Fuji film prices to rise

[btgc]

Jan, thank you for detailed explanation. I think I can afford shooting slides at least for summer + vacations.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Photo_Smith, Sarcophilus Harrisii has summed it up fairly well but regardless, when you need something before the post can get it to you, what choice do you have? I'd say the majority of us here buy online in bulk when shipping rates are decent but I know that if I get caught short I'm going to buy local, I'm going to pay local prices and hopefully keep a bit of local demand going. I've had to pay 2-3x "online" prices for some b&w film but I've yet to pay $39.95AUD ($42.90US...!!) for a roll of any film, however one day I accept I might have to. It's nice to know what the going rates are!

I guess here my retort would be 'don't be caught short'. I'll also like to point out that anyone paying $40+ dollars when the RRP is less than $10 and they don't need to is just plain daft.

I can say in 30+ years as a photographer I've never found myself in a position where the fridge is bare, I think forward planning and basic intellegence should see you're never caught out.
Having to pay 2-3x times because you've run out of film is just down to being disorganised, hard to think how that could happen...

I'd take the opposite view on buying locally as well. I'm never going to buy a product (any product) that I can buy at 5x less cost somewhere else! That isn't 'paying the going rate' or 'supporting local business' that's just plain price gouging and being taken for a ride.
I suppose being Australian gives you that 'gotta pay' mentality because you're used to being ripped off, here in the UK I can order from anywhere within the EU fast and reliably (normally (24h-48h) and because people don't pay or aren't willing to pay high costs that helps keep prices down locally, hence why in my city prices are less than 10-15% more than online.
Just use your common sense-don't pay though the nose!

 

[mwoenv]

Some past film prices I found:

Sears 1956, Tri-X 135-36: $1.10 (= $9.30 in $2012)
Adorama 1978, Tri-X 135-36: $1.25 (=$4.41 in $2012)

Escalation based on the U.S. Consumer Price Index.

While I don't like the increases in film prices, they aren't crazy.

 

[semilog]

Some past film prices I found:

Sears 1956, Tri-X 135-36: $1.10 (= $9.30 in $2012)
Adorama 1978, Tri-X 135-36: $1.25 (=$4.41 in $2012)

Escalation based on the U.S. Consumer Price Index.

While I don't like the increases in film prices, they aren't crazy.

Absolutely right.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I can say in 30+ years as a photographer I've never found myself in a position where the fridge is bare, I think forward planning and basic intellegence should see you're never caught out.
Having to pay 2-3x times because you've run out of film is just down to being disorganised, hard to think how that could happen... . . .

You presumably never spent much time in India as a young man. On later trips I'd take a WILD excess and give away the spare film to Tibetan friends working for the cause.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Nope I've been many places and never run out of film, petrol, food or clean water. I always prepare myself for every eventuality, film, batteries and cameras are included.

There are obviously places on this earth where products are rare, but in this day and age the internet and delivery services mean that few such places exist.
Metropolitan areas in Australia are not as remote as Kharkhorin so there should be no excuse in paying $40 for a roll of 35mm film.

 

[goo0h]

Ha. Just saw this thread. Well, I guess the joke is on me. I have a bran new FujiFILM GF670 on the way! Oh well, admittedly the film I bought with it wasn't Fuji, but some Kodak and Ilford.

 

[HHPhoto]

Jan, thank you for detailed explanation. I think I can afford shooting slides at least for summer + vacations.

You're welcome.

May I suggest to think about the topic this way:
If you can afford color negative film, you can also afford color slide film.
Because often color slide film is even cheaper if you look at "the whole package":
With slide film you already have a finished picture which is ready to be viewed:
- you can hold it against the light and enjoy it
- even much better you can use a lighttable and an excellent slide loupe (e.g. from Rodenstock, Schneider-Kreiuznach or Peak) and can view it enlarged in excellent quality
- or for the best enjoyment you can project it in unsurpassed quality on a big screen.

The developed slide film is a finished product to be viewed.

That is not possible with color negative film. Looking at a color negative is useless.
Color negatives have to printed, that's what they've be designed for.
But prints in very good quality do cost something.
If I look at the prices for quality prints here it is in 35 - 50 Cent range for a 10x15 cm or 13 x 18 cm print.

