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. 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.
First and foremost, the respooled film market offers a vibrant and accessible avenue for photographers—amateur and professional alike—to explore film photography in its various forms. Many small businesses provide affordable access to high-quality, unique film stocks that would otherwise be unavailable for the average consumer. Motion picture film is celebrated for its rich color rendition, tonal range, and fine grain, making it a favorite among still photographers seeking a distinctive aesthetic. By restricting access to these materials, Kodak risks stifling the creativity that has driven the resurgence of film photography over the past decade.
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.
Contrary to Kodak's apparent concerns, the respooled film market does not undermine its core business of selling motion picture and still photography film. While some may argue that respooled film competes with Kodak’s still photography products like Gold, Ultramax and Portra, the reality is more nuanced. 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 unliky to transition fully to Kodak's still film. They may just shoot digital or black and white film.
Kodak’s actions also threaten the broader ecosystem of film processing. The popularity of respooled Vision3 and Ektarchrome film has spurred labs worldwide to invest in ECN-2 and E-6 chemistry and processing capabilities. Many labs offer bundled services, reselling respooled film with processing included, which provides crucial revenue. While C-41 consumer film processing generates minimal profit, the addition of ECN-2 and E-6 processing for respooled film has been vital for the survival of these small businesses. Without access to respooled film, many labs may face financial collapse, reducing the availability of film processing and purchasing options for consumers.
Kodak’s decision to crack down on respooled film sales runs counter to the spirit of innovation, accessibility, and community that has driven the revival of film photography. Instead of restricting these independent ventures, Kodak should embrace the growing interest in analog photography, support small businesses, and nurture the creativity that has made film such a beloved medium for both filmmakers and photographers. By doing so, Kodak could strengthen its position as a champion of the film photography community, ensuring future generations can continue to experience the unique magic of shooting on film.
Q&A:
-
Will Reflx Lab film still be available?
We are doing our best to maintain our film inventory and avoid price increases. However, if the current situation continues, we only have enough stock of 500T and 250D 35mm film to last a few months (other film stocks will last slightly longer). -
Will Reflx Lab survive if Kodak bulk film becomes completely unavailable?
Yes, we will be fine even if we only sell camera accessories. Additionally, we can still respool film from other manufacturers, such as Foma, Lucky, and Orwo. -
Do you think the crackdown is ordered by Eastman or Alaris?
We are aware that there are two Kodak entities, and we did not specify which one in the article because we believe both are behind this crackdown. Some suggest it began with the Alaris acquisition in August 2024, implying Alaris is responsible. However, the crackdown actually started in early 2024, well before the acquisition. We also know that some Eastman executives are not fond of respooled film. -
Why don’t some Eastman executives like respooled film?
First, Kodak believes that respoolers like us are taking advantage of them, a claim we disagree with and have refuted in the article above.Second, Kodak is concerned about damage to their reputation due to the poor quality of some respooled films. For example, some disposable cameras sold at Walmart were preloaded with expired ECN-2 film or poorly processed remjet-free film. Consumers with limited knowledge of film photography purchased these cameras, only to end up with disappointing results. They might blame Kodak because the film negatives bear Kodak logos. While I understand Kodak’s concerns about their brand reputation, the issue lies with improper handling by third parties, not the bulk roll film itself. By rejecting respoolers, Kodak is penalizing a segment of their customer base (film enthusiasts and professionals) for problems caused by others, rather than addressing the root cause. A better solution would be for Kodak to sell C41 bulk rolls to disposable camera manufacturers, ensuring they don’t have to use motion picture film. Disposable cameras often serve as an entry point for new film users and play a significant role in the film revival. Kodak could support disposable camera manufacturers by supplying sufficient, high-quality C41 film without Kodak logos at a reasonable price, along with agreements stipulating that the film is exclusively for use in disposable cameras.
-
Is Aerocolor 2460 banned too?
Currently, no. Aerocolor belongs to a different Kodak department. However, we are not optimistic about its future availability, as it might eventually be seen as a loophole. The price of Aerocolor bulk roll film increased by 50% last year after people began respooling it into 135 format. If Kodak intensifies its crackdown, Aerocolor could suddenly become unavailable, which would be a great loss to the analog community.