Fujichrome Velvia 100F 120 film discontinued

Fujichrome-Velvia-100F-120-film-discontinued
Fuji Japan announced the discontinuation of the Fujichrome Velvia 100F 120 film citing low demand. Fuji will continue to ship the 100F film till February, 2015.

This entry was posted in Fuji and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • nwcs

    Sad to see another go. I still have some Velvia that I need to shoot sometime. It’s harder to control than digital but it is fun.

  • MB

    Well … film now seams definitely and officially RIP, extinct, gone … so long … we will remember the …

    • Too bad you never learned its strengths while it “was” here… another thing to that list of yours?

      • MB

        You are so qute and yes you are right, even after 30 years of using the film I wasn’t able to learn all its strengths … and I really hope that I would never learn everything about anything because life than would be so boring to me … I prefer always being able to learn something new … that is why I supported Ferrania film kickstarter project …
        Than again Fuji Velvia was one of the best reversal films ever as far as I know (next to Kodachrome) and now it is being discontinued and for me it is very sad moment and for me it means the end of an very important part of my life …

        • If you used it for 30 years and can’t think of anything to say about it, you have a… Get it?

          And life is about learning and moving on… not about staying ignorant. Didn’t you at least learn how to use the toilet or does that take away the fun of life? 😉

          • Sarcasm

            Wow also life advice now, you are besting yourself Geno. Why don’t you add this to your brilliant blog? I am a big fan.

          • I wish i had haters with even trace quantities of intelligence. I don’t seem to be offending worthwhile people.

            How your iphone photography business going?

          • It’s probably fair to say that this site needs moderation. All comments have to be approved before appearing. Otherwise you’ll end up like YouTube, which I consider the swollen, dirty anus of the internet – sure, you can find some nuggets if you really want, but you have to put on the gloves, look away and dig around a bit.

          • Agreed. Either that or required photography portfolio/showcase of some sort… Any authoritative statements/comments on photography can actually be quantified very easily that way. Just saying.

          • From now on only registered readers will be able post a comment, no more “guest” comments will be allowed.

        • If you used it for 30 years and can’t think of anything to say about it, you have a… Get it?

          And life is about learning and moving on… not about staying ignorant. Didn’t you at least learn how to use the toilet or does that take away the fun of life? 😉

  • sperdynamite

    What they don’t say is that low demand was manufactured by their insane prices worldwide for Fuji film. There is huge renewed interest in film but Fuji just doesn’t want to be in the game anymore. Ektar 100 is the landscape film of choice these days, you can get up to 8×10, and larger by special order.

    • You can get anything in special orders of around $15000 the last time i checked.

      Wish they brought back Astia. Velvia is the eye watering HDR of the film world. And no negative is a replacement for a reversal no matter how good the colours are… if you don’t believe me, put them side by side on a light table 😉

      • sperdynamite

        Maybe they do on a light table but hardly anybody see’s your work that way. It all ends up in print one way or another. You can’t replace the look of chrome no, but maybe with Ferrania’s new offering we won’t have to.

        • Spy Black

          Negs scan really noisy however. Transparency film scans much better.

          • sperdynamite

            Not true. The Vision3 tech scans very well.

          • Spy Black

            I don’t shoot motion with film, I shoot stills. And I doubt it will scan as good as transparency anyway.

          • sperdynamite

            Doesn’t anybody know what the fuck they’re talking about?

            Portra 400, 160 and Ektar 100 are based on Vision3 technology. So if you shoot those films, you’re shooting film optimised for scanning. Since transparency film is far more dense in the shadows, and the digital noise follows the density, you end up with a ton of noise in those areas. Negative film hides the noise in the highlights and is a far more flexible medium for scanning and printing. Although chromes present a more pleasing image on the light table, the flexibility of modern negative film wins out for most applications.

          • Spy Black

            Not my experience. I haven’t shot Portra, but Ektar is definitely noisier than Velvia.

          • Do you know the process involved in scanning a negative and getting a “normal” image? It’s a hack… colours are naturally messed up and need adjustments in post to make them normal. And to make them match what they’re supposed to be is very hard. Combine that with the noise of film. You wouldn’t do drastic adjustments in post like that even with digital if the shot matters.

            With reversal, wysiwyg. Far easier to scan true to what’s on the film.

          • sperdynamite

            Home scanners have a bad track record with this. But now that The FINDlab, RPL, Indie Film Lab, or internationally UK Film Lab, Carmencita, and RAW Digital Lab exist I don’t know anyone working professionally who home scans. I delivered hundreds of images this year scanned from mostly Portra 400 that look fantastic.

          • The scanning systems obey the same physics and logic whether the scanning is done at home or in a dedicated shop.

            Who said negatives can’t look fantastic? Reversals are better.

          • sperdynamite

            Spoken like a guy who doesn’t scan.

          • ROFL do you have any idea who you’re talking with? Yes I scan… I make my own film holders too. Plus I’m a computer scientist so I know how things work… digital is not some mystical thing the kids are doing.

