Fujifilm Kills Two More Films

[Rudeofus]

Digital is hurting because of camera phones which already produce results far better in far worse light than consumer cameras of my youth like the 126 Instamatic and (ugh) 110s. They are more than good enough for most people. It's not that fewer photos are taken as there are almost certainly more taken than ever before. It's just that most people don't need a single purpose camera to take the kind of photos they want anymore.

The movie clip on that page is 95% the guy reading his poster, but the final 5% are interesting: nope, it's not the camera phones alone. Camera phones will eat into P&S sales, but shouldn't much affect DSLR sales, yet DSLRs were down by a whopping 19% last year.

 

[Xmas]

The movie clip on that page is 95% the guy reading his poster, but the final 5% are interesting: nope, it's not the camera phones alone. Camera phones will eat into P&S sales, but shouldn't much affect DSLR sales, yet DSLRs were down by a whopping 19% last year.

I beg to differ most people have a mobile almost all mobiles have cams... most people have hours of mpeg music on their phones.
DSLRs and mirrorless cams are for people who think they need quality and can load a memory card...
There are many more cameras carried about and in use today than 40 years ago, cause they are a lot easier to use.
Market saturation can reduce sales eg if DSLR stop improving and are more reliable... and people may prefer the real time screen view - gbag space is the final frontier.
The film industries scale was funded by cine and P&S most families had a camera by 1960 and shot one film on holiday subsequently there was colour and then mini labs colour was in effect cheaper and more convenient than mono...
They went to cinema twice a week 2 films and free news cast each day
It is not unknown I get stopped in street by a stranger and need to unload & load a 35mm film, eg people borrow a camera for holiday trip...
One reason SLRs were popular was you needed to take the cap off the lens.
Yesterday I needed to explain how you metered with a manual camera to two DSLR camera people, /16 that side of street, /5.6 this side...

 

[Roger Cole]

Again, I think it's a matter of complaicency on the part of the manufacturers.

I notice that more and more people become interested in photography because they have started taking photos with their phones. They want a real camera to take better pictures.

But for many people the learning curve from instagraming snapshots with presets, to editing raw files in Lightroom is too great. I've had to help quite a lot of people undrstand the workflow. Unfortunately, many of them think it's too much work.

That's one of the problems with analogue film today. Apart from a few pro labs, it'll take a couple of weeks to have a film developed. And the scans are usually very poor. Most people are not interested in investing time and money into developing or scanning at home.

I think the manufacturers really should take some steps to make life easier for the transition customers.

I don't know that the problem is with manufacturers so much as society, though. Not that many people want to invest time and energy into learning ANYTHING anymore. It has to be instant and easy or its too much trouble.

 

[AgX]

Efke also suffered from a peculiar catch 22 in not selling enough to keep repairs up or manage good QC and bad QC severely impacted their sales, at least to judge from what I read here and on LFPF.

EFKE seem to suffered from letting themselves get into a price race concerning their Efke branded standard portfolio.

But, with the market decreasing and the huge necessary investments to even prolong production a concept of selling as long as possible at low profit even seems valid.

 

[PKM-25]

I find I promote film use the best when I am not on the internet but out shooting, carrying my little 5x7 folio of hand made prints. APUG is not what gets people looking at choosing film again, it is where they go once they decide to explore it, if they can even find the site, usually by word of mouth.
This site and especially the photos that reside on it are largely invisible to most of the world and I think that PE's citation of metrics is probably correct. Those who become re-engaged in the craft of using film usually have done so because they were inspired by something or someone, like an NYT Lens blog article, a showing of fine prints, seeing someone under the dark cloth or seeing better than usual work on flickr.

There are some spectacular images being made on the last three iterations of iPhones and like it or not, if they were printed to 16x20, their sheer impact would far outdistance a lot of the work being shown on this site. So this is what the reality is, the smartphone has readily taken the place of the SLR, compact or point and shoot as the cash cow of memories and you can be an old washed up codger all you want and say that they will lose their memories but that will not change what has happened or what will continue to happen to the availability and price of film.

