Fujifilm announced “substantial” worldwide price increase of photographic film

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

FUJIFILM Corporation announces price increase of photographic films.

 

 

FUJIFILM Corporation has announced that it will implement a worldwide price increase for its photographic films. The price increases are substantial and it would be an increase of at least double digit, but will vary depending on products, markets and regions.

 

PS - just had a peek into the freezer bottom drawer.  Can live without buying more Neopan 400 but Acros 100 is essential for both 35mm & 6x6cm.  Time to stock up...

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!

Edited January 22, 2016 by Keith (M)

[chrism]

Oh, Keith, you're in a bad way.

 

Film Freezer 1 by chrism229, on Flickr

 

Film Freezer 2 by chrism229, on Flickr

 

And I have to use it all up in the next year or so!

 

Chris

[Advertisement]

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

[lleo]

Velvia already costs a bunch of money, I guess in the next future one will have to rob a bank to buy a single roll.

Well, as Keith wrote, we can live without buyng Velvia. As long as my main photo is b&w and the Ilford costs a relatively cheap price, I'll be ok.

I hope the guys at Ferrania will arrive at a solution sooner or later but I doubt it.

[Keith (M)]

Oh, Keith, you're in a bad way.

 

 

Film Freezer 1 by chrism229, on Flickr

 

 

Film Freezer 2 by chrism229, on Flickr

 

And I have to use it all up in the next year or so!

 

Chris

Sounds more like penance than pleasure, Chris!    My film usage is obviously a mere fraction of yours so my 'meagre' supplies will keep me going for quite a while yet - but I will have to add to my stock of Acros 100 (35mm & 120) before the prices rise.

[pico]

It is good to see some large format in there!

[chrism]

It is good to see some large format in there!

That's the 4x5 stuff. I don't have enough 10x8 film to be worth freezing - it's in the chemical fridge. Mostly my 10x8 is paper negatives, and no one, thank goodness, ever suggested I have to freeze paper. I suppose I should - it must 'go off' just as film does, though I imagine it does so more slowly given its ISO of 3-6.

 

C.

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 ...but I will have to add to my stock of Acros 100 (35mm & 120) before the prices rise.

No sooner said than done - ordered some 135 & 6x6cm Acros 100 from AG Photo late last night. Oh, and a bottle of Rodinal R09 too.  Should keep me going for a while and then I'll probably try some Fomapan 100.

[Doc Henry]

Keith and Chris bravo ! 

That's reasonable and foresighted gentlemen
-reasonable because using the film is almost a sacrilege in 2016 and yet they continue to shoot film.
-provision because the stock that Chris in its fridge, it's gone for at least 1-2 years
Even if Fuji increases their price and since their film are of great quality , I am starting to buy.

...  and if we were talking about prices of digital cameras Leica or other brands that also come to rise,
same remark for memory cards, inkjet printer or photosoftware !

Best

Henry

Edited January 23, 2016 by Doc Henry

[plasticman]

Henry - please consider buying film from the companies which actively support film, and not from those trying hard to convert their customers to the eternal digital upgrade treadmill.

[philipus]

Thanks for posting this Keith. As much as I am in favour of capitalism and the market economy, I sometimes wish that the companies that still manufacture film would simply go together - in the interest of the greater good of supporting artistic vision and achievement - and pool their film manufacturing resources to keep prices reasonable and ensure a varied supply of film stock. 

[AlanG]

Thanks for posting this Keith. As much as I am in favour of capitalism and the market economy, I sometimes wish that the companies that still manufacture film would simply go together - in the interest of the greater good of supporting artistic vision and achievement - and pool their film manufacturing resources to keep prices reasonable and ensure a varied supply of film stock. 

The lack of competition is not likely to lead to lower prices. In any case, what you propose has petty much happened. Kodak abandoned transparency film to Fuji. Fuji left the motion picture market to Kodak. Polaroid left the instant film market to Fuji and Impossible. High scale production allowed film to become affordable but those large facilities are also becoming film's albatross.

 

Despite what some here may think, digital is the much less expensive alternative due to the same economies of scale that once applied to film manufacturing.  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. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by AlanG

[AlanG]

You are absolutely right Alan BUT film just has a nicer feel to it.

 

Digital B&W is never as good as film no matter how it's taken or what Silver Effex can do with the files it always ends up just not looking right - TO ME at least.  I'm ambivalent about colour as I never use it for my own pictures but I would of course accept that for publication etc then I would not want to go back to film and all it's limitations."

