Why Kodak is ‘Cracking Down’ on Respooled Motion Picture Film

This week, Reflx Lab announced that it would soon no longer be able to offer some of its respooled 35mm motion picture stock because Kodak is more strictly “crack[ing] down” on respoolers. So, why is Kodak forfeiting the extra money made by selling to brands like Reflx Lab?
Reflx Lab describes itself as a photographic film and camera accessories company that is “dedicated to creating innovative products that stand out in the market.” Some of its most popular products are its 35mm film stocks and of those, its respooled Kodak cinema stocks are beloved for their color rendition as well as their approachable price. Unfortunately for fans of this combination of factors, that appears slated to be coming to an end.
Author’s Note: It should be known that PetaPixel isn’t speaking for Kodak in this case — the explanations and speculation provided here is based on multiple conversations with industry experts over the last four months. As should be expected, it’s a delicate, nuanced situation.
How We Got Here
Before getting into the situation at Reflx Lab, it is important to explain the situation quickly. The problem from Kodak’s perspective isn’t that its motion picture film is being respooled but rather how the respooler is acquiring said film. Kodak sells its motion picture film at two price points: one is for filmmakers who get a better deal because that industry is more susceptible to pricing changes and if the film price is too high, those filmmakers and studios may elect not to use film at all, which then would mean it is entirely possible that Kodak will no longer have enough volume to justify the price of production. In order to continue to allow filmmakers to keep using film, it is supporting the industry by keeping costs as low as possible.
For companies who want to sell this motion picture film for the purposes of still photography — respoolers — Kodak charges more, likely to offset the cost of producing it for motion pictures (the intended purpose of the stock) and also to bolster the health of its overall business.
Some companies are acquiring Kodak motion picture stock to respool but doing so without informing Kodak of that intended purpose, instead saying it is going to be used to produce movies. These companies are receiving the motion picture discount price and using that price difference to sell the respooled film at a lower price.
Kodak is trying to balance this problem by working to keep its motion picture film accessible while at the same time trying to prevent third parties from taking advantage. As a result, it is now cutting off access to suppliers that it believes were less than truthful about the intended use of that motion picture film stock.
Kodak Is Cutting Off Reflx Lab
“Over the past year, Kodak has implemented a policy restricting the sale of bulk rolls of motion picture film to individuals or companies that cannot prove the film will be used for shooting movies,” Reflx Lab writes in a blog post published yesterday.
“Kodak claims this change is a response to the growing trend of small businesses reselling respooled film—motion picture film repackaged into 135 film canisters for still photography. Ironically, the roots of 135 film itself trace back to 1895, when William Kennedy Laurie Dickson cut and respooled 70mm cinema stock to create the first 135-format film. This decision by Kodak raises significant concerns for the film photography community and threatens the innovation and creativity that independent photographers and small businesses contribute.”

Reflx Lab says that respooled motion picture film is loved for its color, tonal range, and film grain and as a result, these film stocks are highly prized by analog photographers.
“The demand for unique film formats—particularly those unavailable through mainstream manufacturers—has fostered a creative ecosystem where independent businesses and film enthusiasts collaborate symbiotically. For example, Reflx Lab bulk-loads Kodak Vision3 and Aerocolor film into 220 rolls, reviving a format abandoned decades ago and meeting the needs of film photographers who value shooting capacity. Reflx Lab also produces 127 color film, resurrecting another long-discontinued format that allows people to use heirloom cameras such as the Kodak Vest Pocket, the first 127 film camera. Kodak’s restrictions jeopardize not only the livelihoods of these small entrepreneurs but also the cultural and artistic richness of the film photography world,” Reflx Lab says.
Kodak’s stated concern for restricting access to these film stocks is that it undermines the company’s core business of selling motion picture and still photography film. Kodak likely sees respoolers as direct competitors for its own products — that is, at least, Reflx Lab’s feeling.

