Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,568   Posts: 1,573,505   Online: 677
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54

Thread: Fujifilm

  1. #21
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    Does anyone else find it ironic that a company formally titled FujiFILM is advertising digital cameras?
    Actually, no. Not any more ironic than Fujifilm being an OEM for Hasselblad. Now imagine that Fujifilm had bought both the Olympus and the Leica brands. (link, "We make the Fujifilm sensor, software, and all the important components themselves. We also have a very good brand. So why should we put Fujifilm technology in a body from Leica?") Can you imagine the looks on the Leica fanboys' faces when they would be reminded that they are actually shooting with a Fujifilm camera?

  2. #22
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    Which isn't present in the 35mm version of Neopan? Isn't present in any of the Ilford 120 films? Isn't a banned substance in the U.K. where Ilford films are made?

    Do you know which of these apply?
    I have no idea what is actually used in the manufacturing process of the films. Since 35mm Neopan is still being marketed, I'm guessing that the chemical wasn't used for its production. I have no idea about Ilford, either. Do a web search, and there's lots of information about the chemical.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,122
    Ignoring the Ilford part it for the moment it is still a strange one. Having been on the Ilford tour on two occasions my impression was that the 35mm and 120 versions of the Ilford films in terms of ingredients are exactly the same. I'd imagine that if they were different then the 35mm and 120 would behave differently and yet they don't. I imagine the same applies to Kodak films where we have 35mm and 120 versions and yet Fuji Neopan 400 is the exception to rule

    However somehow the 120 Neopan was configured differently from the 35mm version and yet I presume the characteristics of the two films were identical in the same way that Acros 35mm and 120 are the same.

    There are more questions than answers and while I'll look at the info on the chemical via a web search I have a terrible feeling that it won't answer the question of why two films were or had to be configured differently in Neopan's case when in other cases such as Acros, the Kodak range and Ilford range they are the same.

    pentaxuser

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,218
    From memory, wasn't the issue to do with static and the backing paper? Might explain why it doesn't affect 35mm. But that implies that Acros is also affected. Perhaps that film was re-jigged after the global banning of that acid but before Japan signed up to ban it nationally.
    Steve.

  5. #25
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,659
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    Actually, no. Not any more ironic than Fujifilm being an OEM for Hasselblad. Now imagine that Fujifilm had bought both the Olympus and the Leica brands. (link, "We make the Fujifilm sensor, software, and all the important components themselves. We also have a very good brand. So why should we put Fujifilm technology in a body from Leica?") Can you imagine the looks on the Leica fanboys' faces when they would be reminded that they are actually shooting with a Fujifilm camera?

    <*gasp!*> Talk about setting the cat among the pigeons. LOL! The two references to Hasselblad and Leica — surely two of the most hallowed names on the planet (oh wait, there's Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus...) are likely to cause tremors and hissy fits (probably of haut denials, claim and counterclaim). The Fujifilm link is very interesting indeed, ditto the full interview. I wonder if Fujifilm has future plans to acquire Leica? The sensor business is evidently good stuff for the doyen of the little green box. God, I'd love to see the reaction on the faces of those who swear only of the red-dot German marque as much as they swear to drive only a BMW, VW or Mercedes (any variables of which are not wholely made in Germany!). Speaking of which, my brother in law upped his snob appeal by buying, as he puts it, a "beautiful all-German car", a VW Jetta. What the dealer didn't tell him another owner did: it was assembled in Mexico.


  6. #26
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    <*gasp!*> Talk about setting the cat among the pigeons. LOL! The two references to Hasselblad and Leica — surely two of the most hallowed names on the planet (oh wait, there's Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus...) are likely to cause tremors and hissy fits (probably of haut denials, claim and counterclaim).
    Isn't it interesting that in the digital era that the individuality of cameras is label-deep? Not even skin deep! I know that Fujifilm is making Hasselblad's digital line, but I have no idea what else they're doing. I doubt that they'll buy either Leica or Olympus now. Digital cameras are just crazy. An OEM doesn't make a sensor anymore, so the manufacturer has to scramble to come out with a new version of their camera. With film, we just toss in a different roll. The camera is never obsolete, and the sensor is $5. With digital, the whole camera is obsolete a year down the road.

    Such is the path the populace has chosen.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by perkeleellinen View Post
    From memory, wasn't the issue to do with static and the backing paper? Might explain why it doesn't affect 35mm. But that implies that Acros is also affected. Perhaps that film was re-jigged after the global banning of that acid but before Japan signed up to ban it nationally.

    Steve you see the problem I have. Whatever is speculated as to the cause of the demise of Neopan 120 it seems to raise more questions than answers. If for instance Fuji Neopan 35mm had to be reconfigured to meet the national/international ban then having done that why can't it be woven into 120 film? Why is the emulsion for 35mm and 120 the same for Ilford and Kodak and the same for Fuji Acros but not for Neopan 400?

    Or was it simply that despite the mourning that occurred on APUG there just wasn't enough users to justify continuing 120 after whatever was done to make 35mm Neopan 400 meet the new requirements

    Maybe all the Fuji range had to be reconfigured to meet the ban but it caused a review of the profits of all lines and those that failed to generate a profit were simply dropped i.e. it was economics not chemistry.

    With hindsight it's a pity that Fuji chose to make an emulsion with a chemical that Ilford,Kodak, Foma, Rollei etc either chose not to use or were simply lucky enough not to avoid

    pentaxuser

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    ...the cause of the demise of Neopan 120...Why is the emulsion for 35mm and 120 the same for Ilford and Kodak and the same for Fuji Acros but not for Neopan 400?...
    Who knows whether there's really any difference between the Neopan 400 emulsions? Fuji doesn't communicate anything effectively, even when it might actually want to communicate. Perhaps Fuji had one or more thick-base acetate Neopan 400 master rolls from which it's still finishing 35mm product and, when that's gone, there will be no more. [sarcastically insert emoticon for sunny optimism here]

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    <*gasp!*> Talk about setting the cat among the pigeons. LOL! The two references to Hasselblad and Leica — surely two of the most hallowed names on the planet (oh wait, there's Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus...) are likely to cause tremors and hissy fits (probably of haut denials, claim and counterclaim). The Fujifilm link is very interesting indeed, ditto the full interview. I wonder if Fujifilm has future plans to acquire Leica? The sensor business is evidently good stuff for the doyen of the little green box. God, I'd love to see the reaction on the faces of those who swear only of the red-dot German marque as much as they swear to drive only a BMW, VW or Mercedes (any variables of which are not wholely made in Germany!). Speaking of which, my brother in law upped his snob appeal by buying, as he puts it, a "beautiful all-German car", a VW Jetta. What the dealer didn't tell him another owner did: it was assembled in Mexico.
    You're all a little late anyway. Kodak makes the sensor in the M9.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,122
    Well a google search told me that Neopan 400 120 had the offending chemical but as I suspected would be the case answered none of my other questions as to whether other Fuji films were affected and if not why not, etc.

    However google gave a link to a forum in which eventually someone quoted a reply that he after much effort, received from Fuji. It made no mention of the said chemical but did say that it was a question of economics pure and simple which is the one explanation that does fit all the facts.

    Clearly despite the love that afficionados of N400 120 expressed for this film there just wasn't enough of them to make it viable.

    pentaxuser

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin