Fujifilm discontinues its Pro 400H color negative film in 35mm, 120 formats

I see that some Wedding Photographers shooting Provia 400H before, my personal Fujifilm Faves are Acros 100, and Reala 100, a Film that was afaik 2013 being suspended, and i can't afford the Prices to buy fridge-kept 35mm Rolls from Japan.

So i am on the Kodak Train, as before. Pro Image 100 is a cheap Replacement, albeit different Colors, Rendering than Reala 100. Alas, at least Fujifilm brought Acros in terms of Acros II back, albeit for such ridiculous Prices...it costs usually 10 EUR more or less, for one 35mm Roll. Too much, i could buy 3 Rolls of Agfa APX 100 135-36 instead, which is my lowcost Alternative.

Jan 18, 2021permalink

Clint Dunn

My first reaction was, well this sucks...I loved Fuji Pro 400H. Then I thought about it and realized I haven't bought any in over 10 years.

Jan 18, 2021permalink

adubkov

:(((

Jan 18, 2021permalink

tangbunna

DPR "should" acquire the factory and keep the film alive

Jan 18, 2021permalink

Aalexander35

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jan 17, 2021permalink

peter zuehlke

that was my fav color film. guess it's Portra now.

Jan 17, 2021permalink

Swordman

Yeah, it had it's own look. It's a shame, but it is what it is.

Jan 17, 2021permalink

pharoldo

Still mad at them for dicontinuing Provia 400X!

Jan 16, 2021permalink

FoxShutter

It’s always hard to see any of films being discontinued, but Fujifilm are famous for that . For some reason I wasn’t shooting this film stock a lot always preferring the Portras of any ISO. Recently I discovered that Lomography films aren’t worse than others and there’s a variety of emulsions and formats available. There are other smaller companies arisen such as Cinestill and their 800T is very good . So it’s not a big deal actually taking in count that Superia 400 isn’t very different but it’s still available in 135 format only . On the other hand their digital simulations of film don’t come even close to their discontinued films. But for them it’s just business of course.

Jan 16, 2021*permalink

But Lomo emulsions are often frozen old stocks which are sold as is. If those stocks are gone the lomo will be gone. We need fresh film, too. Cinestill depends on vision 3 from Kodak. So let's hope Hollywood continues to use film....

Jan 16, 2021*permalink

I have never seen or heard about a lomography film which comes close to a Pro 400H or Portra....sorry, that is a myth.

Jan 16, 2021permalink

draschan

the silbersalz is actually using kodak vision, unlike the cinestill. I have been using portra160 and 400 both for 135 as well as for 120, never liked the fuji so much for my personal taste. but I understand that is very valuable for many, and the 1 stop overexposed look has become a standard look for creamy weeding. I have used kodak vision back in the day in 16mm and it is amazingk so I can recomment trying the "silbersalz" and will so so soon...

Jan 21, 2021permalink

lotsofsilver

Keep this and drop the instax!

Jan 16, 2021permalink

Caleido

Instax branch made Fujifilm about 3.6 billion dollar in revenue in 2019.

Plus, it's not a money problem, it's a raw material problem, if you actually read the article.

Jan 16, 2021permalink

khurtwilliams

I think your response is a case of TLDR on your part, but I may be wrong. The issue is the sourcing of materials for production.

Jan 17, 2021permalink

RJGee

"availability of raw materials" really says no one buys enough to keep production going. Fuji has never been romantic about their products, just realistic.
There is no "surge" in film sales, just folks who have "rediscovered" film shooting.
The real problem is the lack of quality processing for film products.
Keeping chemical processes in control without a LOT of film to run through them is nearly impossible.
As I worked with E-6 and C-41 labs for over 20 years, the problem then was that "photo labs" didn't treat processing like a science. Most lab managers claimed to have their own "special recipe" for film processing. This usually meant they were often lazy or cheap. It's like they had their own "special recipe" for fission.
Most often, we would go into labs and find they had the Kodak "Z" manual alright, but they were still sealed in the original wrapper and never read.
Even at HUGE commercial labs, the process quality was laughable.

Jan 19, 2021permalink

Caleido

"There is no "surge" in film sales, just folks who have "rediscovered" film shooting."
So.... those people just reuse already exposed film and don't buy new stock? Fascinating process.