Adding up all these costs result in shooting slide film being cheaper than shooting color negative film with prints.

Now some of you may say I could use only development + scan, and viewing the pictures on a computer monitor.
But does that make sense from a quality standpoint for a filmshooter?
No, not at all.
Film is an excellent high quality high resolution medium. With scanning we loose lots of the detail of the film.
And viewing on a computer monitor further decreases the quality to a great extend: Resolution is down to a ridiculous low 1 - 2 MP, and color rendition and tonality cannot compete at all with a slide or a quality print (by the way, the same is valid for a digital shooter's workflow: paying lot of money for a 18, 24, 35 MP camera, and then only viewing the pictures on the 1-2 MP computer monitors is nonsense, too).

Cheers, Jan

 

[Skiff]

Hi friends,

some thoughts about that topic:

1. There is no reason to bash Fujifilm. If we want our film products we have to pay fair prices, with which the manufacturers can cover their costs and can operate the factories on a profitable level.

And, due to my distributor also Kodak, Ilford, Agfa-Gevaert have announced higher prices this year. So it is not only Fuji.
Foma already has increased prices significantly.
Adox will probably follow, especially as Mr Böddecker, the CEO of Adox permanently in his own German forum is lamenting about film prices being much too low, and that at that low prices the manufacturers cannot be profitable with their film products.
That is the main reason why his AP 400 film project is cancelled, because at that low market price level the production is not profitable.

2. I very well remember two / three years ago when Ilford raised its prices for film and paper so much that they became the manufacturer with the highest prices, much higher than Kodak and Fuji.
People also complained at that time, bashing Ilford and saying that Ilford by this strategy is pricing itself out of the market.

But what happened: Just the opposite! By this Ilford had strengthened its position and last year they reported incresing sales and profit.

So it looks like Fujifilm has learned from Ilford and copied their strategy.

3. Just some months ago the CEO of Fujifilm explained in an interview that Fujifilm will continue to produce photo film. But also that it is absolutely neccessary that the film production must be profitable for that, means the prices have to be increased.
Just the same what Simon Galley of Ilford / Harman Technologies has said about Ilford's price increase.

4. Despite the digital tsunami and all the problems film manufacturers have Fujifilm has been successful for almost a decade offering extremely low prices, often they have been the one with the cheapest prices.
Unfortunately that is not possible anymore. The current production costs cannot be covered by these extremely low prices. Fuji must raise prices to cover their costs.

We should be thankful that Fuji has offered us such very low prices for such a long time, despite all problems.

5. The alternative to higher prices is simply the Kodak strategy:
To discontinue products.
And only keeping some high volume, mass products in the programme.

But Fujifilm keep some excellent lower volume products in the programme:
Like peel apart instant film, color reversal film, and niche products like Superia 1600 and X-Tra 400 120.

Honestly, I much prefer this Ilford and Fuji strategy, paying a bit more but actually having the products I need, instead of the Kodak strategy of stopping production of lower volume items.

6. If I compare the current prices after the increase to what I've paid 30 years ago, and consider inflation, than I still do not pay more today compared to the time I started photography.

7. The future is in our hands: The more film we shoot, the more we get further photographers interested in film photography (spread the word on the benefits of film), the higher the demand will be and the more stable the prices could be.

Cheers, Jan

Very good analysis, Jan.
Well said.

 

[Skiff]

You're welcome.

May I suggest to think about the topic this way:
If you can afford color negative film, you can also afford color slide film.
Because often color slide film is even cheaper if you look at "the whole package":
With slide film you already have a finished picture which is ready to be viewed:
- you can hold it against the light and enjoy it
- even much better you can use a lighttable and an excellent slide loupe (e.g. from Rodenstock, Schneider-Kreiuznach or Peak) and can view it enlarged in excellent quality
- or for the best enjoyment you can project it in unsurpassed quality on a big screen.

The developed slide film is a finished product to be viewed.

That is not possible with color negative film. Looking at a color negative is useless.
Color negatives have to printed, that's what they've be designed for.
But prints in very good quality do cost something.
If I look at the prices for quality prints here it is in 35 - 50 Cent range for a 10x15 cm or 13 x 18 cm print.

