Interesting news from Fujifilm

[xo-whiplock]

Interesting thread. I am glad that Instax has been so successful for Fuji. I wish that the Fuji packfilms were in such high demand too! It would be a dream for them to start making a new packfilm camera!

It still manages to amaze me that Fuji discontinued their cine products, and still are able to keep their film coating operation running- as far as I have understood, Instax film does not have a negative, so that would not play a part in keeping the coater running(?)

Integral film has a film negative in it.

 

[Roger Cole]

Who suggested throwing away your digital devices? I'm typing on one right now, and don't intend on throwing it away either.

You should re-consider the DSLR purchase. Unless you have lenses that you have to use for it, you are well advised to look to the mirrorless models. The mirror has been made obsolete for digicams. Smaller better are the 4/3rds cameras.

I hear a lot of people say digital is better for low light... I guess this is for the switchable ISO and antishake with long shutter speeds. These are camera features that compensate the photographer and assist the photographer to not underexpose and the need for a steady camera. True there are no high ISO films, but a 400 film can be used with a fast lens, and if you pre-flash the film so it sets the film just before the silver reacts to light. There's info on how to do this pre-flashing of film, and if you then do say -4 of 400 ISO, you'd have 6400 ISO film shots that you would push process 4 stops, or simply semi-stand process for an hour. But honestly, film and flash is the way to go so there's no "low light" shooting. Besides, who wants shots with no light in them, I mean "low light." Even digital cameras tell you to use a flash instead of long exposures and high ISOs.

Cool you support digital and go on to promote large format film plate shooting...

In answer to your question, Ricardo did:

If you have any digital device, be it a m4/3 or that Leica M9 or something like that, throw it away. Force yourself to use only film. Tell others to do the same. Ban digi-devices from your house.
Is it hard?
Then don't come complain when Kodak or Fuji drop another film or 2.

If you don't use it enough, you'll loose it.

Digital IS better for low light. I can get a pretty good black and white EI 3200 out of Delta 3200, and a passable 6400 (probably - I did with TMZ, haven't tried that with D3200 yet but based on the excellent results at 3200 I expect I can) but that's about the limit, and that in black and white only. Digital just spanks film in very low light.

It's also good for shooting a lot of more or less throw away images you'd never have time to print if you shot on film. I'm not saying that's art, but I am saying that's something worth doing sometimes, vacation snapshots etc.

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning, do not overlook that among those "experts" are not only people who have life long experience in the photochemical industry, past time knowledge as you seem to consider, but also who stand for creating jobs and actual, current millions of film-revenue. Apug has a wide scope of members.

Well, I am in regular contact with lots of those who are currently working in the film business. And these people have never shared the simplified "film is dead" attitude of the self-proclaimed "experts" here on apug.
They know the problems of the market better than any other. But they also know the chances and future potential.

You made an interesting remark about Kodak Alaris. But then I miss any film promotion on their side.

https://www.facebook.com/kodakprofessional
Just one example.
They are doing some conventional advertising, too (even in Germany).

Regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning,

Look at the price of Fuji's 400H compared to Portra 400. This massive difference in price is probably related to the fact that Fuji has no cine film.

It is not a secret that after the stop of (most) of the cine film production Fuji had to rise prices because of this lower total volume. Fuji reps told me frankly that that was a main reason. There was also a statement from the Fuji CEO at that time.
But it is a significant difference whether I have to rise prices because of lower volume, or whether I have to stop the whole production completely. And Fuji has restructured in a way to keep the line running without cine film volume. And I remember well that lots here on apug said that would be impossible (and of course no one of them have ever been in the Fuji film factory, but they are talking as if they know every little screw in that factory).

Concerning Pro 400H vs. Portra: Well, they are different films. 400H having a slight advantage in resolution, Portra a slight advantage in fineness of grain. 400H has more neutral, natural colors, Portra 400 has a siginificant warm balance with an emphasis on yellow.
So, its a matter of taste, what you like.
If you prefer 400H, you probably are willing to pay more for it. How much more? Probably depends on the individual photographer.

Their color film prices are going up very fast with another increase coming next month.

Due to Fujifilm Europe there will be no price increase in Europe.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Ken,

Very good post. I am however compelled to make a quick observation regarding the above.

