Fujifilm has come out in total support of film recently at Photokina. Why more people dont rally behind a company that actually cares about film, actually is fighting for film, and has demonstrable commitment to film is beyond me.
Shot today: 2 rolls of Reala, 2 rolls of 400H 2 packs of Instax mini (my son's contribution).
Ratty, it's pretty simple:
1. Kodak has Tri-X, which I know better and like better overall than any other film (though I'm sure I could get along with HP5+ just fine, I like what Tri-X in Diafine does when I need speed but not quite TM...er, Delta 3200 speed.
2. Kodak has TMX and TMY-2. Fuji Acros competes with but is different from TMX. More important is TMY-2. Fuji has nothing (right now) in that speed range in black and white. Ilford is the natural competition in B&W, not Fuji. If they'd start making Delta 400 in sheets again I'd almost certainly switch for my 4x5. But they don't, so I haven't.
3. Kodak has superb color negative films unrivaled by anything available from Fuji. As far as I've found none of the Fuji 160 variants are available in the US any more, Reala is ok but no Portra, Fuji 400H looks like a film from decades ago (which may be ok when that's what you want but doesn't compare to Portra 400) and they have nothing even remotely comparable to Ektar. Further, the films they have that are available in this country, Reala and 400H, are not available in sheets.
Fuji has one (excellent) medium speed black and white film in 120 - the promised return of Neopan 400 hasn't appeared yet - and Velvia and Provia in a couple of variants each. They are excellent films, but they are not competitive with TMY, TXT, TXP, Portra or Ektar.
If you want color transparency Fuji has you covered, which is good since they're the only game in town. Likewise if you want a medium speed black and white film with unusual "orthopanchromatic" color response and the least reciprocity failure around, virtually none at usual exposures. But otherwise, they just don't have the products.
RattyMouse are you a troll?
You posting are often very unreasonable.
I encourage everyone to read all of the earlier RattyMouse posts.
He has many on many threads.
Then you decide if you want to reply to him.
Maybe I am the Troll?
No, he's not a troll. Just massively frustrated with Kodak, I think. Same as half of my posts that demonstrate similar frustration, but are also not trolling.
APUG is all about film photography. As such, the people here can't understand why Kodak does not do the common sense things a film manufacturing company would do to increase sales of their film products. I mean, it seems so painfully obvious what needs to happen, but never seems to happen. Except with other film companies.
It's very hard—almost impossible in many cases—for people here to wrap their heads around the fact that Kodak (or at least Kodak's upper management and board of directors) does not want Kodak to be a film company anymore. They have publicly and repeatedly said this to anyone who would listen for over five years now. They want out of film. And introducing new or updated films in the short term does not change that stated long term goal.
I've posted so many links to these public pronouncements by Kodak's management that I've nearly run out of electrons. But all it achieved was to make people mad. They didn't want to hear what Kodak was saying about the direction it was going. So I don't do it anymore.
But think about it for a moment. If Kodak really did want to stay in the film business over the long term, would they have put their film business up for sale? If so, that would be a mighty funny way of showing it...
No, it's just frustration.
[Edit: OK, just to enjoy one more time being a dead messenger, here's another pretty authoritative Kodak pronouncement (Kodak Continues Progress toward Emergence, 9/28/2012, 7th bullet point, my emphasis):
"Commencement of a process to sell the market-leading Personalized Imaging and Document Imaging businesses, which are not core to Kodak’s future."
As we all know, Personalized Imaging is film imaging. Now I've used and loved Kodak products my entire life. But for the life of me I don't know how it can be stated any clearer than that. And this long term goal has been utterly consistent for the last five plus years. If it looks to some like Kodak is "doing everything possible to kill film," well, you'll just have to draw your own conclusions...]
Roger, Thanks for your reply. Of course I can understand anyone's personal preference for a specific film. My return to film has me without any particular preference so I gravitate towards Fujifilm and Ilford to some extent because these two companies are seriously committed to film. Kodak is not and is instead totally dismissive of film. I am shooting a lot of 400H this week for the first time so I am interested to see if it really looks like film from decades ago as you say above. I declined to use Porta and instead choose 400H. Probably not the best choice for outdoor street use at night, but I wanted to experiment. I have Reala for daytime use. I wanted to shoot mostly Acros but for the life of me I cannot find it ANYWHERE here in Hong Kong. Supplies have completely dried up. I really like Acros so rather than change films, I am shooting color this trip instead.
Great post Ken. Exactly. Kodak is dead set on getting out of the film business and so has totally lost my interest. I rejoined the film shooting world for several reasons. One, I liked the images I was seeing from film shooters and wanted to see what I could do with film. Also, I could see that film's very existence is in trouble and while I am a digital shooter, I wanted to do "my part" to try to keep film going. I want a world where both can exist. So I bought a film camera and started shooting film. I think I have shot 40 rolls or so in the past few months. Not much, but it's 40 more rolls than would have been shot had I not re-joined.
To help keep film going I want to support the companies who wish to remain in the film business. That means Ilford and Fujifilm.
The main difference between Fuji and EK is that Fuji was able to diversify enough that they are financially stable, whereas Kodak wasn't (for many reasons). If EK stock was $100 a share and annual profits were in the billions, Kodak would be able to afford a few thousand dollars to maintain goodwill. When their net loss is almost 800 million, they can't afford to spill out day-old coffee, much less keep coating film that loses money.
P.S. Fuji's discontinued their fair share of films in the past few years. Fans of Neopan 1600, 800Z, FP-100B, 4x5 instant pack films, 64T, Astia, Velvia 100F, and LF Velvia 50 shooters know all too well about Fuji's "demonstrated commitment" to film.