          • sperdynamite

            You’re clearly full of your own bullshit, yes.

          • Do yourself a favor and learn how to use google, old timer.

    • Clint

      You do understand the age old ‘supply and demand’…right??? If the demand was there the film wouldn’t cost so much. Fuji wants ‘out of the game’ because it clearly isn’t financially viable.

      There is a renewed interest in film, but not enough obviously.

      • sperdynamite

        No, because part of doing business means you have to price correctly for the market. That’s why Apple can’t just collect $10,000 dollars for every iPhone sold. Fuji could have adjusted production or found a way to keep the film alive by making it possible to shoot it. Current prices of Velvia 50 in 36 exposure 35mm rolls is $11.69 where as Ektar 100 is $5.50. Fuji 400H, their most popular film, is double the price of Portra 400 and not even available in 220! They’re not even trying. I’ll also anecdotaly add that Ferrania successfully crowd funded their factory for a new E-6 film. There is interested. If they wanted to cater to the market as it exists not, not as it existed in 1995, they could.

        • No, but Apple does mark up the iPhone price well over 200%. And they can because the demand for it is high. Same reason their computers command such a high price, despite being lower-specced than their counterparts.

          • sperdynamite

            Over 200% from what? You can get an iPhone 6 for $200 dollars, and for less if you use their trade in program. They’re priced competitively with similar Android phones even though nobody admits it.

          • Where are you finding an iPhone six for $200? Unless you’re getting a contract deal.

          • sperdynamite

            Yes, a contract iPhone. The way probably 95% or more Apple customers get their phones. I have a 5S that I got for 200 on contract, and in about a year I’ll have a ‘6S’ that I’ll get heavily discounted on contract. Further discounted with my 5S trade in. It’s a great way to buy an iPhone, and completely dispells the myth that they’re some kind of uber luxury vs a decent droid phone, IMO.

          • You do realize that you’re paying for that phone via your phone bill, right? Your higher phone bill subsidizes the cost. The Telco still has to foot the bill for the phone. Just because you don’t see the full price of it doesn’t mean you’re not paying for it.

          • sperdynamite

            So where is this wonderful dirt-cheap off contract smartphone you speak of which competes with the iPhone and enables US carriers to vastly lower their rates because you bought it off contract?

          • I think you lost whatever point you were trying to make.

          • sperdynamite

            If by not answering my direct questions and making statements like “200% mark up!” which you don’t explain or provide evidence for, you win an argument, sure… You’re clearly only going to accept your own BS anyways so why not… I was hoping you were going to tell me how to save tons of money on a top tier smart phone and a service plan to match.

        • Spy Black

          Maybe Ferrania should buy Fuji’s production hardware before it gets thrown in a landfill.

  • If slide film cost the same to process as negative film, I’d be using it. Slide film should be viable – but only if it’s priced right and labs don’t charge exorbitant prices to develop it.

    • You can dev at home but not the entire 6 baths i guess.

    • Underp4ntz

      Slide film is cheaper to process but it takes a bitch longer in my country than negative and black and white.

  • AYWY

    Eventually, looks like the viable options for those who value the nuances/subtleties of film colour and exposure will be the film emulators – VSCO, Replichrome, Alien Skin Exposure.

    Yes they are not perfect, but look on the bright side – you can tweak them even further. So the optimists will say we could be in a different but better position: get to something film-like, then go further than what film restricts us to.

    • Dave

      They all look like shit compared to film, they are only good for shit wedding photographers and lazy assholes who refuse to shoot film.

      • sperdynamite

        In defense of wedding photographers the highest end shoot almost 100% film at their weddings. Jose Villa and his over exposed Fuji 400H look has basically set the style tone for a decade of shooters looking to bill high.

        And I sorta like vsco and mastin labs. 🙂

        • Mardock

          “…the highest end shoot almost 100% film at their weddings.”

          That’s simply not true.

          • sperdynamite

            Yes it is. Unless you can name a higher end wedding shooter than Jose Villia, Jonathan Canlas, Elizabeth Messina, or John Dolan. You can’t, because they defined the style for the last decade. And they all shoot at least majority, film.

      • Mat

        Wow, I guess I’m a lazy asshole who refuses to shoot film then and happy being so right now because I got tired of scanning. But at least I don’t spout off in online forums. 🙂

        • I think he meant people who use film filters… not all digital photographers.

      • Mat

        Wow, I guess I’m a lazy asshole who refuses to shoot film then and happy being so right now because I got tired of scanning. But at least I don’t spout off in online forums. 🙂

    • Digital film emulation is only as good as digital optical corrections… neither are good as the real thing.

  • AYWY

    Eventually, looks like the viable options for those who value the nuances/subtleties of film colour and exposure will be the film emulators – VSCO, Replichrome, Alien Skin Exposure.

    Yes they are not perfect, but look on the bright side – you can tweak them even further. So the optimists will say we could be in a different but better position: get to something film-like, then go further than what film restricts us to.

  • norsez

    I guess this is how Fujifilm has survived the digital sweep over, but Kodak didn’t. Sad otherwise.

