Will Fugifilm be going the way like Kodak

A wise man once told me "never try to be the biggest fish in a shrinking pond". Perhaps film will always have a following, but as a niche product? Some firms do survive supporting the niche market, but is there enough in it for large companies to continue playing? Even Chevrolet and Ford etc. have licensed others to reproduce their parts to support the old car hobby. Still in demand, but not enough for GM/Ford to continue in it.

003tvd said:

A wise man once told me "never try to be the biggest fish in a shrinking pond". Perhaps film will always have a following, but as a niche product? Some firms do survive supporting the niche market, but is there enough in it for large companies to continue playing? Even Chevrolet and Ford etc. have licensed others to reproduce their parts to support the old car hobby. Still in demand, but not enough for GM/Ford to continue in it.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. As I see it, you'll always be able to get black and white because it doesn't take a real big investment to coat plastic (or glass) with emulsion. But color might be more dicey, given that it needs several layers that presumably have to be well-controlled. If the demand for color drops to the point where it's unprofitable for Fuji to run a production line, it could be gone.
--
Leonard Migliore

That advice is against the law of business. When you're the only player in the game, you're the rat king. Yes, not glamorous, but you have the power to monopolize the whole segment. When everything goes digital (not just film, anything that has an analog counterpart, such as analog sound receiver, or analog parts inside your computer), there will still a need for analog parts. Shrinking market? Yes, but that doesn't mean it won't be profitable for at least some while (or until the cost to produce the niche part becomes too much).

Using niche products is often a way of setting yourself apart from the crowd. That's why I use different films and cameras at every wedding. The young crowd thinks film is hip and different. It's funny watching them ask questions about my Polaroid, RB67 or Holga, and take no interest in the Nikon D800 around my neck.

Niche can be great!

Faintandfuzzy said:

Fuji Pro 400H, rated at 200

Click to expand...

Nice composition but if that is a scan of the film, and accurate, it seems to treat what a bit flat. Almost dull in that regards looking at the skin tones as well. I do like the composition though.

Faintandfuzzy said:

Using niche products is often a way of setting yourself apart from the crowd. That's why I use different films and cameras at every wedding. The young crowd thinks film is hip and different. It's funny watching them ask questions about my Polaroid, RB67 or Holga, and take no interest in the Nikon D800 around my neck.

Niche can be great!

Click to expand...

Well said, I also often enjoy visiting the old folks home. It can be sad and rewarding in small personnel ways.

I do aim for a soft look. It actually is pretty accurate as it was a dull, cool, misty and cloudy day. I could warm it up a bit though, but others in the series were processed a bit different as well.

Cheers.

Thank you for a good and reasonable post.

I couldn't find my favoirte film anymore, which is Superia Reala. Pretty sad. It's a very versatile film for landscape and everyday thing. I prefer it over Pro 160S because it can be more punchy when needed, and low contrast if I just shoot it rated. So I guess it's just Pro 160S or Portra 400 for me....

I recently just shot a roll of Velvia 50. I think that film may have become too expensive to make for a rather niche market, and I agree with all other slide film shooters.... Provia is taking over. Provia is just much more versatile. As for Velvia 100F..., never like the look (magenta cast too strong). But here is the bane of Velivia 50: I noticed my local lab began to process slides with some degree of automation, so the digital scans close the gap between film looks.... It's very hard to tell two films apart beside the price anymore.... They PP'ed the WB!!! So Velvia 50 lost that saturated look and began to look like Provia 100F when underexposed a little.... I think the look might be even closer if I used Velvia 100, so why even bother with Velvia 50 anymore? Velvia has become irrelevant due to digital process. Not a lot of labs around do optical printing of slide anymore....

Anyways, I think Kodak still makes films. Both Fuji and Kodak's film market will shrink, but it's like this for a long time, so whatever. As long as they still have Provia for slide, Portra for negatives, and Acros and/or Ilford Pan F+ for B&W around, it's fine with me. Ektachrome died also...

Don't mind the put-down comments. I think it's a very well-taken shot. People with no film photography background don't know how difficult it is to achieve such nice and balanced image. Some takes easy-shots made possible by digital cameras for granted.

Someone really should hold a one-shot competition. Everyone is given just one shutter release (no matter digital or analog, Holga or cellphone) and no post-processing allowed, and we'll see how many people here can do well with it.

003tvd said:

A wise man once told me "never try to be the biggest fish in a shrinking pond". Perhaps film will always have a following, but as a niche product? Some firms do survive supporting the niche market, but is there enough in it for large companies to continue playing? Even Chevrolet and Ford etc. have licensed others to reproduce their parts to support the old car hobby. Still in demand, but not enough for GM/Ford to continue in > it.

Click to expand...

Agree, well said.

Faintandfuzzy said:

Using niche products is often a way of setting yourself apart from the crowd. That's why I use different films and cameras at every wedding. The young crowd thinks film is hip and different. It's funny watching them ask questions about my Polaroid, RB67 or Holga, and take no interest in the Nikon D800 around my neck.

Niche can be great!

Click to expand...

Don't you think that they consider you an old fashion guy that has a problem adapting new technology?
What counts is the end result. Clients don't give a damn what tools you use.

John Smith 2011 said:

Faintandfuzzy said:

Using niche products is often a way of setting yourself apart from the crowd. That's why I use different films and cameras at every wedding. The young crowd thinks film is hip and different. It's funny watching them ask questions about my Polaroid, RB67 or Holga, and take no interest in the Nikon D800 around my neck.

Niche can be great!

Click to expand...

Don't you think that they consider you an old fashion guy that has a problem adapting new technology?
What counts is the end result. Clients don't give a damn what tools you use.

Click to expand...

Actually, they do. That's why you're never booked and have to resort to selling passport pics.

