I've used Delta 100 in 4x5", and its reciprocity characteristics get extremely annoying on longer exposures.(wild-ass--guess) Ilford Delta 100 has worked well for me with the 4x5 Pinhole.
Hey all,
I used to love shooting Fuji Acros 100 in 4x5 for night photography, both for the look, and the reciprocity made it easy. What's the next best option with what we have available now?
(Apologies if this has already been asked. I scanned the forum quickly and didn't see an answer.)
Thanks,
Chris
Because people want cheap not good hence Chinese lf film...they don't know about reciprocityDoes anyone know why given its uniqueness in respect of reciprocity failure and Fuji's fairly sudden "volte face" in bringing us Acros II after the demise of Acros, Fuji hasn't exploited this uniqueness by giving us it in LF?
pentaxuser
Does anyone know why given its uniqueness in respect of reciprocity failure and Fuji's fairly sudden "volte face" in bringing us Acros II after the demise of Acros, Fuji hasn't exploited this uniqueness by giving us it in LF?
pentaxuser
Yes but what I was wondering is: Why does the economics work against Fuji who do not do 4x5 in Acros but others such as Foma and Ilford do? Economics seemingly worked against Fuji when it ceased Acros production but it presumably had a change of mind about the economics which resulted in Acros II so I'd have thought that given the demand for Acros in smaller formats that Fuji discovered as a result of reaction by the Acros buying public which Fuji judged was sufficient to invest in Acros II and its unique reciprocity failure it might have considered a one off yearly run if nothing else to respond to usersAhem, Economics ?
....
I suppose it all depends on how much the investment in Acros 4x5 involves but as it decided it was wrong about ceasing Acros then you'd think that dipping a toe in the water at least to produce some Acros 4x5 might be worthwhile, if as it seems, it has decided that responding to consumers on Acros made sense
pentaxuser
. It seems to me that Fuji are not willing or not able to supply whatever demand there may be for the new acros at a competitive price...or they KNOW that actual demand is too low to bother. Thus, they have chosen to focus on the part of the market that may actually be growing (if only slightly?) - small format.
EDIT: Anyway, I'm certain that it is a complex issue and that we do not have anywhere near enough information to make a rational assessment.
Thanks and yes that last sentence may be the closest we can come to getting to the bottom of things Fuji. My real problem is trying to work out what is the true logical position for Fuji to adopt from an economics aspect. Clearly it would seem that even at the price of Acros II it still sells in sufficient quantities to make Fuji a profit or does it?
Having changed its mind once about Acros could it afford to either charge a lot more for Acros if it isn't making a profit or if it believes it can't charge more then the current premium is the best it can manage and if this results in say break-even or barely break-even then to ditch Acros again after such a short time might damage its reputation too much
It may be that it cannot compete with the current 4x5 makers and trying to establish an Acros 4x5, given the market demand, would be throwing good money after bad
pentaxuser
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?