Acros II 100: Where?

[pwitkop]

Or maybe even more likely, perhaps higher volumes and wider distribution will bring the wholesale cost to retailers down, which itself will bring the retail price down.

I expect your correct, it's still a JDM product. When I asked on Instagram when freestyle announced they were stocking it, they said it wasn't distributed in NA yet. And iirc in Japan it's priced competitively

 

[Nightfly]

The Freestyle price is fair as an imported film. I paid just a bit more for four rolls and free ship on eBay. You can certainly pay much more if you are not careful! I would imagine pricing would come down once it hits the US market. I was paying $23.95 at B&H for 120 pro-packs a year ago. That ship has sailed. I do suspect pricing will be better than the new Kodak pricing for T-Max!

Acros has special characteristics, mainly in the reciprocity realm. The new Acros II has a bit more red sensitivity which is great for the three film astrophotographers left on the planet, present company included. That makes the film priceless IMHO. It's recording power in the sheer absence of visible light is remarkable, given adequate exposure. Only TMY-2 competes with it on this scale.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

If I can remember correctly when it was announced that Fuji would reintroduce Acros as Acros II, there were cries of joy, shouts of "at last Fuji listened to us", talk of Fuji not abandoning film, whispers of film being on the rise again.

Now that it is on sale, there are calls for a boycott because of the price, "that will make them sit up and listen", suggestions that it is the same as its predecessor, advice on buying a cheaper alternative.

Are we ever happy?????????????????????????

This!

Well said.

I for one am glad they brought it back, and honestly I don't care why, or that someone else is finishing/making it. That said, my statement doesn't matter much as just before the prices for the first ACROS went crazy after the announcement I bought about 125 packs of it at $32 per pack, and they now reside in my freezer. So I probably won't be supporting them soon by purchasing any ACROS 2. But when I run out, or get close to it, I'll buy the new stuff.

When you break it down, film isn't really THAT expensive if you look at your time spent shooting, developing, scanning/printing, etc and factor in the film cost plus all of that. There's a youtube channel I follow where the person is out of New Zealand and he mainly is known for shooting film. He made a video at the beginning of this year lamenting the Kodak cost increase and stated that because of that he'd have to shoot less film and more digital in 2020. Really? I just don't understand people sometimes.

Jeremy

 

[NB23]

A loaf of bread costs a lot more than it used to too; so we better add that to the list of things to boycott.

Sure! Out of two same breads you always choose the more expensive. Right?

 

[NB23]

If I can remember correctly when it was announced that Fuji would reintroduce Acros as Acros II, there were cries of joy, shouts of "at last Fuji listened to us", talk of Fuji not abandoning film, whispers of film being on the rise again.

Now that it is on sale, there are calls for a boycott because of the price, "that will make them sit up and listen", suggestions that it is the same as its predecessor, advice on buying a cheaper alternative.

Are we ever happy?????????????????????????

Please show us the fuji acros-II you have purchased.
Lead us by example, please.

 

[brbo]

When you break it down, film isn't really THAT expensive if you look at your time spent shooting, developing, scanning/printing, etc and factor in the film cost plus all of that.

Well, film is 80-90% of total cost for me.

There's a youtube channel I follow where the person is out of New Zealand and he mainly is known for shooting film. He made a video at the beginning of this year lamenting the Kodak cost increase and stated that because of that he'd have to shoot less film and more digital in 2020. Really? I just don't understand people sometimes.

You can't imagine a person with limited funds that will now buy him/her less film with higher prices?!

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

You can't imagine a person with limited funds that will now buy him/her less film with higher prices?!

For someone running a youtube channel that is primarily known for film photography, no. No I can't.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Well, film is 80-90% of total cost for me.

Note that I stated this to include shooting, developing, scanning/printing, etc.

My time is worth something to me, and is the majority of the expense/investment compared to the cost of film. A 20% hike in film cost isn't going to change that for me.

 

[brbo]

For someone running a youtube channel that is primarily known for film photography, no. No I can't.