 

There are a lot of different looks to b/w film photography also.

 

"TO ME" clearly shows recognition that you are subjective and that film has a nicer "feel" etc. is not universal. Thus you'll have to pay the price along with others who feel this way. The hope seems to be that there is an untapped future market out there somewhere who will see the light and start using more film. But the numbers according to this statement from Fuji prove otherwise.

 

Personally, as a long time Tri-X shooter (not because I loved the grain) who often liked to work in low light, digital b/w conversion is a breakthrough for me as I can shoot at much higher ISOs. I really like the ability to adjust color tones before converting.  The sophisticated AF, IS and some other features are only in digital cameras today. For instance I've had no issues using a cheap APS camera and lens and shooting up to 300mm equiv focal length in low light.  I think this would have been problematic FOR ME to achieve on film.

 

B/w with home processing is not very expensive if you discount your time.  Although b/w printing is kind of a hassle and costly compared with inkjet printing.  Scanning and printing negatives digitally is counter productive to me if one's goal is keeping the authenticity of using film.  It really comes down to what is practical vs. the cost in money and time for what you enjoy.  The time spent may be part of the enjoyment.  Trying to convert more to this way of thinking is a challenge that film manufacturers may not be succeeding at. 

 

In 1970 I went off to college as a b/w photojournalist and in 1974 I came out as a well rounded commercial photographer with a wider view of possibilities. I could see me being retired and just working with an M3, 50 collapsible Summicron, Tri-X and a Focomat to be back to my sentimental authentic early roots where I started. But I think that would be choosing to work within limitations rather than expanding my photographic options. Others may appreciate having what I see as "limitations" but I have been there and done that.

Edited January 24, 2016 by AlanG

[Ai_Print]

We might have a bigger ( much ) issue than the Fuji increase but I am not going to even mention it unless the rumor turns out to be true.

 

In any case, I had not fired up my darkroom for quite some time. Well finally, after nearly three years of searching, I found the amazing and incredibly elusive hybrid diffuser / condenser 35mm mixing box for my Saunders LPL 4550 XLG, I had to check it out. So I found a nice Tmax 400 neg from my Leica 35 asph and printed it. Using an RH Designs Zonemaster II, I did one baseboard meter reading for highlights and shadows at grade 2.5 and made a test strip. The test looked good so I made a print. The attached is the first one out of the tray, still wet.....it was super easy, fast and way, way more fun than digital anything has ever been.

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!

Edited January 25, 2016 by Ai_Print

[chrism]

We might have a bigger ( much ) issue than the Fuji increase but I am not going to even mention it unless the rumor turns out to be true.

 

In any case, I had not fired up my darkroom for quite some time. Well finally, after nearly three years of searching, I found the amazing and incredibly elusive hybrid diffuser / condenser 35mm mixing box for my Saunders LPL 4550 XLG, I had to check it out. So I found a nice Tmax 400 neg from my Leica 35 asph and printed it. Using an RH Designs Zonemaster II, I did one baseboard meter reading for highlights and shadows at grade 2.5 and made a test strip. The test looked good so I made a print. The attached is the first one out of the tray, still wet.....it was super easy, fast and way, way more fun than digital anything has ever been.

A beautiful print. You're inspiring me to set up an enlarger for a day of fun in the dark. With respect to the rumour you mention, I wouldn't be averse to a PM about it as I'm curious....

[semi-ambivalent]

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. 

Surely the digital crowd can come up with a more cogent argument than money. But that's all I ever see; the same old chestnut about how digital is cheaper. And here I have just found out I am using film because I'm poor, and must. Digital has capabilities film does not. I happen not to give a tinker's damn about them when I make a purchase or a picture. I've heard all the arguments on both sides. Thank them for for me for their sermons but I seem to have fallen asleep in the pew.

 

s-a

[chris_livsey]

We might have a bigger ( much ) issue than the Fuji increase but I am not going to even mention it unless the rumor turns out to be true.

 

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

Edited January 25, 2016 by chris_livsey

[lleo]

Gentlemen,

I don't know how "cheaper" is still true. I pick, for example, two topd of the line: Nikon F6 and Leica SL. The first on Amazon costs about Euros 1800,00 the second Euros 11.000,00.

Not quite cheaper. Also. The value.

How much used Leicas, to stay in our courtyard, cost? I mean the "normal" camera (I refuse "analog"). And how much the digitals?

