FUJI ACROS 100 to be discontinued?

ptpdprinter said:
I don't think the things you cited annoyed people. Baffled them, perhaps.
Click to expand...

PTP,

I would try to explain to gain an understanding, but it seems my thinking would never be understood, and it sometimes ended in fierce fighting.

Never thought that humans were like animals that have the instinct to herd.

All I know that when film was really really cheap, I loaded up the truck and did something I am very greatful I did. I am now a pround owner of a very valuable archive. Many of my shots are now historical. Much of the redevelopment and gentrification has changed NYC drastically. Much has been torn down.

This archive is valuable because I mostly photographed the neighborhoods that were plighted and were full of urban decay. Now NYC is kinda civilized and sanitized for wealthy people.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
PTP,

I would try to explain to gain an understanding, but it seems my thinking would never be understood, and it sometimes ended in fierce fighting.

Never thought that humans were like animals that have the instinct to herd.

All I know that when film was really really cheap, I loaded up the truck and did something I am very greatful I did. I am now a pround owner of a very valuable archive. Many of my shots are now historical. Much of the redevelopment and gentrification has changed NYC drastically. Much has been torn down.

This archive is valuable because I mostly photographed the neighborhoods that were plighted and were full of urban decay. Now NYC is kinda civilized and sanitized for wealthy people.

Cal
Click to expand...
None of which has anything to do with annoying people. Not sure why you want to portray it as such.
 
Ted Striker said:
Turned off by the price? You prefer to pay more? Acros was the cheapest black and white film from any of the major film producers. All Kodak and Ilford films were substantially higher priced.
Click to expand...

Not where I bought it . Acros was $1.25 more per roll than Tmax 100 or Delta 100.
 
skopar steve said:
Not where I bought it . Acros was $1.25 more per roll than Tmax 100 or Delta 100.
Click to expand...

Never checked B & H? Acros was $23.95 for a 5 roll pro pack, $30.95 for 5 rolls of TMAX100, and $30 for 5 rolls of Delta 100.

As you can see, Acros was far cheaper than either Kodak or Ilford.

You overpaid.
 
ptpdprinter said:
None of which has anything to do with annoying people. Not sure why you want to portray it as such.
Click to expand...

PTP,

Fact was I was minding my own business had to be constantly explained because I would get attacked, questioned, and told what I should do. People were very curious and inquired, and I really did not broadcast what I was doing. Things came out like I was getting good results, or the shot I took made a great negative, but no further development...

I was repeatedly told you need to get your work out there; what is the sense of calling yourself a photographer if you don't post or print; how can you tell you have a good shot from a negative?

I could mind my own business, while others could not. What would create people to get so emotional, unless I upset them? Why would people be so forceful and intrusive?

Really pissed mucho people off. I say I annoyed them. Pretty much it was really one sided with no understanding. My thinking made no sense to people, even other photographers.

Cal
 
farlymac said:
It was Fuji's last B&W film. They also quit making the papers.

Sad thing is they never report any of this until a year or two after they have stopped production, and torn down the machines.

PF
Click to expand...

Fuji's Ashigara site (Fuji's only coating operations for photographic film) which is part of the Kanagwa factory is still using 250 tons of silver a year, so some kind of photographic film is obviously still coated, the only thing is that medical film, Instax and other (non photographic) film are coated all at the same location, so it is hard to tell what the state of "classic" film coating at Fuji really is. I suspect that Acros' demise is maybe not so much a consequence of lack of actual demand (or even red ink) for the product, but the need to free up capacity for other products with a higher margin.
 
joeswe said:
Fuji's Ashigara site (Fuji's only coating operations for photographic film) which is part of the Kanagwa factory is still using 250 tons of silver a year, so some kind of photographic film is obviously still coated, the only thing is that medical film, Instax and other (non photographic) film are coated all at the same location, so it is hard to tell what the state of "classic" film coating at Fuji really is. I suspect that Acros' demise is maybe not so much a consequence of lack of actual demand (or even red ink) for the product, but the need to free up capacity for other products with a higher margin.
Click to expand...

That doesnt make sense. Acros certainly was not in production every day, or even every month. A master roll of that film once made would last a huge length of time. How much production time was lost due to coating Acros? My guess is very very little.
 
Ted Striker said:
Never checked B & H? Acros was $23.95 for a 5 roll pro pack, $30.95 for 5 rolls of TMAX100, and $30 for 5 rolls of Delta 100.

As you can see, Acros was far cheaper than either Kodak or Ilford.

You overpaid.
Click to expand...

So there is your answer. I overpaid at a camera store. I support local camera stores when I can. Saw they had Acros, bought a roll to give it a try, did not like the price and moved on.
 
gnuyork said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PunkFunkDunk
The tonality of Acros looks like digital anyway. No tears from me. (unlike the memory of when Plus-X was discontinued).

Agreed. I've never tried Acros, but from scans I have seen, I never wanted to. Plus -X on the other hand
frown.gif
Click to expand...


You know, I've never understood that sentiment.
Digital?

How?

Too clean? Something with the contrast perhaps?

I've shot hundreds of thousands of digital photos and converted a whole heap of them to black and white too, and I can create just the B/W shot I like from my DSLR, not only regarding to filter simulation, but also to mimicking spectral-response and inherent tone curves, none of them have the resemblance to Acros, at least the output I get from Acros trough scanning and printing.

The resolution, sharpness and detail and shadow/highlight-information from my DLSR's, smacks Acros and just about any other analog product, apart from large format out of the water.

But I like Acros and I shoot Acros and it is far away from digital looking.

What do you guys actually mean by "it looks digital" ?

Do you even shoot digital?

I would love to hear some more details surrounding this, since it is a big mystery to me that such a statement seem to have become a common argument, to explain why someone doesn't like the film.

It's ok to not like a film without any other follow-up you know, but......digital look??
 
Too digital is synonymous with too clean. People expect grain with film, and ignore the other wonderful properties a film can provide. I happen to like the look of acros/tmax, and I love when people deride a film that predates digital for looking "too digital"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom