New Instax Wide camera: MiNT Instantkon RF70

[Henning Serger]

View attachment 195572

You should quote all what Bob Crowley has said there at Petapixel:
"The market size for 4x5 PRO materials exceed that of several other areas, including the presumed "pack film" market, which is much smaller in $ value."
"Packfilm users will not pay the needed premium that pros will, so the packfilm market is actually smaller. B&H can't sell in-date FP100C for $20 and has to discount it."

Over the years Bob Crowley has been very honest about all the problems they have had to face. They sold almost all their films to a very small market of specialised professionals ("art market"), who were willing to pay the needed prices. But the amateurs / enthusiasts are not willing to pay these prices. The latest New55 Kickstarter failed, also because of that.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Your statement here matches my own understanding of the market, what I learned in talking to the Fujifilm rep, and various others involved in trying to save pack film. Florian "Impossible Project" Kaps himself said that the market was just too small. He estimated sales to be less than a million units per year. Even at a wholesale price of about $10/unit (it used to be $5), there would be barely enough revenue to pay for the raw materials and the electricity to operate the machines.

Dear Vince,

F. Kaps estimation has been even too much optimistic. The yearly demand / sales have been much much lower, about less than 1/3 of that.
That is also why still so much Fuji pack film is still around.
By the way, even Florian Kaps has admitted in an interview that he himself has not used pack film in the last years. So if even the biggest instant film enthusiasts don't use this film type.......

We also shouldn't forget that pack film with its sticky / messy / adhesive negative is quite problematic outside photo studios, at outdoor use. You always need an extra bag for the negatives. There is a reason why integral instant film, which has not that problem, took over the amateur / enthusiast market already in the 70ies.

Films are not discontinued by the manufacturers in almost all cases, they are indeed discontinued by the photographers. By lack of demand.
That is the bitter truth nobody wants to hear. It is more easy to accuse the manufacturer......

Best regards,
Henning

 

[RattyMouse]

Films are not discontinued by the manufacturers in almost all cases, they are indeed discontinued by the photographers. By lack of demand.
That is the bitter truth nobody wants to hear. It is more easy to accuse the manufacturer......

Best regards,
Henning

You are incorrect. Fujifilm tosses great emulsions into the garbage, without any attempt to save them. Reala 100 in 120 size is a GREAT example. I was paying no more than $4/roll when Reala was easily available. This continue nicely for a good several years. Then, it was discontinued. Gone. Unavailable. Very hard to find. Did Fujifilm try to save this film? No. Did they try to rase the price to make it more profitable? No. They did not. It just disappeared.

Since that time I've bought what Reala I could find, sometimes pay $15 for a single roll. It's a great film and I truly love the results so will pay much more than $4/roll. Fujifilm could have easily have ramped up the price to this film, 20% or more. Of course, they would have had to care first in order to do that. They don't, so they didn't.

Fujifilm did nothing to save that film and I hold them in contempt for that. All their blather about being committed to film is abject nonsense. I believed them. Now I know better.

 

[Henning Serger]

You are incorrect.

No. I am not. Not concerning saying that the lack of demand is by far the main problem in classic photography. I have lots of these sales numbers on my desk.
The global market for standard / non-instant films today is only 1 - 1.5% (!!) of its volume in its record years 1999 / 2000.
Do you know the sales figures of Reala 120?
No, you don't.
Do you know whether a price increase could have saved this film?
No, you don't.
Kodak has axed his Reala competitors (Royal Supra line) even much earlier! Same for Agfa and Konica, which even had to shut down their whole film production because of crashing demand. Ferrania followed some years later.
By the way, the global demand for amateur CN films is still decreasing today!

Fujifilm kept on with several niche films for a very long time: For example Superia 800 and 1600. Kodak discontinued its ISO 1600/33° film already about a decade ago! Its ISO 800/30° amateur CN some years ago. The demand for these films is decreasing not only because of the general market decrease, but also because more and more photographers using
a) lenses with image stabilisation
b) improved high-speed lenses (with f 1.4) from Sigma, Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, Canon, CV
c) the excellent modern flash and fill-in flash options
d) digital.
Therefore: (Almost) no need anymore for highest-speed ISO 800/30° and ISO 1600/33° films. The demand has gone too below to keep all curent films in production. Don't forget Kodak discontinued also T-Max 3200 some years ago.
Its a little miracle that e.g. Fujifilm produced Natura / Superia 1600 for so long.
And Fujifilm alone kept reversal film alive by producing the films, the chemistry and running several big labs all over the world. None of that was done by Kodak. Here in Germany Kodak even did marketing against reversal film to destroy that market! Fortunately they failed with that nonsense, but they further damaged that market.

