Fujifilm Exec's talk about Film

[removed account4]

Fujifilm Exec's track record shows they are as clueless about film as some APUGers. Perfectly on topic.
If you have a problem with that just don't read certain threads. Easy peasy.

john, it's not film vs digital but more like digital vs digital - digital scanner vs digital camera, presented as is film vs digital.

thanks for reminding me about my thread-ignore list !

yeah, i have a lot of threads on ignore they started out OK and interesting
but de-volved into a puddle of goo ... this one will soon join my primordial swamp ...

as wollensak used to emboss on their lens caps
"LET THE USER JUDGE"
i think that phrase could be used in this context as well ...
film vs digital, digital vs digital, scanner vs camera ... ..
even after reading the thread and your explanation i haven't figured out what the point is.
in the end, does any of it really matter if the person using whatever it is they are using
is more than happy / satisfied with their results ?

i've been using materials, media, cameras and technology i have been told by many people
should be in the trash heap ( and some of it was found there ! )
.. and i am perfectly happy with all of it, isn't that what counts ?

I wouldn't care, if he wasn't obnoxious about it.

i know what you mean, i have danced that dance before with a few apug members, and only realized after
it was done it was a total waste of effort and time spent going on about things that no one really cared about ( including me ) .

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Fujifilm Exec's track record shows they are as clueless about film as some APUGers. Perfectly on topic.
If you have a problem with that just don't read certain threads. Easy peasy.

john, it's not film vs digital but more like digital vs digital - digital scanner vs digital camera, presented as is film vs digital.

I beg your pardon!? Sock your cheek, you yob. And stick to the topic or leave. And don't tell professionals earniing a living what to do. Thanks.

 

[Henning Serger]

I'm certainly not hurting aynone by buying what I'm buying.

If you as a film shooter refuse to buy colour films, then of course that has a negative effect on Fuji and Kodak (and Film Ferrania in the future).
Their production can only stay if we film shooters buy their products.
That's the simple reality.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Thanx for the information. I found it difficult to find this information on the web, and you have stated it more completely than I've found so far.

On a tangent, while film resolution is measured by actually counting lines on film or paper, megapixels is just a count of the available photo sensors (ignoring the bayer filter, etc.); it seems to me a theoretical measure. I'm sure digital is also affected by contrast and lenses.

I'm curious, is there any data on digital resolution measured as we would with film? Actually through a lens at a given contrast, and not merely counting pixels? (Perhaps I missed it in one of your posts).

Yes, I have given the numbers in my post. Please see above. When I test digital sensors concerning resolution I always do some tests under the same test conditions as with films. Used object contrast is 1:4 (two stops).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[miha]

If you as a film shooter refuse to buy colour films, then of course that has a negative effect on Fuji and Kodak (and Film Ferrania in the future).
Their production can only stay if we film shooters buy their products.
That's the simple reality.

Best regards,
Henning

I take snaps with differnet cameras and films, even with my Linhof purchased new in 2013 - (everyone was telling me I should go S/H) - so I did my part in helping the oldes camera maker in the world, therefore I don't need to be told what to do. I just don't like you calling people names based on your beliefs.

 

[Henning Serger]

Is the first paragraph above a reference to your meeting with the Fuji exec who assured you that Neopan 400 was on its way back? Was this a digital exec you met or a film exec that was thwarted by his digital brothers or just a Fuji exec that just didn't know what he was talking about?

Well, no. The Fuji rep. I got the information about Neopan 400 at Photokina 2012 is a very trustworthy one. And the information at this time was correct! Neopan was available again after that Photokina in some countries, e.g. Germany.
But the headquarter in Japan seemed to have changed their mind about a year later again.
So it was not the fault of this rep. By the way, the distributors got the same information and stocked up Neopan 400 again at that time.

Can you say why you are so sure that buying more Fuji colour film, both E6 and C41 will persuade Fuji to resurrect some B&W films and reconcile this with the first part of the quote.

If Fuji is realising a signifant increase in demand for photo film again then they most probably will think about a re-introduction of certain film types. That makes economic sense, and it was also told me several times by Fuji. They said there is no "once discontinued, forever discontinued" policy at Fuji.
We've already seen it with Instax: Increasing demand, new camera models.
A turn around of the market, a film revival would be a kind of "best case scenario" for Fujifilm: All what needed for the market is already there: The films with written off R&D costs, the machines with written off costs, a worldwide distribution system. So no new investments needed.

And I've thought again about this "1%" statement in the interview (see OP). I think I now know to what they are referring to:
Fujifilm is a very diversified company now. Active in lots of different areas.
And currently 1% of the companie's revenue is coming from photo film.
But in 2000 Fujifilm already has been a quite diversified company (but not so diversified like today). If I remeber right, in 2000 about 20-25% of Fujifilms revenue came from film.