And. The Barnacks are perfectly usable nowadays, maybe some require CLA but they function like the first day. How many digitals will work after years? I don't talk about collecting a camera, in other way buying it to show it on a shelf, I mean buying it to take photographs. I have not only big doubts, but huge doubts.

Also. If two cameras are perfect, without any damage, a normal and a digital: how much will one value after years and how much the other one?

Edited January 25, 2016 by lleo

[AlanG]

Surely the digital crowd can come up with a more cogent argument than money. But that's all I ever see; the same old chestnut about how digital is cheaper. And here I have just found out I am using film because I'm poor, and must. Digital has capabilities film does not. I happen not to give a tinker's damn about them when I make a purchase or a picture. I've heard all the arguments on both sides. Thank them for for me for their sermons but I seem to have fallen asleep in the pew.

 

s-a

There are numerous arguments that can be made of course.  If talking about price is all you see then you did not read where I mentioned, higher ISO (3.28 million on Nikon D5) and advanced AF features, IS and many other features (4K video, stereo sound recording, live view, high frame rates, HDR, panoramic stitching, tiny waterproof action cams) that are only available on digital cameras. So now there is a large gap between what can be done with digital cameras and what can be done with film cameras.

 

Furthermore, many film shooters have embraced a digital workflow and digital printing so have their feet in both camps. I was scanning film and delivering digital files for years until it became more practical to shoot digitally and leave film out of the loop.

 

I responded to the comments that by going digital you are stuck on some kind of expensive upgrade path. Whereas some digital cameras, are very inexpensive and do a good job. You can find expensive ways to shoot digital and inexpensive ways to shoot digital. Just as with film. I think I pointed that out.  And for many users, the cost of using film would be prohibitive both commercially and for personal work.

 

I'll just accept that you have some very valid points why you prefer to use film. You should try your best to see if you can convince others to share your way of thinking and see what happens.

Edited January 25, 2016 by AlanG

[semi-ambivalent]

There are numerous arguments that can be made of course.  If talking about price is all you see then you did not read where I mentioned, higher ISO and advanced AF, IS and many other features (4K video, tiny waterproof action cams) that are only available on digital cameras. Furthermore, many film shooters have embraced a digital workflow and digital printing so have their feet in both camps. I was scanning film and delivering digital files for years until it became more practical to shoot digitally and leave film out of the loop.

 

I responded to the comments that by going digital you are stuck on some kind of expensive upgrade path. Whereas some digital cameras, are very inexpensive and do a good job. You can find expensive ways to shoot digital and inexpensive ways to shoot digital. Just as with film. I think I pointed that out.  And for many users, the cost of using film would be prohibitive.

 

I'll just accept that you have some very valid points why you prefer to use film. You should try your best to see if you can convince others to share your way of thinking.

Thanks for the post Alan. Photography is a personal endeavor for me, and sometimes I produce what I think is a pretty good effort. The workflow is all part of it but I do keep a Canon Powershot A630 around for kicks although I never seem to use it.

 

People should use what they want and stop the convincing business; it's bad for conviviality. As for my sharing my way of thinking, as I failed in the pew so shall I shun the pulpit.

 

It's Today. Go take pictures,

s-a

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

Gentlemen,

I don't know how "cheaper" is still true. I pick, for example, two topd of the line: Nikon F6 and Leica SL. The first on Amazon costs about Euros 1800,00 the second Euros 11.000,00.

Not quite cheaper. Also. The value.

How much used Leicas, to stay in our courtyard, cost? I mean the "normal" camera (I refuse "analog"). And how much the digitals?

And. The Barnacks are perfectly usable nowadays, maybe some require CLA but they function like the first day. How many digitals will work after years? I don't talk about collecting a camera, in other way buying it to show it on a shelf, I mean buying it to take photographs. I have not only big doubts, but huge doubts.

Also. If two cameras are perfect, without any damage, a normal and a digital: how much will one value after years and how much the other one?

The gap between what you can do with a Barnack and what you can do with an inexpensive Sony A6000 or more expensive A7 series is pretty vast.  It is kind of like saying there are a lot of Model T Fords still running and holding their value so why would you want a new Benz or Prius that is just going to depreciate quickly? 

 

1,000 photos shot on slide film will cost at least $700 not including scanning and incidental costs. I often shoot more than that in a day. That $700 would get you a Sony A6000 with 16-50 and 55-210 lenses during the holiday sales.  This has got to be one of the best "bang for the buck" deals today and there are others.  Some photographers find they don't need a digital Leica to make good photos and spend considerably less for their cameras.

Edited January 25, 2016 by AlanG