For me, I get referrals from people asking for portraits done with a Holga or 4x5.

citizenlouie said:

Someone really should hold a one-shot competition. Everyone is given just one shutter release (no matter digital or analog, Holga or cellphone) and no post-processing allowed, and we'll see how many people here can do well with it.

Click to expand...

I think that a wonderful ideal. I'm not sure though the "no post-processing allowed" would be actually feasible though. The film, by nature has to be post processed (two different labs with two different techs might return two very different final prints...perhaps an exaggeration). If I shoot RAW, I have to post process to some degree. The JPEG only guy would be constrained by his bodies settings constraints. I think it would have to be a one shot "no limits" kind of challenge to be fair. We also have to decide if the film entries have to be judged from print or digital conversion. I find that something is always lost when film is converted. I think the nature of Faintandfuzzy's example above is a good illustration. It seems to have gone very slightly flat and I suspect the printed version would be very much better. Even digital printed has a different look vs displayed on an LED screen.

A great ideal worth pursuing...not as easy to implement as one might think.

Mako2011 said:

Faintandfuzzy said:

Using niche products is often a way of setting yourself apart from the crowd. That's why I use different films and cameras at every wedding. The young crowd thinks film is hip and different. It's funny watching them ask questions about my Polaroid, RB67 or Holga, and take no interest in the Nikon D800 around my neck.

Niche can be great!

Click to expand...

Well said, I also often enjoy visiting the old folks home. It can be sad and rewarding in small personnel ways.

Click to expand...

Not just that; when people are willing to pay you lots of money fro a one off unique product–why turn them down?

I don't let my personal feelings dictate that if someone wants a 8x10 format film portrait and will pay the cash I'm happy to oblige them!

What would you want £1K for a sitting or £200 for a digi wedding on a DVD? You decide1

Faintandfuzzy said:

Ektar and Portra are my goto films for weddings, landscape and portraiture in color. For B&W, it's TMax, FP4, HP5, Efke 50 and Adox 20. I still have a few hundred sheets of Velvia that I rarely use. 4x5 Ektar 100 get's me grain free 32x40 prints...so I'm happy.

Click to expand...

Happy? Really? You said you hardly do film anymore because your lab stopped good dust removal and your d800 gives you what you said as "same DR as film" even though that DR is in the shadows resulting in darker looking photos.

How do you get that over exposed film look with your d800?

RedFox88 said:

Faintandfuzzy said:

Ektar and Portra are my goto films for weddings, landscape and portraiture in color. For B&W, it's TMax, FP4, HP5, Efke 50 and Adox 20. I still have a few hundred sheets of Velvia that I rarely use. 4x5 Ektar 100 get's me grain free 32x40 prints...so I'm happy.

Click to expand...

Happy? Really? You said you hardly do film anymore because your lab stopped good dust removal and your d800 gives you what you said as "same DR as film" even though that DR is in the shadows resulting in darker looking photos.

How do you get that over exposed film look with your d800?

Click to expand...

RedFox88, by now we all know that he talks from both ends of his mouth.

Faint and Fuzzy, AKA Dave Luttmann is a talented guy, he can blow and suck at the same time.

even a final image as close to the original recording medium (good ol' slides) as possible can vary in the final look thanks to processing variables (temperature, chemical quality, process speed, etc.). The process is monitored and checked in virtually all labs, but tolerances plus or minus from optimum exist. Many of us have seen the E6 process be different from lab to lab.

003tvd said:

even a final image as close to the original recording medium (good ol' slides) as possible can vary in the final look thanks to processing variables (temperature, chemical quality, process speed, etc.). The process is monitored and checked in virtually all labs, but tolerances plus or minus from optimum exist. Many of us have seen the E6 process be different from lab to lab.

Click to expand...

Thank you for adding solid information/fact to the discussion. I would think there would actually be less variance than in times past as the number of labs has shrunk considerably.

Mako2011 said:

003tvd said:

even a final image as close to the original recording medium (good ol' slides) as possible can vary in the final look thanks to processing variables (temperature, chemical quality, process speed, etc.). The process is monitored and checked in virtually all labs, but tolerances plus or minus from optimum exist. Many of us have seen the E6 process be different from lab to lab.

Click to expand...

Thank you for adding solid information/fact to the discussion. I would think there would actually be less variance than in times past as the number of labs has shrunk considerably.

Click to expand...

With E-6 the tolerance in a well run line would be ± 5%(called the action limit) any more than that would be considered out of control.

In 18 years of running a lab I never exceeded 5% 1-2 being typical.

Most people couldn't tell the difference between a film processed in May with one in September. There was a small variance between CR56 and E6 (Kodak and Fuji) but you'd need to be an expert to see it.

Mark Smith said:

Mako2011 said:

003tvd said:

even a final image as close to the original recording medium (good ol' slides) as possible can vary in the final look thanks to processing variables (temperature, chemical quality, process speed, etc.). The process is monitored and checked in virtually all labs, but tolerances plus or minus from optimum exist. Many of us have seen the E6 process be different from lab to lab.

Click to expand...

Thank you for adding solid information/fact to the discussion. I would think there would actually be less variance than in times past as the number of labs has shrunk considerably.

Click to expand...

With E-6 the tolerance in a well run line would be ± 5%(called the action limit) any more than that would be considered out of control.

In 18 years of running a lab I never exceeded 5% 1-2 being typical.

Most people couldn't tell the difference between a film processed in May with one in September. There was a small variance between CR56 and E6 (Kodak and Fuji) but you'd need to be an expert to see it.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, more good info. It would seem that shooting film then is much closer to simply shooting JPEG (in the JPEG vs RAW context) than I had figured. As long as we can get the film shooters to use similar lab (vs developing on their own) and get the Raw shooters to shoot JPEG only....we might get it done.