Good point, I hadn’t thought of that.
I would have to think that the patents on 3000b would be expired by now. If Fuji patented the crap out of the process that would actually be a good thing, as it would means there is documentation on record for how to replicate it.
I suspect a lot of the details are still trade secrets however, and Fuji probably won’t be willing to give that up, although I guess it wouldn’t hurt to ask. If they are truly wiping their hands of the business they might be more willing to open source it, and there might even be some used equipment for sale.
The best solution would probably for a boutique to enter into an agreement with Fuji where they buy the equipment and expertise in running it and set up a small shop that sells the film to enthusiasts, probably for a fairly high mark up compared to what Fuji was charging.
2 Likes
I use these guys in the real world, I have firm belief that they would do just as well in the mail-in one as well:
It appears the prices for their 120 developing is the same via mail as it is for walk-in. But I’ve never been disappointed by their developing. Their scanner could use some dusting, but they’ll push/pull as needed as well or any other notes.
Their other issue was that some of the chemicals were banned per the Kyoto Protocol:
https://blog.the-impossible-project.com/factory-shots-5-8
Boringly, for big firms, specialist small revenue lines (as compared to the rest of the business) attract the bile of investors. They don’t recognise the goodwill inherent in the product, and just want the numbers to stop being messy in the middle of their business. Some analyst will score points by saying “hey, look at these shitty little details on the balance sheet - we could can these and clean the whole thing up”.
I love Fuji Velvia. It will be 100 years of hard effort to get digital to the same quality. Velvia has depth and feel. Processed images, even RAW, appear flat and lifeless by comparison.
That all said, yep, “artisan” is the way to go. There’s a space here for someone to gather up all the old stuff and manufacture it.
2 Likes
NO! It’s not a miracle instant film exists to this day!
The ability to capture an image and have it immediately turned into a physical print that you can hand to someone or put on the wall next to a bunch of other prints is just USEFUL… not to mention attractive as a consumer item. What are we all supposed to be tethered to digital printers or some garbage?
It’s technological devolution, and a symptom of one profound flaw of our capitalist system of production… there are many many many other examples too.
Yes, digital camera to whatever-printer-is-available has become the more common path. It’s tremendously cheaper per shot, and if the image is useful it’ll probably wind up transmitted and/or stored digitally anyway.
Back when there wasn’t already a PC and a printer in every room, having to wait for your prints was more of an issue. Now? Frankly, if you can’t wait a minute for the hardcopy you probably didn’t need the print in the first place. Especially since the “instant” prints took a minute or more to develop anyway.
Printers are a pain in the ass, ugly, take up unnecessary space, and require ink. They are less efficient for the consumer than instant film.
Freedom from choice!
Most printers aren’t aesthetic marvels to be sure, but less efficient? Instant film is pretty much the least efficient way to take pictures, which is why the film has always been relatively expensive. It’s not even in the same ballpark as a digital camera with a photo printer, even with outrageously priced inkjet ink.
The real problem is that printing out the photo is simply unnecessary for a lot of people anymore. You can share a photo digitally so easily now that there just isn’t much market for physical pictures. Sure there will always be people who absolutely must hold the photograph in their hand, and that’s fine, but they are a minority in this day and age.
1 Like
The vast majority of humanity disagrees with you.
I had a party the other night. I pulled out my phone and snapped a few dozen pictures. I glanced through the pictures after the party, still mildly drunk, trashed the bad pictures, and posted the good ones to Facebook and G+ with a click or two. People tagged themselves. I disseminated two dozen pictures to 25+ people. For anyone keeping score, that is roughly 500 pictures. All of their friends can get to those pictures as well, so assuming that each person has 100 friends of facebook on average, that is roughly a half of a million images passed out. All of those pictures can be pulled up instantly, anytime, anywhere, with a few clicks. If you are desperate to have a physical copy of the picture, you can happily pick the best and get it printed. That is horrifically useful and vastly superior to instant photos in almost every single respect.
Don’t get me wrong, someone taking photos and handing you one right away is cute, but only when viewed through a haze of nostalgia. It is like lighting a party with only candles, it is a cute nostalgic gimmick that has no practicality. When I visit friends or family, nothing beats the capacity to whip out my phone or tablet and display every single photo I have in existence.
No dude, you are supposed to be tethered to our always on Internet connected minicomputer, our cell phones. I can’t even recall the last time I saw someone bother to print a photo unless it was going in a frame.
There’s no doubt it is useful to a great many people to be able to get instant prints. The problem is who it is useful to. For those who live in cities and/or have smartphones, there’s not a whole lot of value to carrying around an extra device that requires film to be purchased when you can do a lot with your digital camera and order prints quite easily if you so desire. Want to put it on the wall? Why do you need an instant print to do that, given your wall is at home and you’re probably not? Want to give someone a print? Why can’t you just email them the picture?
But if you go to a tourist attraction in the developing world, you will likely see lots of photographers with digital cameras and battery-powered printers catering to (technology-poor) tourists who want an instant photo commemorating their visit. These are places where there is a true need for such instant photos, and the market has answered that need. And I think it’s telling that these commercial photographers are using digital cameras and portable printers rather than instant cameras, as it allows a lot more choice in terms of what pictures to print.
1 Like
Just another example that the “freedom of choice” promised by our modern consumer economy is a myth.
The manufacturer also has freedom of choice – in this case, to cease manufacturing. The problem is that you’re expecting a selected subset of freedom. Doesn’t work that way; you ask for it, you got it.
1 Like
Ah well, CONTINUE OUR MARCH TO THE DIGITAL FUTURE WHERE ALL THINGS ARE BETTER. PROGRESS! I think I’ve heard that one before…
Nothing to do with digital. Nothing to do with “modern consumer” economy. If you want to continue using buggy whips, you are encouraged to find another source or get together with like-minded folks to make your own; if you think there’s a market, you’re welcome to make them for sale. If it isn’t important enough to you to justify your making that investment, don’t expect it to be important enough for anyone else to do so for you.
Personally, if you want instant hardcopy, I’d advise that you learn how to sketch. That technology is likely to be around for the forseeable future.
2 Likes
Good point: I liked it better when readers had to snail-mail their comments to the 'zine, too.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