Film use is super-niche and the market is still adjusting to that, never to be a super-market item ever again. So instead of bitching, maybe get some real prints into someone's hands for them to look at when you are out shooting....and no, sorry, not computer prints born of scans, they will not convince someone to use film like you think they will. For when it comes right down to it, the guy is going to say "but I get just as good a print from my iPhone 5S" and he will be right...

Getting off of here and out shooting and showing work is the only way to promote one of the best reasons to use film, not being on a computer..

Oh, and about the choice of name for this site, it is terrible, sounds like a "A-Pug", a dog, **really** piss poor when it comes to promoting film. Google filmphotography.com, not even in use although grossly overpriced, drop the last letter and it is a bargain so buy the damn URL and have it link back to this site, can you do that with MY money please?

Something, anything else to direct traffic to the site because the name is horrid in terms of finding the site Sean…not one single pro or very few amateurs I have encountered have even heard of it.

 

[analoguey]

Again, I think it's a matter of complaicency on the part of the manufacturers.

I notice that more and more people become interested in photography because they have started taking photos with their phones. They want a real camera to take better pictures.

Yep. That was me, nearly a decade ago.
From a 2Mp state-of-the-art phone camera to a DSLR and moving up the chain to film.

for many people the learning curve from instagraming snapshots with presets, to editing raw files in Lightroom is too great. I've had to help quite a lot of people undrstand the workflow. Unfortunately, many of them think it's too much work.

That's one of the problems with analogue film today. Apart from a few pro labs, it'll take a couple of weeks to have a film developed. And the scans are usually very poor. Most people are not interested in investing time and money into developing or scanning at home.

I think the manufacturers really should take some steps to make life easier for the transition customers.

If someone can come up with correctly priced product which offers development, scan and internet upload, a lot more of the Instagram generation people would pick it up. But none of the current manufacturers is even aware of sites like Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. Not to mention how to integrate their services with them.

Drop of your film and few hours later it's on Facebook or Flickr. It can't be that hard!

Indeed.
Lomo is doing it's bit in documenting stuff like this but a film manufacturer consortium + camera makers would really benefit majorly from it.

There might be more negatives about food or babies, but definitely would win over a few converts.

Then again, Nikon already has a similarly working digital SLR in the 3300 so you know where their bread's buttered


Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[MDR]

PKM is mostly right people should be invited to see the wonders of film and the quality of film unfortunately people often assume that images that were made using analogue material was made using digital cameras. Baryta paper is not the domain of analogue photography anymore there is Baryta paper for inkjet and there is Baryta paper for laser/led systems like the lambda. What is inherently analogue these days and more what makes film better choice than digital these days? Us film guys are fighting an uphill battle and we are loosing ground for the simple reason that the masses do not care about the things that make film great.

Quality: Ha who needs quality, quality never was that important otherwise movies would still be shot in 65mm and pro photographers would mostly use 8x10 cameras

Archivability: Ha since the advent of the minilab the archivability of film materials has become a joke sorry the quick lab/mini lab is an archivability killer

Soul: Ha who needs that non scientific hogwash even soul music doesn't really sell that well.

Real world high res vs fake high res: People look at the numbers not the output so again nobody cares again see quality points about 65mm and 8x10

The sad truth is that those important things are not important anymore if they ever were that is.

And now to the important part of my post:
PKM showing his little Portofolio is the only way to help film it's probably not the images that work but PKM's enthusiasm that draws people in and makes them try film. We should go out and show our enthusiasm to the world film is great film is magic, film is different and cool.

 

[PKM-25]

I'm not sure who you mean be pros but the pros I know have heard of APUG and few even have a presence here (albeit extremely limited). Also, I wouldn't want it to be called "filmphotography" because that invites all the hybrid people who inexplicably shoot film and then scan it for digital printing, to incessantly post questions about scanning.

You are missing the point, it would be to direct traffic to the site, not replace the name. And say he did use the URL from the outset, how in the hell does a name invite hybrid if the policy dictates otherwise? The site policies dictate the terms, not the name...

