Fujifilm’s 20% price increase on films now official in the USA

The details about Fujifilm's price increase on black and white, color negative, and color reversal films in the US are now official: 20% across the line starting from August 1st, 2012.

If you still shoot film, stack up now from B&H or Adorama!

Press release:

VALHALLA, N.Y., May 1, 2012 – Today FUJIFILM North America Corporation announced that it will implement price increases for film and One-Time-Use cameras in the U.S., effective August 1st, 2012.

Prices for consumer and professional photographic film, including black and white, color negative, and color reversal films will increase by approximately 20%. Prices for consumer One-Time-Use cameras (OTUC) will increase by approximately 15%.

The price increases are a result of the continuing decline in demand for film products, the high costs of production, and the increased expenses associated with raw materials, including silver and petro-chemicals, and energy. Under such circumstances, and despite efforts to maintain production costs, Fujifilm is unable to absorb these costs entirely and must implement price increases at this time.

This entry was posted in Fuji and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • FILM??

    • Harold Ellis

      you know, full frame cameras, which still work since sixties, deliver 24Mpix ever since, just for minor inconvenience that you have to wait 10 minutes developing them in store you walk by every day, then scanning them in 🙂

      • Joaquim Prado

        which has unique colors and grain!

        • R!

          …wich is cheaper and dont get dirty like sensors since evry roll is clean as new !!!!!!

          • Film = hipster

            Take 10,000 shots on film and then try and tell us it’s cheaper.

          • Curtis

            It is cheaper, try printing 24 5×7 pictures from your digital camera it will definitely cost more than $11, I can tell you that right now!

          • Film = hipster

            Don’t need to print. It’s on my computer.

          • Banksie

            I can’t see your computer display.

            Meh, I wouldn’t want to even attempt to look at 10,000 redundant images anyway. I’ll let you fill up the garbage dump of cyberspace with them yourself.

          • Harold Ellis

            so you take 10.000 valuable photos, looking at price of it, but i am hipster, funny ;-D

          • Alex

            Hey Film = hipster
            10 000 fotos is 288 36exp rolls and let say 7usd per roll = 1944 + 100usd for Nikon FE2 and you have less than D800 🙂

          • uhaiFSh

            You have to print it too.

          • Sahaja

            @ Film = hipster

            If you are only viewing prints on your computer – all you need is a P&S anyway.

  • porkchop

    Oh well for the cost of a couple rolls of film I can purchase a good and fast memory card that will be used again and again and again…..

    • R!

      …then evry 3 years you’ve got to change your camera to look cool !!!!
      …and get the D800 E because 36 mpxl is better than 24 even If you’re only printing A4 and A3!!!!!!

      • porkchop

        Nope not me, I have the D7000 and have invested in a good lineup of lenses. My D7000 shoots great images now and it will still take good images 10 years from now.

        • anon

          …really the half-life for a digital camera is probably along the lines of 3years…chances are if you’re a serious photographer you’ll be swapping cameras in 6yrs.

          so as long as film is around (and/or affordable), film cameras will operate indefinitely. While with digital, likely the electronics will fail in 10-12yrs or the storage card will be deprecated.

          • porkchop

            A good DSLR which the D7000 is wont stop taking great pictures once a new one comes out (d400 d7100 d900) or whatever comes down the road. It may not be a d4 or d3s but it does do the trick for what I need it for.

            Even when I do decide to upgrade the cost savings from not using film will easily cover the cost of a new body. Im not talking about replacing the body in 2 or 3 years but at 6-7 years I am quite sure it will make up for it. I would not even want to think about how much it would cost me if I wanted to do time lapse using film.

            And as far as the life of the camera and card goes, I just stumbled across one of my old sony point and shoot 2.3 or so mp camera with its impressive 64mb card and they both still work.

          • Really?

            BS total BS. I still use a digital camera that’s 10 years old. I can still use it for many years to come.

            Digital constantly improves, film stays just as sucky as it was 30 years ago.