The "cine film is needed by Kodak to continue..." and the "Kodak will never be able to downsize and survive..." mindsets on APUG are largely a direct result of sustained input from several ex-employees of Kodak who have been active here. Those on the outside of Kodak understandably had no way of knowing what was happening, and so have merely listened to and repeated what those who are/were on the inside have continually insisted is/was the truth.

we are talking about Fred Shippey (Prof. Pixel) and especially my friend Ron Mowrey (PE) (Robert Shanebrook very seldom joined discussions here) . I have very great respect for all of them. And their input is very appreciated.
But:
AFAIK Ron retired in 1997, and Fred even earlier at Kodak. Since then the market and production situation changed dramatically.
If you want to know how film production is doing today and may run in the future, you have to talk to the people who are currently working in the industry.
That is what I am doing.
Therefore my numerous factory visits and my talks to the responsible people in the industry. Therefore my reports about that e.g. in the 'PhotoKlassik'.

So what am I doing myself to help the situation today?

Well, in three days my first ever home-processing Fuji-Hunt E-6 kit ships. And unlike previous years this summer has thus far been exclusively an E-6 transparency season for me. Within the last month I have purchased 50 rolls of Provia 100F/400X. (Doing a little stocking-up on the 400X to give Ferrania a little more breathing room to get going and maybe eventually offer their own.)

That is the right decision. Go on.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Apug is a forum for users to discuss things relevant to them. This includes the future of the own medium, its supplies, the manufacturers. This should be especially true in a industry subforum.

Of course. No one has ever denied that.
But there is huge difference between a balanced, differentiated discussion and the behaviour of lots of the "film is dead" trolls here.

Apug is a community of film users. For their hobby they need film. Period.
Therefore they must have an existential interest in keeping film production running. A pure egoistic interest.
Therefore they must have an interest in supporting and promoting film use, in getting new photographers interested in using film.

Are you joining a club, who is permanently talking about its own closure? Of course not!
Economics are to about 50% psychology, confidence in the future.
The unbalanced permanent "film is dead" talk here is absolutely counterproductive, because new photographers with a beginning interest in using film are discouraged by that.

Regards,
Henning

 

[Lachlan Young]

https://instagram.com/p/6WXvTBMNCI/

Saw this on Tokyo Camera Style's instagram feed a few days ago.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear XO Whiplock...

I am not a 'film is dead' guy, in fact rather the opposite...

Your list contains so many errors on so many levels as to be irrelevant.

BUT We have manufacturers of film and paper, both monochrome and colour... and we will always have manufacturers.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Henning Serger]

Noel,

If Kodak are indeed using 300 staff for their Rochester coater that is disappointing cause their older machine at Kodak Harrow UK made about 400 people redundant in 2004 when the film line was closed.

1. The number was published by Kodak.
2. All the critics here like you have claimed over the years that Kodak must scale down getting closer to the "Ilford business model". Now they have done it and you are saying that is disappointing.
You are contradicting yourself.

I suggest the power level of your reality distortion helmet is set so high it is upsetting my nostalgia syndrome at range.

Instead of arguments and facts you are insulting.
We've got your message.

Just some facts about my "reality distortion":
1. I have visited more than 10 different factories so far which are in the film business. Film and photo paper manufacturers, photo chemistry manufacturers, finishing specialists, professional labs, film camera manufacturers. I've seen the production and had detailed talks with the management and engineers there.
2. I do report about that in the print film photography magazine "PhotoKlassik".
3. I've been involved professionally in market research concerning photo markets.
4. So far all my assessments concerning the market development in the last years have been correct.
5. I am also working at "the basis of the film scene": Giving workshops and educating young photographers. Therefore I see that there is interest and the potential for a sustainable film market in the future.

Regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

It still manages to amaze me that Fuji discontinued their cine products, and still are able to keep their film coating operation running- as far as I have understood, Instax film does not have a negative, so that would not play a part in keeping the coater running(?)

That's wrong: Instant integral films, both Fuji and Impossible, do have a negative base film material. And that is coated on the normal coating machines.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Our esteemed APUG member Photo Engineer has stated that Kodak is so oversized that they could coat the entire world's consumption of film in a SINGLE day (minus product change over time).

Honestly, I have severe doubts that PE has ever said that because it is total nonsense. If you look only at photo film production and even exclude all the production of cine film, technical films like PCB, x-ray, archiving film etc., then you see at once that that is impossible:
Take the current global photo film market with about 120 - 150 million films p.a..
And a 5 five days a week production at Kodak. Then you get even with the lowest figure about 30 billions (!!) films p.a..
The world record in photo film production was 3 billion units in 2000.
And that with lots of big film production factories all over the world.

Ilford and hopefully Ferrania are the future of film. Not Fuji and certainly not Kodak.

Let's hope and work for a future of film which is not only dependant on Ilford and Ferrania.
Because it would mean
- a BW film and paper monopoly with Ilford; monopolies are never good, a market do need a fair competition
- no highest quality colour films anymore: Fujifilm and Kodak are a league of its own concerning the outstanding quality of their color films; Ferrania is not on the same level, and cannot be in the foreseeable future.