 

[PKM-25]

And now to the important part of my post:
PKM showing his little Portofolio is the only way to help film it's probably not the images that work but PKM's enthusiasm that draws people in and makes them try film. We should go out and show our enthusiasm to the world film is great film is magic, film is different and cool.

Yeah, kind of...

I still show fantastic work that would make even the best "Photo-shopper" second guess his reasons for doing so, the impact of the image carries the interest most of the time. In one case in my office in town, I have a 16"x16" of (there was a url link here which no longer exists) up on the wall on a mantle not in a frame and there is a little sign below it that says "Touch Me" so it encourages people to handle it, feel the thing and engage with it.

When someone sees a nice silver gel print of a killer image in their hand in the sunlight gleaming back at them, it's pretty darn convincing folks...

 

[erikg]

I find I promote film use the best when I am not on the internet but out shooting, carrying my little 5x7 folio of hand made prints. APUG is not what gets people looking at choosing film again, it is where they go once they decide to explore it, if they can even find the site, usually by word of mouth.
This site and especially the photos that reside on it are largely invisible to most of the world and I think that PE's citation of metrics is probably correct. Those who become re-engaged in the craft of using film usually have done so because they were inspired by something or someone, like an NYT Lens blog article, a showing of fine prints, seeing someone under the dark cloth or seeing better than usual work on flickr.

There are some spectacular images being made on the last three iterations of iPhones and like it or not, if they were printed to 16x20, their sheer impact would far outdistance a lot of the work being shown on this site. So this is what the reality is, the smartphone has readily taken the place of the SLR, compact or point and shoot as the cash cow of memories and you can be an old washed up codger all you want and say that they will lose their memories but that will not change what has happened or what will continue to happen to the availability and price of film.

Film use is super-niche and the market is still adjusting to that, never to be a super-market item ever again. So instead of bitching, maybe get some real prints into someone's hands for them to look at when you are out shooting....and no, sorry, not computer prints born of scans, they will not convince someone to use film like you think they will. For when it comes right down to it, the guy is going to say "but I get just as good a print from my iPhone 5S" and he will be right...

Getting off of here and out shooting and showing work is the only way to promote one of the best reasons to use film, not being on a computer..

Oh, and about the choice of name for this site, it is terrible, sounds like a "A-Pug", a dog, **really** piss poor when it comes to promoting film. Google filmphotography.com, not even in use although grossly overpriced, drop the last letter and it is a bargain so buy the damn URL and have it link back to this site, can you do that with MY money please?

Something, anything else to direct traffic to the site because the name is horrid in terms of finding the site Sean…not one single pro or very few amateurs I have encountered have even heard of it.

Totally agree and as an aside "cash cow of memories" needs to be a thing. Love it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Dan EXUDES enthusiasm. I think that anyone who has met him knows that.

But, most Pros that I know are either too busy being pros, or disdain APUG as being a site for newbies (this includes other similar web sites). And, since the Pros are experts, they don't like arguments, which are all too often on this and other web sites. Differences of opinion yes, arguments no!

And many Pros either don't want to help or don't care, or have gone digital.

Sorry APUGGERS.

PE

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I've had many similar experiences, Ken. I've never said no either. I can't count how many times I've put someone under the dark cloth. I've also explained what I'm shooting, how I'm metering, and what I plan for the finished image, for those interested. I'm not looking for converts... just hoping people learn there are people who care about their craft, even if their craft is seen as archaic and has been (seemingly) marginalized. Sharing one's passion is fun...

I neglected to mention that due to a curiosity question once from a young lady* I now also carry with me a retired 8x10 film holder loaded with a throw-away sheet. It's used as a prop during my standard spiel to help illustrate what's actually happening with that huge contraption.

If they're brave enough to ask and interested enough to listen, I'll always give a short age/technically-appropriate explanation of what I'm doing. People are fascinated and usually love listening to it.

(And no, I'm not a surveyor. But that's a really good guess...)



