Fujifilm Exec's talk about Film

[RattyMouse]

DPR posted an interview from two of Fujifilm's corporate execs. Mostly this is all about digital cameras but there were a few questions about film. Here they are:

We talk a lot about digital imaging, but Instax is still very popular. Why is that, in your opinion?

TT: Instax is being used by the younger generation. They have never seen prints! So a print popping out the side of a camera is a [novelty] for them. And physical pictures. Exchanging pictures has become a new mode of communication.

Do you think film in general will have a resurgence?

TT: No, I don’t think so. The infrastructure [is no longer in place]. We have to continue to supply film and maintain our labs for another 10-20 years, maybe but I don’t think we can change the [downward] trend.

You mentioned in your presentation that demand for film peaked in 2000. Can you give me a current idea of how that compares to demand today?

TT: We sell less than 1% of that amount now. Across all formats. But we have to supply film to photo enthusiasts. They demand it of us, so we do.

source:

http://www.dpreview.com/interviews/6258617860/fujifilm-interview-jan-2016

 

[ericdan]

not very positive. Kodak's CEO seems to be a lot more positive about film than Fujifilm execs.

 

[mooseontheloose]

It sounds very much like Japanese "duty" - like employees who continue to work for companies after they've quit because its expected of them.

10-20 years of film commitment - I wonder what will be the last (fujifilm) standing? Velvia? Acros? Instax? Sorry, I don't like to be pessimistic. Maybe they'll find a slight resurgence to keep the film lines and labs running.

What I find interesting is even here in the heartland of Fuji, when I bring my slides in for developing I have a choice of Kodak or Fuji development - Kodak is cheaper.

 

[anta40]

On the other side, there's a rumor that Fuji is doing research on digital medium format cameras.

Maybe we can see the real thing 5 years later.
It's kinda "ironic" though a company that called themselves "Fujifilm" don't make film cameras anymore

 

[Photo Engineer]

There has been a long standing debate between Fuji and Kodak over analog and digital. I have taken part in that debate personally. The final word will not be either company, but rather a digital company!

PE

 

[skorpiius]

not very positive. Kodak's CEO seems to be a lot more positive about film than Fujifilm execs.

I agree. Which would be fine if Fuji wasn't the main provider of e6 and sole provider of peel apart "polaroid"

 

[skorpiius]

It sounds very much like Japanese "duty" - like employees who continue to work for companies after they've quit because its expected of them.

10-20 years of film commitment - I wonder what will be the last (fujifilm) standing? Velvia? Acros? Instax? Sorry, I don't like to be pessimistic. Maybe they'll find a slight resurgence to keep the film lines and labs running.

What I find interesting is even here in the heartland of Fuji, when I bring my slides in for developing I have a choice of Kodak or Fuji development - Kodak is cheaper.

My guess is actually Instax.

 

[bvy]

I can't imagine there's still a "downward trend." That would suggest there's a large enough group of people still expected to convert to digital. Maybe that's true in other parts of the world. Maybe I'm deceiving myself.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

DPR posted an interview from two of Fujifilm's corporate execs. Mostly this is all about digital cameras but there were a few questions about film. Here they are:

We talk a lot about digital imaging, but Instax is still very popular. Why is that, in your opinion?

TT: Instax is being used by the younger generation. They have never seen prints! So a print popping out the side of a camera is a [novelty] for them. And physical pictures. Exchanging pictures has become a new mode of communication.

Do you think film in general will have a resurgence?

TT: No, I don’t think so. The infrastructure [is no longer in place]. We have to continue to supply film and maintain our labs for another 10-20 years, maybe but I don’t think we can change the [downward] trend.

You mentioned in your presentation that demand for film peaked in 2000. Can you give me a current idea of how that compares to demand today?

TT: We sell less than 1% of that amount now. Across all formats. But we have to supply film to photo enthusiasts. They demand it of us, so we do.

source:

http://www.dpreview.com/interviews/6258617860/fujifilm-interview-jan-2016

Predictably downcast in its tone and reflection, but mirroring the global situation where digital is slowly but very surely taking over. Film is a tiny market now and will get smaller as time passes.

Fuji may wish to continue supplying to enthusiasts, but they are not all that interested in pursuing the professionals, who have largely migrated (long ago) to digital. We can see this by the number of professional mixed-format emulsions that are periodically culled.