“Respoolers purchase bulk rolls from Kodak, which generates significant revenue, especially as demand for respooled film increases. Without these sales, Kodak forfeits that income entirely. If Kodak retains the film for direct consumer sales and maintains high prices, the market may not absorb the stock, resulting in diminished profits. Simply put, consumers drawn to respooled Vision3 and 5294 Ektarchrome are unlikely to transition fully to Kodak’s still film. They may just shoot digital or black and white film.”
Looking at it from Reflx Lab’s perspective, its stance sounds completely reasonable. But from where Kodak stands, there are issues with what Reflx Lab is doing.
Intellectual Property and Business Ethics
Photographers should understand the differences between taking what is a singular product and selling it for different rates — think, photo licensing. Licensing an image for non-commercial use (personal/educational/editorial/entertainment/artistic) is worth much less than doing so for commercial or retail use. Just because a photographer sells a photo to a family to display in their home doesn’t give them the right to then use that photo to advertise their business or reproduce it and sell it for a higher price. This is especially the case if the photographer is retaining the rights to sell those photos as a stock photo, which would then put the client and the photographer directly in competition with one another.
This is especially the case if the photographer is retaining the right to sell stock photos commercially and reproduce those photos themselves, or granting those rights to another client at a premium.
Kodak’s stance is, therefore, likely one of intellectual property protection. To understand this, it’s better to use another metaphor: a brewery. If a brewery were to sell discounted kegs of beer for events — beer that is only sold in kegs to special clients — which were intended to support the local culture and increase brand awareness, it would not be happy to find that the beer it was selling was getting repackaged into cans or bottles and sold as new craft beer. It would be even worse if this was done by leveraging that brewery’s brand and marketing, calling the newly repackaged beer one that was done “in the style of” the brewery from which it was taken.

Since a business can’t copyright physical goods, they can instead can choose who they sell to and enforce their trademarks to protect the value of the goods they produce. In a free market, you have the right to sell to whomever you choose, and the right to not sell to anyone of your choosing. No one is entitled to any of it.
This leads directly into the discussion of where respooled Kodak motion picture film can be purchased, because Kodak isn’t cutting everyone off. If a brand continues to sell respooled film, it’s likely because they have an established, honest relationship with Kodak which allows them to continue. One of those brands is Cinestill.
“We do not respool film that has been packaged and produced for motion picture use. We legitimately source our materials at a premium — disclosing the intended use — to support the continued sustainability of film manufacturing. We have always been honest and transparent about the intended use of the materials that we source in order to collaborate to produce the highest quality products to fuel the analog renaissance. We are proud to support and contribute to both the analog photography community and the core manufacturers who make film photography possible,” Steve Carter, head of marketing and outreach at Cinestill tells PetaPixel.
As a result, there is no interruption in the availability of Cinestill film production.
Analog Photographers Will Hate This
Photographers are going to hate this because, on the surface, it just looks like something they like at a price they like is being taken away from them. Plenty of people will mostly just be upset that they can’t get what they want for the prices they want to pay. And I get it, that stinks. Shooting film is already expensive, and anything that makes it less accessible, even if we’re it’s only a matter of a few dollars, is a bummer. It doesn’t help that because Kodak Alaris was bought by Kingswood Capital Management last year, it looks like — yet again — a private equity firm is trying to squeeze all the value they can out of a business.
Reflx Lab’s long, impassioned blog post speaks directly to this, making it sound like the victim of a gross, greedy company that’s trying to keep film out of the hands of photographers. To quote it directly again, “This decision by Kodak raises significant concerns for the film photography community and threatens the innovation and creativity that independent photographers and small businesses contribute.”
Questions on what is innovative or creative about respooling existing film aside, the point remains that if a business is honest about what it intends to use something for, it affects the value. Much like a company selling something for “educational use only” at a lower price, it is perfectly fair for companies to choose to sell things for a specific industrial use or for resale at different prices than they would for retail. Some pricing strategies may have just enough margin to keep the lights on and the equipment running, while others may help afford payroll for entire departments. If a business is honest about the intended use when sourcing something it may end up costing more but that business maintains a good relationship with their supplier in exchange.
If a business isn’t honest about that use and leverages that to obtain a price advantage in the market, they might do so but eventually suppliers won’t want to sell to them anymore and instead choose those customers who are using the products as intended or paying a higher price based on use or exclusivity.
“…the respooled film market does not undermine its core business of selling motion picture and still photography film,” Reflx Lab says. “Respoolers purchase bulk rolls from Kodak, which generates significant revenue, especially as demand for respooled film increases. Without these sales, Kodak forfeits that income entirely.”
This ignores a major factor: what if Kodak sells its film that is designed to be used for motion pictures at a reduced rate because raising the price would upset filmmakers, decreasing the volume ordered by them and therefore decreasing volume to the degree that it could no longer be made? And if people only bought repackaged 100D motion picture film — rather than E100 for still photography — there may not be enough profit to justify making it.
Reflx Labs says it is doing its best “to maintain our film inventory and avoid price increases,” which sounds as though it does not want to pay for the increased cost of officially licensing Kodak motion picture film for respooling — either that or it isn’t being given the option by Kodak. That should tell you all you need to know about how the company has been acquiring the motion picture stock and why it has upset Kodak.
Source link