dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Apparently - this according to this article:
http://photorumors.com/2014/12/15/fujichrome-velvia-100f-120-film-discontinued/
Official Fuji Announcement translated via Google:
https://translate.google.com/transl...ujifilm.co.jp/information/articlein_0036.html
Official Fuji Announcement in Japanese:
http://ffis.fujifilm.co.jp/information/articlein_0036.html
Note that there's some Fuji B&W paper being discontinued as well.
Cheers,
Dave
http://photorumors.com/2014/12/15/fujichrome-velvia-100f-120-film-discontinued/
Official Fuji Announcement translated via Google:
https://translate.google.com/transl...ujifilm.co.jp/information/articlein_0036.html
Official Fuji Announcement in Japanese:
http://ffis.fujifilm.co.jp/information/articlein_0036.html
Note that there's some Fuji B&W paper being discontinued as well.
Cheers,
Dave
BLKRCAT
75% Film
If it is true its something that I predicted when they raised prices last year.
While I really enjoyed velvia and provia I can't afford to drop $25-$40 just for a roll of chrome and processing. Last year I checked, locally a roll of Velvia was 18.99 plus HST. Processing is around $16 because I need to ship it out.
It's saddening because I do love film. I'm not sure what exactly fuji expects from it's customers. But unless they are very committed or have deep pockets I don't think too many people shoot chrome locally anymore.
There is light at the end of the tunnel for E6 though. Ferrania is doing well and expects to ship its first run of chrome out in the coming year. Ive also read that once they get production up to speed they will start producing chemistry for E6 processing as well. I anticipate a small lull in regards to chrome but once Ferrania builds the infrastructure I hope to be back to shooting it like nothing ever happened.
While I really enjoyed velvia and provia I can't afford to drop $25-$40 just for a roll of chrome and processing. Last year I checked, locally a roll of Velvia was 18.99 plus HST. Processing is around $16 because I need to ship it out.
It's saddening because I do love film. I'm not sure what exactly fuji expects from it's customers. But unless they are very committed or have deep pockets I don't think too many people shoot chrome locally anymore.
There is light at the end of the tunnel for E6 though. Ferrania is doing well and expects to ship its first run of chrome out in the coming year. Ive also read that once they get production up to speed they will start producing chemistry for E6 processing as well. I anticipate a small lull in regards to chrome but once Ferrania builds the infrastructure I hope to be back to shooting it like nothing ever happened.
Fotohuis
Well-known
I do not know if you have acces to the Agfa RSX 200 / Rollei Digibase CR200 E-6 film. It is sold in Holland around EUR. 4,60. Half price then any Fuji E-6 film. But indeed it is old technology not further developed after 2000-2004.
joeswe
Well-known
You got it all wrong
You got it all wrong
now, the facts:
- Velvia 100 is NOT discontinued
- Velvia 100F had already been discont'd in all formats but 120, so this comes as no surprise at all
- I cannot find any mention of discontinued B&W paper in the Fuji source you quote
I suggest you correct the thread title or, even better, delete it altogether before we have another false "death of film" rumour spread over the web.
You got it all wrong
now, the facts:
- Velvia 100 is NOT discontinued
- Velvia 100F had already been discont'd in all formats but 120, so this comes as no surprise at all
- I cannot find any mention of discontinued B&W paper in the Fuji source you quote
I suggest you correct the thread title or, even better, delete it altogether before we have another false "death of film" rumour spread over the web.
^^^ DITTO!
bluesun267
Well-known
HHPhoto
Well-known
+1!
These rumor websites are crap. Permanently spreading false "news". And uncritical photographers joining in.....
Velvia 100F was discontinued almost two years ago (well the discontinuation notice; the film has been available at some distributors until now; Fuji has produced a lot in the last production run).
Both Velvia 50 and Velvia 100, and Provia 100F have got the new packaging design and remain in production.
So you have still two flavours of Velvia!
Do you have the choice of two flavours of Ektar for example? No!!
Cheers, Jan
Fotohuis
Well-known
Provia 400X is a discontinued Fuji E-6 film.
Fotohuis
Well-known
Discontinued:
Kodachrome 64
All Kodak E-6 films
Fuji Sensia
Fuji Astia
Fuji Provia 400X
Hopefully the story of Ferrania will succeed. They will start with a new E-6 film in 2015, however I doubt their quality will be much better then the Agfa/Rollei CR200 E-6 film, technology from over 10 years old.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I find these film threads fascinating! It's a pity that research and development of the medium ceased some time ago and basically we are just holding station with what has been before. I suspect that if digital hadn't interfered we would have some very fast emulsions available by now!
Fotohuis
Well-known
Indeed. We were very happy in the 70's with OrWo UT18 for 1/3rd of the price of a Kodak slide film. Comparing UT18 with Agfa RSX 200, for that time era a fast E-6 film the RSX Agfa E-6 film series were terrific good. And now it is crap because the Fuji Provia 400X is better but Fuji killed their best E-6 (Provia 400X) film this year.
So left Provia 100F, Velvia 100F, Velvia 100 and Velvia 50 (but less size formats) where concerning this thread Velvia 100 is discontinued (or maybe not
).I even can not remember that any film factory is doing some research anymore or even have the possibilities to do real research anymore. Some small factories just are trying to copy old technology in their best way where, the best example is Impossible Project, who are duplicating Polaroid and have producing real crap the last years like Lomograpy. But a loty of people are liking it! So why do not put crap RSX 200 in a Lomo box and selling it for universal E-6 cross processing film which they are also doing!
BTW; a Yellow stain in an E-6 developing result should be corrected by checking the exact pH of the process. So do not blame the film. :bang:
Highway 61
Revisited
I don't see Fuji continuing any film for a long time anyway (just me, maybe).
And I have totally lost confidence in what they'd say in that matter. Some years ago when it came out quite clear that they were discontinuing Neopan 400, as answers to tons of questions sent to their HQs they just told lies to the whole world in order to sell out their remaining stocks, and communicated about the Neopan 400 end of production long after the last batches had been made.
So - having them as the lone E6 manufacturer left isn't very encouraging.
And I have totally lost confidence in what they'd say in that matter. Some years ago when it came out quite clear that they were discontinuing Neopan 400, as answers to tons of questions sent to their HQs they just told lies to the whole world in order to sell out their remaining stocks, and communicated about the Neopan 400 end of production long after the last batches had been made.
So - having them as the lone E6 manufacturer left isn't very encouraging.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Yes, but still available at some distributors.
My freezer is full of it.
One of the best color films ever made.
Concerning ISO 200/24° slide film: Provia 100F and AgfaPhoto CT Precisa are excellent pushed one stop.
Much, much better in all respects compared to the Rollei CR 200.
Cheers, Jan
Velvia (RVP) is a discontinued Fuji E-6 film, too, but I still shot some of it last week. What's your point?
Meanwhile, 19 hours after the thread was started the title is still incorrect. If the OP doesn't get onto this, perhaps a moderator could please?
Cheers
Brett
HHPhoto
Well-known
Wrong!!
Velvia 50 (RVP) has also got the packaging update and is in production in 135 and 120 formats.
Cheers, Jan
No, actually, you are wrong. I said quite clearly Velvia (RVP) NOT Velvia 50. RVP was discontinued in 2007 if I recall correctly. If I had meant RVP 50 I would have referred to it as such. RVP 50 is not the same film as RVP. One is Velvia 50. The other was, and should still be, correctly referred to simply as "Velvia". I added the (RVP) after my reference to provide as much clarity as possible. Clearly, not enough. Peace.
Cheers,
Brett
HHPhoto
Well-known
Dear John,
I am not on such a mission.
But I am tired of the Kodak marketing (and some of the Kodak fanboys) which wants to destroy reversal film as a photographic medium. In some countries Kodak still invests in advertizing to get photographers away from reversal film.
Why want a film manufacturer destroy a complete film segment?
By the way, Kodak started this advertizing already in 2008, when they had a complete range of slide films.
And the same case with Robert. For years now he is bashing slide film in general and wants photographers to discourage using it.
And by the way: I am using Kodak and Agfa slide films as well. And Kodak and Fuji color negative films.
I think in 99,9% of the time I am extremely polite and respectful.
But sometimes you just have to use very clear words.
And now concerning Robert it is the time.
What I do criticise is:
1. His permanent spreading of misinformation concerning some manufacturers, the film market and some film types.
Examples:
- For years he is telling that Kodak will stop production. But Kodak is producing and even reported increasing sales of some film types.
- He is also permanently telling wrong stories about Adox, for example that Adox Silvermax is identical to Agfa Scala, which is wrong.
- He is bashing reversal film in general and often telling complete nonsense about the film type. For example on flickr "I shoot film" he said you can use reversal film only with a complete set of color filters. Total BS. Millions of other photographers have used slide film in the last decades without filters with outstanding results.
In the Netherland analog forum he wrote a bashing post about slide film with even more nonsense, e.g. that the Efke films had higher resolution than the curent ISO 50 / 100 slide films.
That is also wrong. I've done the direct comparisons, others have done it, and all got the results that the Efkes could not compete at all with the current slide films.
And he has been telling that E6 will disappear and that therefore the photographers have to stop using it. With such discouraging (similar to his "Kodak will be dead soon") action you just hurt the market!
It is completely counterproductive.
If a "Digitaliban" is doing that who wants to kill film, okay, makes sense.
But if a film distributor is doing this, he is shooting in his own foot.
Because of this stupid behaviour Robert has in the meanwhile an extremely bad reputation in the industry. The other manufacturers and distributors are only shaking their heads and don't understand why he is doing that.
It is completey counterproductive from a psychological and marketing point of view.
2. His permament praising of products whith second to third grade quality (like the CR 200,the Efke films, Foma stuff), and bashing products of first grade quality (from Fuji, Kodak, Ilford, Adox).
As a budget film option the best advice would have been the AgfaPhoto Precisa slide film. Much much better price / performance ratio than the Rollei CR 200.
But Robert has not recommended it.
He does not offer it.The film selection in his shop is extremely small.
And very important: This "I cannot afford Fuji (or Kodak) slide film because of the current prices" should be critically questioned.
Than you get a different picture.
The facts:
Well it is not so expensive. It is even cheaper than shooting colour negative film.
Because:
1. With a transparency / slide you already have a finished picture you can look at.
With negative film you need prints. And prints in really good quality do cost, which add up in the end to more than the reversal film and development.
And the slides can be viewed enlarged in excellent quality with an excellent slide loupe (e.g. the ones from Schneider-Kreuznach or Rodenstock), delivering even better quality in comparison to the prints.
Some may say you can scan and look at it at a computer monitor.
Why using a high-tec medium like film (no matter whether reversal or negative film), and then using by far the viewing medium with the absolut lowest quality?
That does not make sense.
LCD monitors are unable to show real halftones, the colours cannot really match the real, natural colours.
And the resolution is ridiculous low with 1 - 1,5 MP.
The same is valid for DSLRs: It does not make any sense to spend huge amounts of money for a 16, 24, 35 MP camera, and then only using the tiny fraction 1 - 1,5 MP of it using the computer monitor for looking at the pictures.
Complete waste of money.
(spending so much money would make sense making bigger prints).
2. If you project your slides, you get pictures as big as you want, as big as your projection screen is.
To make such a big, brillant picture of e.g. 1 meter x 1,50 meter cost you the film and development, and a slide mount.
Here in Germany that is depending on film and mounts in the 50 Cent to 1,20€ region per shot.
Cost for projector and screen are negligible per shot, especially over a longer period.
So you get a 1m x 1,5m brillant picture for such an extremely low amount of money.
A print from a negative (or a digital file) of the same size do cost more than 150€ in good quality. And you did not get the brillance and sharpness from the print you get with an excellent projection lens.
So the difference in cost is extreme in favour of slides. Slides are ridiculous cheap in comparison.
Cheers, Jan
I am not on such a mission.
But I am tired of the Kodak marketing (and some of the Kodak fanboys) which wants to destroy reversal film as a photographic medium. In some countries Kodak still invests in advertizing to get photographers away from reversal film.
Why want a film manufacturer destroy a complete film segment?
By the way, Kodak started this advertizing already in 2008, when they had a complete range of slide films.
And the same case with Robert. For years now he is bashing slide film in general and wants photographers to discourage using it.
And by the way: I am using Kodak and Agfa slide films as well. And Kodak and Fuji color negative films.
I think in 99,9% of the time I am extremely polite and respectful.
But sometimes you just have to use very clear words.
And now concerning Robert it is the time.
What I do criticise is:
1. His permanent spreading of misinformation concerning some manufacturers, the film market and some film types.
Examples:
- For years he is telling that Kodak will stop production. But Kodak is producing and even reported increasing sales of some film types.
- He is also permanently telling wrong stories about Adox, for example that Adox Silvermax is identical to Agfa Scala, which is wrong.
- He is bashing reversal film in general and often telling complete nonsense about the film type. For example on flickr "I shoot film" he said you can use reversal film only with a complete set of color filters. Total BS. Millions of other photographers have used slide film in the last decades without filters with outstanding results.
In the Netherland analog forum he wrote a bashing post about slide film with even more nonsense, e.g. that the Efke films had higher resolution than the curent ISO 50 / 100 slide films.
That is also wrong. I've done the direct comparisons, others have done it, and all got the results that the Efkes could not compete at all with the current slide films.
And he has been telling that E6 will disappear and that therefore the photographers have to stop using it. With such discouraging (similar to his "Kodak will be dead soon") action you just hurt the market!
It is completely counterproductive.
If a "Digitaliban" is doing that who wants to kill film, okay, makes sense.
But if a film distributor is doing this, he is shooting in his own foot.
Because of this stupid behaviour Robert has in the meanwhile an extremely bad reputation in the industry. The other manufacturers and distributors are only shaking their heads and don't understand why he is doing that.
It is completey counterproductive from a psychological and marketing point of view.
2. His permament praising of products whith second to third grade quality (like the CR 200,the Efke films, Foma stuff), and bashing products of first grade quality (from Fuji, Kodak, Ilford, Adox).
As a budget film option the best advice would have been the AgfaPhoto Precisa slide film. Much much better price / performance ratio than the Rollei CR 200.
But Robert has not recommended it.
He does not offer it.The film selection in his shop is extremely small.
And very important: This "I cannot afford Fuji (or Kodak) slide film because of the current prices" should be critically questioned.
Than you get a different picture.
The facts:
Well it is not so expensive. It is even cheaper than shooting colour negative film.
Because:
1. With a transparency / slide you already have a finished picture you can look at.
With negative film you need prints. And prints in really good quality do cost, which add up in the end to more than the reversal film and development.
And the slides can be viewed enlarged in excellent quality with an excellent slide loupe (e.g. the ones from Schneider-Kreuznach or Rodenstock), delivering even better quality in comparison to the prints.
Some may say you can scan and look at it at a computer monitor.
Why using a high-tec medium like film (no matter whether reversal or negative film), and then using by far the viewing medium with the absolut lowest quality?
That does not make sense.
LCD monitors are unable to show real halftones, the colours cannot really match the real, natural colours.
And the resolution is ridiculous low with 1 - 1,5 MP.
The same is valid for DSLRs: It does not make any sense to spend huge amounts of money for a 16, 24, 35 MP camera, and then only using the tiny fraction 1 - 1,5 MP of it using the computer monitor for looking at the pictures.
Complete waste of money.
(spending so much money would make sense making bigger prints).
2. If you project your slides, you get pictures as big as you want, as big as your projection screen is.
To make such a big, brillant picture of e.g. 1 meter x 1,50 meter cost you the film and development, and a slide mount.
Here in Germany that is depending on film and mounts in the 50 Cent to 1,20€ region per shot.
Cost for projector and screen are negligible per shot, especially over a longer period.
So you get a 1m x 1,5m brillant picture for such an extremely low amount of money.
A print from a negative (or a digital file) of the same size do cost more than 150€ in good quality. And you did not get the brillance and sharpness from the print you get with an excellent projection lens.
So the difference in cost is extreme in favour of slides. Slides are ridiculous cheap in comparison.
Cheers, Jan
Last edited:
HHPhoto
Well-known
You are right.
RVP (old Velvia 50) and RVP 50 (the current Velvia 50) are so similar (almost identical) that in my daily photography I've never seen a significant difference.
Therefore I've not distinguished between the two.
I thought you meant the current Velvia 50 = RVP 50.
Just a misunderstanding, sorry.
Cheers, Jan
Fotohuis
Well-known
Well, I do not think so. Putting words in a personal way is a manner of impolite and not respectfull for any opinion.
So I will give a small time to delete all person offending things on this.
Indeed: I expect that E-6 is now the first color type film which will disappear, unless Ferrania will do a very good job. But a few years ago I said the same for Kodachrome.
I agree with this. Hopefully Provia 100F will be the last Fuji E-6 film for the near future.
For the rest: Jan I am sorry for you .......
All good. I appreciate your enthusiasm for transparency films and commend your efforts to encourage its continued availability. Makes a very refreshing change from the usual "It's too expensive"/It's too hard to expose"/"It's too hard to get it developed"/"Fuji aren't committed to it" (actually—it was Kodak who weren't committed to it, not Fuji—if Fuji are not committed to it, why are they still making it?) malarkey one usually reads. So nice to find someone so positive about positive imaging...