        • Sahaja

          My F2 has been taking good images for 40 years – and will probably still be going strong long after both your D7000 and my D7000 are dead.

      • Film hipster

        Instead of using film and looking alternative. Digital is so mainstream man.

  • R!

    Personally I have my stock of films even real old velvia that are like good wine with more flavorish colors evry year!!!!!

  • Film sucks

    Face facts, film has been surpassed by digital years ago. These days only hipsters and old people afraid of computers (and change) bother using film.

    If you want to use film that’s fine, be alternative/old school as the case may be. Just don’t pretend it’s better than digital.

    • DTP sucks

      Yeah, who needs to be a painter when you have a computer at your disposal.
      Believe it or not some artists prefer to express their vision with the tactile, hands on approach of film photography and printing.

      • Film sucks

        Yeh, hipsters.

        • Warpig

          Nope, artists.
          But I think that’s beyond you, gearhead.

          • Film sucks

            LOL yourself an artists if that makes you feel more alternative.

          • Anon

            Aye. People like Alec Soth and Andrew Moore still could never use digital for their work, it would look much worse. They have incredible eyes because the equipment they use is a hundred years old and makes them slow down and actually give a fuck about the image they’re making. I wish the people that inhabited this website would care more about that instead of continuously photographing ducks and football players with the latest and greatest digital SLR.

          • Frank Fisher

            What’s the matter “Anon” afraid of using your real name?

            Alec Soth and Andrew Moore are noobs.

    • Nobody Special

      You talk like a young and naive’ nit.

      Show me your digital ‘files’ 40 years from now. I like what digital can do, but it IS NOT FILM, and vice-versa. What film is, is still the MOST STABLE, LONG TERM storage medium in imaging. Maybe you haven’t ever shot transparency film??? You know, the kind of film that is unforgiving to the casual, auto-everything ‘photographer’ of today who uses post processing to doctor and fix an image to make it ‘look good’.

      Yep, I’d rather be an ‘original hipster’ than an original ‘nit. Besides, I even know how to use a computer AND digital – and focus manual lenses too AND I can also use AF!!!!! Film can keep going up – as long as it’s still available, it’s worth every penny.

      • Film sucks

        LOL u r stupid. Film gets mold on it and is affected by dust and decay. 40 years from now my digital files will be exactly the same as they are now. Your film will probably be much worse.

        • Nobody Special

          Ah, hey dork – I have files called film that are older than 40 years; they were my fathers and they are from the 1930’s and still in perfect shape. Mine are from the late 1960’s and perfect too.

          Just in case you really do know so little – film just needs to be kept dry, or in normal humidity levels and it just keeps on keeping on.

          So in other words film is not like your underwear….which by the way, you don’t wear on your head.

          • Somebody Special

            Tsk tsk. Resorting to personal attacks means you’ve run out of arguments. Try staying on topic.

        • Stu McConaghy

          Instagram won’t be around in 40 years time dude, sorry to bust your bubble.

          • Young fool

            Neither will you. People don’t usually live to 120

        • Film Sucks

          I can store thousands of photos online or on HDD.

          One fire/flood/fishtank explosion and all your precious film is dead.

          Only way to save it safely… digitize it. OH TEH IRONY IS DELICIOUSS.

      • Film = hipster

        LOL people have been doctoring images for years. It’s just easier and better now.

        Grow up and get on with life. Digital has surpassed film in every way. Holding onto the past is just making you weak.

        • Nobody Special

          Anything you say macho bend – as in over.

          Really, you mean people have actually made prints from film? Wow, I didn’t know that.

          By the way, have you EVER developed or printed from a negative????

      • Film = hipster

        Grow up bro. Digital has surpassed Film in every way. Get with the times and stop being so old.

      • porkchop

        Well I wont show you my digital pictures 40 years from now, but I will still have them as the prices for hard drives are getting cheaper and cheaper. Its simple buy two identical usb hard drives back them both up with the same pictures.

      • Sahaja

        I shoot both film and digital. I wouldn’t exactly call transparency film the most stable long term storage medium. Well processed B&W negative yes.