 

[Peter Schrager]

This is because they only look at numbers. ..film use is going to go back up...who's buying all those cameras on ebay...typical corporate misguided b.s..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[NB23]

I'm amazed at the super fast drastic market change.

200 rolls of film (equaling 1000$) will give me endless hours of fun and the masterpiece shots will look GOOD.

On the other hand, a 1000$ digital camera will give me ZERO hours of fun, and Hundreds of BAD hours on the computer, sorting files and wondering how come it all looks so shitty.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I'm amazed at the super fast drastic market change.

200 rolls of film (equaling 1000$) will give me endless hours of fun and the masterpiece shots will look GOOD.

On the other hand, a 1000$ digital camera will give me ZERO hours of fun, and Hundreds of BAD hours on the computer, sorting files and wondering how come it all looks so shitty.

A lot has been lost — and will continue to be lost, in the 16 years since the peak.
Anybody with a lot of skill and experience will have no trouble creating a so-called masterpiece whether it is analogue or digital.

 

[NB23]

A lot has been lost — and will continue to be lost, in the 16 years since the peak.
Anybody with a lot of skill and experience will have no trouble creating a so-called masterpiece whether it is analogue or digital.

But the digital masterpiece will lack the film look, which looks better. That was my point.

 

[Xmas]

I can't imagine there's still a "downward trend." That would suggest there's a large enough group of people still expected to convert to digital. Maybe that's true in other parts of the world. Maybe I'm deceiving myself.

The small group may be getting smaller, faster leaving, than taking up. Many of my film friends are still going hybrid or digital, last one got an iPhone and sold his digital keeps his Ms in display case!
The infrastructure of labs is still shrinking which makes start ups more difficult and more expensive per film.
I switched from E6, to C41, to mono, decade ago, local labs going from 24/7 to 7/weekdays.
Our mail system is more at risk than it used to be.
Fewer people are being trained in film in photo courses.
High volume users are still switching.
Cine is setting up takes in digital and only running film for getting it in can. Shooting in 16mm high res scan for distribution, both these are real film volume reductions.
The 220 going will take out some studios and wedding photographers who can't work in 120.
There is still a glut of cameras in working condition so that maintenance is trash and buy another.
The last lady photog who asked what was wrong with her camera had found it in a plastic bag in trash can with instruction book.
It was a Canonet with bust meter she had set it to auto inadvertently, her Kodak gold film had the table with sunny side /16 rules. But that was an exception her grandfather had been a real photographer and she wanted to be one to.

 

[NJH]

Personally I see the difference in tone as nothing more than a reflection of cultural differences. Having worked for a Japanese R&D effort 20 odd years ago I came to just expect that what they said they did quite literally. Hopefully that 10 to 20 years includes Provia100f and Velvia which if it does is a really positive thing for me as they are the only colour films I am interested in.

 

[Roger Cole]

But the digital masterpiece will lack the film look, which looks better. That was my point.

I love working with film but can't agree at all with this.

There's nothing wrong with the look of digital, and good digital can now best any film up to but not quite including 8x10 in any objective measures of image quality, and I'd wager to say can make a print that most, even experienced, people can't tell from analog. And for that matter a really good digital back on a LF camera could almost certainly beat the 8x10 film but the costs are still astronomical there.

There's nothing wrong with the digital result. It's just the process that is too easy (in basic terms anyway, not saying the vision part is ever such) too automated and ultimately, for many of us, rather soulless.

Personally I see the difference in tone as nothing more than a reflection of cultural differences. Having worked for a Japanese R&D effort 20 odd years ago I came to just expect that what they said they did quite literally. Hopefully that 10 to 20 years includes Provia100f and Velvia which if it does is a really positive thing for me as they are the only colour films I am interested in.

And hopefully give Film Ferrania the chance to become the major E6 player in right sized production.

I shoot Provia 100F for lack of anything else for projection now (aside, of course, from my frozen stash of Provia 400X and E100G.) I could easily switch another 100 film, and would like something more like E100G or Astia anyway, given my druthers. The only remaining Fuji non-instant non-E6 film I care about is Acros and that's not a huge one for me though I understand why it's unmatched lack of reciprocity failure (well it does, eventually, but not compared to anything else) makes it invaluable for those doing long exposures. It also has a unique spectral response and look, but while I'd hate to lose it it wouldn't bother me all that much.

