Unacceptable Price Hike Of Fuji Provia

[George Mann]

But this thread will soon be pared down by a moderator or closed so who cares...

There is no reason to close it at this point.

 

[George Mann]

We are currently at $26 total for ColorPlus at $4 a roll, $8 development, and $13 scanning, not including the price of photo cd's. We are at $30 for Ektar. $27 for Provia at its current price of $18 a roll ($9 development).

 

[faberryman]

We are currently at $26 total for ColorPlus at $4 a roll, $8 development, and $13 scanning, not including the price of photo cd's. We are at $30 for Ektar. $27 for Provia at its current price of $18 a roll ($9 development).

Yes, film is expensive. The tipping point doesn't come until you start scanning it. I frankly don't understand why anyone would go to the time, trouble, and expense of shooting film if you are just going to scan it. If you want a digital file, shoot digital. If you like film, make analog prints.

 

[BrianShaw]

We are currently at $26 total for ColorPlus at $4 a roll, $8 development, and $13 scanning, not including the price of photo cd's. We are at $30 for Ektar. $27 for Provia at its current price of $18 a roll ($9 development).

Yes we are at this point! And don’t forget postage if using a mail order lab.

 

[George Mann]

Yes, film is expensive. The tipping point doesn't come until you start scanning it. I frankly don't understand why anyone would go to the time, trouble, and expense of shooting film if you are just going to scan it. If you want a digital file, shoot digital.

The problem is 2 fold. There is only 2 ways to produce a view-able image from negative film, prints and scans. I don't like digital prints, and analog prints are now prohibitively expensive, which leaves scans.

Good scans still give us the desired look and perspective over images produced with digital cameras.

 

[George Mann]

Has anyone gotten digital prints that actually look sufficiently film-like?

 

[Sirius Glass]

The problem is 2 fold. There is only 2 ways to produce a view-able image from negative film, prints and scans. I don't like digital prints, and analog prints are now prohibitively expensive, which leaves scans.

Good scans still give us the desired look and perspective over images produced with digital cameras.

You can reduce the overall cost by doing five things:

1. Learn to develop color slide film. I learned this when I was in high school and was successful the first time.
2. Buy any needed equipment to process slide film.
3. Process your slide film.
4. Buy a high quality scanner.
5. Use the high quality scanner.

 

[George Mann]

You can reduce the overall cost by doing five things:

1. Learn to develop color slide film. I learned this when I was in high school and was successful the first time.
2. Buy any needed equipment to process slide film.
3. Process your slide film.
4. Buy a high quality scanner.
5. Use the high quality scanner.

I already know how to develop it. The rest is cost-prohibitive, as well as physically impossible for me currently.

 

[faberryman]

Good scans still give us the desired look and perspective over images produced with digital cameras.

Perspective?

 

[Kino]

this is futile...

 

[BrianShaw]

this is futile...

Well... it is unless one is willing to get a better education and a job with a higher salary!

Or whatever it will take to transition from “cost prohibitive “ to “cost possible”.

Physical or any other kind of personal limitations are certainly an issue but personal issues to work through or adapt to the unfortunate consequences.

 

[Agulliver]

I have to say, were our friend Mohammed to have made the posts that he has here on the forum that I admin.....I'd have wielded the flaming ban-hammer of hell. But that is just my opinion.

As for the cost of film...I am actually on a bit below the average income for England, where I live....yet I choose to shoot film and perhaps hold onto a pair of shoes a few months beyond their best....for example. I'm not suffering

 

[Agulliver]

I have to say, were our friend Mohammed to have made the posts that he has here on the forum that I admin.....I'd have wielded the flaming ban-hammer of hell. But that is just my opinion.

As for the cost of film...I am actually on a bit below the average income for England, where I live....yet I choose to shoot film and perhaps hold onto a pair of shoes a few months beyond their best....and I am not actually suffering....just keeping my shoes for 30 months when they began to get scuffed and work after 26.

 

[George Mann]

Perspective?

Film has a more natural look to it. Therefore, it has a more realistic perspective.

 

[George Mann]

Well... it is unless one is willing to get a better education and a job with a higher salary!

This isn't the issue.

Or whatever it will take to transition from “cost prohibitive “ to “cost possible”.