So most probably they haven't been precise in this interview (or dpreview has not recorded it precisely): Talked about revenue in relation to total revenue of the company, not about total production numbers.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

I take snaps with differnet cameras and films, even with my Linhof purchased new in 2013 - (everyone was telling me I should go S/H) - so I did my part in helping the oldes camera maker in the world,

That is fine.

I just don't like you calling people names based on your beliefs.

It has nothing to do with belief, nothing at all. It has to do with economics.
If film shooters refuse to buy Kodak's and Fuji's colour films, then these companies have to stop production. Because that are their main products. BW film production is much smaller in comparison. And not big enough to keep the production running at these relative big factories.
If Portra and Provia are gone, then Tri-X and Acros are gone, too.
You may don't like it, but that is the reality.
I've just given this information. My intention of course was not to insult anyone.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[miha]

Henning, you came to a site dedicated to film photography with an agenda that most of us are fundamentalists etc, see your post a couple of pages ago. I feel insulted. Try preaching to digi shooters and Hollywood producers, they are responsible for what are we seing now, not us film shooters.

 

[Henning Serger]

Dear Daniel,

Sorry Henning...I love me some black and white prints...

as I do! I am doing BW prints in my own darkroom for about 30 years now. I will never give that up.

But I also like big, brillant 1 meter x 1,5 meter pictures on the screen (both colour and BW).
And in projection film simply rules. Digital cannot compete. Digital projectors just destroy the resolution of camera sensors with their tiny resolution. And they all have the general design flaw that the resolution is even significantly lower in vertical direction.
With film and the best projection lenses I can fully use the high film resolution. I can transfer it on the screen (we've tested all that intensively).That is up 120 lp/mm (50 MP) with 1:4 object contrast for example with Provia 100F and a Leica Super-Colorplan lens. With 35mm film.
With an Adox CMS 20 II in projection 230 Lp/mm (more than 180 MP). There is simply no enlarging limit with this film in projection! We've projected it to 5 meters width, and you can put your nose on the screen and can see the finest details! Impossible with digital projection.
In medium format with a Schneider AV-Xenotar: More than 100 MP with Provia, and more than 350 MP with CMS 20 II.
We will never ever see a digital projector delivering this.
And we got the film projection quality at a fraction of the cost compared to digital projection.

The imaging chain is important. And in digital we have two imaging chains (monitor and projection) in which the high sensor resolutions cannot be fully used.

So, for your photography you choose your tools, everything is fine. I would never argue with you about that.
And I use my tools for my photography. And in my photography there are just lots of cases in which I can get much better quality with film at much lower costs.
And with much more fun .

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Try preaching to digi shooters and Hollywood producers, they are responsible for what are we seing now, not us film shooters.

Sorry, but that is a bit too simple: The problem we have currently in the market is indeed that a significant percentage of film shooters has a one sided bias and is refusing a part of the supply which is existential for the market.
It is not my fault . I am using all types of film on a regular basis: BW negative and reversal film, colour negative and reversal film, instant film.
The more film shooters are doing this, the more secure is the production.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[pentaxuser]

It has nothing to do with belief, nothing at all. It has to do with economics.
If film shooters refuse to buy Kodak's and Fuji's colour films, then these companies have to stop production. Because that are their main products. BW film production is much smaller in comparison. And not big enough to keep the production running at these relative big factories.
If Portra and Provia are gone, then Tri-X and Acros are gone, too.
You may don't like it, but that is the reality.
I've just given this information. My intention of course was not to insult anyone.

Best regards,
Henning

It seems that you are saying that the sales of Fuji colour film is what is keeping Fuji B&W film alive but currently Fuji film users are not buying enough colour film to ensure its survival and without its survival Fuji B&W film dies as well

So colour film users have to buy more colour film, even if they don't need more and B&W film users have to buy colour film even if they have no interest in colour film.

Do you see this as a likely scenario? I have to say I do not and if this is the only way that Fuji B&W can survive then users of Fuji B&W better stock up now.

I am surprised that Fuji itself hasn't made this statement about more colour film sales needed to keep B&W alive.

On the bright side it seems that a Fuji corporate exec by the name of TT has made a statement that film will be kept alive for the next 10-20 years without any such qualification in terms of more colour sales to keep B&W film alive

You further seem to assume that we APUGers alone have the power to increase colour sales sufficiently to ensure its future survival but on what grounds or are you saying that Joe Public as a whole has to buy more colour film? I wonder how that will be achieved?

