Why fuji across 100 was discontinued?

Maybe, maybe not. Hard to tell since most people use Fauxtoshop controls like gooey colored syrup and jam atop sugar cubes, with no sense of nuance at all. But far more control? BS. The proof is in the pudding. If it can be done in PS it can be done in a darkroom - perhaps not as easily, or maybe even more easily. In either case, it's the skill and experience of the operator which counts way more than the choice of toolbox. Intricate pieces of furniture were made by hand for millennia before numerical controlled machinery ever came on the scene. No difference.

Hello Drew,

DREW WILEY said:

But you're behind the times if you think chrome reverasal film still has an advantage over color neg in terms of resolution and hue accuracy. Take a look at Ektar.

Click to expand...

no, I am not behind the times, not at all. I am absolutely up-to-date. Because instead of believing in marketing statements , additionally to my daily photography, I do very detailed scientific tests in my photography test lab. And I have tested Ektar even much more than most other films. Again and again.
These are my test results concerning detail rendition:
1. Ektar has a bit coarser grain compared to Astia 100F, Provia 100F, Sensia III, E100G, Elitechrome 100, E100 (new) and the Velvias. The difference is small, but visible at higher magnification ratios.
2. Ektar has a softer sharpness (less acutance) compared to the above listed reversal films.
3. Resolution:
Here are the test results from my standardized optical resolution test (object contrast 1:4, system resolution at f5.6 with Zeiss 2/50 ZF):
- Ektar: 90 – 105 Lp/mm
- Fuji Velvia 50: 110 – 125 Lp/mm
- Kodachrome 64: 90 – 105 Lp/mm
- Fuji Sensia 100 III (RA): 120 – 135 Lp/mm
- Fuji Provia 100F: 120 – 135 Lp/mm
- Fuji Astia 100F: 120 – 135 Lp/mm
- Fuji Velvia 100: 120/125 – 140 Lp/mm
- Fuji Velvia 100F: 120/125 – 140 Lp/mm
- Kodak E100G: 120 – 135 Lp/mm
- Kodak Elitechrome 100: 120 – 135 Lp/mm
- AgfaPhoto CT Precisa (last version Made by Fujifilm): 120 - 135 Lp/mm.
Concerning detail rendition Ektar cannot compete with the current ISO 100/21° colour reversal films.

Best regards,
Henning

DREW WILEY said:

Hard to tell since most people use Fauxtoshop controls like gooey colored syrup and jam atop sugar cubes, with no sense of nuance at all

Click to expand...

Well, I am not most people. One could say the same about paints; they have the potential to become a child's finger daubings or a Rembrandt. Any tool can be used poorly or with skill, and quite frankly, using flippant terms like "fauxtoshop" isn't helpful; rather it typically betrays the bias or ignorance of the speaker, in my experience.

Henning, first of all, as you well know, grain is sampled on a different basis with color neg films from chromes, and it is furthermore largely a function of contrast in terms of actual visibility in print fashion. Then you have the fact that not all the dye layers are the same in this respect. And it's getting down right silly anyway if you can't even see the grain except in massive critical enlargement where sheer resolution issues become the detractor first. And GLS - I do my homework, so as far as FAUXtoshop is concerned, as well as Stinkjet, I can term it anything I please. I allow that it is a viable path for many. But just like any adolescent medium or technology, it is often far too self-conscious of its own potential for cutesy novelty to have learned the higher virtues of restraint yet. The problem obviously lies with the users, and not the tools per se.

Hello Drew,

DREW WILEY said:

Henning, first of all, as you well know, grain is sampled on a different basis with color neg films from chromes,

Click to expand...

That is valid for the data in data sheets. RMS values of colour negative film cannot be compared to RMS values of colour reversal film, because of different measurement methodology.
But I haven't done that. I have compared the results both on the film at different enlargement factors and in print at different enlargement factors. Because that is what is important for the photographer: What he sees in his end result.

DREW WILEY said:

and it is furthermore largely a function of contrast in terms of actual visibility in print fashion.

Click to expand...

