Three new film photography products from Fujifilm

[Don_ih]

With the basically terrible cameras Fuji makes to expose Instax, they're catering to people who fully expect an analogue product to generate inferior results to smartphone photos. Packfilm had good cameras and lenses available - as did Polaroid integral - but Fuji seems to purposely make bad cameras for Instax. Obviously, it's working out for them. You'd get better results from a 15-year-old Canon digital p&s with a Selphi printer, though.

Instax is just barely a film product. If anything, it's damaging to general opinion about film capability.

 

[Helge]

With the basically terrible cameras Fuji makes to expose Instax, they're catering to people who fully expect an analogue product to generate inferior results to smartphone photos. Packfilm had good cameras and lenses available - as did Polaroid integral - but Fuji seems to purposely make bad cameras for Instax. Obviously, it's working out for them. You'd get better results from a 15-year-old Canon digital p&s with a Selphi printer, though.

Instax is just barely a film product. If anything, it's damaging to general opinion about film capability.

They are catering to people who want cheap above most other things in life.
The design is still for some reason solidly caught in 95 to 05 blobbalisious and tacky silver plastic.
One acquaintance of mine described them as Tele-tubby cameras.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

With the basically terrible cameras Fuji makes to expose Instax, they're catering to people who fully expect an analogue product to generate inferior results to smartphone photos. Packfilm had good cameras and lenses available - as did Polaroid integral - but Fuji seems to purposely make bad cameras for Instax. Obviously, it's working out for them. You'd get better results from a 15-year-old Canon digital p&s with a Selphi printer, though.

Instax is just barely a film product. If anything, it's damaging to general opinion about film capability.

True, but only from grearhead perspective. Polariod cameras were same crap with Polaroid instant film. From technical perspective. Polariod instant cameras and films are gone.And film is gone from Walmart, Costco and pharmacies. But only place in Ontario where Fuji Instax isn't sold yet are wending machines. Why? Stop thinking as gearhead. Fuji Instax gives something no digital or film could give. It is simple, instant and unique. This is far more successful concept than some specifications on DPR.

BTW, from gearhead perspective you don't need old Canon P&S. Current mobile phone will give better prints with Selphi printer.
And it is much easy due to editing and Wi-Fi phones supports .
https://canoncanada.custhelp.com/ap...d-smartphone-(wi-fi-function)-(selphy-cp1300)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

How is LF waste?

Waste on large film size price and large amount of chemicals. With results which are often mediocre and limited to static.

 

[Don_ih]

They are catering to people who want cheap above most other things in life.

The film is not cheap. The people who buy it are willing to pay for a novelty item - that's a luxury, not something someone cheap does.

Polariod cameras were same crap with Polaroid instant film.

I guess you never used a Spectra camera. Even the Big Shot took better photos than an Instax camera does (I know, I've put actual sheet film in one. It's very sharp.). I'm not a "gearhead" - I'm a user. Instant cameras are fun to use - that's why people use them - but that doesn't mean the results should be garbage. Polaroid shot itself in the foot with those ubiquitous rainbow cameras that used expensive film and took lousy photos. That was them making a cheap product - but the major investment with integral film was always the film. Instant photography was never for miserly people.

Why would they produce better cameras that cost more to produce but can not be sold at much higher prices than the ones they are selling now?

That's the actual answer. They don't have to make it any better, because the majority of users don't expect or require it to be better.

 

[Helge]

The film is not cheap. The people who buy it are willing to pay for a novelty item - that's a luxury, not something someone cheap does.

It’s still a lot cheaper than Polaroid. And it’s the old razor blade scheme.
Cheap intro, and then surprisingly quickly accumulating costs of film.
Of course buying cheap very often is expensive.
So let me say it caters to the people who are greedy/stupid enough to hang on to coupons and get into subscription schemes that are set up to milk as much money as possible before people quit in rage.
Only difference being that Instax film itself is actually a good product.
The cameras are not.
Anyone, not just photophiles, would be very surprised at the quality difference compared side to side from a plastic doublet and a good triplet or quadruplet.

