Fuji Raises Film Prices

Paul Verizzo said:

Adding to what I just posted, we also have to keep in mind the age demographics in B&W. Many of us are, um, getting along and we've just done B&W all of our lives. But how many young people are getting into it? I understand that the demand for wet darkrooms at schools is surging, but if you add up all of the students doing that, figure only a small percentage will do so through their lives, that's not a lot of customers to split between Fuji-Kodak-Ilford-Kentmer-etc. etc.

Click to expand...

There's no shame in "getting along..."; it happens.
But you are absolutely right. Demand for B&W wet darkrooms in school situations (secondary and also university) are still very much the mainstay of a fundamental grounding in traditional photography. It is erroneous and folly to assume that a proper understanding of traditional photographic skills can be duplicated using a computer, but this is what's happening as wet darkrooms are dismantled in favour of hi-tech Macintosh digital labs and the latest and greatest Canons and Nikons.

I mentor third year fine art students in landscape (I despair, however, at their profound lack of skill in understanding hazardous environments such as near waterfalls: that isn't taught in art school!) and they are all very much into Ilford B&W and sending off the completed assignment to a pro lab with instructions for development, grading, contrast and printing because demand at their school is such there is a 3 month wait for wet processing. E6 is something of a rarity in fine art schools that I know of; I recall last weekend 2 students I walked with were using 35mm with one of Velvia and the other of ES100 (Kodak?) I think. The rest were all using B&W in a rainforest situation that to my eyes does not do justice to the myriad colours (I know I'll cop flak for that remark!).

There is nothing quite like the deep satisfaction of handling a neg or E6 tranny over a lightbox; no artifice, no pretention. No bull.

I have no problem paying more for Fuji films. Fuji's Neopan 400 is in my opinion the best all around B&W film out there. And Fuji does, by far make the very best color films. So an increase in cost is not a problem as they keep cranking out great films!

Paul Verizzo said:

When we started in photography there was no alternative to film. Now, a young person interested in making images has on one hand, a process that is time consuming, difficult to master, expensive in its initial costs, expensive to operate, and filled with disappointments on the yellow brick road. Over in the other corner is something that is instantaneous - which they expect - easy to correct, redo, costs little to get into, virtually nothing to operate, can share instantly anywhere on the earth, manipulatable in hundreds of ways in mere minutes for fun or creativity, doesn't need a dedicated work space, isn't smelly, and the technology is always getting better at lower cost.

Click to expand...

Much of what you write is true; however, the initial costs still favor film, particularly for somebody who's willing to buy used. A basic 35mm film camera can be had new for $150 or so, and even models with autofocus and a power winder start at about $300. Used prices would be about a third of that, or maybe even less (on eBay). Digital SLRs start at about $450 new, by contrast. (I'm not sure about used prices.)

Of course, film and processing costs will eat up that initial cost advantage pretty quickly -- but perhaps not quickly enough to push a youngster on a shoestring budget to digital, particularly if that person has access to a darkroom for cheap processing (at school, say). For those who want to put together their own darkrooms (or digital equivalents), the cost equation is likely to flip to digital more quickly.

I concur with brian steinberger's comment re no problem paying for (Fuji) film; if it's the quality that you're after, there is no contest.
A few minutes ago another ProPack of RVP 100F (which I alternate with RVP 50) arrived, priced at AUD$122, which is much more than the $95.00 paid for last year!

Concur, also re the cost of a basic 35mm film kit. Here is an example from me up on eBay (it's my niece's camera: she has succumbed to the lure of digital and bought a hulking Nikon F80...): http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&item=230278290769

I reckon digital is going out of date far too quickly and people are falling to the temptation of gimmicky marketing and "bells and whistles" technology: I could never imagine myself grappling with the heap of stuff on my niece's F80: even she doesn't bother. Which poses the question: why bother!!?

