[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 14 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]

why has this brand been on suicide watch all of the sudden

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height960
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Uhh... Did you even look at their financials? 2% growth in a shrinking market is better than Canikon are doing, frankly. Instax prints money, X and GFX are gaining traction, and the fact that they're still selling film at all is a pretty good sign.
Piss off.
the film simulations are worse than those standalone apps that make your photo look like film
are they really? I have considered getting one of their cameras that can do film simulation for proof shooting when deciding what film stocks to use. Whats so bad about it?
No, they're not. They're actually really good. People just trolling for a reaction because they're bored sony users that can't muster up the courage to go outside and shoot.
Would you say it would be worth it in my use-case? they seem to be pretty small and light from what I can tell, I would love something that would pair well as a B cam when I go shooting with fijifilm stocks to easily get a similar look to match with my scans without having to waste film for less important shots.
They're not accurate to film stocks but look very nice if simply taken as profiles rather than "film simulations"

That anon is a clueless filmfag who cares more about the simulations "looking like film" for clout than he does about whether or not they look good from an aesthetic standpoint.

You can safely ignore such a clown, honk honk.
The Acros film simulation is really good and I'd say mostly accurate to the film stock. Fuji include Acros and normal Monochrome simulations, when you switch between the two you can tell what they were going for with Acros as it really tries to mimic that "look" the film stock had.

Anyway it's all academic in the end, of course nothing can replicate film fully in digital but the film simulations do a pretty good job for what they are and work as a nice starting point for editing a RAW too. Anybody serious will always tinker away regardless of how accurate Fuji can get.

T. X-T2 user
>Anybody autistic will always tinker away regardless of how accurate Fuji can get.
fixed that for you
Their non-instant film department is on suicide watch because it's obvious that the higher ups consider them a cannibal product to their digital line and wants to coax the Japanese film shooters to quit and move over, hence the price hike. Japanese film consumers are almost a captive audience because Kodak, Ilford etc. are very expensive there, plus some Japanese labs do not want to process Kodak films.
you don't actually understand how business works
Not that guy, but you don't actually understand how Japan works
funny you said that even though i haven't even provided a conjecture
>Not that guy
please tell us more about japan's secret insider knowledge mr. english teacher
maybe read a book some time, to learn what actual cannibalization is or how market shares work yeah?
I've got a useless degree in Japanese sociology, never underestimate how stupid Japanese corporations can be. Fujifilm themselves have stated in the past that they want to entice film holdouts into the X system. Imported film stocks have protectionist/racketeer prices so Fujifilm can do whatever the hell they want and still come out cheaper. For example, a propack of Porta 800 in 120 goes for ¥8,000-10,000. The 400 is around ¥6,000 but you can get Fuji 400H all day long for ¥4,000.

And yeah, some labs won't touch anything except basic Fujifilm. And most of the people still shooting film are fossils who would rather buy Japanese anyway.

A few weeks ago I found a camera shop that was frozen in time. They had beat-up old gear from the 70s and 80s, priced delusionally. I'm talking like an F4 with the worst Cosina-made kitlens Nikon ever shat out for over ¥50,000 and there wasn't a single digital camera or piece of modern equipment in there. Yet it was full of ancient seniors just buying film and bullshitting about the old days. Those are the people keeping film alive over here, not young, spry, not-gonna-die hipsters like other places. That generation isn't going to be around much longer and the international film market is much less profitable.
I want to buy the Fuji XT3 but the lack of IBIS is making me not want it. Would lens stabilization be enough?
No. Just take a tripod if you have to expose longer than 1/2000. At least this works for me.
No they aren't. I've owned both an X Pro 1 and an X100F, and they're the only two cameras I never bothered shooting RAW with. The film emulations don't exactly match the original stocks of course, but if you treat them like color profiles and just apply minor editing in post it makes for a really fun shooting experience.
Film simulations that are unequivocally and unironically worse than Instagram filters
Literally just put your raws into vsco lmao

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.