Jan 19, 2021permalink

I haven’t forgiven Fujifilm for killing Neopan 400.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Sylverphoto

Shame that Fujifilm discontinues this film. Has this something to do with Corona? Maybe. Because I have shot far less film than I intented to. I am holding a stock of roughly 80 rolls of film. I hope 2021 will be better.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

CaNikonianite

Condolences.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Magnumdarkstar

Ther really is no point anympre in shooting color film. Digital full frame and MF just blows it out of the water in all technical aspects at this point in time.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

moimoi

Congrats, you won the idiotic award of the day...

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Ulrik Christiansen

Yeah, the usual half-witted comment from someone who apparently knows what is best for everyone else. Waste of time, really.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

A few years ago I was shooting colour negative film and accidentally overexposed by three stops. Self developed and scanned, popped them into Lightroom and totally rescued that half of the roll. The result was spectacular and as good as the frames correctly exposed. Very impressive. Do that with digital?

Jan 15, 2021permalink

beavertown

You've got Fujifilm.agree with you.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

@themountainphotographer

3 stops overexpose on negative film is like 3 stops underexpose on your digital sensor. And yes, with good sensors you can pull 3 stops from the shadows. It's a *negative* color film.

Jan 16, 2021permalink

@vscd: I have never seen a full format sensor which shows identical detail and noise in shadows if you underexpose by 3 stops...it might be usable, but definitely not for Fineart prints.

In contrast there is zero progress of CMOS Bayer sensors with respect to highlight recovery since nearly ten years.

Jan 16, 2021permalink

Stujomo

Magnumdarkstar, The reason to shoot film for what it looks like, because it stamps its character all over the image.

Jan 16, 2021permalink

@Stujomo, that’s the best comment and spot on accurate..

Jan 16, 2021permalink

Felts

@tom43 - I regularly push my GFX50R files by three stops in post... clean as a whistle, and I sell fine art prints from the resulting file. Not picking a fight, just stating a fact.

Jan 17, 2021permalink

@vscd, be my guest and shoot at -3 stops then try and recover the shadows to where they should be if exposing normally. Good luck on that, especially if using Canon sensors!

Jan 17, 2021permalink

With medium format sensors @low iso it was no problem. But I guess you got me wrong, I shoot film and know the advantages very well... I just wanted to state that overexpose on negative films is too compare to digital *shadows*

Jan 17, 2021permalink

@vscd, yes, technically you are right. In practise it depends what sensor one uses. I know from experience that an accidental 3 stop over-exposure on film is fully recoverable when scanned. I did even try a 4 stop over exposure but that introduced a cast and other colour shifts that I couldn’t correct right away. I also know that if I shoot under exposing by -3 using my 5DS R and then pull the files back to their correct exposure I end up with a huge bladdy mess. I’ll have to try that with my Sony A7 next weekend.

Do you shoot digital? What film and camera do you use?

Jan 17, 2021permalink

Digital I mostly shoot 5D Mark III, but this cam is not very good at pushing shadows. I borrow the fuji gfx50 if I shoot difficult scenes. With film I mostly use my fuji gx680 or the Eos 1 line... Portra or b/w

Jan 17, 2021permalink

RJGee

"Pulling" 3 stops of overexposure? Why bother?
Go back and shoot it right.

Jan 19, 2021permalink

I did.

Jan 19, 2021permalink

Stujomo

RJGee the idea for overexposing 3 stops is that it changes the look of the film. It gets the film to give the soft pastel look. You expose the skin tone right up on the shoulder of the film, give a low contrast look to the skin tones it also diffuse a bit of detail and softens the skin a little.
This was done with B&W film too. Many portrait photographers would do this to exploit the lower contrast up on the shoulder and the softer look by over exposing the film.
When you print you have a dense negative but nothing that can't be printed.

Jan 19, 2021permalink

El Chubasco

Time for panic shopping

Jan 15, 2021permalink

sprocket-docket

FUJI NOOOO

Jan 15, 2021permalink

hfolkertsma

Noooooooooo

Jan 15, 2021permalink

JustSomeone

Sad!