    • Banksie

      Some people are actually interested in the end product. If you want to exhibit and have your exhibition works published in books and museum/gallery catalogs, then you’ll use whatever it takes to get the end product you need.

      I use digital when the project calls for it and I’ll use film, too. And much of my work is hybrid. I did an exhibition two years ago that was all digital capture and shown simultaneously on ten separate 24″ displays. I’ve produced exhibitions using 4×5 film that was drum scanned and digitally post processed, and then printed back out to analog using a digital Oce Lightjet printer onto Fuji RA-4 paper with basic RA-4 color chemistry. I’ve captured on a digital Leaf back and then printed out with a large format inkjet printer using only black carbon pigment inksets (for B+W prints.) I’ve used 35mm color negative film, drum scanned and printed out on a digital Iris using Arches cold pressed paper. Etc., etc..

      A hybrid world gives you a multitude of options. It’s an amazing time right now to be producing photographic works with so many different possibilities. To argue digital versus film means you’re just being incredibly shortsighted and narrow minded. You need to “get with the times” yourself, “bro.” There’s a whole world out there that you are clueless about. And be prepared to actually have to work to produce something worthwhile. This isn’t about ‘buy a camera, make some snaps, and then park them on Flickr.’

    • Well digital is used by folks like you who’ve dropped out from school early… so no point wasting my trying to explain things.

  • Albert

    Once I started learning film, I became a much better photographer. It forces you to slow down and think about what you are shooting instead of the shotgun approach that’s so easy with digital. You are also much more aware of contrast control if you actually know the zone system and develop accordingly. Sure, you can do this with DSLRs. But, its so easy most people just use it as an over sized PnS.

    Also, medium format and large format still has more resolution than any full frame camera. Imagine an 8×10 inch piece of film instead of 24mm x 36mm sensor.

    • Anon

      trolling is so much fun.

  • Curtis

    I use this film all the time, it’s great and it makes me mad that they’re raising the prices. I use a Nikon FM10 which was actually my very first still image camera. It’s been in every single weather condition and stil holds up great (Obviously it would because there’s nothing electronic on it)

  • Bad Biditty

    Film is outdated, has less DR, is worse at high ISO’s and has been surpassed at every level.

    You use your hands with photoshop, using tablets, mice etc. Your arguments are horrible and there’s a reason 95 percent of the pro’s don’t use film anymore.

    • Film = hipster

      I don’t think they’re using logic in their thinking. They’re probably a bit set in their ways. Happens when you get to a certain age.

      • Shady

        Each has their place. I do both and enjoy both. I love getting my hands dirty in a darkroom. As for 95% of pros, it depends on what they do. Event and sports photographers will be crazy not to use digital. But, if you are a landscape guy or architecture guy, using a large format view camera probably makes sense on certain levels. Don’t just go film is dead and is replaced when you don’t know the benefits of it.

        • Fiomioopl

          It is dead. If you’re upper level of photography, then go Medium format.

          The ONLY place where film is still a better choice is large format like you said. But that’s so esoteric is shouldn’t even enter into the argument.

          Arguing that film is better based on large format is like saying you can eat dirt because apples grow on trees.


    LOL film. You can’t even change the ISO.

    • ken elliott

      Oh yes we can.

  • keoj

    My Contax G2 with a roll of Velvia 100……call me a Luddite. I won’t claim film better than digital (but don’t claim digital better than film). Okay, ISO is limited, hard to scan, blah, blah…film will be around for a while.

    • Film is dead

      Yes so long as there’s old people who hate change and hipsters film will live on.

      • c.d.embrey

        Juergen Teller is a well known advertising photographer, and he still shoots film.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S97y0oR0jL0 at 0:09 check-out all the Kodak Portra 400.

        BTW when was the last time you shot a cover for a magazine, or shot ads for a major advertiser ???

        BTW Teller is the only Pro earning Big Bux shooting film.