Just because somebody buys a LOT of film doesn't mean he/she is on unlimited budget. Guess what, most of us are on a budget. Same budget with higher price means less film.

Note that I stated this to include shooting, developing, scanning/printing, etc.

My time is worth something to me, and is the majority of the expense/investment compared to the cost of film. A 20% hike in film cost isn't going to change that for me.

And I can shoot, develop and scan for a fraction of the cost of film. So can a lot of people.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Just because somebody buys a LOT of film doesn't mean he/she is on unlimited budget. Guess what, most of us are on a budget. Same budget with higher price means less film.



And I can shoot, develop and scan for a fraction of the cost of film. So can a lot of people.

OK, you win. I'm done arguing with you.

Best of luck to you,

Jeremy

 

[pentaxuser]

Isn't the nub of the argument a question of what justifies the increase. If there are clear reasons then all that remains is for each of us to decide whether the price makes it worthwhile.

I may have missed the post or posts that detail the kind of specific things that have clearly caused the price to rise substantially but there would appear to be a few people, myself included, who are suspicious that 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"

This is a phenomenon that is well known in the free market, isn't it? This may or may not have affected Fuji's or its retailers in this case but it seems a little disingenuous to discount this simply because we are dealing with a film company. I presume we would not discount it with other non film companies we buy products from, would we?

pentaxuser

 

[odell1618photography]

Is it possible that we could simply accept that any manufacturer sets cost based on market, that some may choose to not purchase products that they deem too expensive, that others will choose to purchase products that offer
a value important to them, that Fuji in particular is not mean nor evil but in business to make a profit, and move on to other things ?

 

[odell1618photography]

Is it possible that we could simply accept that any manufacturer sets cost based on market, that some may choose to not purchase products that they deem too expensive, that others will choose to purchase products that offer
a value important to them, that Fuji in particular is not mean nor evil but in business to make a profit, and move on to other things ?

Like addressing the OP's question as where to purchase Acros II ?
I'd like to know as well.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't care about price as long as they make it and people buy it.

 

[DWThomas]

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. )

 

[removedacct1]

Isn't the nub of the argument a question of what justifies the increase.

pentaxuser

Yes, at least that's my take on it. Can I afford to pay $12 a roll for film? Yes, I can, but I will be more careful how I use such a film. Is it worth TWICE the price of - for example - Ilford Delta 100? Not as far as I can tell. I will absolutely choose most any other film when I can buy two rolls for the price of one roll of Acros II.

 

[odell1618photography]

Okay, I'll jump in to the fray.

If spend $12.00 for a roll of Acros II 120 format and out of ten images I get one that I print, hang on my wall that I'm proud of, the cost to me is more than justified.
If I spend $24.00 for two rolls of 35 mm for 72 images ( 0.33 cents a piece) of my cat, my dog, my wife, my mother, the post man, my Christmas Tree, my favorite bottle of Tequila, images that I will have forever, than the cost is more than justified.
All predicated that Acros is an emulsion that I enjoy. At $12 for an image from 120 or at 0.33 cents an image from 35mm Acros seems very affordable. Can I cut my costs in half with another film choice, certainly.
But if the quality and aesthetic of Acros is appealing to me, cost is not a large consideration at $12.00 a roll, the look of my prints is.

On average Ilford 120 film is half the cost of Acros currently.
On average Kodak is $8 a roll for black and white.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Well, I just got mine. You're right about the UK thing but I don't care

 

[odell1618photography]

Well, I just got mine. You're right about the UK thing but I don't careView attachment 238319 View attachment 238320

A person of pragmatism, very refreshing.

 

[pentaxuser]

I wonder what "Made in U.K." means? On the surface and to my simple way of thinking it means that the whole film from "soup to nuts" as they say, is made in the U.K. as would appear to be the case with the Fuji equivalent of Ilford's XP2 Super. If so,being made by Ilford is a reasonable assumption, isn't it? So if the cost of production resides with Ilford and its facilities then I wonder what it is about Acros II that makes it much more expensive than Delta 100 which has been mentioned?