Could Fujifilm do much better communication and marketing for their standard films? Of course, no one is arguing about that.
But the same is also valid for almost all other film manufacturers (except Ilford). E.g. did Foma any marketing for their products in the last years? No.

Photrio is a "bubble!": Lots of photographers here think because they are using film x or y, the rest of the world is also using film x or y.
But that is not the case.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[RattyMouse]

No. I am not.
Best regards,
Henning

Yes you are. I gave you a very plausible reason why your view point is completely wrong. They take NO action whatsoever to keep film profitable. NONE.

I firmly believe that Fujfiilm will be 100% out of the film market (INSTAX) aside, in under 5 years.

All the other film producers have far more commitment to film than Fuji does. Far more.

 

[macfred]

Same old story - same old song …

Ja, Ja, Ja - Ne, Ne, Ne …

 

[hsandler]

I've done it but had problems with proper coating. But you'll need a changing bag, a 545 back, and a file folder. Cut the file folder to fit in the holder the put the exposed film in the folder and process it just like you would have Type 55. I have photos of how I did this. I've been meanign to write an article for www.Returntofilm.com about this. I guess with all the interest I'll put a rush on it.

Or you can just buy a cheap Instax Mini body to process it as you'll get the best results.

Marc, I'd be very interested to see your method of holding the Instax Wide film in a 4x5 holder. I've been shooting Instax Wide in a Crown Graphic, but both methods I've tried of taping the film in, or slipping the film into corner slots cut in a scrap 4x5 negative are very fiddly. I put the film back in an Instax 300 for squeezing through rollers and have no problems with uniform spreading of the chemicals, but yeah, I had to buy an Instax 300.

 

[mweintraub]

Marc, I'd be very interested to see your method of holding the Instax Wide film in a 4x5 holder. I've been shooting Instax Wide in a Crown Graphic, but both methods I've tried of taping the film in, or slipping the film into corner slots cut in a scrap 4x5 negative are very fiddly. I put the film back in an Instax 300 for squeezing through rollers and have no problems with uniform spreading of the chemicals, but yeah, I had to buy an Instax 300.

The corner slot cut is another method I'm planning on trying as this would provide much better placement. Concerning processing, I've had mixed luck with the non Instanx camera route and find the Instax camera method is the best. This is why I'm on the look out for a cheap beat up Mini. I'll update the site soon.

 

[hsandler]

The corner slot cut is another method I'm planning on trying as this would provide much better placement. Concerning processing, I've had mixed luck with the non Instanx camera route and find the Instax camera method is the best. This is why I'm on the look out for a cheap beat up Mini. I'll update the site soon.

Thanks. So you're doing all this with Instax mini film, not wide, I take it. I have a 4x5 Graphic, and last month, B&H had the wide film at the same price as the mini, so I figured I'd go for that. The issue with the corner slot mounting method is there is a tradeoff in precise placement and how big you cut the slots. When the slots are small, you have the bend the Instax wide sheet in an arc to get the corners into the slots, and I was worried about breaking the chemical pods. With the taping method, I tried taping the edges, but in the dark it's hard to tell if the edge of the tape overlaps the exposure area, and when it does, even clear tape casts a shadow in the image. With double-sided tape on the print side of the image, the dark slide tended to catch the edge of the Instax sheet when putting it back in after the shot. Hence my search for a simple reliable method.

 

[mweintraub]

Thanks. So you're doing all this with Instax mini film, not wide, I take it. I have a 4x5 Graphic, and last month, B&H had the wide film at the same price as the mini, so I figured I'd go for that. The issue with the corner slot mounting method is there is a tradeoff in precise placement and how big you cut the slots. When the slots are small, you have the bend the Instax wide sheet in an arc to get the corners into the slots, and I was worried about breaking the chemical pods. With the taping method, I tried taping the edges, but in the dark it's hard to tell if the edge of the tape overlaps the exposure area, and when it does, even clear tape casts a shadow in the image. With double-sided tape on the print side of the image, the dark slide tended to catch the edge of the Instax sheet when putting it back in after the shot. Hence my search for a simple reliable method.

I've done both Mini and Wide. I have a Wide 210 so I was able to use that to process it with good results when shot from a Polaroid 110a and Pentax 6x7. I tried the Mini because I was using a Mamiya C3 and the 2x3 holders in it (which I have for sale).

I have tried the corner cut idea with an unshot sheet yet, so I'll have to give that a go soon.