Видео

Well, I used 65 rolls in 2024 and I think 40 rolls per year is the annual minimum for me. It’s getting pretty steep….

Honestly not a bad thing to consider, I’ll have to do some math and make a breakdown of costs, could be a great video!

@@RompingBronco It would. You can get into digital cheaply by buying used and using manual focus lenses, which is what I did. On the film side, a lot depends on the condition you're willing to tolerate. I bought a couple of lenses to fill in gaps in my collection, but I always end up buying pristine copies from Japanese dealers so I pay more.

@@RompingBronco In Europe, a roll of Portra 400 costs, including development, 28-30 US$ already! That means you can buy a Nikon D750 (which I have owned since 2017; it's a great camera) in pristine condition for around 20 rolls of Portra or 27 rolls of Ultra Max (when scanning on your own that is, otherwise it's even less!).

​@@bartoszpajak2285Exactly! If Portra prices go up again, it’s gonna be completely nuts. Still shooting my D750 also btw. ;)

I would argue that the companies that are likely to be jeopardized by the changed aren’t in competition with Kodak, while Kodak is the primary supplier of color film in my view they are doing a good job of maintaining cost consistency and supply. The price raising is pretty consistent with their year to year operations but I do think it’s something to keep in mind and I appreciate your comment!

As I understood the reason is they want to keep supplies since theyre like renovating/ mainating all the machines, that means they wont make any film for a while, so that way they can keep stock for themself, I think its reasonable

Just a suggestion but online stores such as dirt cheap film try to sell for less to help film shooters on a budget to keep shooting film, even when prices go up.

I found b/w instax film at my local cvs (in louisiana) for 4.99 a pack, bought it out and shot about 90 photos in a week 😆

You didn't pick the worst time to get into film. Things can always get worse. If you have a particular film you like, find the lowest price and buy ten rolls. This will take away a lot of worry. Think about it like sacrificing just 1 dinner for 2 at a nice restaurant. Not bad for something infinitely more lasting.

Pro Image sold out before I could check out lol

While I can see where you’re coming from that wasn’t my attempt to vilify Kodak just acknowledge that the market is shifting, I do feel like Cinestill’s prices for what they offer has always been egregious and companies like Flic Film have been transparent about the product they offer and their attempts to keep it as low as they can for the consumer, hence why I suggest them or Reflx lab. Kodak price increases are common this type of year as mentioned in the video and their decision to be more selective of who they sell their product to is up to them but in that same hand it’s worth talking about the effects that will have on the industry. I appreciate the comment though and for the alternative perspective!

@ I appreciate that, and I’m not trying to go hard in the paint here, just give my perspective. I apologize if my phrasing is abrasive or confrontational; I’m terrible with words. Especially in combination with other words. But my thing with comparing CineStill with the remjet garage massage crew is that they are not perfectly comparable and part of that is because CineStill films never have a remjet layer in the first place. I know there are people who claim that we cannot know whether this is true, but there aren’t enough idle thumbs in all of America to rub off remjet in the quantities that CineStill is moving. The other reason this isn’t a 1:1 is because CineStill had to invest millions into purchasing commitments and marketing that none of the smaller players needed to worry about when buying bulk rolls of surplus motion picture film to rub on all lovey dovey and flip into an insatiable market with high demand. CineStill’s film is more expensive because it is more expensive to do things all proper and professional-like and work directly with the manufacturer to sell their film. Flic Film doesn’t do any of that mumbo jumbo, and they pass the savings on to us. Doing an end-run around Kodak at the expense of CineStill isn’t particularly ethical or virtuous on the part of Flic Film and their cohorts. CineStill isn’t selling Kodak’s scraps in sporadic quantities at basement prices. They are agreeing to take incredible risk and give Kodak hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase bulk stock in the minimum quantities required for Kodak to agree do a run of that order. And anyway, CineStill is not gouging us… 800t is cheaper than Portra 800! Your unhinged hatred for CineStill is what is egregious, sir! Not the price! Love you, love the channel, thanks for replying, my sincerest apologies for disagreeing in such a long-winded way.

​@@seanimal_rexcinestill doesn't buy minimum quantities of remjet free film. They operate directly out of the Kodak factory. Their product is most definitely less expensive per roll to create than buying motion picture film from Kodak at consumer price and paying someone an hourly wage to wash and respool it (usually by hand) for a consumer market. Don't forget the cost of buying canisters and cassettes at retail prices as well as the cost of branding. That's not to say Cinestill is a terrible brand, but their markup is considerable. By no stretch of the imagination is offering the same product for half the price and still turning a considerable profit a nefarious deed. Trying to run out all other competition however is. Cinestill threatening lawsuits on the term 800T (which is a technical spec therefore not available for trademark) was a thinly veiled attempt to create a monopoly. Reflx lab, Atlanta film lab, and flic film also offer products that Cinestill doesn't offer and probably never will. If cinestill went out of business the film community would not suffer one bit

no, the cinestill guys are dicks, and always have been dicks, who fundamentally view their average customer as stupid. They deserve to be vilified.

