Acros II 100: Where?

[markjwyatt]

B&H now lists it also, for $11.99. It's currently not in stock but expected in 7 to 10 days.

I note they show Rollei Ortho 25 at $15.49 a roll, in fact most of that brand is in the $8 - $9 range. Nobody ever said it's a cheap hobby.

Wish I could remember what I paid for film back in the late 1950s, I suspect adjusted for inflation we've been getting a surprisingly good deal for the last few decades. (And then again, bought any paint lately?! Seems compared with ten years or so back, a quart now sells for what a gallon used to go for. )

I just investigated that for a thread on another forum. Tri-X in 1957 was around $1.15 for 135-36. Converted into silver cost (presuming you bought with 90% silver coins), it is over $15/roll equivalent today.

In the same thread I showed gasoline (presumed 25 cents per gallon, 1950s-1964 timeframe) was $3.30/gallon (90% silver) equivalent today.

So gasoline prices about the same (at least in California), film basically cheaper.

 

[odell1618photography]

And I bet you'd have gotten that same superb photo from a roll of FP4 of Delta 100, and in fact, you'd get TWO for every $12 because you'd be shooting twice as much film for the price. Its not a question of affordability, its a case of why pay more than you need to if there are other great options for half the price.

From a purely cost perspective I agree with you.
From an aesthetic perspective I may or may not agree with you as I have yet to work with Acros and compare how it looks printed to what I currently use. I do shoot a lot of FP4, I’m planning on working with Acros this weekend and see how it compares.

This is FP4 in D76 1:1, image capture by iPhone from original print.

 

[pentaxuser]

Drew, so it may be( a possibility) that the emulsion is made in the Fuji facilities in Japan and sent to llford for finishing and this may (a possibility) account for the difference in price between Acros II and say Delta 100? It still seems to me that the price difference between the two films is hard to account for in this explanation which is only a possibility rather than a certainty

Looking at a U.K. retailer who sells both Fuji 400Cn and Ilford XP2 Plus Super there is a very small difference in price but doesn't the same reasons you give for the price difference between Ilford Delta 100 and Acros II also apply to XP2Plus Super and Fuji 400CN where there is a very small price difference?

It's a pity that we really know next to nothing of the true reasons for the price increase, nor are we ever likely to unfortunately. I am simply asking questions based on what I see such as "Made In The U.K." on the box and the phenomenon of charging what the seller thinks the market will bear which is as likely to apply to Fuji's behaviour as it is to another other company selling products, isn't it?

I give two examples of such behaviour: In the first case Ian Grant, I think it was, told of what he saw happen to film pricing at a shop called Boots ( drugstore chain in the U.K. ) when a camera shop opened in the same town and began to sell film much more cheaply. No prizes for guessing what happened to Boots film pricing then

The second example is the general drop in prices of our utilities(gas and electricity) when price comparison websites really got going and the government made it easier to switch suppliers. We have seem a lot of price levelling in the U.K.

Some may believe that Fuji are only charging what is necessary to sustain Acros II and this is fine and some may believe that no company exhibits any tendency to do what I think in the U.S. is termed "price gouging". This is also fine but I think there is a tendency to see the behaviour of film companies as being more virtuous than other companies or being somehow closer to us simply because they produce the materials for our hobby.

I remain wary of the danger of adopting the "one big happy family" outlook and looking at companies as if they are our friends and our well being is their raison d'etre

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Why do people in threads like this think all pricing behaviors originate from manufacturers, when almost all prices are a result of a combination of factors, among which, the manufacturer's price is usually the least important?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi, Pentaxuser... It was explained earlier, many threads back. I don't personally know the inside story, but have been directly involved in numerous analogous situations in other kinds of manufacturing and distribution. Harmon (Ilford) naturally has to obtain a realistic profit from the service of coating in their plant. But the resultant product can't undercut their own flagship products price-wise doing so. A comparable situation would be the fact that their flagship paper, MGWT, ends up selling for less that the equivalent paper they make for Bergger to their own specifications, which means they really are slightly different products, as can be seen if testing them. ACROS is a very specific emulsion, and Fuji claims that they were having difficulty still getting certain critical supplies necessary to keep producing this specific film. Yet if Harman in the UK routinely keeps on hand some of these necessary things due to their much higher production level of black and white film overall, it would makes sense for Fuji simply to farm out that particular aspect of manufacture to them instead. Because the film market in general has diminished volume compared it once had, this kind of innovative cooperation is inevitable. It is quite common in other industries much much larger. Do what you can do best, and let someone else do what they do best. Many nominal competitors are also subcontractors for one another. And these seemingly harsh price hikes are often just a catching-up to the dramatically increased prices of ingredients themselves, especially the plastics that comprise film base. They can hold off the tide only so long. And really, most photo papers and films are going up, until there is a new level of equilibrium. Inflation works like that. Actual gouging would be more likely to occur at the retail level. None of us would even know the wholesale or manufacturer cost unless we were a dealer ourselves.