I have done countless tests at low to medium object contrast ratios. Object contrast ratios which you do have in each scenery. That's why that is important.
At object contrasts below 1:2 (one stop) the resolution advantage of current ISO 100/21° reversal films compared to Ektar is in the 10% (Provia, Ektachrome) to 30% (Velvia) range. For lower to medium object contrast of 1:4 (two stops) see my test results above.
I have furthermore given my test results for a critical "double-check" to more than a dozen of other experienced photographers and engineers from the manufacturers. They have all confirmed my results.

DREW WILEY said:

And it's getting down right silly anyway if you can't even see the grain except in massive critical enlargement where sheer resolution issues become the detractor first.

Click to expand...

This statement also clearly shows that you have fundamental flaws in your evaluation: If you make bigger enlargements you always see the grain at first, and the resolution limit at last.
At least if you have worked properly = correct focus, no vibration.
Example: If I enlarge Provia 100F and Ektar by a factor of 40x grain is visible (but very fine) with both films. But I cannot see the resolution limit at this enlargement factor. To evaluate the resolution limit I use 100x enlargement (under a microscope).
You have made the claim that Ektar has higher resolution compared to current reversal films. But you have not given any evidence for your claim. No test results at all.
I have published my test results.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

Hello Drew,


That is valid for the data in data sheets. RMS values of colour negative film cannot be compared to RMS values of colour reversal film, because of different measurement methodology.
But I haven't done that. I have compared the results both on the film at different enlargement factors and in print at different enlargement factors. Because that is what is important for the photographer: What he sees in his end result.



I have done countless tests at low to medium object contrast ratios. Object contrast ratios which you do have in each scenery. That's why that is important.
At object contrasts below 1:2 (one stop) the resolution advantage of current ISO 100/21° reversal films compared to Ektar is in the 10% (Provia, Ektachrome) to 30% (Velvia) range. For lower to medium object contrast of 1:4 (two stops) see my test results above.
I have furthermore given my test results for a critical "double-check" to more than a dozen of other experienced photographers and engineers from the manufacturers. They have all confirmed my results.



This statement also clearly shows that you have fundamental flaws in your evaluation: If you make bigger enlargements you always see the grain at first, and the resolution limit at last.
At least if you have worked properly = correct focus, no vibration.
Example: If I enlarge Provia 100F and Ektar by a factor of 40x grain is visible (but very fine) with both films. But I cannot see the resolution limit at this enlargement factor. To evaluate the resolution limit I use 100x enlargement (under a microscope).
You have made the claim that Ektar has higher resolution compared to current reversal films. But you have not given any evidence for your claim. No test results at all.
I have published my test results.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

Did you compare the results of optically printed transparency films on paper? You seem to be rather ignoring the fundamental and well proven problems of good positive-positive reproduction compared to the significant inherent advantages of negative films. It's about a lot more than resolution at near extinction.

Far more telling about how these materials behave in the real world is the resolution at 100% MTF response, 70% & 50%. That is what defines what we would regard as 'sharpness'. And it is here that the negative films largely outperform anything other than the slowest transparency films. And that's before we consider questions of colour reproduction/ quality.

Lachlan Young said:

Did you compare the results of optically printed transparency films on paper?

Click to expand...

Yes, I did that, too. I did several comparisons both with optical printing and hybrid (laser) printing.

Lachlan Young said:

You seem to be rather ignoring the fundamental and well proven problems of good positive-positive reproduction compared to the significant inherent advantages of negative films. It's about a lot more than resolution at near extinction.

Click to expand...

No, I don't ignore that at all. But that wasn't the topic. The topic started with Drew's claim that Ektar has generally better resolution, sharpness and finer grain than current color reversal films. But he did not give any evidence for that claim. I've referred to that topic.
My reply was presenting my test results from my scientific tests in my test lab.

Lachlan Young said:

Far more telling about how these materials behave in the real world is the resolution at 100% MTF response, 70% & 50%. That is what defines what we would regard as 'sharpness'. And it is here that the negative films largely outperform anything other than the slowest transparency films.

Click to expand...