Whenever I burn through my stash of outdated film I will probably go for Fuji b&w films. The Neopan 400 and Acros 100 are just wonderful films that cover most basis. I don't mind paying the extra 10-15% as it's still more competitive than both Ilford and Kodak here in the US (look at Freestyle, for instance - even compared to Foma and Efke if you care to).
Go Fuji, do what you have to do to stay healthy.
- Thomas

Poisson Du Jour said:

I reckon digital is going out of date far too quickly

Click to expand...

I presume you meant film?

Paul Verizzo said:

Poisson Du Jour said:

I reckon digital is going out of date far too quickly

Click to expand...

I presume you meant film?

Click to expand...

I can't speak for Poisson Du Jour, but I interpreted the comment to mean that digital technologies tend to become obsolete quickly. Today's mid-range digital cameras make yesterday's high-end digital cameras look weak by comparison, which encourages further camera purchases. In film, the upgrades are at least partly in the film (and really major new camera features, like autofocus, haven't been new for years), so there's less need to buy more cameras. Depending on how upgrade-crazy you are about your technology and how many photos you take, this can give a long-term cost advantage to film.

You are probably correct, we will see.....

srs5694 said:

I can't speak for Poisson Du Jour, but I interpreted the comment to mean that digital technologies tend to become obsolete quickly. Today's mid-range digital cameras make yesterday's high-end digital cameras look weak by comparison, which encourages further camera purchases. In film, the upgrades are at least partly in the film (and really major new camera features, like autofocus, haven't been new for years), so there's less need to buy more cameras. Depending on how upgrade-crazy you are about your technology and how many photos you take, this can give a long-term cost advantage to film.

Click to expand...

Language, a useful tool to not communicate! I think you caught his/her intent, we shall see.

My first, aforementioned, digital camera cost me $500 used. The media cost me $1 a mb used. After owning several of the Minolta D and A series, I'm very happy with my A2 for a long time, I think.

I think one of the unintended tragedies of the low prices of good digital cameras is that now everyone buys a DSLR and thinks that they are a photographer because so many of the camera systems will cover their lack of knowledge. And they look pro.

Oops, back to hypo and acetic acid.......

I read a rumor that Nikon maybe interested in purchasing Fuji Film. I've also read that Canon maybe interested in acquiring Kodak. As I said these are rumors but it seems like it could be a possibility since both companies own sensor technology attractive to each. The mind reels about the long term effect on film production if either or both of these take overs occur.

But as I said these are internet rumors.

srs5694 said:

I can't speak for Poisson Du Jour, but I interpreted the comment to mean that digital technologies tend to become obsolete quickly. Today's mid-range digital cameras make yesterday's high-end digital cameras look weak by comparison, which encourages further camera purchases. ...

Click to expand...

(italics are my emphasis) Absolutely correct!

donbga said:

I read a rumor that Nikon maybe interested in purchasing Fuji Film. I've also read that Canon maybe interested in acquiring Kodak. As I said these are rumors but it seems like it could be a possibility since both companies own sensor technology attractive to each. The mind reels about the long term effect on film production if either or both of these take overs occur.

But as I said these are internet rumors.

Click to expand...

It sounds easy. I would strongly suspect either company (Canon or Nikon) would pursue and exploit the opportunity for pure commercial gain and stop film production altogether, because film certainly isn't profitable (i.e. production of film cameras) to either marque! BTW, does Fuji make digital image sensors?? Does Kodak?? I really don't know...

Kodak makes the largest and most advanced image sensors on the market today. Fuji does make them, but not in the quantity or size. One thing is sure, Fuji cameras are better than Kodak cameras. The rumors of a buyout of Fuji are probably not correct due to the structure of Fuji and government regulations/control.

PE

Paul Verizzo said:

...I think one of the unintended tragedies of the low prices of good digital cameras is that now everyone buys a DSLR and thinks that they are a photographer because so many of the camera systems will cover their lack of knowledge. And they look pro.

Click to expand...