 

[odell1618photography]

Hi, Pentaxuser... It was explained earlier, many threads back. I don't personally know the inside story, but have been directly involved in numerous analogous situations in other kinds of manufacturing and distribution. Harmon (Ilford) naturally has to obtain a realistic profit from the service of coating in their plant. But the resultant product can't undercut their own flagship products price-wise doing so. A comparable situation would be the fact that their flagship paper, MGWT, ends up selling for less that the equivalent paper they make for Bergger to their own specifications, which means they really are slightly different products, as can be seen if testing them. ACROS is a very specific emulsion, and Fuji claims that they were having difficulty still getting certain critical supplies necessary to keep producing this specific film. Yet if Harman in the UK routinely keeps on hand some of these necessary things due to their much higher production level of black and white film overall, it would makes sense for Fuji simply to farm out that particular aspect of manufacture to them instead. Because the film market in general has diminished volume compared it once had, this kind of innovative cooperation is inevitable. It is quite common in other industries much much larger. Do what you can do best, and let someone else do what they do best. Many nominal competitors are also subcontractors for one another. And these seemingly harsh price hikes are often just a catching-up to the dramatically increased prices of ingredients themselves, especially the plastics that comprise film base. They can hold off the tide only so long. And really, most photo papers and films are going up, until there is a new level of equilibrium. Inflation works like that. Actual gouging would be more likely to occur at the retail level. None of us would even know the wholesale or manufacturer cost unless we were a dealer ourselves.

Thanks for carrying the flag of pragmatism forward Drew.

 

[pentaxuser]

Drew, I cannot fault what you say in that the reasons you give may apply and also account for whole of the price being asked for Acros II but it still seems to me to be a large increase for what may be (a) using a contractor, namely Ilford when it uses the same contractor for its Fuji CN 400 or(b) due to Fuji's claim that certain critical supplies are difficult to obtain but we have no way of knowing what those supplies are or if they will remain in critical supply for as long as the film is produced which may or may not produce a price decrease. There are a lot of unknowns and the problem with unknowns is that they force people to make conclusions about changes such as price increases and when they do they fall into two camps. They either side with the company and accept that the price increase is completely justified or the second camp consists of people such as I who seem to be in the minority who remain sceptical about the reasons for Fuji's behaviour. Short of incontrovertible evidence the two camps from the responses I have seen are about as likely to reach a consensus as our two main protagonists in the thread on Brexit

Matt you are right that we never know and we might never know what the relationship is between the manufacturer's price and the price the retailers charge. However given the general trend I feel we are either looking at a kind of hidden price cartel between retailers which does not reflect the real increase that Fuji is charging or retailers need to charge what they do because this reflects the rise in price Fuji is charging them

Frankly this is a discussion that is (a) unlikely to end in a consensus as we fall into two camps. There are those for whom Fuji has given them a film back that was unique and for this they are very grateful and those who are sceptical of the circumstances and behaviour of Fuji when it first announced Acros' demise and then suddenly restored it but at a cost.

Companies will always be tempted to use consumers emotions for justification of their actions. Did it bring Acros back as Acros II because it saw the reaction of a few on Photrio and wanted to help them? This seems unlikely. We are a bit too small to affect the market although I admit it is tempting to think we influenced Fuji. Perhaps it somehow got a global reaction that this was a film with a great demand and future but for some reason this great demand was not being converted into sales when it stopped production?

More questions than answers and questions I fear that will never be answered

pentaxuser

 

[odell1618photography]

Most that are complaining about the price increase are either insinuating that Fuji is somehow taking advantage of consumers or outright accusing Fuji of price gouging or being unethical.

They have a unique product. There was and is demand for that product. Fuji is in place to maximize profits as are Ford, Land Rover, Levi’s, Nike (why are aAir Jordans hundreds of dollars) or North Face.

Fuji is not in place to meet your socioeconomic ideals.
They are in place to maximize profits by positioning themselves and their products at a price point that helps them achieve their financial goals by gauging the will of the consumer. It’s not unethical, it’s not gouging, it’s not taking advantage of consumers, simply because film is not a necessity like food, water, shelter, or utilities. It’s a luxury, and the market contains alternatives for you to consider.

