More film options are worth celebrating, even if they aren’t entirely new

In June, Flic Film, a Canadian manufacturer and distributor of analog photography goods, posted on social media that it had released “an all-new film stock.” While that’s certainly exciting on the surface, the announcement sparked a flurry of questions and speculation, with a bit of contention.

Flic Film isn’t alone in this situation either. There has been an increase in supposedly new film stocks in the last few years, but inevitably, the comments are full of discussion about what the film really is. There also seems to be frustration floating around about how all film stocks these days are the same, and that brands are essentially misleading us into thinking we have options. But all of that oversimplifies what’s really going on.

What’s going on with film these days?

Flic Film is very transparent about the fact that its Elektra 100 film is respooled Kodak Aerocolor IV, meaning it has made no modifications and simply created its own packaging for the film.Abby Ferguson

If you aren’t closely involved in the photographic film world, some context will help you understand why that post (and similar ones by other brands) ruffled some feathers. At the time of writing, there are only three to four facilities producing color film at a commercial scale. A handful of additional producers are making black and white films.

Despite the limited producers, there seems to be no shortage of film brands. Depending on your location, you can buy film branded by the likes of Lomography, Flic Film, Reto, CineStill, Candido, Japan Camera Hunter, Rollei, Leica and so many more. Even my local film lab has its “own” stock. This is where the confusion stems from. Each of these brands isn’t making their own film from scratch, given the resources and equipment required, so what’s going on?

There are a few things at play here. Some companies are simply repackaging (sometimes referred to as respooling) film. They buy it in bulk from a manufacturer, load it into canisters and boxes with their own label, make no changes to the film itself and sell it as their own.

At times, brands are upfront about this. For example, Flic Film sells Elektra 100, which its website has clearly labeled as re-spooled Kodak Aerocolor IV color negative film. Flic Film named the film something else, but it is upfront about what the film actually is. That’s not always the case, though, and there are certainly instances of repackaged film that don’t have the actual stock disclosed.

It goes beyond repackaging

I shot this image with CineStill 800T, which CineStill simply says is “color negative motion picture emulsion.” Despite that, the general consensus is that the film is Kodak Vision3 500T with the remjet layer removed. Abby Ferguson

Another fairly common occurrence is a brand having an existing film stock modified for its use. CineStill is a good example of this, as it takes Kodak’s motion picture stocks and removes the remjet layer for its 800T and 50D films. Other brands also take motion picture stock and modify it in similar ways, so that it’s more easily processed by the general consumer and the labs they take film to.

Modification isn’t only happening on motion picture film, either. Still picture film is also modified in multiple ways in order to create a different look from the base stock. Manufacturers can do things like pre-flashing, which exposes film to a small amount of light to reduce contrast and compress the tonal range, or they can change the backing to alter how light interacts with the emulsion. They can also treat the film in various ways to push the effective ISO higher, add sensitizing dyes to shift spectral sensitivity or add additional coatings.

All that to say that there are quite a few options for altering a film stock that will result in a fairly substantial change in look. Some of these changes happen at the source by the original manufacturer, others are made by the brand in its own facilities. The changes can completely alter the colors you get from a film, its sensitivity to light, its contrast and its grain character, giving it a distinctive look.

Why don’t brands just say what it is?

With that context in mind, let’s look back at what happened with Flic Film’s latest release. When Flic Film posted about its new product, it said explicitly that it is “an all-new film stock.” Given that it seemed highly unlikely that Flic Film managed to establish its own film production facility, or even that they developed something new from the ground up that’s produced at an existing facility, people were upset about the claim that it’s “all-new.”

Flic Film subsequently released a video addressing the questions and complaints. In the video, a representative for Flic Film says, “The only answer I can honestly give is I don’t know.” He goes on to explain that they of course know the manufacturer, but when they receive the film, they get it as a number, not with the original name noted, so they truly don’t know what the stock was originally.

He also explains that when they put out a new film, they buy a master roll from a manufacturer, but that things don’t stop there. “The manufacturers don’t just grab something off the shelf and sell it to us. They actually do little tweaks to that film to make it individual to us,” he says. “They’re not going to sell us their best-selling film straight up and have us just replicate it, that makes no sense and it’s no good for the customers.”

But even when modifications are subtle, or a film is simply respooled, not sharing the name of the original film isn’t inherently nefarious. As Flic Film’s video explained, it’s very possible the brand doesn’t even know what the original stock is.

Lomography’s Earl Grey is widely believed to be widely believed to be repackaged Fomapan 100, which is manufactured in the Czech Republic by Foma Bohemia. Abby Ferguson

Non-disclosure agreements (NDA) are another common practice in this industry. When working with a manufacturer, a film company may have to sign an NDA that prevents them from sharing the manufacturer’s name, the original stock name or both. In the case of CineStill, while it’s a poorly kept secret that it uses certain Kodak motion picture film, it’s never listed outright in CineStill’s marketing. In fact, its FAQ page says, “out of respect for our unique relationships with our suppliers, we are careful not to openly claim and benefit from the goodwill and reputation of the brands and trademarks of the original products.”

CineStill is considered one of the more transparent brands, but just because other companies aren’t sharing as much doesn’t necessarily mean that they are intentionally being deceitful. They could have more strict agreements in place with producers, or other factors could be at play. It certainly would be nice to have greater transparency, and I firmly believe brands should disclose information when they are able to. But it isn’t always a sign of a company trying to scam us out of our money if they aren’t upfront.

Modified film is still legitimate

CineStill 400D is another example of modified film stock. Abby Ferguson

Transparency is one thing, but the other frustration I see coming out of recent film launches is rhetoric that all film stocks are the same these days and choice is an illusion sold to us by all of these companies. In the case of simply respooled film, yes, that is absolutely true. But, producers and brands can create quite distinct looks by modifying stocks. If a film looks different than what it came from, it seems reasonable to call it a new film.

Something similar happens in the digital camera world, too. Camera manufacturers source sensors, EVFs, displays and more from a handful of suppliers, yet it’s silly to argue that all cameras are the same as a result. Each camera manufacturer has to make additional decisions in terms of processing, colors, ergonomics and UI. What matters is what a company does with those common components.

We are quite far from the 1990s heyday when you could walk into a store and see a colorful wall of different film stocks. But a recent resurgence has led to more film brands working with producers in new ways, giving photographers more options than they had just five years ago. More options mean more people finding a film they love, and more people shooting film is only a good thing for the medium, which is always worth celebrating in my book.

Want to stay up to date on the latest product news and releases? Add DPReview as a preferred source to ensure our independent journalism makes it to the top of your Google search results.