Another price increase on Fujifilm photographic films coming next month


Today Fujifilm announced another "substantial", at least double digit price increase on Fujifilm photographic films effective from April 2013 onward. Just a reminder that in May last year the company already had a 20% across the line price increase on black and white, color negative, and color reversal films in the US. If you are shooting film, check the current Fujifilm offering and pricing at B&H and Adorama.

FUJIFILM Corporation has announced that it will implement a worldwide price increase for its photographic films. The price increases are substantial and it would be an increase of at least double digit, but will vary depending on products, markets and regions.

1. Products: Photographic Film: Color Negative Film, Color Reversal Film, Black and White Film and Quick Snap.

2. Date of Price Increases: Effective from April 2013 onward

The demand for film products is continuously decreasing and the cost of production, such as raw materials, oil and energy, continues to rise or stays at a high level and cost increase associated with lower volume becomes much serious. Under such circumstances, despite our efforts to maintain the production cost, Fujifilm is unable to absorb these costs during the production process and is forced to pass on price increases.
To sustain its photo imaging business, Fujifilm has decided to increase the price of photographic films.
Fujifilm remains committed to photographic products despite its price change.
The new pricing structure will be applied to each market based on its individual conditions.

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

    This was bound to happen, and I think is reasonable under the circumstances. I would rather Fuji increase prices for film than stop making it altogether. At least the option to use it is still there.

    • bjrichus

      Agreed. Other brands of film are still available and if all this does is bring Fuji into line with the likes of Ilford and Kodak, then that’s ok.

    • filmic

      Keep in mind that Arista Premium 400 (which is really rebadged Tri-X) is still available for $2.89/roll. As much as you want.

      Also, these price hikes were probably built in when the yen was skyrocketing. Now the yen is crashing, and the Japanese Central Bank is determined to trash it further, so after the exchange rate you probably come out with a wash. Nothing to cry about.

    • Zograf

      Hi All, a QUESTION: where do you develop & scan film these days? I did try NCPS in San Diego on several occasions with very unsatisfactory processing results (F100+Portra160 very dense negs, F100 has identical spot exposure as my D700,matrix slightly different).
      Are there any other good labs left. Advise highly appreciated.

  • Thanks for the notice. This one will cramp my style for sure. I just got a load but looks like I will be ordering more.

  • CHD

    Ahh yes…yet another nail in the coffin of film. I agree, I think it is better that they raise prices than stop producing it….but really this is a sign of the times.

  • Tom

    Yikes! This stinks! I just came back from a trip shooting various Fujifilm C41/E6…

  • CJ

    less people use them = price increase, or drop. Nothing to it.

  • Oz

    It seems inevitable given the shrinking film market, the low US dollar and the lack of competition esp for E6 films. Interestingly film is the only profitable part of fuji’s imaging division. Digital cameras are not profitable for them although I hope the new x series turns this around.

  • Itai

    This is a great way to retire a product. Keep increasing the price until nobody buy it anymore while maximizing profits along the way.

  • Nish Drew

    Recently I can’t find Superia in the convenient stores that did carry them, a few disposable cameras are still about though. Well, I wanted to get a hold of a Pentax 67 but really looks like the end is near… so better get it right away!

    • bjrichus

      Did you ever hear of the internet? Plenty to be had online.

  • RamesesThe2nd

    Serious question – What’s the advantage of using film over digital?

    • luna vargasi

      You should give it a go, grasshopper. Then come back here and tell us how you feel about your experience.

      • DerpHerp

        I don’t understand this AT ALL.

        What is there to compare? Why would you ask where it comes from? This is all well documented and related to the angle of light hitting the sensor. The purple fringing you see in the color shots are chromatic abberations from the lens. The purple fringing in the digital shots are those of the lens and the sensor.

        I thought this was optics 101?

        • “I thought this was optics 101?”

          Yes, _this_ is also optics 101 🙂

      • bjrichus

        Um… Why did you scan the film image and the resize it down so much? How come you got such results from such an old Canon digital camera, they usually deliver abberations much worse than you show. You sure you didn’t get the shots mixed up? Something is wrong with your method.

        • “Why did you scan the film image and the resize it down so much?”

          Please read the write-up. The scan resolution has nothing to do with what’s compared. To understand the particular scanning resolution used, you need to understand this particular scanner.

          • bjrichus

            So you are happy to cripple the film result by compromising the scan and end result?

            Sorry, but I reject the method and premise.

          • lol… what aspect of the “film result” is crippled? How is the scan compromised?

