Interesting news about Fujicolor Pro

[guyjr]

So basically, 120 format C-41 films live to fight another day? I consider that great news! As much as I would like to see all film survive for years to come, personally, if it has to be a choice between 35mm and 120, I'm squarely on the 120 side. When looking at the digital landscape today (kind of looks like scorched earth!), it's clear that 35mm has been bested completely. Medium format, on the other hand, is still far more affordable when sticking with film and a good scanning option... and technically speaking, there isn't even a sensor / digital back capable of reproducing the full resolution of film at that size. I am hopeful that that day is a long ways off too, given the manufacturing processes involved with producing those sensors in the first place (yields are ridiculously low for silicon cut to such sizes, which is why the price is always so sky high).

Maybe there is a ceiling to how far digital will eventually supplant film... I for one am hopeful, after discovering the "art" of film photography in the last year, that this is how things shake out in the end.

 

[mikez]

I work for a fairly large local retailer in the NY Metro area and can confirm all of the original poster's information is accurate. I have no reason to make this up, but we received an e-mail from fujifilm. If I had permission I would post the e-mail myself. Again I have no reason to make this stuff up. :-/

 

[FedericoMP]

More news: link.

Sounds like Neopan 120 was cut because of environmental concerns. 160S is getting rebranded as 160NS with no emulsion changes. No mention of 800Z or some of the other products Scott mentioned. Reala in 35mm was mentioned though. Looks like a legitimate story, but who knows.

There's no link to an official press release. "160S is getting rebranded as 160NS with no emulsion changes" sounds as an awful marketing move to do.

 

[F80p]

Why dont they give the emulsion formula to me so that i can make and sell them

 

[AgX]

On another forum (hybrid photo) there is a thread suggesting that Fuji has dropped essentially their C-41 films (in particular 4x5)

I can't see anything on their web site, anyone the wiser?

At the moment we only have listings by Fuji, which are contrary to some of the rumors, including the one above.

We should stop listening to rumors.

 

[mikez]

It is not a rumor. I can confirm this. If you guys do not believe me I will PM screenshots to someone here who I can trust.

 

[F80p]

Whay not buy direct from fuji and give them more profits?
Its here buy it before its gone
http://www.fujilab.co.uk/

 

[silentworld]

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/fujifilm_retires_three_films/

Does anyone know if this press release is real? If it is, then it is definitely not as bad as we originally thought.

 

[Ian Grant]

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/fujifilm_retires_three_films/

Does anyone know if this press release is real? If it is, then it is definitely not as bad as we originally thought.

Don't read too much into what's reported in different countries as what was available differed anyway.

But equally wait & see what is actually availble in a few months, Fuji are the most astute of manufacturers & will want to retain market share.

In the past they've worked with other companies to fill their product range, who knows they may do so again.

Ian.

 

[clayne]

Wasn't RVP50 discontinued due to environmental issues as well? The resulting freak out eventually getting it brought back as RVP100?

Meanwhile, silicon wafers, cellphones, and circuit boards are being dumped into rivers in China as world-wide consumers throw away their obsolete electronics.

 

[marylandphoto]

Wasn't RVP50 discontinued due to environmental issues as well? The resulting freak out eventually getting it brought back as RVP100?

Meanwhile, silicon wafers, cellphones, and circuit boards are being dumped into rivers in China as world-wide consumers throw away their obsolete electronics.

Yes, and then a "new" Velvia 50 (but you already knew that). FWIW, I've shot Velvia 100 since then and haven't looked back.

I have film cameras going back decades that still work fine and provide as much fun as when I got them, but my point and shoot d*****| camera from a few years back is already obselete (read: barely works); memory cards must be bought used, and they're few and far between. It's only a matter of time before our televisions, cameras, computers, music players, DVD players, personal files, and livelihoods all get removed from the physical world, chopped into 0s and 1s, and "resampled" as one giant centralized "thing", that we'll just throw away when THAT becomes obslete...oh wait, it's already happening... http://www.apple.com/ipad/ :rolleyes:

 

[Anon Ymous]

No, it is said that the original Velvia was discontinued because of lack of specific raw ingredient(s). After the reformulation took place, it was available again as RVP50.

 

[2F/2F]

When looking at the digital landscape today (kind of looks like scorched earth!), it's clear that 35mm has been bested completely.

I see what you are saying, and I agree that I would rather have 120 stay than 35mm (for color only, the opposite for black and white), however, you are making a strictly "on paper" technical argument, assuming that everyone wants "better" technical qualities, with no criteria named for what your definition of "better" is. It is a vapid judgment that is not based on what each of us wants from our actual photographic work, but on generalized technical definitions and specifications. No digital camera will ever look like 35mm film. Ain't gonna happen. Better on paper in a technical sense, sure (some day), but not better period. Digital will have to be the replacement, but when it is, our pictures will never look quite the same again.

