Fuji to increase the price of film on May 20th

By PR admin | Published: April 24, 2012

Starting May 2012 Fuji will raise the price of film. The price increase will be "substantial" and in some cases would be in the double digits. The impacted films are: color negative films, color reversal films, black and white films, and quick snap. Read the entire statement on fujifilm.com. You you are using Fuji film, you better stack up - see the current Fujifilm selection at B&H.

Related posts:

  1. Fujifilm’s 20% price increase on films now official in the USA
  2. Kodak to increase the price of all its films by 15%
  3. Fuji to increase prices of photo paper
  4. Fujifilm discontinues three compact film cameras
  5. Sony lens price increase coming on April 1st in the US

This entry was posted in Fuji and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://www.jsvfoto.com jsvfoto

    Another nail in the coffin for this once wonderful medium. I think those who said it’s going to become a niche/kitsch thing are right.

    • lynn

      with koadk out, fuji can charge anything they want

      • anon

        kodak is not out. I use brand-new kodak film every day.

    • anon

      …the trajectory will likely follow that of LP and CD…

  • Rich in TX

    not all film is made by Kodak and Fuji.

    • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

      I’m looking for high quality 8×10, 4×5 and 120 color reversal film. Any alternatives to Fuji and Kodak? :D

  • http://photoartbymark.zenfolio.com photoartbymark

    switched to digital cheaper in the long run

    • scurvy hesh

      Used FE2 with 50mm 1.4 lens. $220.00. Used Pakon F135 Scanner (with XP box) 900.00. A years worth of film and processing (with develop only) $500.00. Getting better resolution and dynamic range for far less than a 5dMkIII, Priceless…

      Fact is film can be very economical if you know what your doing and dont constantly shoot at 8fps. For those who have never used film, perhaps you should take some time with a camera that doesn’t let you look at the screen after every shot. That and limiting your days shooting to a couple of rolls means you think about your composition and exposure a lot more than you do with the DSLR.

      So don’t discriminate. Get an old SLR and shoot like a boss. IT WILL MAKE YOU A BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER. I promise!

      • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

        You can’t get better resolution from film than from digital for the same size. Not with a drum scanner. Not even in theory. That’s overly romanticising the whole thing.

        This sort of crappy advice is what make people hate film in the first place because their hopes are built up of something magical and it’s only in the subjective eye of hippies carrying old FMs and OMs.

        It’s not like all digital cameras are the same but people buy everything from low quality P&S to DMF, right? So why not film? Film has a look that’s different, for the same size and in some ways it’s better:

        http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/6147351879

        When you increase the size of the film it can capture better resolution than the tiny digital sensors we have today:

        http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/6806479707

        But not when the sizes are the same. Please get the facts right if you care about the subject.

        • scurvy hesh

          Hey Shooter

          Way to take one comment out of what I said about the economics of shooting film vs digital (which is still correct) to self promote your little test.

          I’m trying to inspire people not put them down like you bro. Perhaps my comment on resolution veered towards hyperbole (hey politicians get away with it) but the fact is a well shot and properly scanned transparency will still go head to head with ANY pro Dslr that isn’t the D800 ;) -. Dynamic range and the “look” of film when enlarged will still be more appealing that digital to the human eyes. Especially in high contrast situations. Perhaps at absolute resolution you may be right. But when you look at them both in real life in print you know what exactly what I’m talking about.

          But that’s not even what I was getting at shooter. I’m talking about the economics of film here. Fact is everyone is in this stupid race to get the latest and greatest DSLRs and we are just barley hitting parity. When you look at all the money we spend on the latest cameras because “Its still cheaper than shooting film” we forget all the expenses we incur trying to keep up with the Genos. Look at what I have bought since I went primarily Digital, and I KNOW that I’m not alone…

          Nikon D1: $5000.00 Banding and shitty color. Why oh why???
          D1x: $5400.00 A great improvement, still lo0ks like digital
          Nikon D70s: $1900.00 still surprisingly decent imager but nowhere near the resolution of film.
          Used DCS760: $1500.00: A sluggish noisy brick. Clearly I was a glutton for punishment because I bought two.
          D2H:$3500. Fun to shoot , Below ISO 400. Anything above had banding and terrible noise. Total fail
          Fuji Finepix S3: $2000.00 Some of the best out of camera Jpegs that I can remember. Perfect for events. SLOW ONES. Still a glutton for punishment.
          D90 $750 (used) : A great camera but still not quite there.
          1DS $1000.00 (used) bought on a lark to mate up with the 100 F2 I repaired. Beautifully built camera but with faults. in controlled lighting it was wonderful but not the greatest in the real world lighting.
          D7000 $1200.00 my current “stop gap” camera. Everything all the previous DX cameras should have been but weren’t. Cant really bag on this one. The only drawback for me is that its not full frame.

          Do I even need to add that up? I could buy film, process with develop only, to scan for the next ten years and still not come to what I spent on those anachronisms. If I really want to enlarge, guess what? I have a negative! Film is very viable Geno and apparently you see that too. Because you clearly shoot plenty of it.