As someone in Japan decided that the revival in some markets( you mention Germany) of Neopan 400 would be short-lived for reasons that no-one seem to know then I fail to see how you can be as confident as you are that somehow APUGers, if it was APUGers that you were targeting, can save the future of Fuji film

I am fairly confident that a mass or at least a very large transfer of demand by all film users from Ilford, Kodak and Foma etc to Fuji will help to ensure Fuji film survival but I am not confident that this would be the right decision for those users of Ilford etc or indeed the right decision for film users as a whole

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

maybe it is true, i have heard on occasion that consumer purchasers of consumables is a drop in the bucket compared
to the film industry ...
public shaming people because they aren't buying enough color film seems a bit over the top to me ...
good luck with that ..

i know i don't plan on buying any color film or fresh black and white film anytime soon
no matter how much someone attempts to shame me.
thanfully if the shaming gets "too much for me to handle " the apug ignore thread / user features works fine.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Shame of the shamers and buy the films that you want to use.

 

[RattyMouse]

Can the world support so many film producers? It sure does not appear that the answer is yes. Some have to exit the industry, leaving the remaining companies stronger. If Ferrania is able to get up and running, Fujifilm, with their lackluster support of film, seem ready to hit the exit.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Competition is important in the marker place.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Can the world support so many film producers? It sure does not appear that the answer is yes. Some have to exit the industry, leaving the remaining companies stronger. If Ferrania is able to get up and running, Fujifilm, with their lackluster support of film, seem ready to hit the exit.

The answer is not when the market is shrinking and continually so. Fujifilm, Kodak, Ilford all have very diverse interests, not necessarily concentrating on film, a market for it, perceived or otherwise. They don't need to "exit the industry", just brush the low volume stuff and concentrate on core interests that bring the money in, chiefly digital product and support. This is where the gold ducats are. That's the way the world is going around. 79,000 or so "film users" here on APUG will never be sufficient to sustain an analogue market that is a gaunt shadow of itself (prior to 2000), hence price increases, product culling, patchy availability etc. Compare all the major players' products for the digital market weighted against the slim picking for the analogue market. What do you see? I would be very interested to know what Fujifilm has up its sleeves when Photokina comes about (aside from its digital medium format release).

 

[Theo Sulphate]

If Fuji knows they want to exit the film business and Ferrania wants to enter it, is it naive of me to think that Fuji could talk with Ferrania about acquiring the processes and equipment needed? In regard to their instant film, they could talk to Impossible.

When Polaroid was abandoning instant film, Impossible didn't exist. Apparently nobody wanted to save what Polaroid had created until it was too late.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The answer is not when the market is shrinking and continually so. Fujifilm, Kodak, Ilford all have very diverse interests, not necessarily concentrating on film, a market for it, perceived or otherwise. They don't need to "exit the industry", just brush the low volume stuff and concentrate on core interests that bring the money in, chiefly digital product and support. This is where the gold ducats are. That's the way the world is going around. 79,000 or so "film users" here on APUG will never be sufficient to sustain an analogue market that is a gaunt shadow of itself (prior to 2000), hence price increases, product culling, patchy availability etc. Compare all the major players' products for the digital market weighted against the slim picking for the analogue market. What do you see? I would be very interested to know what Fujifilm has up its sleeves when Photokina comes about (aside from its digital medium format release).

Whew! So glad you joined our tragically doomed film community and set us all straight. What were we thinking?

I guess Sean should just shut us down now and abandon his efforts to upgrade APUG. Why bother?



Ken

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Whew! Glad you joined our doomed film community and set us all straight. I guess Sean should just shut us down now and abandon his efforts to upgrade APUG. Why bother?



Ken

Get off your high horse.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do not see a horse, not even a short horse much less a high one. What color is the tall horse?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Get off your high horse.

Until the tools exist to force your apparently unwilling compliance, please take your digital superiority rants, and opinions regarding how utterly meaningless all 79,000 of us are, and the inevitability of the film industry's "gaunt shadow" demise, and all of the rest, over to DPUG.

Over there you can safely bleat on and on regarding your negativity toward APUG, and your low opinion of all of us, to your heart's content. We won't hear a thing, so you will never be challenged again.

Ken

 

[Photo Engineer]

No, 79,000 cannot do much, but 1.5 M can (the number of posts which could equal the amount of film used)!

Oh well, why bring this up.

Ferrania is over a year behind schedule, and Impossible products are not quite there yet.

Lets see what happens instead of commenting beforehand.

PE

 

[MattKing]

Sorry Ken, Poisson's comments about the photography market are more than fair - especially in this sub-forum.

As much as I would love it if Kodak (and I guess Fuji too) were to return to its former glory, along with a whole bunch of other film photography suppliers, it isn't going to happen.

The reason there is hope for Kodak, is that Kodak Alaris is a lot smaller than Eastman Kodak, and has a major product line that supports non-film uses as well as film uses.

The reason there is hope for Ilford is that it has already gone through its down-sizing.

The reason there is hope for Ferrania is that it is starting up with current realities informing its plans.