Ken

* A foreign student attending Washington State University. Part of a group of 6 or 8 who were wondering just what the heck was going on. The 8x10 was set up on the canyon rim at Palouse Falls early one morning after I spent the night in 20F/-7C cold in a sleeping bag in my truck. The pictures eventually sucked. But the adventure was great.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

But, most Pros that I know are either too busy being pros, or disdain APUG as being a site for newbies (this includes other similar web sites). And, since the Pros are experts, they don't like arguments, which are all too often on this and other web sites. Differences of opinion yes, arguments no!

And many Pros either don't want to help or don't care, or have gone digital.

I have very little patience in life for people who exhibit this attitude. In any profession or field of endeavor or expertise. As the Queen once allegedly understated, we are not amused. Best to just step around such egos and keep moving forward...

Ken

 

[vpwphoto]

But, most Pros that I know are either too busy being pros, or disdain APUG as being a site for newbies (this includes other similar web sites). And, since the Pros are experts, they don't like arguments, which are all too often on this and other web sites. Differences of opinion yes, arguments no!

And many Pros either don't want to help or don't care, or have gone digital.

PE

I just get put off with newfound "experts" (NOT YOU PE... much respect for you too) jumping my arse for my (all about long gone rules) perspective I have gained from wrestling with non-digital media (film) under deadlines and economic constraints of every kind for 18 years of my life. Until you photograph a man or women that makes 100x you do, that can make or break your career, with silver halide film an no polaroid time and digital wasn't invented to save your arse... I wish folks would stop telling me things like.. "standards of yesterday are irrelevant" when I decide for the first time in 5 months to offer advise on a discussion on Medium Format camera choice. I'm a full time pro... published occasionally in national pubs, and making a decent living for 30 years doing lower profile but rewarding work.

RE original post. I have a dozen rolls of the FUJI BW... left... just as long as Tri-x is still around I'm happy. One client I have requires film... and that is the RDP E-6... although he asked today if its days are numbered.

 

[vpwphoto]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)


From a pro that would likely be better off divorcing all my film...

That being said Rena Effendi's recent work for National Geographic, New York Times, and her book were all photographed with her Rollie and E-6 media.

 

[vpwphoto]

I suppose if you wait about 20 years when people start losing their digital photos due to crashed drives and deteriorating media, as well as engineered obsolescence on the part of the digital mafia, people might start coming around OR the digital industry will start paying attention to image longevity. Hopefully the world supply of film will hold til then. In the meantime, play Queen's "Another One Bites The Dust" one more time

Allready have "Fuji" branded DVD's that did not hold data for even a year. Now that Hard Drives are cheap... I don't bother with CD or DVD for anything other than client delivery. Keeping track of drives and what is where is another issue... I don't have a lot of faith in the cloud either... not at least for archives as deep as mine are. ok DPUG discussion.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Most pros that I know are very nice and "giving" or "sharing" people. But, they have to run at top speed just to break even and so they have no time or patience with things like arguments on APUG or other forums. I hope you see my point here. Photography is a very demanding profession that is hard to break into and hard to sustain. One error can ruin you forever.

Don't knock the pros for trying to just break even.

I started out in photography in the '50s and have been at it ever since. I've made a living, but that is due to the direction I took. If I had become a pro, who knows where I would be. IDK if my photos are good enough. IDK if I am good enough!

PE

 

[Roger Cole]

Maybe we should define "pro." The usual definition is someone who is paid for their work, or perhaps earns their living from it. Is that how we mean it here?

 

[Photo Engineer]

A pro to me is someone who makes ALL of his income from photography.

PE

 

[vpwphoto]

A pro to me is someone who makes ALL of his income from photography.

PE

+1 That is me since 1989. and most of my income since 1986. Supporting family via, buying studio building, cameras, and all equipment, and paying income taxes on what is left over.

 

[MDR]

What is a pro photographer well I am member of the club or guild in this case I do not derive all of my income trough photography, only a very large amount of it (not all of it is still photography). Pro photographers like Amateurs are a very diverse group and to say pro photographer this pro photographer that is just generalization plenty of pro photographers love talking shop and lust after the newest equipment which they can rarely afford. Pro photographers have two shortcoming compared to amateurs they have to go with what the costumer wants and can't always choose their medium and they often work under severe time constraint. I would love to use 100% film but I don't really always have a choice.
I also believe that Fujifilm should get rid of the film part in Fujifilm, they are not the last man standing not even the second or third to last. Depite all the bitching about Kodak, Kodak is more supportive of the medium than Fuji.