That is not generally true. If you look at the datasheets you'll see that e.g. Provia and Velvia have higher MTF than Ektar at Spatial Frequencies of 5 and 10 cycles/mm which represent sharpness.
But from almost 3 decades of test experience I can only recommend to be extremely careful with relying on datasheets only!!
Because
1) Manufacturers are partly using different methods. So results cannot be compared.
2) Some data has very little importance for normal, daily photography.
3) Data sheets are often "marketing tools".
4) Some manufacturers are generally more cautious and conservative with their published data (I've often experienced that with Fujifilm), whereas others are more "optimistic" with their published data.
5) I've had several times the case that datasheets contain marketing lies, wrong information and are completely misleading the customer.
Therefore a kind of "datasheet masturbation" and believing that datasheets are like the bible - which is unfortunately quite popular in photo forums (film and digital) - can be dangerous.
That is why I work so hard to do all these tests in my test lab. To get independent information.

Best regards,
Henning

DREW WILEY said:

But just like any adolescent medium or technology, it is often far too self-conscious of its own potential for cutesy novelty to have learned the higher virtues of restraint yet. The problem obviously lies with the users, and not the tools per se.

Click to expand...

This is simply your opinion, an opinion that I can respect, however you present this opinion as fact based on your experience and as an expert.

To generalize digital photography or hybrid photography this way is unfairly dismissive.
While the workflow, the images, the personal expression by those in the digital realm of photography may not appeal to your personal esthetic or style, that does not mean the use of digital tools is invalid, nor is it an adolescent medium or adolescent technology. For one to make such a statement is to be uninformed as to the level of discipline that exists by digital photography as well as the current state of digital technology. The the new generation Fuji mirrorless cameras and the Fuji medium format digital camera with the Velvia pallets and other film pallets are stunning, accurate, honest and in camera. While you, I or many of us here may be able to see the difference between film Velvia and the Fuji digital Velvia, that does not invalidate the media or those that like the look but have no access to a film camera, Velvia film or need to make use of a digital workflow.
Personally, I am totally devoted to film, with the small exception of using my phone from time to time. Film is simply a personal esthetic that I enjoy to make images with. While I appreciate the work by other film photographers I also enjoy, admire and respect
the work and style of digital photographers.

Lachlan - Let me repeat, I do my homework. I've printed hundreds of such prints with some of the most precise equipment in the world. I've seen thousands of inkjet and laser prints, including from some of the very best practitioners. I don't need a calculator to uphold my claims. This is what I routinely do. I don't need to convince anyone. It's a waste of time. I've made very high quality prints from all of these films, from multiple formats. One merely has to look at actual prints. If digital printing wins in the department of convenience and popularity, true optical printing is still ahead in terms of sheer visual quality, provided one is dedicated to it. Most people nowadays want everything yesterday, so either don't have the patience, or alas, in the present economy, can't afford their own darkroom space anymore. And Mr. Bascom49 ... Please reread what I distinctly stated. I did not blame the technology of digital, which is remarkable, but it's adolescence as an artistic medium. The question goes way beyond just making catchy "colorful" photographs. For example, any decent watercolorist can blend precise hues in mere minutes that are almost impossible to any photographic medium, especially inkjet. Dye transfer gave a degree of choice and control over specific dyes, though at considerable time and expense by current standards; and it certainly wasn't a sharp color medium - the dyes bled a bit. Most color photographers don't have any idea of how to modulate hues with neutrals and sophisticated color-wheel balancing. Eventually a few people learn the inherent limitations of a particular film and paper combination, RESPECT THOSE LIMITATIONS, and turn out something eloquent and distinctive. But I've never seen anything like that so far in inkjet. Maybe someone has a handle on it, maybe not. Probably it will come in due time. But for now, having the opportunity to presumably do just "anything" via digital manipulation or control equates to virtually nothing being done well. People go ape with all the new toy options. That's what I mean by an adolescent technology. It takes some maturity to learn the value of restraint. But ironically, inkjet is a very restrictive medium when it comes to hue control. The pallette is straightjacketed by inherent machinery and software constraints themselves. I won't go into technical details here, but do have a substantial background working in industrial pigments and know some of the parameters quite well. Laser printing is perhaps more flexible because it can simulate high-quality RA4 work, but requires expensive equipment. Hybrid is entirely different continent. Amazing work has been done by labs you're never even heard of, because their minimum charge to print an image is $40,000. If necessary, they'll invent or re-in vent the process to do it! My interaction with such outfits has mainly been in terms of outside-the-box suggestions and as a supplier of specialized equipment. I'm quite content with my own darkroom facility and basic but refined optical printing.