Yes! Yes! Yes! Spot on. Note that has also been a problem (i.e. "me-too-ism") in days of yore with film cameras: hang a pro-level SLR around your neck and call yourself a "pro photographer". Ugh—!

I wouldn't say digitals are "low priced": the biggest of the Canons cost almost $13,000, weigh in close to 2.2kg and have more functions and features than anything NASA has yet churned out. :rolleyes:

As I said elsewhere, the majority want mediocrity and they want it NOW!

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Kodak makes the largest and most advanced image sensors on the market today. Fuji does make them, but not in the quantity or size. One thing is sure, Fuji cameras are better than Kodak cameras. The rumors of a buyout of Fuji are probably not correct due to the structure of Fuji and government regulations/control.

PE

Click to expand...

Another point to consider is that Fuji (which is also part of a kieretsu) is much larger than Nikon.

I would think that it is more likely that Nikon would be the target of Fuji - rather than vice versa.

Oh no! Does this apply to all the film Fuji produces? That's all what I buy is Fuji. Oh well, I could always buy other brands.

I wouldn't say digitals are "low priced": the biggest of the Canons cost almost $13,000, weigh in close to 2.2kg and have more functions and features than anything NASA has yet churned out.

Click to expand...

lol That's true.

Well, I hope the whole Canon/Nikon thing doesn't turn out, unless they're not happy about the fact that they are both the top leading brands in digital cameras and for some reason they need more control over the camera market.

Photo Engineer said:

Kodak makes the largest and most advanced image sensors on the market today. Fuji does make them, but not in the quantity or size. One thing is sure, Fuji cameras are better than Kodak cameras. The rumors of a buyout of Fuji are probably not correct due to the structure of Fuji and government regulations/control.

PE

Click to expand...

Most educational Mr Engineer.

Photo Engineer said:

Kodak makes the largest and most advanced image sensors on the market today. Fuji does make them, but not in the quantity or size. One thing is sure, Fuji cameras are better than Kodak cameras. The rumors of a buyout of Fuji are probably not correct due to the structure of Fuji and government regulations/control.

PE

Click to expand...

Well IMO, Kodak maybe an attractive company for a foreign buy out, considering their current stock price and the value of the US dollar.

Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi, certainly it wouldn't be inconceivable that two Japanese companies "merged".

Fuji does have some attractive sensor manufacturing technology which would be attractive to Nikon since they are purchasing Sony made sensors.

Anyway I would speculate that if either or both of the take overs ever occur the film divisions maybe sold to someone else like Ilford/Harman.

Good I'm glad they have. Whatever it takes to continue producing and working on RD for new films.

AFAIK, the Fuji film coating lines and emulsion making technology are far superior than that of Ilford. No criticism is meant in that, merely the fact that it has been designed for ultra high-speed color film production as well as B&W. Also, their technological properties are top rate. They are much better off than Ilford, so it is more likely that Fuji take over Ilford than the reverse, not that I think either would happen.

Mitsubishi owned Konishiroku, but Konishiroku did not merge with Nikon, it merged with another camera manufacturer. The situation in Japan is complex. Lets not try to second guess or simplify it.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

...Mitsubishi owned Konishiroku, but Konishiroku did not merge with Nikon, it merged with another camera manufacturer. The situation in Japan is complex. Lets not try to second guess or simplify it.

PE

Click to expand...

Mmmm. :munch:

Poisson Du Jour said:

BTW, does Fuji make digital image sensors??

Click to expand...

Fuji does indeed make their own sensors, at least for their DSLRs...their Super-CCD's are markedly different from regular CCDs because they have two types of sensors on the chip. One is for the low-end and mid-tones, while the other is for highlights only. As a result, Fuji has pretty much the longest dynamic range of all DSLRs, and the smoothest skin-tones. Their problem is that it takes time to combine those two separate signals into one image, so it slows the camera down considerably. This pretty much takes it out of the arena where the Nikon D-series and Canon Mark III live.

Which of course reminds us that the best range and tones are achieved with film.