Ironically enough, the DSLRs that in my eyes looked the most like film (c. 2001 - 2004) have been replaced by four or five successive generations by this point. I have everything I need to blend film and digital work near seamlessly in the same portfolio using my Canon 10D. The addition of higher and higher ISOs is nice, however, and will be the main reason that I "upgrade", when I do (with higher resolution and a hopefully quicker and darker-usable autofocus being the two others). Other than that, I'll just say, "Someone call me when you have an affordable DSLR that matches or exceeds the dynamic range and exposure latitude of a negative, that has a sensor that is programmable to have different curves upon capture of the image (like you can with a negative), not via software after the fact, that comes in a solid, simple, and longtime-usable package like the Canon F-1 or Nikon F, and programmable grain structures and other individual film characteristics." Basically, give me everything I have with film, just make it digital.

 

[marylandphoto]

you are making a strictly "on paper" technical argument, assuming that everyone wants "better" technical qualities,

That's why I shy away from those arguments. Too many people looking at it from a black and white perspective.

 

[mikebarger]

It's like CD's, I'd much rather listen to my 10 inch reel system.

Mike

 

[nsouto]

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/fujifilm_retires_three_films/

Does anyone know if this press release is real? If it is, then it is definitely not as bad as we originally thought.

Precisely! I'd suggest folks wait for a little while before singing the usual "death of film" song.

Precisely because of the above. The internet being the source of false information it is, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the real story was quite different than the worst case scenario.

Let's not panic just yet. And please go out and buy and freeze some Astia in 135 and 120 sizes! I know I'll be doing just that.

 

[guyjr]

That's why I shy away from those arguments. Too many people looking at it from a black and white perspective.

And I will too... I thought better of making that statement a few minutes after posting, and didn't mean to imply that digital was a 100% replacement for 35mm film (or any film for that matter). The only point I was really trying to make was, if given a choice between 35mm and 120 surviving long-term, which one would I choose?

 

[guyjr]

Precisely! I'd suggest folks wait for a little while before singing the usual "death of film" song.

Precisely because of the above. The internet being the source of false information it is, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the real story was quite different than the worst case scenario.

Let's not panic just yet. And please go out and buy and freeze some Astia in 135 and 120 sizes! I know I'll be doing just that.

Amen... Fuji themselves have not posted anything official on their sites, so it is not time to panic. yet.

 

[BetterSense]

"Someone call me when you have an affordable DSLR that matches or exceeds the dynamic range and exposure latitude of a negative, that has a sensor that is programmable to have different curves upon capture of the image, not via software after the fact (like with a negative), that comes in a package like the Canon F-1 or Nikon F, and programmable grain structures and other individual film characteristics."

People have been saying similar things for years. First it was "call me when it has enough resolution for an 8x10" then it was "call me when it can be shot at iso 3200" then it was "call me when the cameras cost less than $800".

For me, I simply don't care how good digital gets. It can never be anything better than fake film. I don't care how good of fake film it is, or how indistinguishable, or how just as good. When I can get an 8734megapixel camera in a package of cracker jacks, I still won't really care. Film is not a means to the end of "looking like film". If it was I would already be shooting digital and photoshopping film rebates and grain masks. Making film-based photographs is an end in itself for me, not some kind of elaborate photoshop plugin. If I can't put Tri-X in the goddamn thing, I don't want it.

 

[2F/2F]

I have been saying the same since film started going way, and I mean it. If digital was ever able to give me exactly what I can get now (NOT something "better", NOT something "newer", NOT something "more advanced", NOT something "more convenient", NOT something "cheaper", NOT something "easier", but EXACTLY what I get with fim........), I would have no problem with not using film. The reason I use film is because it is superior in almost every way for the pictures I want to print.

Color film will be gone long before "my" digital camera comes along.

 

[mikez]

I have sent my docs to PE and he will confirm that this is not a rumor. The OP is correct.

 

[marylandphoto]

I have been saying the same since film started going way, and I mean it. If digital was ever able to give me exactly what I can get now, I would have no problem with not using film. The reason I use film is because it is superior in almost every way for the pictures I want to print.

Color film will be gone long before "my" digital camera comes along.

You, sir, are 110% along the lines of my thinking. I wish other people saw it the same way.

 

[mikez]

agree with you guys 100% when i found out the OP was right i called so many friends who were very upset with the news. it seems like i know a lot of people who shoot film, but in the grand scheme of things its not that many

 

[Photo Engineer]

I can confirm what others have said or alluded to here. There are 43 individual Fuji products being discontinued with 16 suggested replacements. The replacements seem to be confined to sheet film where 20 sheet boxes replace 10 sheet boxes. This change takes effect this month for most items.

PE

 

[clayne]

Okay, so what I'm hearing here is that there is a more complete list and we're not going to be told what it is because it was sent in e-mail to distributors? How does that work out?