Interesting news about Fujicolor Pro

[marylandphoto]

Wasn't RVP50 discontinued due to environmental issues as well? The resulting freak out eventually getting it brought back as RVP100?

Meanwhile, silicon wafers, cellphones, and circuit boards are being dumped into rivers in China as world-wide consumers throw away their obsolete electronics.

Yes, and then a "new" Velvia 50 (but you already knew that). FWIW, I've shot Velvia 100 since then and haven't looked back.

I have film cameras going back decades that still work fine and provide as much fun as when I got them, but my point and shoot d*****| camera from a few years back is already obselete (read: barely works); memory cards must be bought used, and they're few and far between. It's only a matter of time before our televisions, cameras, computers, music players, DVD players, personal files, and livelihoods all get removed from the physical world, chopped into 0s and 1s, and "resampled" as one giant centralized "thing", that we'll just throw away when THAT becomes obslete...oh wait, it's already happening... http://www.apple.com/ipad/ :rolleyes:

[Anon Ymous]

No, it is said that the original Velvia was discontinued because of lack of specific raw ingredient(s). After the reformulation took place, it was available again as RVP50.

[2F/2F]

When looking at the digital landscape today (kind of looks like scorched earth!), it's clear that 35mm has been bested completely.

I see what you are saying, and I agree that I would rather have 120 stay than 35mm (for color only, the opposite for black and white), however, you are making a strictly "on paper" technical argument, assuming that everyone wants "better" technical qualities, with no criteria named for what your definition of "better" is. It is a vapid judgment that is not based on what each of us wants from our actual photographic work, but on generalized technical definitions and specifications. No digital camera will ever look like 35mm film. Ain't gonna happen. Better on paper in a technical sense, sure (some day), but not better period. Digital will have to be the replacement, but when it is, our pictures will never look quite the same again.

Ironically enough, the DSLRs that in my eyes looked the most like film (c. 2001 - 2004) have been replaced by four or five successive generations by this point. I have everything I need to blend film and digital work near seamlessly in the same portfolio using my Canon 10D. The addition of higher and higher ISOs is nice, however, and will be the main reason that I "upgrade", when I do (with higher resolution and a hopefully quicker and darker-usable autofocus being the two others). Other than that, I'll just say, "Someone call me when you have an affordable DSLR that matches or exceeds the dynamic range and exposure latitude of a negative, that has a sensor that is programmable to have different curves upon capture of the image (like you can with a negative), not via software after the fact, that comes in a solid, simple, and longtime-usable package like the Canon F-1 or Nikon F, and programmable grain structures and other individual film characteristics." Basically, give me everything I have with film, just make it digital.

[marylandphoto]

you are making a strictly "on paper" technical argument, assuming that everyone wants "better" technical qualities,

That's why I shy away from those arguments. Too many people looking at it from a black and white perspective.

[mikebarger]

It's like CD's, I'd much rather listen to my 10 inch reel system.

Mike

[nsouto]

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/fujifilm_retires_three_films/

Does anyone know if this press release is real? If it is, then it is definitely not as bad as we originally thought.

Precisely! I'd suggest folks wait for a little while before singing the usual "death of film" song.

Precisely because of the above. The internet being the source of false information it is, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the real story was quite different than the worst case scenario.

Let's not panic just yet. And please go out and buy and freeze some Astia in 135 and 120 sizes! I know I'll be doing just that.

[guyjr]

That's why I shy away from those arguments. Too many people looking at it from a black and white perspective.

And I will too... I thought better of making that statement a few minutes after posting, and didn't mean to imply that digital was a 100% replacement for 35mm film (or any film for that matter). The only point I was really trying to make was, if given a choice between 35mm and 120 surviving long-term, which one would I choose?

[guyjr]

Precisely! I'd suggest folks wait for a little while before singing the usual "death of film" song.

Precisely because of the above. The internet being the source of false information it is, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the real story was quite different than the worst case scenario.

Let's not panic just yet. And please go out and buy and freeze some Astia in 135 and 120 sizes! I know I'll be doing just that.

Amen... Fuji themselves have not posted anything official on their sites, so it is not time to panic. yet. :)

[BetterSense]

"Someone call me when you have an affordable DSLR that matches or exceeds the dynamic range and exposure latitude of a negative, that has a sensor that is programmable to have different curves upon capture of the image, not via software after the fact (like with a negative), that comes in a package like the Canon F-1 or Nikon F, and programmable grain structures and other individual film characteristics."