 

[MattKing]

Matt you are right that we never know and we might never know what the relationship is between the manufacturer's price and the price the retailers charge. However given the general trend I feel we are either looking at a kind of hidden price cartel between retailers which does not reflect the real increase that Fuji is charging or retailers need to charge what they do because this reflects the rise in price Fuji is charging them

The problem isn't (mostly) at the retail end. Margins there are really narrow.
The problems are in the middle - the distributors (sometimes multi-level) and all the accompanying shipping and importation and other charges.
I wouldn't be surprised if, when it comes to the UK, Harman makes more profit at the distributors level than they do manufacturing - at least with respect to film.
Of course all the other manufacturers use 3rd party distributors in all jurisdictions.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Any ongoing Fuji commitment to sustaining a minor niche category like b&w film might require some justification to the stockholders to make it actually profitable, and not just a favor to those us of who use it. Profit margin is a legitimate way to do this. I state "legitimate" because there are all kind of smoke-and-mirrors tricks publicly-traded corporations use to make it look like they're more successful than they really are. "Market share", for example, can be manipulated by sheer caprice. I could state my company has 98% market share of all polka-dotted accordions sold in the state of Nevada, for example, and it would be utterly meaningless. But Fuji doesn't need a reputation for hanky-panky, and is probably a lot more cautious. Fujifilm USA is a marketing entity, seemingly subject to its own rules, and a lot less predictable. And big corporations like Fuji are multi-layered. Chemists and R&D have their concerns, management their own kind, and the marketing crowd can sometimes act as if an unregulated army on the loose, making up their own rules as they go. That kind of scenario is quite common; so one should not automatically assume what are bunch of Marketing MBA's are doing happens to coincide with the bigger picture. And Japanese mfg companies like Fuji tend to be infamously secretive about what they are really up to. I learned that after decades of dealing with other Japanese companies, which included interacting with certain CEO's on a first name basis.

 

[markjwyatt]

I would say just give it time. It is not even available anywhere for most people, so commands a high price. Wait 6 mos. then have this conversation.

 

[Pat Erson]

there may be at least an element of a "Telly Savalas" price rise. In the film Capricorn One film Elliott Gould desperately needs to get the surviving astronaut back to prove the murderous cover-up that has taken place with the fake Mars rocket shot and seeks to hire Telly's crop-duster plane. Telly tells him it is $120 dollars an hour. Not unnaturally in the situation Elliott Gould agrees immediately whereupon Telly increases the price to $150 and seeing the shock of feeling exploited on Elliott's face adds: "You agreed to $120 too quickly so you can afford to pay more"

pentaxuser

This is what scares me most : that Ilford and Kodak, upon learning that this overpriced Acros sells well, decide that "hey let's do the same! The fanbase can take the price increase!".
And 6 months from now Hp5 or Tri- will be 12$/Euros a pop.

 

[macfred]

This is what scares me most : that Ilford and Kodak, upon learning that this overpriced Acros sells well, decide that "hey let's do the same! The fanbase can take the price increase!".
And 6 months from now Hp5 or Tri- will be 12$/Euros a pop.

A well-filled freezer gives years of independence from price increases or supply problems ...

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

My serious question now- does this have the same develop time as acros I?

 

[Henning Serger]

Well, to say it in Shakespeare's words , again "much ado about nothing" here.
Besides the usual misinformation, pointless speculation, demonstration of the lack of economic knowledge and grumpy-old-men rants of our usual suspects here ......

I have recently bought Acros II in 135 and 120 directly from Japan. I am testing the film now. Got it from a very well reputed distributor there. I have faced the difficulties of buying there myself, and I know from distributors outside Japan about all the obstacles of buying from Japan when you don't have your own local subsidiary / branch office there.
So, let's have a simple and non-emotional look at the facts:

1. The text on the packaging is almost all written in Japanese. So this first initial production is clearly a "Japan market only" production, and not intended for global distribution. For global distribution there will be different boxes later, when global distribution of the film starts.
2. The price in Japan for Acros II is moderately higher compared to the last price of Acros I in Japan. No huge price increase by Fujifilm in Japan.
3. The film distribution and wholesame system in Japan is quite different to what we are used to in Europe or the US. It has some strange characteristics (strange for European / US business standards), is quite complicated and bureaucratic which leads to higher transactions costs (than necessary as we westerners would say). For film distributors in Europe and the US it is much more difficult to buy film in Japan at distributors than it is to buy film at the US or European wholesale distributors.The costs of these transactions are much higher.
And that is the main reason why Acros II is currently sold at higher prices outside Japan compared to Japanese prices. It is neither Fujifilm's nor our local (US/EU) film distributors fault.
4. The prices outside Japan will most probably be lower as soon as Acros II is available in international packaging and distributed globally.
Therefore: Keep calm, carry on, and just have a little bit patience. Don't worry, be happy, go out shooting and stop wasting your worthy time with superfluous discussions here.

