the film, or replace velvia 100 with velvia 50 rolls?

john
 
Check where the danger is and take precautions when you develop (ie wear gloves, etc.). Don't pour the developer on your neighbor's lawn.
 
destroya said:
but what are we, film shooters who have the film, supposed to do? maybe the EPA should buy back all of our rolls at current prices and dispose of the film, or replace velvia 100 with velvia 50 rolls.
Click to expand...
EPA wants any commercial trading or processing of any kind of product containing this substance to stop at the very date. (But there are several products exceptions unlimited in time.)
Those products are not considered hazardous waste at the end of their life and even may be recycled.
Before that the product my be sold anytime noncommercially.
 
Ex post facto laws. Got it before it’s illegal? You’re fine
 
Sal Santamaura said:
Marketing entity Kodak Alaris relies entirely on Eastman Kodak for Ektachrome 100 design and manufacture.
Click to expand...
Not entirely correct.
Many/most of the staff at Kodak Alaris used to be employees of Eastman Kodak or one of its international subsidiaries. They were the employees in the marketing and distribution parts of the business. And just as in most businesses that both manufacture and market their products, the marketing people and the manufacturing people at Eastman Kodak used to work hand in hand. That now continues with Kodak Alaris and Eastman Kodak.
It was Kodak Alaris that was the motivating partner behind the re-introduction of Ektachrome, with support from the motion picture wing of Eastman Kodak. It was Kodak Alaris who pushed for characteristics like better keeping properties, increased sharpness and whiter whites - all relevant to questions of marketing.
Those were incorporated into the almost full rebuild that was made necessary by changes in the chemical supply industry during the period that Ektachrome was out of production.
There is more than one reason that much of Kodak Alaris' operation is based in Rochester, New York, not in the UK.
The rebuild probably incorporated the environmental concerns that brought rise to the EPA ruling and the discontinuation of Velvia.
 
MattKing said:
The rebuild probably incorporated the environmental concerns that brought rise to the EPA ruling and the discontinuation of Velvia.
Click to expand...


You still misunderstand the case.
It is not a case of EPA against Fuji or Kodak. But instead of a case of EPA against a substance worldwide generically used throughout most different industries.
The annual use of it in the USA alone in the recent years was up to 7000tons.
 
No.
I am saying that the rebuild took into account the concern, and dispensed with use of the now banned component.
I expect if Fuji had been reformulating Velvia 100 at the same time, they too would have dispensed with its use.
 
  • AgX
  • Deleted
That is a wild speculation.

Furthermore the problem Fuji saw and discussed was not related to Velvia.
 
As I understand it, the EPA ruling bans processing of the chemical in question. In many industries, due to it's pervasiveness, they're actually making exceptions, because in most applications, the chemical won't be released into the environment during normal use.

Since the chemical is a plasticizer, can anyone state if it's released during E6 processing, or does it remain in the film base?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register