Jan 15, 2021permalink

User4874739435

So sad. Nooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Wow - deeply saddened to hear this news, as a long time medium format shooter, I really enjoy using Pro400h, and I do hope that perhaps like Acros and Ektachrome, that we see them resource different materials (since that seems to be the crux of the issue) and produce improved, or reissued Pro400h II :) I'll keep my fingers crossed, as there must still be a high demand film wise for the single remaining color film stock vs. Kodak in the medium format marketplace.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

400TX

We can hope...but looking at the revival of ACROS, the sourcing of 'different materials' was less about the actual sourcing of materials and more about outsourcing the production to Harman/Ilford. But yeah, we can live in hope.

Jan 16, 2021permalink

RJGee

What you may think is "high demand" is nothing like what it takes to sell out an emulsion run of film.
You can't make "just a little" film. It's made in HUGE rolls and cut down to roll sizes.
Plus, there's almost nowhere to get decent film processing except places like AgX Imaging for E-6 films.

Jan 19, 2021permalink

NobodyImportant

This is really disheartening. While I'm not an active film photographer, I really enjoyed using Fuji Pro400H.

I'm not holding my breathe for a miracle, but I'd love for this film to continue production somehow.

Seeing the decline of film and camera stores is hard.

Jan 15, 2021*permalink

Natekimphoto

No.....I use Fuji 400H Pro 120mm for my wedding photography. My clients love fuji 400h colours! Fuji PLEASE!!!

Jan 15, 2021permalink

WoifC

This week i got my developed photos from this film. I was amazed how close the results came to the film-simulation of my xt4. With this special touch from my old nikon-hardware. ;)

Jan 15, 2021permalink

farmersteve

Even just a few years ago you could pick up a good film camera and load up the fridge with color film and shoot all day and still be ahead of the game with the money. But now with really good full frame cameras so cheap, it's just not making sense anymore. Color film just doesn't have any advantage over digital anymore. Black and white film is a different story and thankfully there is still plenty of cheap film to go around.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

f1point4andbethere

Oh wow, I thought 400H would be one the ones to live-on. It was the film look that every wedding photographer on instagram was using on VSCO for about 4 years, most of them having never touched the real thing

Jan 15, 2021permalink

goodnitesteve

Jeez louise. I just bought a five pack of 120 at adorama before new years. I was going back and forth whether to try portra or this. Looks like I made the right choice.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Alan2dpreview

For those asking why negative film over chromes: Color negative film can have up to about ten stops of range vs maybe only 5 for Chrome. So in high contrast shooting, the negative film handles the range better. Also, it's easy to clip whites with Chrome film, and shadow areas go black more often. With negative film, you expose for the shadows and the whites have a good chance of not clipping.

Also, this particular film is color toned for flesh. Most Chromes tend to saturate the flesh tones making them look unnatural.

Chromes ISO ends around 100 while you can get higher ratings with negative film. Personally I rather shoot chromes since I shoot landscapes and enjoy the saturated colors more.. I find they're easier to scan since you don't have to deal with the orange mask of negative color film.

Jan 15, 2021*permalink

(unknown member)

"I find they're easier to scan since you don't have to deal with the orange mask of negative color film."

yes, fully agree! I am in the process to digitize my old color slides. Not sure I will also do it with my old color negatives.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Alan2dpreview

Well, to be fair, some negative film is easier to scan than others. For example, Ektar 100 I find it hard to get the color right. However, I found Portra to be pretty easy. I used an Epson V600 with Epsonscan software.

The other advantage with chromes is you know immediately whether you got the exposure right. Since I often would bracket, I could tell immediately which shot was right. With negative film, you really don't know until you scan or print. On the other hand, it has more latitude for exposure errors. There are tradeoffs.

Jan 15, 2021*permalink

Daniel Bliss

Added to which, once the camera manufacturers started to tame their digital highlights a little, a process I'd say began with the D300 and reached maturity with the D800 in Nikon, there wasn't a whole lot to choose between digital and slide, other than that the digital was generally more tolerant of lost shadows.

There remains a huge gap between digital and print film with the print film bringing more to the table on highlights than the digital brings on shadows. Digital keeps up to a point bringing in more and more tonal gradation with increased light and then boom, highlight clipping. Film eases much more gently into that area of highlight clipping, admittedly within certain limits of digital scanning in the event of taking a scan, but with relatively little headache for traditional printing. Perhaps if someone wants to update the concept of Fujifilm's S5 Pro sensor with its additional highlight capture, maybe then the playing field can be truly leveled?

