Peter_S
Peter_S
Fuji is not a charity for film users. Low demand - stop production. Fuji still produces a variety of film, from Acros to 400H, all excellent. They are a major contributor to one of the few current film cameras produced at the moment, and a brilliant one at that (GF670). Not sure how the situation is now, but in 2011/12 the Fuji film line was very present in Japan, including promotion. I have never seen anywhere as much by Ilford or Kodak (do not get me wrong, I like and use mostly Ilford).
I think they (Fuji) do quite a bit for film and probably at close to no profit. Sliming down and focusing the product line is logical, also in terms of being able to deliver, calculate and supply whatever demand is there.
I think they (Fuji) do quite a bit for film and probably at close to no profit. Sliming down and focusing the product line is logical, also in terms of being able to deliver, calculate and supply whatever demand is there.
btgc
Veteran
Film is at stage when they don't need to market it. Releasing tech sheets and listing availability isn't what I call marketing. Film isn't next blingy gizmo they need to pour into brains if someone haven't realized this is what makes him living.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Fujifilm needs to change their name.
FujiCr(a)op.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
I'm glad Im not the only one who see is it this way. Threads on RFF rarely go beyond around 30 posts before the dick swinging begins.
brbo
Well-known
I'd love to see some hard data on how profitable current E-6 and C-41 film PRODUCTION is.
Sadly, selling film at a profit doesn't make film production profitable.
znapper
Well-known
Didn't they do that to Neopan 400 in 35mm _last year_ already??
How many times are they planning to kill it, before they are happy?
NY_Dan
Well-known
Ladies and Gentlemen of RFF we have a winner!
mani
Well-known
Bille
Well-known
JPSuisse
Well-known
I think we just have to view this as pragmatically as possible.
As film consumers, we had better purchase from the companies that look like they are in it for the long haul. From my point of view (and I know nothing about the business side), it looks like Ilford, Rollei, SPUR, ADOX, Fomapan, etc. are in it for the long run. I have long doubted the ability of large publicly traded companies to downsize and make the tough decions needed to address the changing landscape.
Consequently, I focus my effort on using products from those companies. (Right now I'm testing Rollei Retro S, SILVERMAX 21 and RPX100 to see which will replace Plus-X 125.) Practically speaking again, I have limited time for photography. So, if I start to get to know a film or a developer it better stick around for a while... Otherwise, I have to start over from scratch.
That having been said, I still do shoot Fuji slide film and some Kodak Portra.
As film consumers, we had better purchase from the companies that look like they are in it for the long haul. From my point of view (and I know nothing about the business side), it looks like Ilford, Rollei, SPUR, ADOX, Fomapan, etc. are in it for the long run. I have long doubted the ability of large publicly traded companies to downsize and make the tough decions needed to address the changing landscape.
Consequently, I focus my effort on using products from those companies. (Right now I'm testing Rollei Retro S, SILVERMAX 21 and RPX100 to see which will replace Plus-X 125.) Practically speaking again, I have limited time for photography. So, if I start to get to know a film or a developer it better stick around for a while... Otherwise, I have to start over from scratch.
That having been said, I still do shoot Fuji slide film and some Kodak Portra.
brbo
Well-known
I don't even get this post? Making a profit doesn't make it profitable? I don't even...
Maybe if you read very slowly what I wrote?
The fact (and I don't even believe this to be necessarily true) that film that was produced 10-15 years ago and sold today with profit doesn't mean that today's production would be profitable.
Do you... now... even...
?mani
Well-known
I don't know much about fuji's business, nor whether they make any money from their film division, (and tbh I don't buy their films, as I really love kodak pro films) but as far as that first link is concerned, it's exactly that sort of generic 'adapt or die' MBA bullsh*t attitude that got Kodak into the mess it was in when they filed for bankruptcy.
The management was convinced by all the external 'experts' that they had to ditch the 'antiquated' film business, when it was actually the film division that was pumping in profits and keeping the myriad of loss-making digital efforts afloat.
Even when the crunch finally came, and the figures could be studied by anyone, the tech and business journalists were still writing the same inaccurate rubbish - basically because the story is too good for real facts to interfere with it.
mani
Well-known
Maybe if you read very slowly what I wrote?
The fact (and I don't even believe this to be necessarily true) that film that was produced 10-15 years ago and sold today with profit doesn't mean that today's production would be profitable.
Do you... now... even...
