Fujifilm announced “substantial” worldwide price increase of photographic film

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A Sony A6000 body costs about the same as the electricity needed to run a fridge full of film for three years or so. Lots of software is free (DaVinci. Resolve for example) or cheap, we all have computers, and I bought a Canon scanner/printer for under $40.00 recently. I use cheap 3rd party inks and get nice prints for almost nothing. The competitive forces are all aggressively and brutally at work in digital photography.

 

Film photography is for those who don't mind paying the higher cost. Yes you can find an old film camera for free and shoot 10 rolls of b/w bulk loaded film per year for little money if you are poor and must use film. 

 

Oh Alan you are a hoot!

 

Most of us (I hazard a guess) keep a modest film stock in the freezer with our peas, burgers, Ice cream and such like. A typical domestic fridge/freezer apparently costs approx. £50 p.a. to run (UK). They actually cost less to run if full, so filling the unused space with film actually reduces the 'leccy bill!

 

We may all have computers, as we all have fridges and freezers! Computer upgrades are often forced upon us though, some latest software won't run on the 'old' computer. If we buy some latest release of film we don't need to upgrade the freezer to store it.

 

Cheap 3rd party inks? Really? Not worried about archival quality, fading, colour consistency etc.? Fair enough if you're happy with that.

 

Pity the poor who must continue to use film. Do you take the same pitying view when looking at the artist who can only afford oil paints? Maybe they'd love to be working with a Mac and graphics pad, poor poor souls!

[AlanG]

Consider that this thread is about increases in film costs and how that affects decisions to purchase film. Is there any likelihood that a price increase will not discourage some film use?  Isn't Fuji making a cost/benefit analysis here? You can be wealthy, shoot a lot of film, and not be impacted by a price increase. And if you are poor but only shoot a little film a year the price increase probably won't matter much to you either. Others fall somewhere in between. For my commercial work, film is prohibitively expensive even if it were just as versatile and convenient as shooting digitally.  I'm sure many other commercial and enthusiast shooters feel the same way. The cost/benefit for me to switch to digital occurred in 2003.

 

So the overall market is pretty limited and users will have to pay whatever the suppliers charge. Some are just griping that others "don't get it." Arguing that you like the look of film or like the process of using film, won't change this unless you can convince a lot of others to buy film. I respect your personal decisions but am simply pointing out that film is a tough sell to many. I'm giving but a few examples so you'll understand the situation if you didn't already. I am not trying to convince anyone to change.

 

Regarding fridge... I was referring to the specific fridge pictured here. "Fridge full of film."  When I had a studio, my associate and I had 3 fridges larger than that one and it was not unusual for commercial photographers to have a dedicated fridge just as camera stores did.  This added to the cost of using film.

 

You don't need a computer at all to take digital photos.  Some cameras have raw conversion software built in or you can shoot jpegs. Many cameras can post images directly to the web using free wifi in a coffee shop.  Some cameras have direct to print features via wifi or USB.

 

I have been using Micrografx Picture Publisher 10 for my image editing since 1999. It works fine on Windows 10.  Programs such as ACDSEE are cheap.  DaVinci Resolve, one of the best video color grading programs is free and now includes a lot of editing capabilities.    https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve  Operating systems are including more photo software for free. If you don't upgrade cameras, scanners or computers, you have few software upgrade costs.  Many cameras come with free raw conversion and other software. 

 

I have a cheap printer and a more expensive one with archival inks. When I shot film, I had 4 expensive camera systems and a large color darkroom with a commercial nitrogen burst processing system. So cost varies a lot among users. And there are all kinds of on-line services for ordering prints so photographers don't need a printer just as they don't need a darkroom.

 

 

A Sony A6000 body was $398 back in December.  Many good used digital camera bodies are inexpensive.

 

http://blog.gvea.com/wordpress/?p=933

 

It’s awesome for keeping soda and beer cold, but what’s the annual cost?

The Energy Star website has a cool calculator that can help you do the math. Make sure you put in our local electric rate of $0.22 per kilowatt-hour.

Here are the annual electricity cost calculations for a few refrigerators with freezers on top (19.0 to 21.4 cubic-feet):

It was cheap, but how much does it cost to plug in?

• 1990-1992. Annual cost: $283
• 1993-2000. Annual cost: $189
• 2001-2008. Annual cost: $118
• 2009-present (Energy Star). Annual cost: $90

Edited January 25, 2016 by AlanG

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[chrism]

Alan,

I thank you for your concern about my electricity bill, but the cost is small for the pleasure I gain. Unlike many I have no objection to film versus digital debates, mainly because I don't care what people use and I am prepared to use—myself—whatever fits the bill for the occasion. I am concerned, though, when people try to prescribe what others must do, or use. It reminds me of that quote attributed to Mencken: "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." I'm sure we can both be happy doing what pleases us, or what makes economic sense for us, provided we each are prepared to allow the other the same freedom that we would like to enjoy ourselves. I spent the morning in and out of the darkroom developing 10x8 paper negatives as a slow-motion form of chimping, until I had what I wanted. I could have done it with no additional cost with one of my digital cameras, but instead I chose to expend a few dollars worth of paper and chemicals. It whiled away the weary hour and helped to deplete the stocks that I must work through (I have an expiry date sooner than the frozen film). No harm done, and I would certainly never have the bad manners to say you must do the same task the same way. Might we leave it there, each tolerating the other even when we would choose a different path?

