Fujifilm will discontinue its Fujicolor film multi-packs by the end of March

I do like the slow considered approach and variety of shots Steve O'Nions does with different formats(large, medium, 35mm, even m43) , it's really enjoyable to be honest and has made me think much more about the shot beforehand.

However, do you really believe film has better resolution? I thought that barrier has been passed at around 6mp - it's shocking to see how (technically!) poor some old photos (e.g. some 35mm from the 80s in the Olympic Museum in Lausanne we saw a couple of years back) at 400 or even 100 ASA (never mind we use 3000+ nowadays regularly without batting an eyelid..) , but of course artistically is a completely different subject..

We often have this rose-tinted view of how good film was, but get some old examples out and apply the same critical eye and you'll soon see how far photography has progressed.

@Michael Berg. Saying that shooting expensive film forces people to be mindful and precise is not supported by the billions and billions of terrible film images that have been produced.

One can be just as mindful and precise with a digital camera. As a matter of fact, as an architectural shooter with 40+ years of experience, I guarantee you that my digital photography is produced more precisely than is possible with any type of film equipment.

Being able to shoot tethered and examine my lighting, focus, composition, propping on a 17 inch screen, combined with the fact I can make endless fine adjustments (at no cost) until I get exactly what I want is miles beyond what I could do with 4x5 film and Polaroid proofing. Combine that with the fact I can shoot variations and try out new approaches at no cost, and you'll see why I can't shoot film.

@Michael Berg No, the resolution of film is not greater than digital (except possibly the 10" x 8" sheet film). The resolution of film is limited by the size of the grains in the emulsion. Some people prefer to shoot film over digital but it is not because of it's resolution.

@AlanG I agree that of course it is easy to also shoot terrible film images. I have about 500 old vacation slides from my parents attic that prove just that :-)

Still. My point is that if there is a physical cost to taking a photo, then all things being equal, you will be more mindful when you compose the shot. It's just a different kind of photography. The same is of course possible with digital, as we can all see from the careful and deliberate shots by the likes of Thomas Heaton or Adam Gibbs on their youtube channels. And no doubt your own work of course.

There is a lot to like about digital but I don't blame some people for wanting to shoot film for many different reasons.

Seeing how production of Acros II has been outsourced to Ilford, I can see that happening.

The only color printing I ever knew about by hobbyists was done in rental labs such as Photo Workshop near Northgate, in Seattle - where I worked for a time. They had a professional automated printing system. Even then it was difficult without a lot of practice to learn color balance. Virtually all color prints were done in labs.

In-home color printing was unheard-of due to the complexity of maintaining the chemistry, particularly temperature.

Back in the 1970/80s home colour printing was commonly carried out by amateurs. There were various drum processing devices available from the likes of Paterson that made the process reasonably straightforward. I still have some 16”x12” Color prints I made back then.

Home color printing was huge at one time. It started when KMS/Unicolor marketed a "drum" (light-tight plastic tube) licensed from Simmard. Processing took only 3 steps (later shortened to 2 by Beseler since the bleach-fix was capable of stopping development in the same way you can skip stop bath in B&W.)

Since the Unicolor drum was light-tight and had enough insulation to briefly maintain temperature, amateur color printing really took off. And it was a lot more forgiving than developing color film. Unlike early color inkjet, home color darkroom could produce the same results you got from a lab.

"They never seem to actually shoot anything. I suspect many of these cameras are being carried around as fashion accessories!"

That's an idiotic statement. You may not realize this, but a roll of film only has 36 shots. So you have to be very selective of what you shoot. Just because you aren't there at the moment that they take a photo doesn't mean that they aren't taking photos at all.

I know a couple friends who shoot film, and they do the "One Photo a Day" project where you are only allowed to take one photo each day! It's a challenging exercise because you have to really make each image count. I guess a guy like you would see them and complain, "I never see them take any photos! They are just using the camera as a fashion accessory!" What a dumb thing to say.

fredmason:

I see plenty of people snapping film photos with cameras like the AE-1 and the K1000 on the streets of my city.