When was the last time you priced a professionally produced optical analog print?

Physical or any other kind of personal limitations are certainly an issue but personal issues to work through or adapt to the unfortunate consequences.

As of now, I have no permanent home base to set up in (I spend most of my time living on the road).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Isn't the "Report this Post" function wonderful!

It's one of the best features here!

 

[MattKing]

Has anyone gotten digital prints that actually look sufficiently film-like?

Yes - the 12"x16" RA4 prints that Costco charges me $5.99 to do from the scans I prepare from my medium format Ektachrome or Portra.
I've got decent results from 35mm as well, but my relatively inexpensive scanner, pared up with my level of expertise with it, doesn't give as good a result with 35mm.
This was from 35mm though - Ektachrome in this case.
The upload you see here is similar to the 5x7 print:

 

[BrianShaw]

This isn't the issue.



When was the last time you priced a professionally produced optical analog print?



As of now, I have no permanent home base to set up in (I spend most of my time living on the road).

I know what you mean... I lived on the road for many years. My issue was always about how much stuff I could have with me and a stable mailing address, but never the cost of film.

 

[abruzzi]

Is Porsche evil because they don’t make cars I can afford?

if you can’t afford the film you want to shoot, it seems you have a few options:

- find inexpensive film you want to shoot
- shoot less of the expensive film
- stop shooting film

There are plenty of hobbies I’d love to do, but can’t due to cost, there are also plenty of hobbies that I do, but keep myself at the financial low end of the hobby, because I can’t play at the expensive end.

 

[George Mann]

if you can’t afford the film you want to shoot

Again, its not the issue. The excessive price they charge for it is.

 

[removed account4]

When was chrome film ever inexpensive? Photography has always been expensive.

Has anyone gotten digital prints that actually look sufficiently film-like?

What does this even mean? I ve gotten digital prints and shown them side by side with wet prints
and die hard film users couldn’t tell which was which...
You could always start shooting 8x10 trichromes

 

[George Mann]

When was chrome film ever inexpensive?

It was less expensive at $13 a roll. Even then I thought it was too much! One was still able to buy 5 for $50 though so I didn't complain.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Again, its not the issue. The excessive price they charge for it is.

George, let it go. Fuji does not charge an excessive price in USA because many customers still buy it. Others above have offered suggestions, such as using less film or finding a cheaper brand. This is your issue. Go ahead and boycott them and write letters to the chairman, but it still remains your issue. You can add your voice to the infamous Dpreview, where the world famous experts on economics, marketing, manufacturing, distribution, pixels, ISO, and equivalence are always ready to tell any company, especially Leica, how they would run the company to eliminate those "obscene" prices.

 

[Agulliver]

I can generally buy Color Plus for £2.50 per 24 exposure roll....I can get dev and scan at a lab within walking distance of my home for £4. That's £6.50 per roll. I am lucky to have that lab I guess, offering a great service where I can talk with the lady who does the processing and scanning....and she'll do the scanning "by hand" - by which I mean personally checking and adjusting every image as necessary. I hear of people paying $20 or £15 for dev only, a further fee for scanning and as far as I can tell they're getting no better service than I am from my local shop. Possibly why she's swamped with mail order work!

Seek out film and services you can afford. For B&W I buy bulk 100 foot rolls saving 30% or more on film costs. I develop myself in the bathroom and someone gave me an Epson flat bed scanner which does 135 amd 120. I do have a proper enlarger and can do traditional darkroom prints when time allows. When a roll of HP5+ effectively costs me under £4, an Fomapan under £3...developing each costs about £1....it is hardly expensive. If i were shooting E6, I'd shoot so little that I'd send to a lab....but if I were shooting lots as I did in the early 2000s I would definitely process at home. I have done it before and it's not that much more difficult than B&W.

If one really wishes to shoot film, one finds a way.

And don't worry about my shoes, I just ordered a new pair.

 

[AgX]

But the old Agfa-Gevaert company as we knew it which made Vista, Scala, APX, Agfacolor HDC and Optima, Agfa Chrome and CT Precisa....that's gone.

.
That "old Agfa-Gevaert" as you erroneously call it was about only half of the company at its best.