 

Chris

[AlanG]

I am commenting on the subject of this thread which is Fuji's price increase... reason's for it and how people are dealing with it. Some are stocking up now before the price increase and storing it... which may or may not be a cost effective approach if you are using a dedicated fridge for that.  You can run your own numbers if you care.

 

I am not addressing you Chris. I don't care what you spend on electricity nor do I care about whatever you choose to do. I can't see how anything about your choice will affect others making a decision to use or not use film unless you can inspire them and/or convince them to do the same in order to help prop up the market for film. Maybe you can but it seems that there is a small if dedicated niche that is getting impacted by film pricing no matter what you or I think about film. I'll go on the record as encouraging everyone here to shoot much more film in order to try to make a difference in the pricing. If that is what you like, you'll have to do something about it.

 

I don't begrudge Donald Trump from using personal jets or helicopters either. My wife hassles me about the environmental impact of ski resorts and skiing let alone heli-skiing. So we all have to make personal choices for many things. So for environmental reasons we'll be hiking the Andes instead. Jet fuel be damned.

 

From a professional standpoint, I think the general adoption and ease of digital photography has reduced the commercial value of photography and impacted my business in numerous ways... but that is another matter entirely and it does me no good to gripe about it.

Edited January 25, 2016 by AlanG

[Keith (M)]

Amazing how far things have drifted from the content of my original post...   :0

[plasticman]

Alan is on his crusade. Nothing can put a stop to it.

 

Incidentally, I love these sweeping statements he makes - that using film is like running around in a Model T. Those stupid old-fashioned artists should stop using brushes as well - the images you get out of Paint Shop Pro are vastly superior to the sludgy mess they're making on a real canvas.

[NJH]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well that is it I am out, had enough of one posters constant trolling of this part of the forum. Alan get a life mate, all your arguments and points are several years old and just plain boring by now, you are ruining the forum with this constant pathetic crusade.

 

I won't be back. Bye.

[ramarren]

Returning to the subject of this thread... 

 

Hmm. Let me see: I consumed about twenty rolls of film last year, which cost me on the order of $130 (just the film cost). About half of that was Fuji film. So if the affected price rise happens on the films I use, I might spend about $160 in the next year. I think I can stand that amount of additional expense for the enjoyment I get from using my M4-2, CL, R8, Leicaflex SL, Nikon F6, Voigtländer Perkeo II, and Hasselblad SWC.  

 

It's been a long time since it was truly cost effective in both money and time to shoot film. You do it because you want to and like the results film gives you, or because you shoot so little that it doesn't pay to buy a digital camera of comparable quality, or because you've made a business and reputation out of using film and sell your work on its aesthetic qualities. The cost of the recording medium shouldn't be the bottom line in any event. 

 

Move along now... 

[AlanG]

Alan is on his crusade. Nothing can put a stop to it.

 

Incidentally, I love these sweeping statements he makes - that using film is like running around in a Model T. Those stupid old-fashioned artists should stop using brushes as well - the images you get out of Paint Shop Pro are vastly superior to the sludgy mess they're making on a real canvas.

No, I said that using a Barnack was like owning a model T compared with using a modern camera... film or digital.  It has to do with depreciation, not usability. 

 

If we are going to talk about sweeping statements how about your insults of me and your misrepresentation of my posts? All of my posts were as on-subject as I could make them... Fuji's price increase and how people deal with it. I in no way put down anyone for using film.

 

People have suggested everything from stocking up to hoping film manufacturers will pool their resources to keep prices affordable.  I simply and patiently have addressed what they have brought up in the context of the thread. Whether you like using film or not is not the title. If everyone used as much film as Chrim uses, maybe manufacturers wouldn't have to raise prices.  You'd need a lot more users who shoot only 20 rolls a year to make a difference.

Edited January 25, 2016 by AlanG

[Ai_Print]

That's the one, figured it was pretty out there to be true. Too bad the person who posted it did not follow the same protocol I did in mentioning it here, what a bloodbath for that guy, eh?

 

 

The rumour to which I suspect you allude appears to be unfounded:

Ref Ilford

 

Harman Technical Services

 

Price rise rumours not true

 

Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party here. We've not made any price rises, or discussed any with our distributors. Last price rises on film and paper were I believe 2013. So this is not true at all, just pure rumour.