 

[Don_ih]

It’s still a lot cheaper than Polaroid. And it’s the old razor blade scheme.
Cheap intro, and then surprisingly quickly accumulating costs of film.
Of course buying cheap very is often expensive.
So let me say it caters to the people who are greedy/stupid enough to hang on to coupons and get into subscription schemes that are set up to milk as much money as possible before people quit in rage.
Only difference being that Instax film itself is actually a good product.
The cameras are not.
Anyone, not just photophiles, would be very surprised at the quality difference compared side to side from a plastic doublet and a good triplet or quadruplet.

That's kind of what I meant. The average consumer of Instax expects the quality to be poor - and they are most likely to blame the product rather than the camera. Decades of terrible "affordable" fixed-focus film cameras, disposable cameras, things like Instamatic film, and photofinishing that made horrible prints from negative scans all helped make people think of film as an inferior way of getting a picture (it's amazing how much of a quality drop there is between the average snapshot of the 50s and that of the 70s). It couldn't compare (in terms of marketing image) with megapixels, high resolution, sharpness and the modernness of "digital". No one expects Instax to be be anything other than a half blown-out, blurry, over-saturated, poorly composed "magic moment" snapshot.

 

[Helge]

That's kind of what I meant. The average consumer of Instax expects the quality to be poor - and they are most likely to blame the product rather than the camera. Decades of terrible "affordable" fixed-focus film cameras, disposable cameras, things like Instamatic film, and photofinishing that made horrible prints from negative scans all helped make people think of film as an inferior way of getting a picture (it's amazing how much of a quality drop there is between the average snapshot of the 50s and that of the 70s). It couldn't compare (in terms of marketing image) with megapixels, high resolution, sharpness and the modernness of "digital". No one expects Instax to be be anything other than a half blown-out, blurry, over-saturated, poorly composed "magic moment" snapshot.

Surprisingly few people made the logical connection to photo books or big photostats, they are bound to encounter, that had to be made before digital, and thought “hey, uncle moms drug store prints might look like arse, but this is beautiful!”. “How come they are both shot on film‽”.

 

[Don_ih]

Surprisingly few people made the logical connection to photo books or big photostats, they are bound to encounter, that had to be made before digital, and thought “hey, uncle moms drug store prints might look like arse, but this is beautiful!”. “How come they are both shot on film‽”.

The prevailing story was always that professional photographers took good photos, using good (i.e., expensive) cameras, and they had expert knowledge that "uncle mom" didn't have.

My best example would be the 3.5x5 prints my mother got from her 126 Instamatic camera. Many examples in those prints of bad composition - typically heads being cut off and subjects dropping out of the bottom of the frame. But that was a result of the print making. The format is square. She, of course, never made that connection and the negatives for those badly enlarged photos are long gone. Just the disappointment remains.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Out of curiosity, if you guys could only have one in 120, which would you want?

C200 (priced slightly below Ektar), Superia 400 (priced slightly below Portra 400), Superia 800 (priced slightly below Portra 800)

 

[Helge]

The prevailing story was always that professional photographers took good photos, using good (i.e., expensive) cameras, and they had expert knowledge that "uncle mom" didn't have.

Which is basically true.

But that still doesn’t answer the question of why the current common trope of analog = crappy, but charming/authentic/real,
and digital = best/gold standard, but cold massproduced crap (by people who don’t understand the first thing about media, sensors and signals), got applied to film in general, when it is quite obviously every bit as good (we’d say obviously better), with even cursory knowledge/experience.

 

[dutchsteammachine]

I use my Instax Wide 300 because it is fun, different, and forces me to think about the tiny exposure latitude and weak sharpness. I can't rely on my Mamiya Rb67 to produce a sharp negative with tons of dynamic range that allow for tons of cropping and exposure adjustment later.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Out of curiosity, if you guys could only have one in 120, which would you want?