Jan 16, 2021permalink

Daniel Bliss

Also the choice in higher ISO for chrome was not completely absent but it was never that great. 3M had a rather interesting 1000 ISO slide film that gave a sort of hardened impressionist pointellated effect -- think a contrastier version of Georges Saurat's painting "Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte" (the full-sized ten foot version in the Chicago Art Institute, not the much rougher and more abstracted version in New York) --, and there were a handful of decent ISO 400 products, but the real action was ISO 50 to 200 and then of course Kodachrome 25.

Jan 16, 2021permalink

BillyBobSenna

I guess its time to switch to digital. I hear the Nikon D70 is a good starter camera for digital.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

mxx

Never!!!!

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Zograf

Buy D70s, it is a tad better ;)
Yes it was my first dSLR, good memories

Jan 23, 2021permalink

jadot

I’m done with this! I love my Rolleiflex T, and I love developing my own B/W film, but it’s getting more expensive by the day and honestly the advantages over digital are really just personal taste at this point as well as enjoying the alchemy of the process.

I also shoot colour negative once in a while and I prefer the greens on Pro 400H to Portra, although I know it’s on trend to kill all of your greens on IG these days.

I’ve noticed in lock down that even though we’ve all got more time on our hands, that to me the feeling is that Life’s too short to shoot film. I have a romantic attachment to medium format, but I just want to get on with things and film is slowing me down.

It’s my birthday next week, so I guess the truth is that I’m just getting too old to care about being cool over producing content.

I think I might sell the Rolleiflex, and all the film and development kit I just bought when I moved house recently.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Zograf

The same emotions, here. Just started last year with B&W, and film in 135 format is even more challenging regarding final quality.
Encouraging results though & beautiful tonalities, just finalized my workflow with a choice of film, processing & scanning. Will give it a go with some content creation, I'll see how it goes, but ultimately at some point will move on, it indeed slows you down even if it is just a hobby.

Jan 23, 2021permalink

Stujomo

Sad news, its popular among wedding and portrait shooters who shoot film. I wonder if Fuji will bring something else out to replace it. According to the article it was due to difficulties obtaining raw materials so maybe that is possible.
I think this is going to hit those shooters quite hard because it seems as if many were really using the look of this film as part of their style.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

I very much like this film for portraiture photography and personally love the colors over those from the Portra 400. I hope that Fuji finds a strategy comparable to Acros 100 which was also axed because of issues with raw material supply and then re-appeared as Version 2. Color negative film is a growing market according to latest statements from Kodak, so let´s cross fingers...

Jan 15, 2021*permalink

I hope so too!

Jan 15, 2021permalink

entoman

I didn't realise that people were still shooting colour negative. I'd kinda assumed that most film users were shooting slides or monochrome, as colour negative is usually regarded as the realm of snapshooters who have since switched to smartphones.

Genuine question - Who still uses colour negative, and why?

Jan 15, 2021*permalink

Jonathan Mac

For a start there's no slide film faster than ISO 100. It's also much harder to scan than colour negative. And much more expensive, both to buy and to develop.

"Usually regarded as the realm of snapshooters who have since switched to smartphones" perhaps by you, not by anyone else.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

I think the opposite is true, color negative is in far higher use than slide film. There are many very active analog communities, just check out reddit, youtube or instagram: https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/

Analog film is even still relevant in some wedding photography. And people tend to favor the "pastel" color negative look over everything else these days.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

@panther
"And people tend to favor the "pastel" color negative look over everything else these days."

1. only *a few* people
2. Fuji advertises the film simulations available in their digital cameras, so there should be zero problem to get any Fujifilm film type look, if so desired. No?

Jan 15, 2021permalink

@xeppelin
"only *a few* people" not in the analog community. Overexposing some color negative film seems to be the default way these days

"Fuji advertises the film simulations available in their digital cameras" that is like trying to convince the analog community to use RAW presets on their digital images. They 100% swear that this cannot replicate the analog film look. And while I do think you can achieve the look if you edit your images, no default preset or "film simulation" will bring you there if you don't have editing skills

Jan 15, 2021*permalink

entoman

Jonathan - "for a start there's no slide film faster than 100"

That surprises me, as when I shot on slide film there were numerous options available from ISO 25 (Kodachrome) all the way up to ISO 500 (GAF).