So you are claiming that Fuji produced the film they are selling now fifteen years ago? Any evidence for this? I don't get why you are saying it if you don't think it's true yourself?
Btw you do know that Kodak are producing and selling film at a profit right now, as are Ilford?
Thanks for getting me to read your post slowly though - otherwise I might have thought you were making a good point.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Film produced today sells at a profit, the cost of producing the film is factored into the final RRP.
As far as I know Fuji are making a profit, the reason for dropping film may not be wholly economic, it may be that the direction that the company is moving in requires film plants to make other film based products or it just doesn't fit in the product portfolio.
This happened in Tilburg, where the film coaters are now used to make desalination membranes for water purification, some film plants are being converted to make coatings for LCD panels.
It could be film plants although profitable could be more profitable if they diversify into other areas.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Maybe if you read very slowly what I wrote?
The fact (and I don't even believe this to be necessarily true) that film that was produced 10-15 years ago and sold today with profit doesn't mean that today's production would be profitable.
Do you... now... even...
We did and it didn't make sense. Film is stored for a maximum of 2-3 years in deep store, after that it starts to be fogged by cosmic rays so the time it can be deep frozen is limited.
The current stock of 400 speed colour film was coated after the last improvements were made-18 month or so ago.
Fifteen years is fantasy.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, it was substantially self-inflicted. A good few years ago I was talking to one of the major external money-men and he was EXTREMELY frustrated at their inability to understand that film was a cash cow. The engineers at Kodak understood the same thing. Everyone did, in fact, except the travelling salesmen they kept installing as CEOs, who couldn't have run a whelk stall. They all had stars in their eyes about "the digital future" -- and they were too stupid even to cash in on that, given that the first ever digital camera was made at Kodak by Steve Sasson in 1975.
Cheers,
R
BlackXList
Well-known
Any film going is sad news,
I hope Fuji can maintain some degree of film manufacturing for as long as possible.
I made similar statements to this in the Kodak thread, but I honestly think that both manufacturers need to make more of an effort to get their best products into peoples hands.
Sure, there's some of us who will order Pro400H or Portra, Tri-X or Acros by the brick and work our way through it, then order more, but we'd be doing that anyway, (until the prices get too silly).
For a lot of people they think film, and they think of 70s or 80s emulsions, and frankly that's not going to make people want to buy.
If people got to shoot Portra or 400H I bet they'd be shocked at the results, and generate a lot more sales.
Letting people see that film is a competitive option is surely a much better idea than letting it dwindle away until the last few users finally reach the "I'm not paying THAT" for a roll point?
I hope Fuji can maintain some degree of film manufacturing for as long as possible.
I made similar statements to this in the Kodak thread, but I honestly think that both manufacturers need to make more of an effort to get their best products into peoples hands.
Sure, there's some of us who will order Pro400H or Portra, Tri-X or Acros by the brick and work our way through it, then order more, but we'd be doing that anyway, (until the prices get too silly).
For a lot of people they think film, and they think of 70s or 80s emulsions, and frankly that's not going to make people want to buy.
If people got to shoot Portra or 400H I bet they'd be shocked at the results, and generate a lot more sales.
Letting people see that film is a competitive option is surely a much better idea than letting it dwindle away until the last few users finally reach the "I'm not paying THAT" for a roll point?
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Interesting read, it seems that film and paper actually increased its share in the imaging division, the product that caused the loss was the compact digital cameras.
Quote:
"In the Imaging Solutions segment, consolidated revenue amounted to ¥294.8 billion, down 8.6% from the previous fiscal year. Although the sales of the color paper were strong, sales of the electronic imaging business decreased, reflecting the impact of a decrease in overall demand for compact digital cameras caused Fujifilm's Imaging sales to decline"
The biggest increase coming from Instax sales (in the far East) and increasing RA4 paper sales and increased margins.
I guess going by the report, the compact camera business should be wound up (according to the first live business link you posted)
brbo
Well-known
In the photo imaging business, sales of color paper and instant cameras, such as, instax mini 8, a instant photo system, which was launched in November 2012, were strong, while the impact of a manufacturing termination of motion picture film and the continuous demand decreases in the color films.
BlackXList
Well-known
Roger is completely right, the problem with the companies is that they're salesman focussed, rather than product focussed.
Both Fuji and Kodak make some incredible products, and we've established that film can be profitable, and for many is still a competitive option with digital.
