Some news about Kodak

On the one hand Kodak are only doing what they have to do. But it will have quite an impact on the world of film. Personally I err towards film being out there and used being a good thing. However, it won't break my heart if I only use digital in future.
 
Oh dear, that's worrying news - I think. :thinking:

Film prices are high enough already, but I bet this will cause panic and the prices will increase further.

On the other hand, by cutting out the re-spoolers maybe Kodak's profits will increase and they'll be able to bring their prices down. We wish.

Who knows? Only time will tell . . . :rolleyes:
 
I am also of the belief that markets must be nurtured, not fleeced, and Kodak aren't doing a lot of that.
 
If this causes fewer people to use film, then it's bad news if the film world contracts. From a purely personal perspective, the last Kodak film I used would have been Kodachrome; since that point I've used FP4, PanF, Foma 100 and Agfa APX.
 
I need to keep reminding myself we're talking about two separate companies here. It's Eastman Kodak (the movie film company) cutting out the respoolers, not Kodak Alaris, the separate still photo film company that is (or was) owned by Kodak's UK Pension fund. Seems to me that the move does reduce choice a bit for still photo customers, but surely the respooled stuff is only a small percentage of that market? It might take away a small amount of downward pressure on Alaris' prices, but I'm sure there are much greater pressures from wage and material inflation, not to mention the cost of downsizing those massive factories towards something sustainable and, um, growable.

(It's not clear to me also whether it affects the whole of the respooling market. There seems quite a spectrum from people like REFLX Labs on the one hand and Cinestill on the other. The latter seems a much more professional, if expensive operation. Maybe they have, I dunno, actual contracts?)
 
I would like to know just how many respoolers of the Movie stock there are.
 
If companies are using loopholes to buy Kodak stock cheaply and then respool it and make profit then I can understand why Kodak are protecting their interests. However, that could result in a monopoly being used to create higher profits for them. We will have to wait and see.
 
I had assumed that the re spoolers were buying up short ends and older batches of motion picture stock not wanted by the studios that need consistency of batch, effectively they (re spoolers) were disposing of material otherwise unsaleable.
 
If Kodak have loads of film rolls they could re spool them ?
 
The initial post attachment is cobblers and is only there as a platform for other unconnected advertisements Only there for the author to get his/her/it's 5 mins of fame. Where is the proof?
 
Last edited:
Rodinal said:
Where is the proof?
Click to expand...
That's a good question.

It highlights a very low level version of something that causes serious harm these days. People write anything they want, there's no fact checking and far too many gullible readers who believe that fantasies are real. It may be true that Kodak are upset about respooling or it may be total nonsense.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
That's a good question.

It highlights a very low level version of something that causes serious harm these days. People write anything they want, there's no fact checking and far too many gullible readers who believe that fantasies are real. It may be true that Kodak are upset about respooling or it may be total nonsense.
Click to expand...
This has appeared in various forms on film-related blogs in recent months. You're right it's being used for clickbait, specially the blog in the OP. There does however seem to be a basis in fact behind it, with some respoolers reporting a sort of "cease and desist" letter.

The film I would miss would be the Eastman Kodak 5222. The first few rolls that I used were Cinestill BWXX, lovely stuff, but it's got expensive. So I tried five rolls from REFLX LABs of their DoubleX version. First roll was fine, second roll annoyed me with a polyester strip at the inside end (guillotine in my Rondinax can't cut it, and the last frame was truncated). Then I got a roll with all sorts of defects. I complained and they refunded me, which was fair. There have been several other suppliers of this film, but they seemed to come and go anyway. If I want to use it again, I'll probably go back to Cinestill, assuming they still have it, although if I could get a supply of Ferrania P33 I certainly wouldn't bother with XX!

I have not tried the colour films. Apart from Cinestill, most seem to have RemJet still on, implying ECN-2 development and/or messing about with gunk. Some nice colours but also some weird halation effects...
 
Last edited:
ChrisR said:
The film I would miss would be the Eastman Kodak 5222. The first few rolls that I used were Cinestill BWXX, lovely stuff, but it's got expensive.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty much out of the film side. I still have my processing kit but my Canon FD kit is sitting in the "out tray" and I can't even be bothered to check why my Kiev rangefinder is having problems closing its shutter.

I started my photography around 1965, so I think I've given film a good trial... ;)
 
The cease or desist letters are reported to have been sent/received, Again where is the proof?

It is well known that some other products, and ones that I know of involve food production. They often have the same address/post code of the parent manufacturer and the major producer of the same item sold under the parent companies name. It may be different with film, but if a company can cut costs by producing more of the same then that will/should also help to keep the costs down and their factories wherever they may be fully active and making a profit.

I don't know enough to comment further, but social media and all the products of miss-information without a grain of truth, has made me cynical of such information without someone of substance being able to prove without doubt that something as alleged has/is happening or happened.
 
Thinking further about Kodak's approach it would seem to be diametrically opposite to that of Ilford (Harman?) supporting the sale of FP4 tp517 by Analogue Cameras who even approved the packaging and the use of their brand names.

More reason if needed to support Ilford either directly or indirectly by using their re spooled stock.
 
zx9 said:
Thinking further about Kodak's approach it would seem to be diametrically opposite to that of Ilford (Harman?) supporting the sale of FP4 tp517 by Analogue Cameras who even approved the packaging and the use of their brand names.

More reason if needed to support Ilford either directly or indirectly by using their re spooled stock.
Click to expand...
Probably the difference being that particular Ilford stock was no longer made and in fact well out of date although it appears to have been stored correctly and it was sold to Analogue cameras only. I believe once it's gone that's it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top