C200 (priced slightly below Ektar), Superia 400 (priced slightly below Portra 400), Superia 800 (priced slightly below Portra 800)

If Superia 400 would be back in 120 would be great.
I have never shot it, but neither have I the other two. I suppose Superia is higher quality and 400 is quite a flexible iso, although I would prefer Superia 200 in 120 more since then you can open the lens a bit more on a sunny day.

And not priced slightly below Portra. The same price as Pro 400H or Provia would just be great.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

For 120 you generally would have also the confectioning capacity as a main bottleneck (depending also on the demand of course). The capacity of a fully automatic 120 line is about only 1/7 to 1/8 of a 135 line. Confectioning of 120 is much slower than 135.
Pro 400H in 120 has been very popular indeed. But you should not underestimate Provia 100F and Velvia 50 in 120.
Currently the following 120 films are in production at Fujifilm
- Provia 100F
- Velvia 50
- Velvia 100
- Pro 160 NS
and probably the remaining Pro 400H film is currently finished in confectioning as well.

Opportunities for more 120 film types? From the demand side yes, definitely! For example if Fujifilm would re-introduce Superia X-Tra 400 in 120 (it was available in that format until some years ago), and would price it below the current professional 120 CN films, this film would sell very well! No doubt about that.

But for those who are looking for a lower cost alternative to the current professional colour negative 120 films: It is already there: Provia 100F.
The film itself is already cheaper than Pro 400H, Pro 160 NS, Portra 160, 400 and 800.
And as this film as a reversal film already offers a perfect picture just after developing (and surpassing all CN films in detail rendition), you can avoid all the further costs of scanning and (or) printing. With colour negative you must either print or scan your negative, and you have to bear these additional costs.
With Provia 100F you can just put your film on the light table and view it under an excellent slide loupe (like the 3x medium format loupes from Schneider-Kreuznach or Rodenstock) and have a perfect picture in outstanding quality. It is by far the easiest and most cost effective form of colour photography. With Provia 100F in 120 you have by far the lowest costs per shot of all 120 colour films.

And as Provia 100F also gives perfect results 2/3 -1 stop pulled and one stop pushed, and still good results even with a two stop push, you have also a quite flexible solution concerning film speed. And you get higher resolution, better sharpness and finer grain with Provia in comparison to all other CN films. The price-performance ratio is unsurpassed.
And medium format slide projection......well, simply amazing and a league of its own!
I am saving lots of money by using Provia 100F (and Velvia 50, as it is overall also cheaper than CN film) as my main 120 colour film.

Best regards,
Henning

I checked the prices and indeed Provia really is the cheapest at the moment. I probably still was used to the old price of 400H here in the Netherlands. Somehow they managed to sell it there for €34 for a 5-pack

Well, as far as I have understood Andy Church's explanations he was quite clear that Kodak Gold in 120 will not be one of the "new in 2021" products.
I think the second product - that one which has so far not been available in the past - could be T-Max 3200 in 120 (so far it has only been available in 135, also before its reintroduction).
Because 1-2 years ago Kodak Alaris has already talked about it, and said that they "are at least thinking of it or evaluating it". The needed R&D for that is manageable, and with Delta 3200 there is only one competitor. And Delta 3200 in 120 has been sold quite well as far as I know (well in niche product terms).

Best regards,
Henning

That would actually surprise ánd disappoint me... Don't you think there is potential a bigger market for Gold in 120 than P3200?

 

[MattKing]

Well, as far as I have understood Andy Church's explanations he was quite clear that Kodak Gold in 120 will not be one of the "new in 2021" products.

That would actually surprise ánd disappoint me... Don't you think there is potential a bigger market for Gold in 120 than P3200?