@@seanimal_rex I agree Cinestill prices are egregious. Let's not forget Cinestill sold a very inferior film with spots and scratches for several years before they got their act together. Their success is largely undeserved. And the "risk" on their part is nil compared to manufacturing film from scratch. If Kodak's profits are threatened too much by the presence of Cinestill (and others), then there's no color film period and none of this will matter. Filmmakers aren't cannibalizing sales of other films when they buy motion picture film. Cinestill is.

To my knowledge Eastman Kodak operates film production and Alaris has the rights to selling the film, I may make a follow up video explaining this for my own benefit too!

Not exactly. Alaris owns the names of the film while Eastman owns the formula for the film. They are 2 separate companies which operate as one simply because Eastman is under contract by Alaris to make film for them and only them, for the retail market. Eastman produces their own film for Hollywood which is completely separate from Alaris. When Alaris went up for sale, Eastman allowed the general public to buy Ektachrome aka 5294 at $520 a can. They were making tons of money on this till Alaris got bought by a private equity firm and closed that little side business Eastman had. They not only stopped the sale of 5294 but also all motion picture film to anyone outside Hollywood. When the dust settles from motion picture film being cut off, it's going to be interesting to see who is still selling it. Cinestill, Flic Film and the FPP all buy their film directly from Kodak. Other companies might also but those are the ones I am aware of. The separation and joint venture of Eastman and Alaris is confusing and misunderstood by many.

I was under the impression that Alarisset prices for certain films (Kodak Gold, pro 400) something else. But Eastman set prices for professional films and Cine films. Something like that

Alaris is a distributor who has the exclusive rights to sell Kodak STILL film only. Alaris was created in order to pay off a debt to the UK Kodak employee's pension plan. A private equity firm has now acquired that debt. The important thing to remember is that there are many, many filmmakers outside of Hollywood--independents, students, advertising agencies, music producers, and more. There are filmmakers who buy anywhere from 1 single roll of Super 8 for a wedding, to thousands of rolls of 35mm for a feature film. I am one of those independents and have been ordering 8mm, 16mm and occasionally 35mm direct from Eastman Kodak since the 1990s. You generally place your order over the phone and talk to a live person. Kodak does not want companies re-selling motion picture film as still film (except Cinestill). I don't think a photographer who wants a 400' roll of 35mm for personal use should have a problem acquiring that film, as long as they are smart enough to prepare a plausible story about their movie production when/if asked.

Not to my knowledge but with their existing business model it doesn’t really make as much sense for them to sell it like that versus selling it as their motion picture line, but maybe if the market shifts they’ll change direction? We’ll see!

They should but they don't sell it to anyone without the Remjet, not even Cinestill. Cinestill buys the film from Kodak and ships it to somewhere in the UK to remove the Remjet and then Cinestill cuts it down and does their own packaging.

​@@andrewbarnum5040they do business very closely with cinestill, and cinestill also operates directly out of their factory in Rochester as well as the UK. My guess is they have contracts in place with cinestill in efforts to kill the respooling industry which greatly impacts cinestill's profit margin. I also know cinestill has a huge hand in manufacturing the new Kodak chemicals

Kodak does not want companies re-selling motion picture film as still film (except Cinestill). I think they have every right to police their product. I have been both a filmmaker and still photographer for 30+ years. Always order my film directly from Eastman. Best thing is to place your order over the phone and talk to a live person. I don't think a photographer who wants a 400' roll of 35mm for personal use should have a problem acquiring that film, as long as they are smart enough to prepare a plausible story about their movie production when/if asked. (Of course it will have remjet, as mentioned above).

@@TucsonAnalogWorkshop -- Thank you for the info -- has Kodak (Alaris/Eastman) taken any legal action against the (many) other companies reselling the motion picture film?

I’ve really enjoyed Pro Image as of late so I hope you dig it too! I was surprised to see how narrow the gap between Hp5 and Tri-X is but it’s been a while since I’ve bought either

@RompingBronco I'm also seriously considering a 400' roll of Double-X. I've shot it in the past and you get 72 rolls, which works out to $4.60 apiece. It's extremely difficult to distinguish the results from xx vs xxx. My film fridge is lead lined, so it'll keep for a decade or more. With the pending inflation insanity tariff stupidity, I expect prices to go up up up.

Maybe shoot me an email if you wouldn’t mind, I wouldn’t recommend lubricating unless absolutely necessary because that’s not a very common issue with this system

40? Was something broken????

Get the Olympus pen f