The reason there is hope for the other, smaller and newer manufacturers is that they are smaller and newer.

Fuji has the resources to permit change. Holding out film based hope for them though may be overly optimistic.

Maybe "gaunt shadow" is overly dramatic, but "small remnant of what once was" is fair.

 

[removed account4]

The answer is not when the market is shrinking and continually so. Fujifilm, Kodak, Ilford all have very diverse interests, not necessarily concentrating on film, a market for it, perceived or otherwise. They don't need to "exit the industry", just brush the low volume stuff and concentrate on core interests that bring the money in, chiefly digital product and support. This is where the gold ducats are. That's the way the world is going around. 79,000 or so "film users" here on APUG will never be sufficient to sustain an analogue market that is a gaunt shadow of itself (prior to 2000), hence price increases, product culling, patchy availability etc. Compare all the major players' products for the digital market weighted against the slim picking for the analogue market. What do you see? I would be very interested to know what Fujifilm has up its sleeves when Photokina comes about (aside from its digital medium format release).

No, 79,000 cannot do much, but 1.5 M can (the number of posts which could equal the amount of film used)!

Oh well, why bring this up.

Ferrania is over a year behind schedule, and Impossible products are not quite there yet.

Lets see what happens instead of commenting beforehand.

PE

Sorry Ken, Poisson's comments about the photography market are more than fair - especially in this sub-forum.

As much as I would love it if Kodak (and I guess Fuji too) were to return to its former glory, along with a whole bunch of other film photography suppliers, it isn't going to happen.

The reason there is hope for Kodak, is that Kodak Alaris is a lot smaller than Eastman Kodak, and has a major product line that supports non-film uses as well as film uses.

The reason there is hope for Ilford is that it has already gone through its down-sizing.

The reason there is hope for Ferrania is that it is starting up with current realities informing its plans.

The reason there is hope for the other, smaller and newer manufacturers is that they are smaller and newer.

Fuji has the resources to permit change. Holding out film based hope for them though may be overly optimistic.

Maybe "gaunt shadow" is overly dramatic, but "small remnant of what once was" is fair.

reality is a real drag ...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Sorry Ken, Poisson's comments about the photography market are more than fair - especially in this sub-forum.

As much as I would love it if Kodak (and I guess Fuji too) were to return to its former glory, along with a whole bunch of other film photography suppliers, it isn't going to happen.

The reason there is hope for Kodak, is that Kodak Alaris is a lot smaller than Eastman Kodak, and has a major product line that supports non-film uses as well as film uses.

The reason there is hope for Ilford is that it has already gone through its down-sizing.

The reason there is hope for Ferrania is that it is starting up with current realities informing its plans.

The reason there is hope for the other, smaller and newer manufacturers is that they are smaller and newer.

Fuji has the resources to permit change. Holding out film based hope for them though may be overly optimistic.

Maybe "gaunt shadow" is overly dramatic, but "small remnant of what once was" is fair.

Sorry Matt, but his perversely constant drumbeat of digital superiority in an analog film community is not fair. Not even close. Members, especially regular paying ones, don't frequent an online community to have their interests abused. In many cases they come to avoid just that very sort of abuse.

If he is so certain in his opinions that we are all a bunch of dolts for being excited by and enjoying film, why is he even here in the first place? Why not frequent communities that share his negative opinions? Instead of frequenting one whose original sole purpose in being created was the exact opposite of that which he repeatedly preaches?

Let me ask you this. Would you specifically join the by-now-well-known example of an online community dedicated to the appreciation of fine wines just so you could repeatedly create controversies by telling the members that because you drink and prefer beer, that beer is obviously superior to wine? I mean, it's certainly cheaper and more convenient than wine. You can get stupid drunk on a lot less money. And a lot faster. And isn't that what drinking is all about anyway?

Would you then inform the same membership that because more beer is consumed worldwide than wine (it is), that their membership in a fine wine community was meaningless in helping to keep the traditions of wine drinking (or wine making, in PE's case) alive, and so they should just get off their wine high horses and get over themselves?

Would you spend your time on their site preaching that the fine wine market is continually shrinking? And why can't the dolts just see that? And recommending that wine-making companies should therefore immediately begin concentrating on a different core of products related to making your favorite beer instead? Because beer can make them more money? More gold ducats? And isn't that what drinking is all about anyway?

And if you did indeed do all of these things, what would be your accrued benefit? What would you get out of all of the angry disruption that would make it worth your while to create it? Entertainment? A good laugh at other's expense? The knowledge that the paying customers were being denied product?

If he wishes to have this (very civil) discussion right out in the open in front of 78,589 sets of eyes, I'm more than willing to do that. But be forewarned. I will ask some difficult-to-evade hard questions regarding ethical behavior.

Ken