 

Neil

http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1953840291

 

 

 

 

[Ai_Print]

Can't we all get along? These two did today...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[chris_livsey]

Amazing how far things have drifted from the content of my original post...   :0

 

No, par for the course.

On another forum I visit a CCD v CMOS debate quickly turned into film v either of the above.

 

Does anyone really think that a photographer sits down with an accounting spread sheet and works out the cost of either recording medium in minute detail and that is what alone informs their choice?

 

On a philosophical note: I no longer wonder at the divisions in the world that lead to killing for the sake of a belief, it is film v digital taking to the extreme.

[250swb]

 I in no way put down anyone for using film.

 

I imagine past experience of your diatribes against using film is confusing peoples minds in this case. Funny how mud can stick?

 

 

Steve

[lleo]

Can't we all get along? These two did today...

 

Absolutely beautiful. But... is Nikon still working at that temperature? Lol

[earleygallery]

No, par for the course.

On another forum I visit a CCD v CMOS debate quickly turned into film v either of the above.

 

Does anyone really think that a photographer sits down with an accounting spread sheet and works out the cost of either recording medium in minute detail and that is what alone informs their choice?

 

On a philosophical note: I no longer wonder at the divisions in the world that lead to killing for the sake of a belief, it is film v digital taking to the extreme.

 

Clearly Alan G must do!

 

The constant repeated arguments from Alan as to why people shouldn't use or enjoy film really are quite tiring. It also ignores that fact that most of us are taking photos for enjoyment, and cost per image really isn't a factor, just as cost per mile driven isn't a factor for anyone who owns a Model T Ford these days.

[Keith (M)]

Well, this morning the delivery of Acros 100 (135 & 6x6cm)ordered on-line late last week arrived from AG Photo  Oh, and whilst waiting I developed the roll of HP5+ that I finished off in my M7 yesterday.  

The M7 along with MP, IIIg and Rolleicord Vb happily coexist with their digital brethren whether on the bookshelf awaiting the call for action or in a out & about in my camera-bag.  No film -v- digital rivalry in my household...

 

Can we please keep the discussion on the subject of Fuji and their (as yet unknown) price increases!

[AlanG]

Clearly Alan G must do!

 

The constant repeated arguments from Alan as to why people shouldn't use or enjoy film really are quite tiring. It also ignores that fact that most of us are taking photos for enjoyment, and cost per image really isn't a factor, just as cost per mile driven isn't a factor for anyone who owns a Model T Ford these days.

So why is there this post about film costs going up and why are people expressing concern about that? I have been on topic the entire time. Similarly, the model T is a great choice as it will appreciate. Just as older film Leicas do. A Barnack is certainly a Model T of Leica cameras when compared with what Leica is offering today. That Barnack post was about why it was less expensive to buy a Nikon F6 film camera for $1800 compared to $11,000 for a digital Leica. And he went on to why a Barnack was an affordable way to go because it will hold its value. All true and a more economical way to go if cost and depreciation is a major concern.

 

I didn't bring this subject up, what do you think one should say about it? That our only viable choices are between a Nikon F6, an $11,000 Leica and a Barnack?

Edited January 26, 2016 by AlanG

[earleygallery]

Can we please keep the discussion on the subject of Fuji and their (as yet unknown) price increases!

 

Some people here seem to be happy to pay £200 for a camera strap or £1000 for a bag. 10% on the price of a roll of film is what, 50p average? Regrettable that they're increasing prices of course, but better than discontinuing more lines.

 

As an aside, I wonder about their claim of declining use, as most anecdotal evidence is of increasing film use (and sales). It's hard to find any factual information.

 

If Fujifilm is too expensive buy the Poundland Agfa film!

[AlanG]

I imagine past experience of your diatribes against using film is confusing peoples minds in this case. Funny how mud can stick?

 

 

Steve

Pointing out the reality of situations in detail with documentation of facts is not a diatribe against using film.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[earleygallery]

Just had a quick look at Fuji's annual report.

 

I don't see any specific reference to photographic film numbers of any sort but in terms of the overall photo division they state;

 

Performance Summary of FY2015/3
In the Imaging Solutions segment, consolidated revenue
amounted to ¥361.0 billion, down 3.4% from the previous
fiscal year, due to decreases in sales of digital cameras and
other factors and despite increases in sales in the photo
imaging business. Consolidated operating income stood at
¥20.7 billion, up 477.5% from the previous fiscal year, due to
strong sales of instant cameras, cost reductions, and profit
improvement for digital cameras.

 

There are several references to strong growth in sales of their instant film/cameras! Also their strategy to sell more premium digital cameras.

 

We all know that global sales of digital cameras are declining, as are digital print products. It would be interesting to see the actual figures for photo film, separated out from the digital products.