Times have clearly changed, as a few years ago serious amateurs and pros shot almost exclusively on slide film, and the market for colour negative was confined mainly to snapshooters.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Joris Mak

I think most if not all film shooters? A lot prefer B&W for different reasons, but I think it's safe to assume no one considers c41 as 'just for snapshooters'.

- Iso ranges from 25 to 1600 and maybe even more.
- Loads and loads of dynamic range, making it forgiving to shoot.
- lots of 'styles' , from punchy to low contrast, from saturated to portrait, from tungsten to daylight.
- (way) easier to develop (at home).
- specially at the lower Iso ranges, doesn't leave anything on the table if you're talking about detail and sharpness.
- most slide film is crazy expensive, even compared to pro negative film (I can buy 3 rolls of portra400 for the price of a single roll of provia100f). This appears to be more a fuji VS Kodak thing, as _any_ roll of fuji is crazy expensive here (f400h was always expensive) because they make so little of it. Kodak has stopped making slide film for some time now (ignoring the newly made e100), because they had little use for it since Ektar exists.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

tonybelding

Don't you have it backwards? I thought slide film was on the endangered list, or at least it seemed that way until Ektachrome came back.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

entoman

Joris - interesting comments, thank you. I've obviously gained the wrong impression and had thought that 95% of film shooters nowadays were monochrome users, heavily into home processing.

I haven't shot film for about 20 years, and back then, colour neg was frowned upon by most serious photographers, who favoured shooting on slide films such as Kodachrome 64, Velvia 50 and the Fujifilm 100 emulsions. At least that was the case in most UK camera clubs and competitions.

Colour negative was of course a far bigger seller - but the market was almost exclusively for casual photographers who only put 3 or 4 films through a camera on holidays. Times and tastes have clearly changed!

Jan 15, 2021*permalink

mxx

Colour negative provides wonderful photos if used correctly. Certainly not just snapshots.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

@entoman
I share your impression re. colour negative vs. reversal film use for the time until around year 2000. In german-speaking Europe color neg film was also mainly used for casual use / snapshooters.

Things have apparently changed since then. :-)

Anyways, mass-manufactured color film - both negative and reversal - and commercial labs for development will disappear quite soon. There will only be a few small film makers and very few small labs. Even darkroom chemicals for home use will become hard to source quite soon.

Film is on its last leg for general photography use. Those wnot wanting to create their images digitally, better start learning how to make their own wet plates. :-)

Jan 15, 2021permalink

ILikeBigBodiesAndICannotLie

Yeah I agree with the above, Negative film is way more popular for reemerging film users, Slide film almost competes with digital via colors and shooting style, so we definitely see more folks heading to color and BW negative for a different capture medium vice slide.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Jonathan Mac

xeppelin, actually film use is on the rise, with Kodak's sales doubling in the last few years and numerous companies, such as Kodak and Ilford, bringing back or out new films. New labs are opening up again in many places. The film photography market is at the latter stage of it's transformation and will grow more before it stabilises.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

viper699

I shoot positive and negative film. Seeing another negative film go, is never a good thing to me.

Jan 17, 2021permalink

Raymond Cho

Slide film at least by Kodak and Fuji the ones faster than ISO 100 have all been discontinued. They discontinued Provia 400F then they discontinued 400X.

Color neg has some advantages for the metering and also it has more dynamic range but I find that with slides is it look so good on the naked film because no scanner can ever get the original. What you see is really what you get. That is you confine yourself and shoot in a scene that doesn't exceed the dynamic range.

For day to day use and having fun and instagram film fun it has to be color neg without restricting yourself when you can shoot slides. Also slide are a lot more expensive to buy and to process now.

Jan 19, 2021*permalink

never cared for the cyan/green tint this stock had but i feel sad to see another film go

in the grand scheme of things it wont make a bit dent but if possible support small film companies such as ferrania, foma, kono to name a few

Jan 15, 2021permalink

ILikeBigBodiesAndICannotLie

None of these small companies delivers color negativ and slide films which are even close to Fuji or Kodak material. Please support the two major players to keep the remaining film stocks alive.