Perhaps what confuses you is that no one in 2020 would be silly enough to just snap away 5-10 shots in day 3 seconds. People understand, including those who use SLRs from the 1980s or earlier, that digital is much much better and cheaper for such machine gun approaches to image capture, therefore when they shoot film SLRs, they're aware of each bit of film they're exposing.

Meaning: of course you don't see them just snapping away.

Matthew Brady, shooting the American Civil War in the 1860s likely made one or two shots per day.

I shoot both film and digital, and HowaboutRaw, makes a good point. I enjoy the primal process of film form shooting to developing. However, a year ago I spent over six months documenting the restoration of a 1950s airliner to flying condition. Over that period I took just under 4000 photographs and posted frequent updates (with selected photos) to a special interest group on Face Book. Frankly, I couldn't have done that with film, it was all digital. I only shoot B&W film (I prefer digital for color) and buy my film in 100' bulk. Even at that, film would have been too expensive and too time consuming. Unlike, Matthew Brady, I had more options.

I document our hospital construction projects and for that digital is my friend in a way that film never was, both in the volume I need to shoot and for low light.
I still have my film cameras and use them occasionaly because it forces me to be more selective in what I shoot.
Digital changed how I took photos and not always in a positive way, to often I found myself taking far to many photos and the quality dropping because I could fix it in post. I've actually tried to cut back and be more selective lately and pay far more attention to getting it right in camera as I had to when sooting film.

The true cost of digital includes the time spent culling the photos.

I agree with the wise folks above and offer the following illustration. Imagine arriving at Disney World, hopping out of the station wagon with a camera loaded with Kodachrome 64, a handheld light meter, and one roll of extra film from the ice chest. Only one extra because you don't want to expose anymore than that to the heat. Then imagine a day working the zone system looking for flat lighting because the film has a notoriously short latitude and posing shots because 80 ASA doesn't allow for much action. If you fill one roll, you've done good and they will not all be keepers. If that's hard to imagine, try it with a Rolleiflex.

Add an O

DotCom Editor...

It depends on what you are printing.

Text/speadsheets/posters/fliers and similar non-challenging tasks, I'll take $50 per gallon ink over $7000 gallon ink each time.

Snaps to share with others? Same thing...

Prints for SALE?? Best to use BOTH OEM ink AND paper.

Many things are "too expensive", yet we pay for it because we like it.

I'm sure you can still get on the internet with a 1200 baud modem if you are nostalgic about it, but modern gear is superior in every way. Similarly, modern digital cameras are superior to film in every way, both in quality and convenience, but don't prevent you from locking your settings onto one single ISO and stopping every 12 shots and spending $8 on something... if you are nostalgic for it.

EBay has a Mint- Canon EOS-1N 35mm SLR Film Camera w/EF 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 Ultrasonic Lens for $149.99.
To buy a Canon Digital camera & lens with similar features would cost $_____?
That costs difference would pay for a lot of film, processing and images burned to a C/D or just have real prints made to show. There would be no more machine gun shooting with film, that can be a good thing.
FYI: I still shot 4x5" film, the rest is all digital after shooting film for 35+ years.

Actually, I think you will find most film shooters spend much less money overall by avoiding the constant urge to upgrade their gear compared with digital shooters.

I don't know, I still find myself wanting to swap my A1 for a 1v some days....

Amen......I used my Nikon F Photomic Ftn for 24 years without needing to upgrade!

I was out shooting last month and meet a guy who had been shooting many years like me, come to digital from film. He said he couldn't shoot film anymore because it was too expensive. I looked at him and his new Sony FF with a huge mega zoom attached. I looked at my Minolta Maxxum 650si with kit zoom and said "You gotta be kidding"!

Everyone's shooting habits are different. But to many, digital can be way more expensive.

It really does not matter if film costs money. No one save a fool is going to machine-gun with film like they do with digital. Film forces you to be more careful and considerate when composing and shooting. You review your negatives and if you print beyond 4x6, it's only those shots that are absolutely the best. Lastly, unlike digital, the equipment costs to print are cheap. All you need is a used enlarger and processing trays-drums and chemicals. You can print 3x2ft relatively cheaply, unlike if you were to take-on the cost of buying a digital printer that is capable of that. The only really expensive film printing method I remember was Cibachrome. Of course, with esoteric products like Platinum toning, you can rack up a tab, but you don't need to use these products.