Henning - about all I can say is that you still need to think of the lock and key relationship to the question. How does a particular paper "see" the dye clouds of a particular film, and how is that specifically affected by various options? Just looking at spatial frequency charts doesn't tell the whole story, particularly since chromes and color negs behave somewhat differently in this respect. It's analogous to the concept of sharpness versus acutance in black and white printing. But at a certain point, all these grain arguments get just as silly as the pixel count wars among DLSR etc shoppers, especially once one moves to something larger than 35mm film. Looking through a magnifier yesterday, it would take an 8x10 sheet of Ektar film to be printed 14 feet wide just to begin to detect grain with a decent pair of reading glasses right in front of the print. But even on my early Cibachromes printed to 30x40 inch size from 4x5 old Ektachrome 64 film - distinctly more grainy than today's equivalents - one has difficulty detecting the grain even right up to the print, and that's a very contrasty, high-acutance medium!

Where's Trendland when you need him to sort this out once and for all!

Andrew O'Neill said:

Where's Trendland when you need him to sort this out once and for all!

Click to expand...

No! We are making progress. The last thing we need is obfuscation!

I actually liked Trendland and his unique writing style. Hope he returns.

DREW WILEY said:

If digital printing wins in the department of convenience and popularity, true optical printing is still ahead in terms of sheer visual quality, provided one is dedicated to it.

Click to expand...

Agreed. While everyone is raving about the new Fuji medium format camera, my Kiev from the late 70s is pumping out better results. Digital still does not have the qualities that make film beautiful.

Writing unintelligibly is not a unique writing stye.

It's starting to get downright silly how much people will spend to get a few more megapixels. It's like going out a buying Ferrari because it will go 160mph, yet the speed limit bottleneck of Inkjet City is 35mph.

Sirius Glass said:

Writing unintelligibly is not a unique writing stye.

Click to expand...

It's kind of a DADAIST POEM ...
Take a newspaper. Take some scissors. Choose from this paper an article of the length you want to make your poem. Cut out the article.
Next carefully cut out each of the words that makes up this article and put them all in a bag. Shake gently.
Next take out each cutting one after the other. Copy conscientiously in the order in which they left the bag.
The poem will resemble you.
And there you are – an infinitely original author of charming sensibility, even though unappreciated by the vulgar herd ... (wikipedia.com)

Take a newspaper, take some scissors. Glue things back together. You can start a war, win or lose an election, prove that Elvis and Bigfoot were both aboard the same UFO at the same time, all without Photoshop. But to vaguely return to the original topic, ACROS - I shot quite a bit of it in a used Fuji 6x9 rangefinder that had an immaculate primary lens and cost me a bit over $300. So if we start a war Fuji versus Fuji, which will win? - the real rangefinder or the $10,000 one that has a little TV screen on the back instead of a true optical focus system, and a sensor well below even 645 in area? I have absolutely no second thoughts which one I'd bet on. There are no doubt legitimate uses as well as serious users of that kind of pricey thing, but I'll save my own limited shekels for more actual film.

macfred said:

...
And there you are – an infinitely original author of charming sensibility, even though unappreciated by the vulgar herd ... (wikipedia.com)

Click to expand...

A saying in my country:

"ne fesd az ördögöt a falra, mert megjelenik"

("don't paint the devil on the wall, lest it appear")

If you are an established film company, and perhaps you offer a 100 and 800 speed B&W film....... if you want to make that same film in ASA-200 is it simply a matter of changing the grain Shape/Size of the grain to get the desired speed.?
Thank You

Ho hum. Back to beating a dead horse. Henning - Try making multi-generational contact dupes, internegs etc and compare the grain gain. There's more than one way of looking at this, kinda like US football versus Australian Rules football versus Int'l soccer. It depends on the "rules" - how you get from Point A to B. After a certain point, I really don't care to nitpick. Like I somewhat impolitely said to someone on a lens thread bragging about the MTF he could get out of a particular very expensive 35mm lens, Instead of trying to get more blood out of a tiny tomato, just get a bigger tomato!