Jan 15, 2021*permalink

that too. keep all of them going.

we have the same feeling about keeping film alive. its just your taste for film color is totally wrong (i kid)

Jan 15, 2021permalink

WiltshireMoonraker59

Oh dear that's a blow for all the retro revivers!

Jan 15, 2021permalink

mxx

Don't worry, we're a hardy lot, and have overcome worst in the past.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Sannaborjeson

RIP very beautiful film stock

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Jonathan Mac

Wow, I have to say I'm really surprised by this. 400H was Fuji's last remaining "pro" film and, although having a "pro" line-up consisting of only one film stock has looked unusual for a few years (since the discontinuation of the also-superb 160NS), I thought that they were more committed to it that they were to their others.

I don't shoot much 400H any more as it's so expensive but it has really great colours. This makes me glad I picked up a couple of 5-packs of 120 in the summer when I got a good deal on it.

I imagine Kodak will react by hiking, yet again, the price of Portra beyond it's already ridiculous current price.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Acros 100 II is also a Fuji professional film, but otherwise you a right.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

David Mantripp

and also Velvia and Provia are Fuji professional films, but otherwise....

(agree on 160NS)

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Yeah this will pretty much give the entire market to Kodak - so they will be able to do what they like - ugh - it was tough enough with only two major players, I hope we see some alternate source materials for a re release *fingers crossed*

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Joris Mak

F400h and provia100f are the only things still for sale here fuji wise.. So that's going to be one less.

They quit superia 100/200 already in most markets 2 years ago, the c200 was already gone when I started with film in 2015. Really only superia400 and 800 left here, and venus800 and Natura 1600 (which are just superia800/1600 for the Japanese market) available if I use webshops from Germany.

They have been leaving the market to Kodak for quite some years now.
But they kept the prices so high they didn't seem to take it seriously (or it was really that hard to make).. Portra variants where up to 3 times cheaper.. No wonder nobody was buying Fuji anymore.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Michiel953

Sad news, but understandable. Used it a lot. Thirty years ago.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

I don't know about the US but here in Europe stores are running out quick. Most are already empty. I just got some of the last 35mm rolls

Jan 15, 2021permalink

PerTulip

I wanted to order some boxes of 120 and my usual supplier has none left.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

My order got canceled even though they said they have some left in stock. Seems I was too late

Jan 15, 2021permalink

solamnus

Also looked last night and did not realize it would go so quickly 🙈😩
And saw several places that had it. Then today all but one was out of stock🙈 ordered from there for dubble the price 3 rolls🥲

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Oh the wedding industry was hit twice this year

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Do you mean most people will chose to not get married until they can get some 400H?

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Exactly

Jan 15, 2021permalink

A wedding without Fuji 400H is no wedding. Most of these negatives last much longer than the usual marriage...

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Most product cycles for bodies are longer than weddings today.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

twinfighter

hahahha... ja that's right. Film negatives and even modern digital cameras last much longer then any love between humans

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Love between humans? How 2015 of you....

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Paul Doe

I hope they start cutting and selling Superia in 120, at least. Otherwise we now only have Kodak colour negatives in medium format. There are motives for which I strongly prefer Fuji colours.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

jnd

Fujifilm stopped producing Superia at least decade ago, why do you think they would start to sell it now? Superia is the affordable brand and in 120 it won't be cheap. Look at any color film in 120, it's quite expensive.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

You can still get across, provia, classic chrome, etc.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Joris Mak

Wasn't it announced like two years ago that Superia (100/200 at least) was stopping?

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Paul Doe

They are still producing Superia X-TRA 400. All they would need is to cut and package it in 120. In my experience this film is not that far from Pro 400H, when I use both in small format.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

I know how you can get classic chrome.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

broodrooster

Fuji Pro film was my go to film,..sad

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Sad Story, Pro 400H is a great Color Film, albeit expensive. If Color, i am usually on Portra 400, or Ektar 100, both aren't cheap, either way, too.

A excellent LowCost Alternative (ISO 100 Speed) is Kodak ProImage 100, costs =< 30 EUR as 5-Pack 135mm Rolls.

Analog Insights Review from Max here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz2h3GKvILI

Good Light.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

jessie123

None of the stocks you mentioned look only halfway similar to Fuji Pro400H.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Pro Image 100 is nice, I shoot with it a lot. But it has far less exposure latitude and the speed can be sometimes a bit difficult depending on the lighting situation.