Fujifilm without the "film" would be the same as naming their company "Acme". A bland and common name that multiple companies use and difficult to differentiate. It would be like an american who changed their family name to Smith or a Japanese who changed their family name to Suzuki (one of the most common names in Japan). Of course they could revert back to Fujica or Fuji Photo Film Co., but that was only for their camera division and it still has the word "film" in it.

It would sound like a mountain.

evogt500: in fact Fujifilm still does make lots of (polymer) films; mostly for other purposes and so not coated with light-sensitive emulsions!
And yes there are multiple Japanese companies whose name includes "Fuji", and IIRC there is one called just "Fuji" that makes bicycles.
http://www.fujibikes.com

@Inukim But, Acme brand film is highly prized by coyotes.

KodakAlaris, which makes and markets film under the Kodak brand, is not Kodak. It is a U.K. company that uses the Kodak trademark and trade dress under license from the Eastman Kodak Company. Says so right on its website.

@j102030 - they do sell Portra in single rolls and it actually doesn’t make any difference to price. Most retailers sell the 5-packs for the same price as 5 single rolls...

@DotCom Editor - Strictly it is Kodak as when Kodak went under Alaris, which was set up by the Kodak UK Pension Fund, who were owed a lot of money by Kodak (as in $2.8 billion), got the film manufacturing parts of Kodak (and some other stuff) instead of the cash and continue to run them. So it's pretty much still the same factories it always was...

@vcsd ... "There is more to photography than money."

Not to the shareholders, a majority of whom likely do not consider themselves photography enthusiasts. It's way past time to wake up to the economic realities of our modern world.

Most tests I've seen so far show that original Acros and Acros II are not identical. Also, Acros II, while only being sold in Japan so far, is made in the UK so unless Fuji has opened film plants in the UK, it's produced by someone else (presumably Ilford). It pains me to say, but it really does look like Fuji is getting out of the business of actually producing film.

@landscaper1
You live in a country which gave you this opinion in your milk to drink and you grew up with that. While it may have some true point in it it's not that easy anymore. Even more true is that a cameracompany is not only about specs but also a whole package, a friend, for some a religion and they present you something like an ecosystem.
You should ask Leica or Hasselblad for that, especially.

If you feel welcomed and not only part of the shareholdervalue it pays out more than you may get with pure dollarhunting without sense for the people and what *THEY* like. No company can live without customers, regardless of what their shareholders think.

So while I'm also living in a capitalist country (and somehow like the good sides of the system,too), I think life is more complex today than it was a half century ago in an american working class.

j102030: Ilford might finish Acros II 100, but the emulsion tech is Fujifilm’s and possibly manufactured by them.

Either way it’s a Fujifilm product with unique characteristics unavailable elsewhere. That’s why its return was so welcome. The tonality is an acquired taste but the grain is very fine and the reciprocity characteristics are miles ahead of everything else. That makes it useful for a lot of low-light work.

I wouldn’t pay undue attention to random tests on the web, but the datasheets showed identical reciprocity failure. From that I jumped to the conclusion the film was unchanged. Sounds like I’m wrong but I can’t find the Japanese Acros II datasheet again to look at the spectral sensitivity and curves.

The reciprocity failure characteristics might be the same but it might still be a slightly different emulsion. I'm not too invested in it, though, as I've never been too fond of Acros in the first place.

In any case, I wasn't trying to imply that it's a re-badged film. I'm sure it's a genuine Fujifilm emulsion, however, the fact that it's made in the UK suggests that the re-introduction of Acros does not automatically mean there's a renewed longterm commitment to film by Fuji. All that Fuji has done in the past decade is discontinue film products and the fact that their only re-introduction of an emulsion comes with a caveat is slightly disconcerting.

@vcsd ... You speak of the world as you wish it would be. I described it as it really is. When you decide you want YOUR financial investments to pay off, you'd be wise to place your bets on reality.

@landscaper1 is 100% correct. It's good to know that there are actually people who aren't living in economic/fiscal fantasy-land.