            Do you even know what you’re talking about? Please learn the subject first before making claims… it’ll save you the trouble of having to register new aliases every time you realise you’re wrong.

          • fjfjjj

            Your arbitrary downsizing of the film scan to account for grain, with no corresponding downsizing of the digital output to account for noise, makes this unscientific. Subjectively a D800E looks more like 645 than like 35mm in a good final print, but your write-up is weak.

          • Sky

            Somehow I’m not convinced. He had to equalize a size of pictures to make a comparison meaningful. Whatever he downsized film scan, or upsized digital – doesn’t matter… I suppose downsizing film made more sense than upsizing digital, cause then he’d have twice as many people talking garbage of how it’s a wrong way to do things.

            If anything – he should have expose both frames the same. As we know exposure makes a significant difference in visibility of CA on digital sensors, so to make comparison more meaningful – he should have exposed film to the same “brightness”.

            But the message in his post – that CA is much more pronounced on digital than film – is nothing new. We’ve been through this dozens of times in early ’00s and the result was always the same. No idea why some people are still surprised. Seems like they either are too young to shoot film, or never bothered with comparing film and digital.

          • “If anything – he should have expose both frames the same.”

            Please read the write-up. The exposures are the same. You need to learn about what’s called the response curve of the medium. This is explained in the write-up.

            “As we know exposure makes a significant difference in visibility of CA on digital sensors”

            Absolutely not. CA levels are determined by the optical design of the lens. What you’re saying is like thing taste different when you drink it through a silly straw.

            “No idea why some people are still surprised. Seems like they either are too young to shoot film, or never bothered with comparing film and digital.”

            There is no surprise. The experiment tries to investigate why it happens because no one really looked in to why digital blooming happens with some lenses and not with others… and why at wide apertures than stopped down. If you read the whole thing, you’d understand this.

          • You should learn to read scientific writing first. The scan resolution has nothing much to do with what’s being compared here. And it’s not “arbitrary downsizing”… the image is scanned at the scanner’s native/maximum resolution and then rescaled to match the DSLR image. They both came from an original of the same size. What does “account for grain” even mean? Grain has nothing to do with it. Please learn your physics first.

    • IgorSoyka

      In medium format photography, the money is a reason and an advantage

    • Ken Elliott

      I shoot 4×5 film, and depending on how you scan it, it is roughly equal to a 200MP to 800MP digital camera. Google “Clyde Butcher” to see what a master can do with film.

      • Camaman

        I googled him and found nothing that impressive and indicative of the resolution you are talking about.

        Only one scene and a crop of a tight detail would convince me, though

        • Equivalent to a 44mm f/0.83 (click link to see 100% crop from a 743MP “original”):

          Equivalent to 19mm f/1.18:

          Equivalent to 31mm f/0.66:

          More from others:

          • Calibrator

            The geek in me finds this endlessly fascinating (nearly unlimited res to zoom in – think the image analyzer in Bladerunner) – so, yes, awesome images!
            The image itself is also great – fantastic atmosphere.

            Personally, I don’t need such a high resolution, though, and I’d rather have “unlimited dynamic range” (way more than 14 bits/component, think HDR with a single shot) and total absence of noise instead. I understand that to reduce noise one can increase the res (like the D800 or your examples) but I neither want a drum scanner nor gigabyte-filesizes…
            Gigabyte-files to start with, that is! 😉

          • Thanks 🙂

            Btw, dynamic range and bit-depth are grossly misrepresented in pretty much every place on the net, including the flavour of the month, DxOMark. Increasing the size of the imager while not compromising on the resolution but not necessarily increasing it either is the way to go for high DR and low noise.

          • Calibrator

            What you mean is a bigger sensor with the same, but increased photo sites, if I understand you right.
            Fine with me – but you’d need more bits to count all those photons, don’t you?

          • To be exact, what I mean is if you have 35mm full frame sensor that does 20 megapixels and you want more DR, a valid comparison would be to a larger sensor that has at least 20 megapixels. At the end of the day, the DR has to be compared on equal grounds so resolution would need to be equalised… only then we can compare DR in an apples to apples way.

            Also you don’t necessarily need the sensor to have a higher bit depth to produce better DR. There are lots of “dynamics” to this 🙂 The colour photosites in our sensors have no where near the precision necessary for the 12 to 14-bits that’s typically allocated for each. So there’s plenty of room in them… it’s the efficiency that will actually make the gathered info useful (i.e. increase DR).

            The other funny thing is… if the sensor size remains the same, lower resolution sensors need a higher bit depth per photosite than higher resolution sensors to produce the same effective DR.