 

[Xmas]

I love working with film but can't agree at all with this.

There's nothing wrong with the look of digital, and good digital can now best any film up to but not quite including 8x10 in any objective measures of image quality, and I'd wager to say can make a print that most, even experienced, people can't tell from analog. And for that matter a really good digital back on a LF camera could almost certainly beat the 8x10 film but the costs are still astronomical there.

And hopefully give Film Ferrania the chance to become the major E6 player in right sized production.

The cost may remain so...

But Adox are also refurbishing a production coater, so may be able to offer a wider range of emulsions and finishing.

There is a thread somewhere...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

But the digital masterpiece will lack the film look, which looks better. That was my point.

What happens if I write a digital file to film?
I get a "film look"? Or something else??

 

[georg16nik]

What happens if I write a digital file to film?
I get a "film look"? Or something else??

It's still digital imagery but if you are blind enough to enjoy it... keep up it up.
Luckily, most files exists in recycle bin environment called hardware, a well designed temporal storage in need for never-ending data migration.

 

[Roger Cole]

This digital bashing is silly. Digital can look damned good, every bit as good and in some cases better than film. Sometimes different, often not. Use what you like and enjoy but to claim that one is "blind" if they like an image created digitally is just absurd.

 

[RattyMouse]

This digital bashing is silly. Digital can look damned good, every bit as good and in some cases better than film. Sometimes different, often not. Use what you like and enjoy but to claim that one is "blind" if they like an image created digitally is just absurd.

Digital can out resolve film. That's a scientific fact. Whether or not that looks better is strictly up to the viewer. It cannot be stated emphatically that digital looks better since that is a purely subjective experience.

I can clearly see that film does not have the resolution that digital has, yet I havent shot a digital image in years (not a serious one). I want the look of film because it is far better to my eyes. Digital cannot come close so I choose otherwise.

I dont go over into digital forums and beat the film drum because most people there like the increased resolution and to their eyes, this makes digital better than film. Who am I to argue against that?

 

[georg16nik]

Digital can out resolve film. That's a scientific fact...

On your computer display, maybe.
Is your darkroom cherry popped or you are still a wet-print virgin?
Ever shot Copex-rapid or Adox CMS 20 in 135 or MF format? Printed some at 16x20 or larger?

Amazingly funny what bunch of amateurs craw APUG.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

Does a market of dozens/hundreds of thousands customers need a multibillion company like Fujifilm? I hope not. In fact, knowing nothing about business, marketing, production, etc. I tend to think that resizing and reorienting of the "film sector" is what has been happening and will happen in the years to come.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

This digital bashing is silly. Digital can look damned good, every bit as good and in some cases better than film. Sometimes different, often not. Use what you like and enjoy but to claim that one is "blind" if they like an image created digitally is just absurd.

I partially agree with you.
The difference is that Digi always looks flat, uninspiring and very clean, too clean at times.
After all, it is just 0 and 1.

"This digital bashing" is not about how one looks different from the other, it is about survival of film.

I cringe that even in this forum, some people keep saying "if I want to do colour, I use my DSLR, or iphone, etc", or keep mentioning how many Digi they have, or keep buying expired film.
These people have no idea of the damage they are doing and have been doing since 2000.
How many more films are we going to loose, how many more labs are going to close, how many more jobs are going to be lost, etc until these people understand this simple saying: "if you don't use it, you'll loose it"?
Simple economics, which most of the civilized Western World seems not to understand.
But, we would need just some 10-20% of the population to shoot a roll of film every now and then to see a real resurgence.

I cringe when some Digitographer raves about his last Leica M digi or Nikon D-something and have no problem in splashing £5000-10000 in a single body, but seem to have problems in paying a few dozen pounds for fresh film, or paper, or development in a proper lab.

I'm not admired at all by what this Fuji exec said about film longevity.
But, I see signs of hope in a new generation or when I see a middle-age woman returning to film, clutching a Rolleiflex and actually using it.
I still have some hope that some Digitographers might actually see the light, or shall I say the Dark?

 

[NB23]

This digital bashing is silly. Digital can look damned good, every bit as good and in some cases better than film. Sometimes different, often not. Use what you like and enjoy but to claim that one is "blind" if they like an image created digitally is just absurd.

Especially B&W, digital looks like craaaaap.