Hello Drew,

DREW WILEY said:

Henning - about all I can say is that you still need to think of the lock and key relationship to the question. How does a particular paper "see" the dye clouds of a particular film,

Click to expand...

the main influence of the paper is the colour rendition. But that wasn't our topic here at all. Whether you do like Ektar's colour rendition, or the new Ektachrome, or Portra 160, or Provia, Velvia etc. and how these are influenced by different papers and their colour rendition, is
- a matter of taste and therefore extremely subjective (ask 10 photographers about colour and you will get at least 12 different opinions....)
- a matter of your target: What specific look do I want to get as a photographer or artist for a specific photograph.
Therefore the best solution = fulfilled aim / the look I want may be in one case Velvia 50 on the new Fuji Maxima, in a different case Portra 160 on Endura, in a third case Provia on Endura and so on.......
But papers don't physically change the objective detail rendition (sharpness, resolution, grain) of the film. The only significant influence can be a bit higher subjective sharpness impression/look by a paper with higher contrast.

DREW WILEY said:

Just looking at spatial frequency charts doesn't tell the whole story,

Click to expand...

Exactly. That is what I am talking about here in detail. That is why I do all my intensive tests.That is why I am explaining photographers should not uncritically rely on manufacturer's datasheets only.
Suggestion:
I have always showed my results life to other photographers at meetings. Of course I will be at next Photokina again (and at the analog-days, see below). If you like just join and we can talk looking in real life at the negs, slides and prints.
The discussion here is at a dead end.

DREW WILEY said:

Looking through a magnifier yesterday, it would take an 8x10 sheet of Ektar film to be printed 14 feet wide just to begin to detect grain with a decent pair of reading glasses right in front of the print. But even on my early Cibachromes printed to 30x40 inch size from 4x5 old Ektachrome 64 film - distinctly more grainy than today's equivalents - one has difficulty detecting the grain even right up to the print, and that's a very contrasty, high-acutance medium!

Click to expand...

No one here is disputing that. I know how very fine grained film can be. I've more than 12,000 test shots in my archive here, and the number is increasing year-by-year.
But I even don't need my archive for proving that, looking at my prints is often enough evidence for it .
And projecting my slides: Even 35mm Provia 400X pushed one stop has no visible grain on my screen with 1.5 meters width at normal viewing distance. I have to put my "nose on the projection screen" to see the grain (and even then it's very fine). And with the Velvias, Provia 100F, Astia, Sensia, E100G, new E100 etc. grain is even much, much finer. So fine that you can project 35mm slides as big as you want.
There is a reason why for decades professional 35mm slide (Audiovision) shows on huge screens (cinema size) have been state-of-the art with their unsurpassed picture quality. The audience has always been enthusiastic by the brillance, wonderful colour and outstanding detail rendition of these 35mm slide shows.

One of the most famous camera manufactueres will make a big event called "Analog-Days" this year. They plan for thousands of visitors. They have asked me to offer lectures and workshops there. And what I am really looking forward at that event will be slide Audiovision shows by one of the best nature and wildlife photographer worldwide (the official announcement will be out in about a month).

Best regards,
Henning

I'd only add to that, that papers do matter. For example, the few true gloss "papers", actually polyester bases like Ciba or Fujiflex, are capable of holding more acute detail than RC or matte paper media. If that distinction isn't fully apparent to the naked eye, there is nonetheless a perceptible effect, almost 3D-like at times, which especially encourages the viewer to seek such detail. Let's be glad we still have a enough range of color films and papers to allow the creative juices flow into multiple channels if we choose so. And I'm glad you've got an opportunity to show to a generation now addicted to computer screens just how wonderful real film slides can be.

Fujifilm’s Acros 100 film to return in August
https://kosmofoto.com/2019/06/fujif...ga4O0l-b4Bdqhak2BCHyQC-rqxMEsIkfWRGkRIPuan6mM

Amazing news! I'm genuinely surprised.

No sheet film versions initially though....

Great news. reading the story, it seems, like many of the retired films, was discontinued because of specific ingredients no longer being available or difficult to obtain,, at least thats how I read it.... From the official Fuji press release

....."The company terminated sales of black and white films last fall due to a decrease in demand for black and white films and the difficulty in obtaining raw materials essential for production. However, the film enthusiasts and other young people of the SNS generation who prefer the photo with the unique texture of the film, many people voiced the desire to continue the sales of our black and white film, resumption of sales from all angles We have been working on the We have succeeded in developing the black and white film “Acros II” by researching substitutes for raw materials that became difficult to obtain and radically reexamining the manufacturing process to match the new raw materials

Great news!!

john