Adding up all these costs result in shooting slide film being cheaper than shooting color negative film with prints.

Now some of you may say I could use only development + scan, and viewing the pictures on a computer monitor.
But does that make sense from a quality standpoint for a filmshooter?
No, not at all.
Film is an excellent high quality high resolution medium. With scanning we loose lots of the detail of the film.
And viewing on a computer monitor further decreases the quality to a great extend: Resolution is down to a ridiculous low 1 - 2 MP, and color rendition and tonality cannot compete at all with a slide or a quality print (by the way, the same is valid for a digital shooter's workflow: paying lot of money for a 18, 24, 35 MP camera, and then only viewing the pictures on the 1-2 MP computer monitors is nonsense, too).

Cheers, Jan

+1.
Exactly that.
The main reason why I love shooting slide film is the outstanding picture quality, especially with projection.
Slide projection is absolutely unsurpassed. I've compared it several times with the current, most expensive beamers. No chance at all for the beamers: They fail in resolution and color rendition. Projected slides are much much better!

But beside the image quality aspect, another reason is that slide film + development is cheaper than negative film + development + quality prints.

 

[Tijmendal]

Some past film prices I found:

Sears 1956, Tri-X 135-36: $1.10 (= $9.30 in $2012)
Adorama 1978, Tri-X 135-36: $1.25 (=$4.41 in $2012)

Escalation based on the U.S. Consumer Price Index.

While I don't like the increases in film prices, they aren't crazy.

I think it would be more interesting to look at the prices in the high times of film. I haven't been shooting for film for that long, but I imagine in the late 90's and early 2000's film was MUCH cheaper than it is now. Both to buy and to process, because EVERYONE was shooting on film still.

Do any of the ol' guns know the prices of popular films back in the late 90's and early 2000's? I imagine it must've been <2$ for most, right?

 

[Addy101]

In early 2000's everybody was shooting crappy digital P&S which I didn't understand :bang:

The height of film was mid-eighties to mid-nineties. By the mid-eighties using cameras was as easy as the Kodak advert and with the advent of autofocus even focussing was easy. And, also very important, by then most families in Europe and North-America could afford a camera.

The 1978 price is revealing though, it seems prices went up as more people were buying film - supply and demand!

 

[HHPhoto]

@ Skiff: Thank you very much for the compliments, you're welcome.

@Tjimendal: I've been into photography for some decades now, and I have still some invoices, catalogs etc. from the former times.
Well compared to the mid-nineties (prices here in Germany)

- film development by labs is still cheaper today, considering inflation is calculated, both E-6 and C-41

- photo chemicals for self development (BW, C-41 and E-6) are significantly cheaper today

- RA-4 color negative paper is much cheaper today

- prints from the big labs on RA-4 are much cheaper today

- BW paper is a bit higher today (Ilford is significantly higher, Foma and Adox only a bit higher; inflation is calculated)

- Films: mixed situation; some films are on a comparable level, some are even cheaper today (e.g. drugstore housebrand films), and some are a bit more expensive (e.g. professional films).

You are a young guy of 22 years. When I was at that age and studiyng at the university, all in all film photography was a bit more expensive than today. Nevertheless I had no problems at all to afford it.

Film photography today is not very expensive.
And don't forget that you can get excellent professional camera gear for almost free today (a F100 is now sold for ridiculous low 200€ !)

@ Addy101:
The record years in photo film sales had been 1999 and 2000, with about 3 billion photo films sold. From 1990 to 2000 there has been an increase in film sales of about 40%, mostly due to the growth in developing countries, especially Asia, and the fall of the 'iron curtain'.

Cheers, Jan

 

[ZeissFan]

Without knowing the amount of the increase, it might be premature to sell off your film gear (probably, at a loss) and buy fully into digital so you can avoid a one dollar/pound/euro or more increase per roll.

This is a bit of "the sky is falling."

Again, photography is not an inexpensive hobby, so you either put your money into film, digital or both.

By the way, I'll be looking forward to the next wave of camera sales as more folks "go digital," should you folks follow through on your pledges.

Just bought a Kodak Chevron for $50, although this wasn't a film gear dump. Just an old camera. It even had a spider's nest in the case.