People have been saying similar things for years. First it was "call me when it has enough resolution for an 8x10" then it was "call me when it can be shot at iso 3200" then it was "call me when the cameras cost less than $800".

For me, I simply don't care how good digital gets. It can never be anything better than fake film. I don't care how good of fake film it is, or how indistinguishable, or how just as good. When I can get an 8734megapixel camera in a package of cracker jacks, I still won't really care. Film is not a means to the end of "looking like film". If it was I would already be shooting digital and photoshopping film rebates and grain masks. Making film-based photographs is an end in itself for me, not some kind of elaborate photoshop plugin. If I can't put Tri-X in the goddamn thing, I don't want it.

[2F/2F]

I have been saying the same since film started going way, and I mean it. If digital was ever able to give me exactly what I can get now (NOT something "better", NOT something "newer", NOT something "more advanced", NOT something "more convenient", NOT something "cheaper", NOT something "easier", but EXACTLY what I get with fim........), I would have no problem with not using film. The reason I use film is because it is superior in almost every way for the pictures I want to print.

Color film will be gone long before "my" digital camera comes along.

[mikez]

I have sent my docs to PE and he will confirm that this is not a rumor. The OP is correct.

[marylandphoto]

I have been saying the same since film started going way, and I mean it. If digital was ever able to give me exactly what I can get now, I would have no problem with not using film. The reason I use film is because it is superior in almost every way for the pictures I want to print.

Color film will be gone long before "my" digital camera comes along.

You, sir, are 110% along the lines of my thinking. I wish other people saw it the same way.

[mikez]

agree with you guys 100% when i found out the OP was right i called so many friends who were very upset with the news. it seems like i know a lot of people who shoot film, but in the grand scheme of things its not that many

[Photo Engineer]

I can confirm what others have said or alluded to here. There are 43 individual Fuji products being discontinued with 16 suggested replacements. The replacements seem to be confined to sheet film where 20 sheet boxes replace 10 sheet boxes. This change takes effect this month for most items.

PE

[clayne]

Okay, so what I'm hearing here is that there is a more complete list and we're not going to be told what it is because it was sent in e-mail to distributors? How does that work out?

[Ektagraphic]

I have been saying the same since film started going way, and I mean it. If digital was ever able to give me exactly what I can get now (NOT something "better", NOT something "newer", NOT something "more advanced", NOT something "more convenient", NOT something "cheaper", NOT something "easier", but EXACTLY what I get with fim........), I would have no problem with not using film. The reason I use film is because it is superior in almost every way for the pictures I want to print.

Color film will be gone long before "my" digital camera comes along.

I agree 200%!

[Michael W]

One thing I've learned from this - Fuji are not very good at communication. Everything we're hearing is second hand (ie not direct from Fuji) & contradictory - films are being discontinued & gone forever, or, some lines are being rationalised for changing market conditions. The end result has been a lot of confusion & fear (ie that 'my' favourite emulsion might disappear).

Seriously Fuji, can't you make some sort of clear & official media release to avoid this sort of situation?

[mikebarger]

And if they did what would you do different? Just curious.

Mike

[Photo Engineer]

Well, when Kodak cancelled many products a few months ago, they did 3 things.

1. For Kodachrome, they called in a group of prominent analog photographers and APUG members for a tour of Kodak Park and then they gave them the information and permission to release it on a given date with details.

2. For the other products they sent a list to dealers that was free for dissemination.

3. They published all of this on their web site.

The result was a series of negative comments about Kodak and the way they handled it. Now, we have Fuji doing a far worse job and I guess, to be fair, my comment would have to be more negative about this situation than the Kodak cancellations!

Of course, it could be like the Konica or Agfa situations where in the case of Konica they were there one day and gone the next (so to speak) or Agfa where no one knows yet what is going on...... ;) (kinda - almost - maybe depending on whether you are in Leverkusen, Morstel or Wolfen? IDK)

PE

[Ken Nadvornick]

Film is not a means to the end of "looking like film"... Making film-based photographs is an end in itself for me, not some kind of elaborate photoshop plugin. If I can't put Tri-X in the goddamn thing, I don't want it.

Damn, sir.

That may be the best quote I've yet seen on APUG - or anywhere else. I may have to offer royalties for permission to use this... ;)

Ken