  • Lars

    So many stupid comments. Neither Digital nor Film is better than the other. They’re different. Someone invented the snowboard, didn’t kill the skis.. Film is much more unforgiving, doesn’t provide an instant feedback and thus forces you to think a lot more about what you’re doing. So for me it’s tons of fun. But digital is really great and practical and everything. Trying to argue that film is dead is just plain stupid. It still exists and it’s fun. Just because YOU don’t use it doesn’t mean it’s only for old, dried up farts. Please!
    It’s all about getting it right in the camera, something that also digital shooters need to learn.

    • regular

      (even if I find negative film to be more forgiving than digital).

    • film sucks

      Everything you say is wrong.

    • RC

      No, digital is better (this is quantifiable). The people that are holding on to film are probably the same ones that are holding on to record players.

      • Lars

        True. I’ve also got a record player. 🙂 And a NAS backup for all the digital files. So it’s possible to love old tech and new tech at the same time. I just don’t get why anyone would trash old tech, just because they don’t like using it themselves. On slide film you can get colors in-camera that digital simply cannot. Not better colors as such, but it gives a totally different look.

  • me

    forget film. Collodion wetplate photography is cool 🙂

  • porkchop

    Although film is impractical in most modern day situations I wouldn’t say is dead, but more like someone on life-support at the ER. The thing with this ER is that the power is out in the city and the backup diesel generator for the hospital has less than a gallon of fuel in it.

    I will give you one example of why film will for the most part will die off soon. About a year ago on of my close friends was on one of these “night time” dinner cruises where the ship passes back and fourth in the harbor so the guests can wine and dine while looking at the skyline. Now on this ship there was a photographer using a old Nikon F2 that would work on board. Now this guy was not a employee of the actual ship but was contracted. The deal was the photographer will pay $xxx to the ship or give them xx% commission so he can take pictures of the guests in hopes of making a sale at the end of the night. Now this photographer was not alone, he in-fact had at-least two people working with him as well. One person to courier the rolls of film to the dark room, and one do develop the film in the dark room during the cruise.

    Now this was not a very efficient and or stable business model. Time, wages, and materials were constantly wasted because selling a collage of about 3-5 photos for 45 bucks was not to appealing for most people. The film crew had to develop and assemble each and every photo collage wether people were going to purchase it or not because with film you have to do it that way. Nobody in their right mind will ever say “here kind sir take my $45 and I will accept the photo” before they even see it.

    With this in mind a few months my friend which I will call Steve decided to make a move against this guys operation. Now Steve was no pro but more of a advanced amateur at the time. Now Steve decided to make an offer to the ships company that would undercut the film photographer. Steve’s offer was that he would increase the ships commission by 50%. This was what let him in the door,and the company decided to give him a few shots at it and see how it paned out.

    Steve with the help of his wife were able to run a two person crew with almost little overhead in the form of wasted/unnecessary wages and materials. Now Steve’s wife would setup the Imac near the entrance/exit of the dining room. Now Steve would take photos of the guests as the old film user did but this time with a Nikon D3 and a wireless transmitter. All photos would be sent straight to his wife and she would edit and assemble them as the came in. Now towards the end of the night all the pictures would be displayed on the Imac on a slideshow for the guests to see, also Steve and his wife would walk around with Ipads to the guest’s tables to see if they were interested. Only and I mean only when the guest was happy and paid for the service did the photos ever get printed out. There was close to absolute zero wast of materials. They have since taken this little venue away from the photographer that was using film, and he will never be able to get his foot back into the door. The film photographer literally had trash bags of unwanted developed pictures at the end of the nights cruise because nobody wanted to pay $45. Steve and his wife would sell them for a quick easy 15-20 bucks.

    • Nobody Special

      So if you take people pictures on a cruise ship???? That’s all you’ve got???

      Okay, you’re right – how stupid of me – I didn’t think of the ‘cruise ship’ model.

      • scurvy hesh

        Film. Killed by cruise ship photographers.

  • David

    I shoot both film and digital. They are COMPLETELY different animals – both in terms of color and shooting experience, and they each have their advantages and disadvantages in 2012.