Could the Telly Savalas strategy( charge what you think the market will bear) be a not insubstantial element? If we are being charged a lot more than the true cost of production plus a reasonable margin for profit such as I assume to be the case with Acros II but not the case with other Ilford films then I hope that for the sake of the good folks who may be paying more than is required, that the Acros II market will not bear it and the Acros afficionados can then enjoy their film for less of their hard earned money

Now that's a sentiment we can all subscribe to isn't it?

pentaxuser

 

[odell1618photography]

I wonder what "Made in U.K." means? On the surface and to my simple way of thinking it means that the whole film from "soup to nuts" as they say, is made in the U.K. as would appear to be the case with the Fuji equivalent of Ilford's XP2 Super. If so,being made by Ilford is a reasonable assumption, isn't it? So if the cost of production resides with Ilford and its facilities then I wonder what it is about Acros II that makes it much more expensive than Delta 100 which has been mentioned?

Could the Telly Savalas strategy( charge what you think the market will bear) be a not insubstantial element? If we are being charged a lot more than the true cost of production plus a reasonable margin for profit such as I assume to be the case with Acros II but not the case with other Ilford films then I hope that for the sake of the good folks who may be paying more than is required, that the Acros II market will not bear it and the Acros afficionados can then enjoy their film for less of their hard earned money

Now that's a sentiment we can all subscribe to isn't it?

pentaxuser

Each and every day I wonder why I'm not consulted on matters of importance, Trump never calls ( I could have certainly advised him well before the Ukraine situation), Hillary never called ( no Hillary, a private email server is a bad idea), . I most certainly could have talked Bill Clinton into going home rather than "Working Late at The Office" with his staffer. But, who knows ? Maybe the head of Fuji will have seen one of my fabulous photos somewhere and out of concern that I may not be able to afford Acros will chat me up for input and direction.
If so, I'll certainly pass along everyone's thoughts on free enterprise and marketing where Acros is concerned.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pentaxuser : Of course not. Ridiculous. The range of possibilities has already be discussed, with one of them being the Fuji emulsion being sent to England for actual coating and then packaging. That doesn't make it a Harman product, because Fuji still holds the patents and a key segment of manufacture; and afterwards, it's just a subcontractor involved. But BOTH SIDES HAVE TO MAKE MONEY doing it, so there inherently has to be an overall price point markup. Nobody is trying to get away with anything egregious. And in this case the strategy might be quite wise, because Fuji might otherwise shut down that particular production coating line; and this is a way to keep the specific product ongoing. They don't need to sell as much to be profitable, because they're overhead has been reduced by doing it this way. They probably assessed that enough people will keep buying the product even at slightly higher price to warrant this kind of joint manufacture at lower volume, which subcontracting to England allows them to do. There's no direct equivalency to any Ilford-branded films; it will still be distinctly ACROS.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

So if the cost of production resides with Ilford and its facilities then I wonder what it is about Acros II that makes it much more expensive than Delta 100 which has been mentioned?

For those of us who work in the business/manufacturing sector, that's easy. In addition to whatever Tariff and Raw Materials costs have possibly changed, there is also now the added layer of a third party making the film for Fuji. Adding that cost in at the sourcing/supplier level means that for Fuji to make the same % of margin on their sales to distributors or retailers, they have to increase their wholesale price accordingly.

 

[removedacct1]

If spend $12.00 for a roll of Acros II 120 format and out of ten images I get one that I print, hang on my wall that I'm proud of, the cost to me is more than justified.

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I eat more than one kind of cheese, and like nearly all of them. Different kinds of film have different characteristics, potentially different looks. There are valid reasons for different flavors; and we can choose accordingly. Price is just one factor. And 120 roll film is so damn cheap anyway, that cost is the least important factor as far as I'm concerned. Shoot 8x10 for awhile and you'll understand. One really good shot is better than ten thousand ordinary ones.