 

[PKM-25]

Maybe we should define "pro." The usual definition is someone who is paid for their work, or perhaps earns their living from it. Is that how we mean it here?

Well that used to be the definition of it, but one has to question that with all the part timers out there calling themselves "Semi-Pro's" and putting out garbage work. I question and my wife most certainly questions my decision to participate here but it really boils down to we all share the same driving force for loading a camera and that is doing it strictly for the love of it.

Pros take a beating in terms of perception these days and some of the worst of it comes from amateur photographers sadly enough who pull no punches at putting down the profession, saying no one is doing well, who needs us and that is is dead. It's all too easy to ignore that some of us are doing very well and call the shots more than you might think.

Most stay away from *all* photo-centric forums in general because it is a time waster and it can get flat out ugly to be honest.

I love film and I love the life I have created for my self as a photographer, could not imagine doing photography as just a hobby, I would lose an immense amount of freedom. I'm the only professional photographer in our community that always has a camera with him, a film one at that.....so often against my better judgement, I come on here and post.

We are it man, we are film. We are the marketing department, the R&D, the salesman, the stars and the black holes. Right now B&H shows 169 roll film and 61 sheet film catalog items. In ten years or less that will likely drop to possibly half and be as much as triple the price, so try to imagine you are being "paid" by film makers in being able to shoot film in 2024 by doing all you can now to be creative at spreading film love, not film loss hate.

It's in our hands boys and girls, don't squander the future of film.

 

[RattyMouse]

I find I promote film use the best when I am not on the internet but out shooting, carrying my little 5x7 folio of hand made prints. APUG is not what gets people looking at choosing film again, it is where they go once they decide to explore it, if they can even find the site, usually by word of mouth.
This site and especially the photos that reside on it are largely invisible to most of the world and I think that PE's citation of metrics is probably correct. Those who become re-engaged in the craft of using film usually have done so because they were inspired by something or someone, like an NYT Lens blog article, a showing of fine prints, seeing someone under the dark cloth or seeing better than usual work on flickr.

Sorry to disagree, but it was APUG directly that got me back into film. For reasons I cannot recall now, I landed here and started lurking, 100% as a digital shooter. I lurked for probably close to a year before I finally decided that yes, I would return to film. I cannot see how that would have happened without reading and lurking here.

 

[PKM-25]

That being said Rena Effendi's recent work for National Geographic, New York Times, and her book were all photographed with her Rollie and E-6 media.

Beautiful work in NG on Transylvannia Hay Country, thanks for the reminder...

Sorry to disagree, but it was APUG directly that got me back into film. For reasons I cannot recall now, I landed here and started lurking, 100% as a digital shooter. I lurked for probably close to a year before I finally decided that yes, I would return to film. I cannot see how that would have happened without reading and lurking here.

I'm not saying it does not work, but I will say as I have said before that the tone these kinds of threads can often take have repelled a good many I have referred here. I just think that overall, this site and those who frequent it the most can be doing a lot better at getting people to use film.

 

[Nuff]

Sorry to disagree, but it was APUG directly that got me back into film. For reasons I cannot recall now, I landed here and started lurking, 100% as a digital shooter. I lurked for probably close to a year before I finally decided that yes, I would return to film. I cannot see how that would have happened without reading and lurking here.

Flickr and my old photos got me into film exactly a year ago. Actually even before flickr I got interested in Jose Villa's work. Yes, the results got me interested and the look. Not some magical qualities.

I had a look at the galleries here, but they don't inspire me. There might be some good photos here, but it was to hard to find them. I prefer to look at work of some classic photographers and digging through Flickr. 99% of it film. I like photos with good content, light, composition etc...

But for me the results are all that matters. If I don't get what I want, I wouldn't be wasting my time on it.

I converted 1 of my friends to film after he saw my latest photos and another friend of mine took interest and is considering it too...