          • Calibrator

            I think it all depends on how the photo sites are being implemented.

            How much they collect and how fast. If they are large and collect relatively slowly they are able to be more precise, which would result in less noise.

            About the last part of your answer – are such sensors on the market?

          • Yes, whenever I mentioned size differences, I meant with the efficiency of the photosites remaining the same. Otherwise we can’t understand the impact of sensor size and number of photosites, etc.

            Not sure what you asked in your question. The thing I said about low res sensors needing more bits per pixel than high res ones for the same DR can be verified on paper. Drop me an email if you want me to show how.

        • photoviking

          Not impressed with Clyde Butcher’s work? Who the fuck do you think you are, Ansel Motherfucking Adams?!

          • Calibrator

            The internets – a place where everybody is a master and knows better. Always.

    • bjrichus

      In a word: Quality. The advantage of film is that it has a different and kind of “non-linear” feel to it. Digital is kind of “Meah” compared to it. Colors are not rendered the same and latitude for out of “correct” exposures is better. I can also easily get 70MP from a 120 negative scan and for gallery prints, and the detail on my 48 inch square prints, makes your eyes bleed…

      • You need to learn a few things first: (1) scanning at crazy resolutions doesn’t mean you’re going to get that much detail. (2) Most of the time, diffraction brings down the resolution below the maximum of the medium. (3) 120 film is not one thing… 645 and 6×12 are both shot on 120 but the difference is greater than the difference between 35mm and 645.

        What size film do you scan at 70MPs and print at 40 inches? Tell me and I’ll tell you whether you’re doing something silly or not… bleeding aside.

    • filmic

      It’s a different process and a slightly different look.

      You also have different economies built in. Today you can pick up an amazing film camera for $25 (or free) at a yard sale that shoots full-frame or medium format, then shoot and develop for a few pennies a frame. Compare that to buying a $2000 full-frame DSLR, and you’ll see that it makes sense for some people. Not wedding photographers or microstock, who have to spray-and-pray 1000s of frames a day, but for people doing personal work, it can make plenty of sense and be lots of fun.

      The other benefit is that mechanical film cameras are really a pleasure to use. Digital cameras are ultimately computers, so it’s nice to unplug for a while and get back to basics. Digital will always offer convenience, versatilty and immediate gratification, but there’s a place in some people’s repertoire for an old Nikon FM or Rolleiflex.

    • Shad

      None unless you are shooting medium -> large format.

  • R!

    One day a smart company will develop a digital back the size of a regular film that you would be able to place inside all cameras;If not:film days is almost over!

    • fjfjjj
      • Sky

        This came out to be totally fake. One company wanted to steal money from investors, so they developed a product that might have gathered a lot of interest – it worked… they got the money, and run away with them, never developing anything for the makret.

  • Onexceptothers

    Well, there’s still Ilford in the corner of each photographer’s mind, sadly, I liked those Reversal films :s !

  • common sense

    What is this film thing? is it something ancient Egyptian used for photography?

  • Nobody Special

    Just keep making it – for me there is no replacement for my type of work using transparency film. I feel it’s very important for the industry together to maintain the ability of the film medium.
    I expect the cost to keep increasing; what else can they do? At least, as a transparency shooter, I am very deliberate in the image-making process – which has always kept the costs exceptable.

  • Nobody Special

    I have to say this in addition of the questions and answers posted below. There is a reason to use film; it’s a DIFFERENT MEDIUM that gives/provides a DIFFERENT ‘LOOK’. If someone has to ask the ‘why film?’ question, the best thing to do is say go out and master it and you’ll understand.
    Digital users that have never exposed a few rolls of transparency film and mastered the exsposure for each frame and understood how much dsicipline it takes to do that, may benefit in trying. Mastering film makes you a better digital image maker, because it opens up the brain-to-camera-to-image experience because of how it helps you to see and appreciate visual mediums more in depth.
    Film is important for that reason alone. The difference between painting by numbers and then trying to go out and learn to paint without them. It’s a different process, and, I might add, it’s not just about sharpness. Ultimately it’s about knowing what you want the final final image to be and how to get it. Super sharp and harsh sometimes needs to be ‘toned-down’ to get the results; just as certain older lenses from a company can give the desired results. Still, to hold and view a satisfying transparency on a light table is a real trip – it’s just the beginning of a, ‘need to be on top of your game, to get the final print’ mode. For some, it’s part of a process called ‘Art’.

  • Use pixels not film, pixels won’t end up in a dust bin

    • Orpick Aname

      you can digitally scan film and get better quality than digital

  • Back to top