          This race for the latest digital is a consumerist disease. I have been buying camera after camera trying to chase something that was always there in my closet. It wasn’t until I started going film heavy again the last couple of years that I remembered what got me into this. You can try to dismiss that as “hippie” but I shoot because its something that makes me happy. It completes me and film cameras are a great way to experience that.

          And shooter. What I say is true. Using a film camera will force you to really think before you shoot. IT WILL MAKE YOU BETTER. Feel free to dismiss that in a sardonic way, but I know I’m right. When you see other photographers (Amateurs) in the wild they are always rattling off more shots then they need. throwing away half and hoping for a “keeper” Why not its cheaper than film, right? Wrong. And what are you learning compared to taking an old manual camera and a Moleskine to record your notes? Not a whole lot bro. And you know the same photographer will fall out of love with that expensive DSLR and have to buy the new whiz bang model thinking it will make them better. Its a sad waste of money when most of these people would be better served getting down to basics with a k1000.

          Speaking of which. I still have all my K1000 Negatives from High School. They are easy to archive because they are TANGIBLE. Cant say the same for many of my old digital files. I don’t even know where the hard drive is with my D1, D1x files are. And the one with the D70 got corrupted. Hows that for irony?

          So good night shooter. Got a big day tomorrow photographing the Goðafoss with the Hassy. And keep practicing dude. I’m sure you will you will eventually find the perfect exposure.

          But I digress. For those who haven’t tried it. Get an old film camera

  • porkchop

    Who cares, film sucks.

    • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

      Anything can suck if you don’t know how to use it.

    • scurvyhesh

      You sir, are LOL.

  • anon

    …i’m not a fuji user, but i hope this doesn’t precipitate the increase of price across all (remaining) manufacturers…

  • http://www.jsvfoto.com jsvfoto

    “…i’m not a fuji user, but i hope this doesn’t precipitate the increase of price across all (remaining) manufacturers…”

    Very good point.

  • me

    It’s not just the cost of the film in the box that you buy from the store. It’s also the cost of processing —- *assuming* you can find someplace to do it. And if there are no labs in your town, then go ahead and add in the cost of postage. And then there is the waiting. At the end of my film adventures I was dropping around $15 a sheet for the 4×5 stuff just for processing.

    AAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, at long last (this is the part that really makes me giggle) you *know* you’re just going to take that beautiful negative and ruin it by turning it into a series of 1′s and 0′s with your scanner!

    So what’s the frickin point?

    Film is dead.

  • scurvy hesh

    Dude, 4X5 is very niche. Most people would be shooting 135 or 120/220 film and they can still be affordable.

    Develop to scan with 35 is super cheap if you do minimal research. In fact. I have commercial scanner at home. I scan uncut 35mm rolls for a dollar a piece to local photographers. the price goes down the more you send. Just send the negatives and a jump drive. Its affordable and you still have that film look even though its as you say ones and Zeros.

    Same for 120. Doesnt everyone know about Sams club? Its cheap man.

    I will give digital cameras this credit. When you compare the unlimited amount of shots you can do, digital can be cheaper. But the fact is most digital shooters overuse their shutters trying to get “the perfect picture” that they already took. THEY TAKE MORE PICTURES THAN THEY NEED. How many pictures do people need of a duck swimming in a pond? Seriously I see it all the time. Guys with their Hawaiian shirts bouncing pro cameras off their bellies as they walk to the local park to take 1500 photos of some birds. Not dissing birders btw I like birds too. Its just seems like a strange way to shoot to me. I almost never use continuous mode and it baffles me that almost everyone thinks they need high FPS cameras these days . The whole D800 4fps nontroversy comes to mind.

    Fact is, when you are constantly upgrading, digital is a VERY expensive hobby if you aren’t a professional. See post above.

  • Stephen B

    @Scurvy Hesh

    Great comment. What people don’t realise is that the more frames per seconds you have the closer you are to video and taking a still from the video which is a bit like fishing with dynamite. You get a result but you kind of feel a little dirty in doing it.

    Film forces you to slow down because it costs money per shot and you realise you hate scanning rubbish. People who say they shoot the same with digital as with film are kidding themselves. Fact is, the cheaper something is perceived to be, the less care goes into it. It is human nature.

    That is not to say there are not amazing photographers that use digital and who create superb images but judging by the huge amounts of rot I see on the net, they are in the minority.

    • scurvyhesh

      Ha! You hit the nail on the head with that fishing metaphor Stephen. Reminds me of when I was shooting Snowy Owls during the Irruption. My buddy was there with me shooting full speed with his 7d. Dude shot 2000+ photos and dipped out early for a New Years party.

      Mind you we saw 5 owls and they were mostly just hanging on low perches.

      I was there for 9 hours because I wanted to catch that golden light. Also there were some very skilled Kite Surfers getting down. Couldn’t pass that up! I took a little over 400 shots with my D90 which is a lot for me but how often do you get Snowy Owls flying down from the tundra?

      The funny thing is afterwards he kept going on about how unhappy he was with his shots. Bless his heart…

  • Back to top