Just use some of the last Ferrania films and compare them to Provia 100F, Velvia, Pro 400H or the Portras. You will see at once what I mean.
I have greatest respect for the Film Ferrania Team. I support them and wish them succes. I've visited the factory.
But I am a realist:
Film Ferrania neither want nor can replace Fuji's and Kodak's color film production entirely. They can be a supplement to the market, and a very important one: Filling market gaps (there are enough of them).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Lachlan Young]

Honestly, I have severe doubts that PE has ever said that because it is total nonsense. If you look only at photo film production and even exclude all the production of cine film, technical films like PCB, x-ray, archiving film etc., then you see at once that that is impossible:
Take the current global photo film market with about 120 - 150 million films p.a..
And a 5 five days a week production at Kodak. Then you get even with the lowest figure about 30 billions (!!) films p.a..
The world record in photo film production was 3 billion units in 2000.
And that with lots of big film production factories all over the world.



Let's hope and work for a future of film which is not only dependant on Ilford and Ferrania.
Because it would mean
- a BW film and paper monopoly with Ilford; monopolies are never good, a market do need a fair competition
- no highest quality colour films anymore: Fujifilm and Kodak are a league of its own concerning the outstanding quality of their color films; Ferrania is not on the same level, and cannot be in the foreseeable future.

Just use some of the last Ferrania films and compare them to Provia 100F, Velvia, Pro 400H or the Portras. You will see at once what I mean.
I have greatest respect for the Film Ferrania Team. I support them and wish them succes. I've visited the factory.
But I am a realist:
Film Ferrania neither want nor can replace Fuji's and Kodak's color film production entirely. They can be a supplement to the market, and a very important one: Filling market gaps (there are enough of them).

Best regards,
Henning

I could be wrong, but I recall that the comment that RattyMouse de-contextualised was to do with Kodachrome. Specifically, I think it was along the lines that a year's worth of Kodachrome (at late 90s demand) could be coated in a day & was intended to show that it was not a high demand product.

 

[RattyMouse]

I could be wrong, but I recall that the comment that RattyMouse de-contextualised was to do with Kodachrome. Specifically, I think it was along the lines that a year's worth of Kodachrome (at late 90s demand) could be coated in a day & was intended to show that it was not a high demand product.

That's not my memory, but it was so long ago that I'll refrain from further comment on this.

 

[RattyMouse]

Let's hope and work for a future of film which is not only dependant on Ilford and Ferrania.
Because it would mean
- a BW film and paper monopoly with Ilford; monopolies are never good, a market do need a fair competition

In reality, Ilford would be competing with digital. If Ilford's prices or quality were not competitive, people would stop using their products and instead shoot digital.

 

[RattyMouse]

Well, I am in regular contact with lots of those who are currently working in the film business. And these people have never shared the simplified "film is dead" attitude of the self-proclaimed "experts" here on apug.
They know the problems of the market better than any other. But they also know the chances and future potential.



https://www.facebook.com/kodakprofessional
Just one example.
They are doing some conventional advertising, too (even in Germany).

Regards,
Henning

This is a pathetic amount of "marketing". Do you have any idea how many times I've been asked "Can you still buy film?"

A few facebook posts arent going to change that perception.

 

[Xmas]

I could be wrong, but I recall that the comment that RattyMouse de-contextualised was to do with Kodachrome. Specifically, I think it was along the lines that a year's worth of Kodachrome (at late 90s demand) could be coated in a day & was intended to show that it was not a high demand product.

I could be wrong as well but If you search

Ron 'said'

He was growing tired of explaining why Kchrome was stopped, and...
They had done one coating run a year for several years but that exceeded demand sufficiently ...

But that is a little off topic here.

I don't know how many runs they can do in a day of the same film type but set up for a different film may be expensive.

 

[Xmas]

In reality, Ilford would be competing with digital. If Ilford's prices or quality were not competitive, people would stop using their products and instead shoot digital.

An abstract viewpoint there is also eg

foma
Orwo
Etc.

And I shoot film because I've not got a digital camera that I can use.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

And I shoot film because I've not got a digital camera that I can use.

They haven't made a mechanical Digi camera, yet.

 

[Henning Serger]

In reality, Ilford would be competing with digital.

To some extent all film manufacturers are always in a competition with Digital Imaging. Photographers today have the choice between film and / or digital. So this competing situation will remain.
Therefore it is important to promote the unique characteristics and strenghts of film.

This is a pathetic amount of "marketing". Do you have any idea how many times I've been asked "Can you still buy film?"
A few facebook posts arent going to change that perception.

Have I said that? I only gave a link to AgX who have asked.
We all know that there have to be much more marketing efforts for film. Form all in the industry, as well as from the basis, the photographers.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Xmas]

They haven't made a mechanical Digi camera, yet.

The DMR back for the Leica SLRs was close to having a mechanical camera. But it was instant obsolescence.
The digital Ms are sort of mechanical but maintenance is very difficult compared with a film M.
None of my Ms have seen any maintenance yet.

I've held some of the Fujis but only for a few seconds, before I handed them back.

My Contax G is similarly unusable.

You will note that Bruce Guilden is using a FM2n or M6 every time I see him, he carries both.

And I've not seen you with a dcamera either yet...

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Nor you will see.

I had a DSLR from 2006 to 2013. Used it less than 6 times.
Too fiddly to use.
My avatar pic was taken with it. It was the last time I used it.

 

[xo-whiplock]

Dear XO Whiplock...

I am not a 'film is dead' guy, in fact rather the opposite...

Your list contains so many errors on so many levels as to be irrelevant.

BUT We have manufacturers of film and paper, both monochrome and colour... and we will always have manufacturers.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Pretty sure the web sites are given for each and the information is there for all to read. It may well be irrelevant to some. But to many, most relevant. :munch:

 

[xo-whiplock]

In reality, Ilford would be competing with digital. If Ilford's prices or quality were not competitive, people would stop using their products and instead shoot digital.

Wrong. People don't compare film to anything but film (film shooters anyway). If someone is shooting film, they are shooting film. They have a digital camera already and if they are thinking "digital" it's in relation to which camera to grab for the day. Not every day will be film and not every day will be digital. Why is there this insistence that we be either long pants or short pants wearing everyday? but can't wear both whenever we want? To me, film is a choice and a lifestyle decision based on appetite. I wear what I want when I want on my days off (not working and being told what to wear). Not everyone is controlled by "the machine" even on their days off.

 

[xo-whiplock]

This is a pathetic amount of "marketing". Do you have any idea how many times I've been asked "Can you still buy film?"

I hope you educate them and tell them "yes!" ... "You can still buy film!"

 

[Xmas]

Noel,

1. The number was published by Kodak.
2. All the critics here like you have claimed over the years that Kodak must scale down getting closer to the "Ilford business model". Now they have done it and you are saying that is disappointing.
You are contradicting yourself.

Regards,
Henning

No I don't think I ever even considered Kodak must scale down... I said painted into a corner, I'll accept Kodak refer to legacy products in there Inc accounts which does seem prejudicial, but not to scaling down?

Kodak have been scaling down personnel to a significant degree in last two decades one cannot fault them on that.

But saying Kodak have published a number (300) means it was a PR release not necessarily factual and the Harrow redundancy number (~400 in local papers) may not have been all coater people and some may have been redeployed for experience and skills because Harrow still coats today, but not film.

The Kodak Alaris Harrow MD said recently that he wished he still could coat film.

Eastman Kodak at the time said the rationalisation was necessary as demand was falling and the big more modern coater was more efficient, I don't recall they reduced the cost of Tx, that would have sold more film.

A 4:3 reduction in staff does not seem that large a differece to me, eg the Harrow wage rate probably was rather lower, than the Rochester rate, I'd not even want to ask Simon how many staff Harmann have as who needs another PR statement, and you would then suggest I wanted Kodak to slim down more.

You have indicated your PR compendium is better than Ron's insider information from his old chums who still work at Kodak that is just to risible for words, but probably Ron is very discrete, you will need to read carefully to detect.

Only $ information in Inc accounts are independently audited and maybe some of the associated text is validated the rest of the released company information is marketing bull by-product.

The big problem is only one shop I know off in London is selling new film cameras, (plastic) but I can buy film on Sunday 09:00 to 17:00 in major pharmacies 120 and 35mm (I've ignored the Leica Ms.)

The second is film labs are thin on the ground.

So you need to buy a refurbed camera, and find a drop off lab. All my film chums home process some wet print.

The instax boom has new cameras and does not need labs, or home process.

I note that Ilford also offer processing and darkroom location information.

So there is no problem with film - it may be expensive, but you can buy it in a shop, the rest of the infra structure seems to be vanishing. My nearest film shop is 20 minute bus ride. They will accept film for processing with several days delay probably expensive. I'm well away from a new town centre.

The boom that we had in film was fuelled by 20 minute local c41 minilabs and simple to operate cameras like Olympus OM10 in local shops (as well as cine film). The mini labs and cameras have gone but film is still in a local shop.

The instant cameras and instant film were killed by the mini labs.

The film cameras were killed by digital (cameras and phones) that also destroyed the mini labs.

The instant cameras recover their market in absence of mini labs.

These are simple ecological niche examples.