Yet at the same time as delivering incredible products, and innovating (Kodak's movie stocks are truly special, and I can only hope that one day we get to use them), they keep making Salesman decisions that undermine their positions.
Firstly why is there such a huge price difference between their consumer and "pro" films?
I don't know how much difference there is in production, but I suspect a lot of the differential is for the word "Professional" on the box.
Secondly, the endless price hikes.
There's also a tier system between where the films are available, lots of places only stock the consumer films.
If you need to increase your sales, and you have some incredible products, why make them harder to get and more expensive? Why not try to get your product into as many people as possible's hands?
I personally prefer to support brick and mortar stores, I will, and have ordered online, it has it's place, but I prefer face to face.
Just before Xmas I had to take a DSLR into Calumet to see if I could get it repaired, I stopped at the film counter there, hoping to pick up some Portra, the film fridges were almost bare (Apart from Ilford who were well stocked.), there was a handful of Tri-X and some boxes of 120, and that was pretty much it.
I asked about it, the response was "No, we haven't got any, They only want to sell it to us by the crate, and we end up having some that goes out of date that way"
So because of a "Salesman" decision they're unlikely to bother ordering any more.
Calumet is a pro shop, and it's always got customers when I go in, and yet I can't buy film in there.
There's another store in the same town that sells a lot of Lomo type cameras, but also has a film fridge. They stock Fuji and Ilford.
A single roll of Fuji Pro400H in there costs £10.20.
So in a very major city I have the choice of no film, or being price gouged for a single roll.
They're making the film, I'm trying to buy the damn stuff, but there's a disconnect between the two because of decisions made at a Salesman level (that are losing them sales).
Kodak's film success was about making their product available to and usable to everyone, now I can't even buy the damn stuff.
Notice how I mentioned Ilford as being available at both places?
Ilford seems to be a very product focused company, they know their product, they work hard on it, and base their additional offerings, and their activities around their product. (processing/printing/pinholes/compiling the darkroom list etc).
The product is at the centre of what Ilford do, and oh look, they're doing well.
The salesmen are (I should say have been, I don't want to write off Alaris) at the heart of the decisions for Fuji and Kodak, and they're screwing things up.
Both Fuji and Kodak make some incredible products, and we've established that film can be profitable, and for many is still a competitive option with digital.
Yet at the same time as delivering incredible products, and innovating (Kodak's movie stocks are truly special, and I can only hope that one day we get to use them), they keep making Salesman decisions that undermine their positions.
Firstly why is there such a huge price difference between their consumer and "pro" films?
I don't know how much difference there is in production, but I suspect a lot of the differential is for the word "Professional" on the box.
Secondly, the endless price hikes.
There's also a tier system between where the films are available, lots of places only stock the consumer films.
If you need to increase your sales, and you have some incredible products, why make them harder to get and more expensive? Why not try to get your product into as many people as possible's hands?
I personally prefer to support brick and mortar stores, I will, and have ordered online, it has it's place, but I prefer face to face.
Just before Xmas I had to take a DSLR into Calumet to see if I could get it repaired, I stopped at the film counter there, hoping to pick up some Portra, the film fridges were almost bare (Apart from Ilford who were well stocked.), there was a handful of Tri-X and some boxes of 120, and that was pretty much it.
I asked about it, the response was "No, we haven't got any, They only want to sell it to us by the crate, and we end up having some that goes out of date that way"
So because of a "Salesman" decision they're unlikely to bother ordering any more.
Calumet is a pro shop, and it's always got customers when I go in, and yet I can't buy film in there.
There's another store in the same town that sells a lot of Lomo type cameras, but also has a film fridge. They stock Fuji and Ilford.
A single roll of Fuji Pro400H in there costs £10.20.
So in a very major city I have the choice of no film, or being price gouged for a single roll.
They're making the film, I'm trying to buy the damn stuff, but there's a disconnect between the two because of decisions made at a Salesman level (that are losing them sales).
Kodak's film success was about making their product available to and usable to everyone, now I can't even buy the damn stuff.
Notice how I mentioned Ilford as being available at both places?
Ilford seems to be a very product focused company, they know their product, they work hard on it, and base their additional offerings, and their activities around their product. (processing/printing/pinholes/compiling the darkroom list etc).
The product is at the centre of what Ilford do, and oh look, they're doing well.
The salesmen are (I should say have been, I don't want to write off Alaris) at the heart of the decisions for Fuji and Kodak, and they're screwing things up.