And for the "Made in UK" topic: It also has already been explained here earlier, just have a look at posting No. 54:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/acros-ii-released.171175/page-3

Best regards and have a nice weekend,
Henning

 

[dkonigs]

My serious question now- does this have the same develop time as acros I?

That's a good question, since the datasheet for Acros II doesn't list many developers. However, for the developers it does list, the times are identical to what's in the Acros I datasheet. So hopefully it is the same for all the others.

 

[pentaxuser]

I could state my company has 98% market share of all polka-dotted accordions sold in the state of Nevada,.

Wow, Drew, with 98% of the polka-dotted accordion market in Nevada being yours, no wonder that the Acros II price doesn't bother you

Can I just say to you and all others who have kindly contributed that while we differ on outlook in this matter this has been an enjoyable and worthwhile discussion. As the manager of my grandson's soccer team says to them before every match: "Play the ball not the man"

pentaxuser

 

[dkonigs]

Wow, Drew, with 98% of the polka-dotted accordion market in Nevada being yours, no wonder that the Acros II price doesn't bother you

Can I just say to you and all others who have kindly contributed that while we differ on outlook in this matter this has been an enjoyable and worthwhile discussion. As the manager of my grandson's soccer team says to them before every match: "Play the ball not the man"

pentaxuser

Yeah, as things stray way off-topic here... I can't help but think that the contrived statistic feels very similar to how I used to see smartphone marketshare percentages reported several years ago. The charts always seemed to scope the data so as to match whatever point the chart presenter was trying to make. (Existing users vs New sales vs New sales in a particular quarter vs Teenagers wandering the gardening section of Home Depot, etc.)

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

That's a good question, since the datasheet for Acros II doesn't list many developers. However, for the developers it does list, the times are identical to what's in the Acros I datasheet. So hopefully it is the same for all the others.

thank you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, I didn't get rich off accordion sales. But I did save a lot of money investing in exactly one big freezer.

 

[howardpan]

I have recently bought Acros II in 135 and 120 directly from Japan....

2. The price in Japan for Acros II is moderately higher compared to the last price of Acros I in Japan. No huge price increase by Fujifilm in Japan.

Fuji raised the price by over 50% in Japan, basically matching the cost of foreign film and color film. Shortly before Fuji ended the sale of Acros I, I could buy a roll at Yodobashi for about 650 yen. It recently cost me over 1000 yen to buy a roll of Acros II. I don’t think this has anything to do with bringing new supply online or using UK-based production facilities.

 

[pentaxuser]

Fuji raised the price by over 50% in Japan, basically matching the cost of foreign film and color film. Shortly before Fuji ended the sale of Acros I, I could buy a roll at Yodobashi for about 650 yen. It recently cost me over 1000 yen to buy a roll of Acros II. I don’t think this has anything to do with bringing new supply online or using UK-based production facilities.

Now that is interesting and worthy of reading by all, irrespective of which of the two camps they reside. There may be reasons for this that are peculiar to Japan of course. Does anyone know what these actually are as opposed to what they might be?

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Maybe short supply, and testing what the market will bear there until that changes? I dunno. And I don't care, and won't care until my freezer stock of Acros starts running low.

 

[Henning Serger]

@howardpan:
I wanted to make my explanation as short as possible. Looks like this has lead to a misunderstanding:
I have already the 30-35% general price increase of last year included in the calculation, because that is needed for a comparison. So, if Acros I would not have been discontinued, it would now be about these 30-35% higher in price like all the other films. The difference between that and the current price is about 15%, and to that moderate difference I have referred to.
The price increase of last year was not a Fuji specific thing, as we now see with Kodak. All film manufacturers need it to invest in new production capacities and new highly educated staff. The other manufacturers will probably follow with necessary price increases. The margins in film production have been to low for many years for the now needed new investments in the strong film revival.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[GLS]

I am testing the film now

I'd be very interested to see your results Henning. Provided it has similar grain/resolution/acutance to the original, its lower blue sensitivity could be useful for landscape photography.