    • sperdynamite

      Oh yeah? Last time I checked Intersteller was shot on Kodak film, and Star Wars is using it right now. Where do you think all this Portra and Tri-X comes from?

      • norsez

        Relax. I still shoot with Ektar 100 135. Turn your fangs elsewhere. They are just tools.

        • sperdynamite

          Lets make a deal! You don’t say things that aren’t true, and I won’t tell you that you’re saying something that’s not true.

          • Dennis Raines

            Cranky much? Kodak would totally go under with motion picture film if it weren’t for directors banding together to have a guaranteed purchase amount annually for movies. They totally discontinued all slide film, and only make a handful of 120 + 135 films now in C41 + BW.

          • sperdynamite

            But they haven’t gone under. So when someone says they have I shouldn’t correct them? I should just say, yes, they’re out of business. You can’t get Kodak Portra 400 in 220 and their film division hasn’t been experiencing growth every year since the digital transition settled in. You’re right, I should stop saying things that ARE true, so I can be nice to people saying things that AREN’T true.

          • For real? I start to feel like being yelled at by a child for saying his beloved old and tired dog might not make it. And now he is telling the Interweb to shut up too.

          • sperdynamite

            So this how someone who is wrong keeps an argument going….

          • exactly ^

          • Spy Black

            Have you purchased a roll of Ektachrome lately?

          • sperdynamite

            Have you purchased a roll of Tech-Pan lately? What exactly is your point?

          • Spy Black

            The point is that Kodak is disintegrating. Slowly, but surely.

          • sperdynamite

            Based on what facts?

          • Spy Black

            On the facts that they’ve discontinued most of their film line, and are own by a third party.

          • The film division of Kodak is owned by Alaris, which came out of reorganization. Alaris is run by former employees who now manage the pension fund for former workers. It’s an odd situation, but not really a third party.

          • Spy Black

            Of course it’s still a third party, regardless of who makes it up. It’s my sincere wish that both Kodak and film survive, but things so far don’t look so good, as this article displays. If we’re lucky, it will become a niche fine art market.

          • I can still buy oil paints, and that’s about as dead an imaging technology as it gets. Prices on oil paints are actually far more expensive per unit area than are film costs. Bottom line, if someone wants to use film, then it will be available. If people were really completely convinced about the total disappearance of film, then there would be no market for used Leica film cameras.

            Some will dump on the products and ideas from Lomography, Impossible Project, and Ferrania, but these are niche examples of film demand. I don’t expect any mass market return, nor going to a department store to buy film, because those days are gone. I also expect to see fewer labs around the world, which means many people will never use film. While a larger selection would be nice, it is unlikely to happen again.

            Meanwhile, every announcement will have people spouting out that film will disappear entirely. We’ve been seeing that since the Nikon D1 was launched. Indeed, film is completely dead for some people, and they’re probably happy with that. I don’t think it takes luck, all film really needs is to generate a profit for some company, however small that may become. I would worry more about smartphones completely eclipsing camera makers.

  • raziel28

    Nooo

  • Spica

    Well, it is a bit confusing. As far as I know Velvia 100F is a different material than Velvia 100. I tried them both a few years ago and 100F was little bit harder with a slight purple haze. Velvia 100 is still listed on Fujifilm site, same as Velvia 50, even in 8×10 sheets. What suprised me, there is also my favourite Provia 400X, that should have been discontinued more than year ago, although in my country it is sold only in 135 format.

    • sperdynamite

      Oh so basically this was just one of the Velvia films and we’re still going to be able to get the others going forward?

  • Robin

    That so sad… actually I don’t shoot slide anymore… almost all the lab in my country don’t process slide anymore… and I totally don’t find a point to cross process them… is a waste of money

  • Robin

    That so sad… actually I don’t shoot slide anymore… almost all the lab in my country don’t process slide anymore… and I totally don’t find a point to cross process them… is a waste of money

  • Probably not too many more years, E-6 will become as difficult to continue using as Kodachrome was not long ago. We’ll see a move to C-41 and B/W films. In a way I will miss that, though I’m glad I still have some Fuji Astia 100F in the fridge.

  • Mark Neonkaw

    Okay, this is interesting (if a bit confusing)… I found this article dated 20 July 2012 and it states:
    “Fujichrome 100F will no longer be available in 35mm, 120 and 4×5 formats”,
    “Fujifilm has also ended production of Velvia 50 in 4×5 and 8×10”
    and that “The last shipment of Velvia 100F and Velvia 50, in these formats, will land in the UK in December (2012).”
    http://seamlessphoto.com/beinspired/2012/07/fujifilm-has-discontinued-two-professional-films/

  • Funduro

    I still remember buying a brick of 36 exposure Kodachrome 64 slide film back in 1991, I believe it was at Adorama were I purchased it. I got three DSLR’s now. As they say, time moves on, so should you.

  • Jeremy Allen

    I hope the 135 size holds out a bit longer. I love projected chromes.

  • Back to top