Fuji Acros 4x5

[Mahler_one]

I note from Freestyle's site that the new Acros in boxes of 10 4x5 sheets has arrived. In case anyone is interested, compute the price and compare the cost of Acros to that of Tmax and Delta 100 in boxes of 50...about $25-$30 more for the privilege of using the Acros. For those who have waited, and extolled the virtues of the new Acros, enjoy using the film. I am certain that Acros is very special, but at the much higher price for fifty sheets...not a film I will try anytime soon. Not sure that I will see the differences. Apparently, Fuji has made a similar pricing decision to the one made by Kodak in the much higher price for Tmax 400 in ten sheet boxes of 8x10 vs, for example, HP5 ( if one computes out to 25 sheets ). I know that film should be supported by analog photographers, but when the price disparity is so great between otherwise excellent films then, at least to me, the differences between the products must be very significant to purchase the more expensive film versus the other excellent "reasonably priced alternative". Please correct me if I have miscomputed the prices noted. Pricing decisions are complex of course, and have to do with multiple factors including exchange rates and costs of shipping. It is great to have the choice of purchasing the film that one desires.

 

[MikeSeb]

I suppose the market will soon enough render its verdict on Fujifilm's pricing policy for Acros sheets.

 

[fotch]

Well, Fuji doesn't look at as just a commodity that competes on price. Like a bottle of fine wine compared with Ripple (I think that was the cheap wine) is maybe their thinking.

If all you want is some wine vs. you want a particular taste.

I agree with you that there are a lot of good quality film (Kodak, Ilford) for a lot less. Never having tried Fuji Acros, it does seem over priced. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Peter Schrager]

acros

first of all tmax100 does not permit use of alternative materials due to UV light blockage....secondly we are caught in a declining market for film; henceforth go and buy as much as you can because I know this is one of the best films EVER made!!! to my way of working it is yards above tmax100 but that's just one man's opinion....
Best, Peter

 

[Mahler_one]

Yes, I agree about Tmax 100 and UV dependent printing methods Peter. Thanks for the reminder. Is the Acros much "better" than the Tmax 400 in 4x5?

If price is no object, than there is certainly no argument about ANY film, or any camera that one wishes to own...simply go out and buy such film, in as many thousands of sheets as you desire! The manufacturer sets the price in the expectation that enough people will buy the product at the price offered, and that a reasonable profit can be made. If someone will purchase one hundred ten sheet boxes than Fuji will be very happy-and Fuji will believe that the price point is correct for their purposes. It will be very interesting to see if the many on APUG who were waiting with baited breath, and couldn't wait to buy the Acros, will indeed purchase the film at the price offered. Simply speaking for myself, the price point is not reasonable enough to either try, or use, Neopan Acros. Not an argument aimed at those who do use the film of course. One spends ones resources as one wishes. As I stated, it is good to at least have the option of buying the film that one desires.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I like Acros, and shot a lot of it in 4x5 because I could get it in Ready Load. In medium format is is a huge bargain compared to other films - almost a buck cheaper per roll than Ilford and Kodak. So the new pricing leads me away from the film for 4x5. It's not the bargain the medium format version is, and I still need to load it in holders and worry about dust. So I will probably only use it when i need it's great long exposure capabilities. I wish price wasn't an issue, but it is.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree with the others. In 120, it's a great film and a very good bargain. In 4x5 it's two advantages over Tmax 100 is reciprocity characteristics and lack of UV filter. So unless you're doing long exposures or contact printing with a UV exposed process, I'd save the money and buy Tmax 100. Unless you don't like t-grained film. In that case you wouldn't want to use either.

 

[fotch]

I don't know what the Ready Load prices were but compared to sheet film, it was a lot more wasn't it. Not saying it wasn't worth it for those who needed or wanted it, just not cheap as loading your own. Sort of like bulk loading.

Maybe Fuji figured since it was selling at this higher price, Acros fans would pay the higher price.

I might of tried it if it was priced like Kodak or Ilford but for the luxury price, will wait till there is a compelling need.

 

[tjaded]

It's definitely cheaper than what I was paying to order it from Japan! I'm just glad it's finally available in non-quickload (though I am sad to see the quickloads go, I know a lot of people liked them.)

 

[Barry S]

I'm glad it's available for LF shooters that really dig it, but at a 50% plus premium over the excellent TMAX films and very inconvenient packaging, I won't be buying it. It's maddening that 120 Acros is such a bargain and 4x5 Acros is so overpriced. I realize that some of you will gladly pay the cost, but I think the pricing and packaging dooms the film to a quick death.

 

[rphenning]

better stock up I guess then.

 

[Lani Doely]

Acros in boxes

Thank you for the notice

 

[Jeff Bannow]

I'll pay the premium. I love the stuff - easily worth it for the reciprocity issues alone.

 

[JCT]

Definitely thanks for the heads-up, it's my favorite ISO100 B&W -- just used up my last QL last week. I don't mind putting up with holders.

JT