Also they price has increased quite a bit over the last year

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Brownie3211

Those alternatives aren’t in 120 tho

Jan 15, 2021permalink

To that newbie here, it's pretty much clear, that it doesn't look like 400H, it was about Alternatives, and Kodak is much more a Name for Color into the Film Business, than Fujifilm. As much, as i do like Acros, which is b&w, as you might know.

panther: price here is way stable +/- 2-3 EUR during the past 2 years, its a typical film to shoot on sunny days, but not only.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

jessie123

No need to insult. I'm just clarifying that your "low cost alternative" has both a completely different film speed and a completely different look. Not even close an alternative imo.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

@marc
Where are you located? A year ago I could buy a 5 pack at 21€, now it is hard (but possible) to find it under 30€

At 4€ per roll, the money savings were substantial over Portra or Pro 400h. But at 6€ per roll, it is dangerously close to Portra once you factor in the expense of developing and scanning

Jan 15, 2021permalink

@Jessie, it's not in insult, it's a fact. And few ppl are flaming here really along, without getting noticed by DPR Staff, that is a real insult for the Community, and others.

@Panther: a 5-Pack here costs between 28.xx to 30.xx EUR, usually, so very little variation during 2018 to now.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

@marc Petzold
Well at 30€ it is too close to Portra for my taste. 21€ was a good price 30€ is not. What are you paying for your development to make it worth it?

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Around 5 EUR. I dont know, about all that Price talk for Portra, it's a different league. FYI, a Roll of Portra 160, 135-36 costs me around 9 EUR, whileas a 5x Pack ProImage 100 is ~30 EUR, so it's ~6 EUR per Roll, and thus way cheaper.

I don't shoot much Color via Film, seldom. And i shoot 95% b&w, XP2 Super, HP5+, TriX 400, APX 100, mostly. Got 5 Rolls active currently, into 5 different SLR, Lens Setups. Film is mostly a B&W thing for myself.

Good Light.

Jan 15, 2021*permalink

@marc petzold
In Germany, many "premium" film labs like MeinfilmLab take 15€ for development + a basic scan and 24€ for a high res scan.

My personal favorite lab takes 7.99€ for a basic development + scan and 17.99€ for development and a very high res scan.

So since the price for development doesn't change based on film it can be a very small total price difference. So even for MY lowest possible development cost the difference is between Portra 160 17€ per roll (9+8) or Pro image 14€ per roll (6+8€) is only 18% in savings. For more expensive development that price shrinks even further.

Jan 15, 2021*permalink

Panther, untrue. Pure Development of one 35mm Film via meinfilmlab.de is 7.99 EUR, without Scanning. Just do your Homework better, thank you, you're welcome.

Good Light.

Jan 16, 2021permalink

I said development + scan. Which is probably what most people do.

Jan 16, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

It is normal, chemical photography is a round trip to digital. Only a millionaire could shoot 50 photos a day without ruining your pocket.

Jan 15, 2021*permalink

LightPriority

Hi, not a millionaire, shoot film. Don't shoot 50 shots most days and didn't when I shot digital, am I doing it wrong?

Jan 15, 2021permalink

jnd

I bet some people on these forums with gear addiction spend way more per shot with digital gear than on film. Like buying new camera every two year, new lenses. Each click of shutter isn't free when you count the initial investment. And not everyone shoots 50 photos per day. I'm happy if I can finish one 35mm roll over the weekend.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

I go out three days a week with my GR. I can take 200 photos each outing. That same in analog is economically unfeasible ... unless you keep the reels undisclosed, as Vivian Maier did.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

LightPriority

What do you do with those 200 photos? Shooting film just makes you more selective, you learn to previsualize and decide if something is worth actually taking before you hit the shutter button. Better than filling disk space with images you'll never look at again.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

Later i delete a lot of photos, 80 or 90%, but it amuses me.

Jan 15, 2021*permalink

Tungsten Nordstein

I’ve given up hope with Fuji and film. They'll be nothing left soon.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

yes. Actually I am rather surprised they have continued to make a range of different film types for so long.

Analog photography using mass manufactured films is qucikly coming to an end. No matter whether or not a few people refuse to accept "digital reality".

Jan 15, 2021permalink