    Digital clearly reigns for commercial photography – I don’t think anyone is disputing that. If you’re the kind of person who rolls off “tens of thousands” of frames, then shooting film will put you on the street. However – for slower, more thoughtful photography, there is NOTHING wrong with wanting to use the same stuff used by every legendary photographer in the history of the art. Yes, I said ART. If your official stance is that “art = pretentious,” then I feel sorry for you, and I think you may have taken a wrong turn at Family Guy rumors.

    My dad’s father’s 1958 Leica M3 works as well today as the day it was made, and I’ve spent quite a bit of time AND money trying to get my digital captures to match the quality of my film shots (which never totally works!)

    Digital photography is still very young. Not long ago, pros blew $5K on a 6 MP DSLR. Meanwhile, I have boxes of my parents’ old slides from the 50’s and they look fantastic. Will I be able to see my DNGs in 60 years? Who knows! I have negatives from pictures I took on the playground, but I have lost hundreds of digital captures because of unreadable files, corrupted hard drives, scratched CDs/DVDs, etc. DO NOT pretend that digital instant gratification does not come at a cost.

    Sorry to rant. Different people prefer different things. Do not be buttholes to one another. That’s all.

    • RC

      You lost hundreds of photos? What percentage of your collection is that? I’ve been shooting digital for 12 years, and my files from 2000 are still perfect. I backup to a 2nd hard drive PLUS a hard drive that I store in a fireproof safe. Backing up to discs is not cost effective or reliable. As long as I keep transferring the files to new hard drives, they will never die. Now let’s see how on earth I’m going to find that negative in that PILE!!! LOL

  • You digital young morons.. I started with digital about 8 years ago.. I burned alot of images on cd´s on the lowest speed and highest quality settings.. Almost every disc from those days have corrupt files on them that cant be read today by my computer.. In 10 years there will be nothing left on those CD´s..
    So, Im shooting more and more film, the negatives I shot about 15 years ago is still like new. AND, the dynamic range of film has NOT been surpassed by digital. But if you have no experience in shooting and scanning negatives, then you have no clue about the quality that can be obtained from a mediumformat negative.
    Yes I like digital and probably going to upgrade my from my D3 to a D800 next year, but its not “there” yet for me.. Maybe in 5-10 years..

    • Scurvy hesh

      We were photographers. Not Hipsters and Gearheads. And if you are a serious photographer then you should be very comfortable shooting film. Doing so will make you a better digital shooter. Its a fact.

      If you want to shoot “full frame” then Film is still a very economical way to go. Especially if you shoot black and white. You can get a 100′ roll of B&W for $30.00

      100 foot roll

      Developing it at home is as easy as making a fine cocktail. And the results are far more rewarding than constantly chimping and turning into a doughy hunched back slug manipulating your DR in photoshop . I should know. I was turning into one…

      Then one day I dusted off my old film camera and remembered why I was doing this!

      See my previous post
      on how the costs of digital can really compare.

      I bought one of
      these on Ebay and have been batch scanning my print film. This thing will do scans far faster than any flatbed and I still have the negative if I need a larger print.

      And negatives are very easy to archive. Far more stable than digital media. All this talk about mold is Hyperbole.

      Dont get me wrong. I still shoot a lot of digital. But to dismiss film entirely is silly because you are really missing out on an enjoyable experience.

      • FOIU

        You call it enjoyable, I call it a nightmare.

    • scurvy hesh

      We don’t need to make it an age thing. Anyways many old fools shooting digital as well.

      • fIUH

        R U old?

    • FSiu

      yes the dynamic range of film has been surpassed by digital. 14 stops on film? HA!

      • You sound like you’re 14.

        You probably don’t even know that what’s commonly referred to as “dynamic range” is something that can be faked by manufacturers and they do. Doesn’t matter whether you shoot film or digital… morons are the majority.

        Better learn the subject before you talk about it… makes sense.

  • joe blow

    I wish they increased their prices on Astia in 35mm instead of discontinuing it!

  • Back to top