BASED EASTMANFUCK ALARIS
Probably another rebrand, wait and see.
>>4471912It's not a rebrand, this is made in Rochester.
>>4471909Celebration-worthy news, fuck the Alaris kikes
>>4471909Rebranded colorplus200 and pro image100 zzzz
>>4471969people on r*ddit say that its more likely the stock that kodak sells to lomo for lomo 100, since proimage specifies room temp storage and this film specifies refrigerated. it probably won't be as good as PI either
>>4471969you are not seeing the large picture nigga, now they might be ballsy enough to also their new vision3, without the remjet its perfectly safe for retards
>>4471973If you believe the homo100 theory that still doesn’t explain the 200 film.
>>4471974It also renders punchier blues which is nice.
f-fuji greens?...
They probably shat themselves when they discovered how well the new chinese stock was selling kek.
Fucking bad news I want film to die When we're at it what the qrd on the drama?
If it’s not cheaper than currently available film, then what’s the big deal? It makes zero difference then. The schizo bloviating about differences between colour films is stat chasing pixel peeing nerd nonsense. Tell me which is the cheapest, they’re all 95% close enough.
>>4471943It's literally a rebrand, they said so in the announcement. Difference is it's (real) Kodak themselves rebranding their own film rather than hipster faggots upcharging for ultramax with light leaks. No shit it's made in Rochester that's where Kodak is. They must've found some loophole that lets them cut out Alaris.
>>4472347agreed. vision 3 repacks like cyberpunk are as cheap as it gets and much sharper than dog shit like ultramax and pro films cost double or triple.
>>4472437>vision 3 repacks like cyberpunk are as cheap as it getswhere? They're usually like $12 which is more than lots of "real" films. >dog shit like ultramaxoh fuck off ultramax is plenty sharp and has more accurate colors than vision3 in c41>>4472347This fellow is actually right on, if it's not cheaper than gold why bother? But it might actually be cheaper than gold. If they truly are "cutting out the middle man" (alaris) it might be cheaper once we get past the new film premium.
>>4472228>Fucking bad news>I want film to dieAnd I want my Kodachrome back!
>>4472542It gonna suck dick and you'll discover that dead things are only good in fantasy and there is no "kodachrome look"
>>4472556>there is no "kodachrome lookI shot Kodachrome since 1975 kid, so I will know it when I see it.
>>4472576damn, imagine being 60+
don't care just bought 10 rolls of pro image 100
>>4472586Based cheap film appreciator, reject the portra Jew
>>4472415Eastman had some extra cash and I think they might have bought back some distribution rights from Alaris.>>4471975kodak has a ton of formulations and from what I've heard the stuff they sell to lomography is similar to (or maybe the same as) some older formulations, so not gold and ultramax. And I think lomo 800 is the same as or very similar to Max 800 which for some reason kodak doesn't sell except in disposable cameras.>>4472216is it? I haven't seen it up for sale yet.>>4472347it's still almost $10 a roll which means I will try a couple and then just stick with buying 3 packs of whatever is on sale and keeping my average price per roll under $8>>4472605still more expensive than a 3 pack of gold rebranded as fuji 200
>>4472507>oh fuck off ultramax is plenty sharp and has more accurate colors than vision3 in c41The cinema look bodies ultrashit. Sorry.
>>4472347>then what’s the big deal?Alaris was really cancer.Kodacolor 200 means Eastman Kodak said "fuck you, Alaris, i'm going to sell still film again, like in the good old days"It also opens the potential for lower prices.
>>4472576>I shot Kodachrome since 1975 kid, so I will know it when I see it.So, grandpa, will you please be sincere and recognize that K25, the best Kodachrome, had a color rendition unsuitable for portraits, and that the contrast often got too extreme?I would gladly buy Kodachrome but not with the K25 or K64 color palette. For me the benefits were much higher sharpness (because of thinner emulsion), longer life of the film before development (because it has no dyes on it) and the fact that it will archive forever.
If you never shot on Kodachrome lower your voice when you talk to me, kid
>>4472576I'm sorry they took your kodachrome away, even though paul simon asked them not to
>>4472917>potential for lower pricesif the chinks couldnt/wouldn't make lucky cheap, lol
>>4473062when are we going to be able to get lucky color film
>>4472576is this cat kodachrome
>>4473499looks like kot-at-home to me