I understand it to be a much more complex task to re-design a 135 colour emulsion to work on 120 than it is to re-design a 135 black and white emulsion to work on 120.
The differences in substrate an anti-halation requirements are far from trivial.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

I understand it to be a much more complex task to re-design a 135 colour emulsion to work on 120 than it is to re-design a 135 black and white emulsion to work on 120.
The differences in substrate an anti-halation requirements are far from trivial.

Aha, I've never heard that.
On the other hand I don't know how much Gold 200 has changed over the years, but it has been around in 120 before.

 

[tom43]

Let‘s really hope that Fuji will work on a next-gen Pro 400H, as these recent news around disposable cameras and Instax are not related to more ambitious photographic purposes. Unfortunately I have not many hopes that this will materialize, see Provia 400X, Astia, Reala and an endless list of other Fuji films we lost in the last years...

 

[fdonadio]

and Santa is a real person dammit.

The Santas we see at the malls are sure real persons, ahahaha!

 

[KenS]

Instax and Large Format is much more waste, but it is popular styles, rather than very practical photography.
(snip)
I'd REALLY like to know how (and why) you consider Large Format is (quote) "much more waste".
4x5 and 8x10 inch film is now the only size of film exposed behind my camera lenses... and I cannot remember
the last time I made a second "Just in case" exposure. All you have to 'do' is check both the shutter speed AND the f-stop (AFTER having made the 'correct' light meter reading.... and AFTER making sure the camera is 'stable' on the tripod and you have checked both the aperture and shutter speed. I have now come to the conclusion that you have NEVER used a "Large Format' camera

Hown the H*** did you come to that conclusion??

Ken

 

[fdonadio]

Is there a product (a film back) that allows me to use Instax film with a Hasselblad?

 

[cmacd123]

Is there a product (a film back) that allows me to use Instax film with a Hasselblad?

lomography was advertising one to fit a graphlox back camera.

 

[fdonadio]

lomography was advertising one to fit a graphlox back camera.

Nice... I think I could use it with my Sinar, then? I’m always confused with Graflok, International and whatever other backs available...

 

[cmacd123]

Nice... I think I could use it with my Sinar, then? I’m always confused with Graflok, International and whatever other backs available...

you will have to ask them. it was just a wild enough item that it stuck in my messy head. I did not think to dig the details as I could never imagine wanting it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I guess you never used a Spectra camera. Even the Big Shot took better photos than an Instax camera does (I know, I've put actual sheet film in one. It's very sharp.). I'm not a "gearhead" - I'm a user. Instant cameras are fun to use - that's why people use them - but that doesn't mean the results should be garbage. ...
That's the actual answer. They don't have to make it any better, because the majority of users don't expect or require it to be better.

In other words they are not gearheads. They use instax to have fun. I guess those who are using LF to have fun, without bringing quality bogus are also users, not gearheads.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

That's kind of what I meant. The average consumer of Instax expects the quality to be poor - and they are most likely to blame the product rather than the camera. Decades of terrible "affordable" fixed-focus film cameras, disposable cameras, things like Instamatic film, and photofinishing that made horrible prints from negative scans all helped make people think of film as an inferior way of getting a picture (it's amazing how much of a quality drop there is between the average snapshot of the 50s and that of the 70s). It couldn't compare (in terms of marketing image) with megapixels, high resolution, sharpness and the modernness of "digital". No one expects Instax to be be anything other than a half blown-out, blurry, over-saturated, poorly composed "magic moment" snapshot.

I see nothing wrong with Instax at all. Small instant prints with object in focus and fine colors. You description of Instax is total gearhead bias.You are calling yourself as user, but your gearhead statements shows the opposite.

Putting it as "affordable" was just shallow and snobby. In my mother country not expensive, simple P&S cameras were real blessing for millions.
You are turning things upside down, again from your gearhead perspective. Millions used cheap cameras and nothing special labs. It was fine. Majority switched to simple film cameras because it was quick, easy and sufficient. It was good enough without wasting valuable time in the darkroom or paying for non creative technicians a.k.a. professional photographers from film only era.