Fuji Quickload and Large Format Film Availability
As posted previously, the discontinuation of quickload is a blow to large format photographers but is it "the beginning of the end"? Well I don't think so and hopefully I can articulate a few reasons why.
Fuji as a company have made vast losses recently and this has been reflected in share prices. In order to respond to shareholder pressure, FujiFilm have declared that they ..
To this end, beginning with the current fiscal year, to build a robust corporate constitution, the Company is resolutely implementing concentrated structural reforms and thoroughly implementing measures to reduce costs and expenses throughout the entire Group and in all businesses without excluding any business fields from the scope of these measures
Fuji's losses in the Color Film subdivision were nearly 40% and I have a feeling that 'without excluding any business fields' is probably to do with the 'Film' in fujifilm having 'extraordinary protection' within the business. However, film as a whole is a huge revenue earner for the business (£1 billion dollars! Excluding the colour paper part of the business) and so as a whole, film will most definitely remain alive.
However, each subdivision of the company will have been asked to make cuts somewhere that will reduce overheads and anything that doesn't make a big part of that £1bn will need looking at. One of Fuji's other stated aims is to move production over to China where possible. If this is the case for film production, consolidating suppliers, inventory equipment, storage space, employee salaries, etc. will be a strong contender for consolidation.
Compared with this, the production of sheet film is a minor job of slicing up some sheets and packaging. Even if Fuji were to decide that they couldn't manage to cut film to size, an agent may be able to purchase raw sheet film and cut it themselves. Not a technically complex task and not something that requires a huge equipment investment. In contrast, the production of quickloads have a significant equipment overhead and custom manufacturing and materials input.
My guess this that we will see consolidation of film lines before we see consolidation of film sizes (maybe this was demonstrated when velvia 50 was discontinued even when quickload was still alive and kicking). So we may see Pro160S discontinued before we see 4x5 sheet film become unavailable.
Highlight this Comment Neil Bryce22/12/2009, 23:42
The problem with that Tim is that it may only be profitable when mass produced. If sales decline then a threshold will be reached where it becomes unprofitable to manufacture at reduced quantities.
I dont think too many people are worried about film disappearing completely any time soon but I hope to shoot film well into my seventies (and beyond :-) ) not just the next few years. I want film to be available to others long after I've popped my clogs and hope they get the same enjoyment from it that I do now.
However this, or recently these decisions feel like the thin end of the wedge. My main concern is the reduction in choice and ease of use that paints a gloomy picture reinforcing the publics perception that film is on the way out. This will in turn reduce the number of people wishing to turn to film. If this happens across all formats then a downward spiral would only make matters worse.
Personally if it wasn't for quickloads I think I would have been more reluctant to convert to LF. The prospect of handling raw sheet film at the time seemed daunting and was one of many excuses I used to try to talk myself out of it. I'm glad I didn't listen to myself.
It is the projected trend that worries me rather than the immediate situation, that could cause reduced availability, accesibility and awareness, it is not opening up avenues for non film users to explore it is closing them.
However, on the brighter side, it is going to be cheaper (I hope), it will be more hands on and therefore more enjoyable and I should be more inclined to experiment with different film stocks. Hopefully all that will mean taking more shots and if that is the same for all large format users then it can't be too bad in the long run. All we need now is more LF converts - keep up the good work Tim.
Highlight this Comment Michael E. Gordon23/12/2009, 00:19
Thanks for your analysis, Tim. Sounds spot on to me. I am not at all worried about the demise of film in my lifetime, but am disappointed that carrying film into the backcountry may become a bit more cumbersome and weighty.
Highlight this Comment Tom23/12/2009, 01:08
Great, so now the UK and the US can give more working job away to China.
Quickload had both a very small profit margin and a small following. It' was a bad business model to begin with and people are surprised, I mean, how hard is it to buy Film holders at eBay and load your own 4x5 sheets in a dark-bag?
Highlight this Comment Tom Kershaw23/12/2009, 01:41
Tim,
I would be skeptical about the success of a production move to China. How would Fuji deal with quality control and the massive investment in new plant?
Tom
Highlight this Comment Paul Breitkreuz23/12/2009, 03:55
No doubt we will need to see how things are promoted or demoted if you will after the new year. I'm sure the stock of various QL's will last for quite awhile, but there is no guarantees beyond the fact that there will be change. As Fuji has the only QL's left on the market, one has to wonder what the outcome will be if they are all discontinued. Meaning, what loyalty factor is associated with just plan being lazy and not wanting to load and carry cut film holders, or if one does, why Fuji and not Kodak instead? I'm also sure, that some of the resurgence into LF in recent years was due in no small part to ease of using QL's. So, will the quantity of shooters die off with the demise of the QL's, or will most be willing to dig the tent and holders back out, or for many purchase the required items for the first time. It will be interesting, but not at all amusing IMO.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin23/12/2009, 18:31
Hi Neil - I don't think large format film was ever going to be a 'growing' field but, like you say, some people won't want to load film. There are some labs that will do it for you I hear, and in clean room conditions. I've just got my freezer anyway and it's currently got 500 sheets of film and 200 quickloads. I've got the funds to buy another 20 boxes of quickload when I see the right price and 600 QL should provide 'restricted use' for 4+ years or so, especially with no 'b' sheets and only for use on long trips once the DDS/graflex have run out. So far though, the maximum number of 'compositions' I've taken on a single outing have been about 5 so by my reckoning, I should be OK with a couple of graflex and two double dark slides. I might be more limited in film stock though and I suppose 'emergency' provia/astia could be a good reason to use quickload?
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin23/12/2009, 18:33
Stocking up on QL's is bound to happen. Hopefully a bunch of profiteers won't buy too much of the stuff.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin23/12/2009, 18:41
@Tom Kershaw - I think with a few hundred million behind you the right palms can be greased to oil the Chinese diplomatic wheels.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin23/12/2009, 21:30
@Paul - I think a few photographers may be put off by the lack of availability of quickloads but we'll try to rectify that by informing people about how easy sheet film is. Perhaps people won't know that quickload existed in the next year or so and they won't know what they might have been missing?
Highlight this Comment Paul M23/12/2009, 22:23
Sounds like its time for a tutorial on sheet film for those of us who've never used it. How bout it Tim - what do I need? how do I load it? how do I avoid getting dust in the dark slide? where do I put it (the dark slide that is)? etc.
To look on the bright side, I suppose the demise of quickload could save me a fortune......for a while a least!. Cheers. Paul
Highlight this Comment Paul Breitkreuz24/12/2009, 01:23
You're probably right Tim, and hopefully that is the case. I can't say loading cut film is near as bad as carrying them. Having worked with both over the years, the QL's were made to lighten the load a bit and worked as advertised IMO. Also, as I work deserts a lot in So Cal the protection from dust and particles especially in the wind was invaluable. Michael is right about the survival of film, it will just be a matter of adapting as needed. Whether one is ready or not, change is here.
Highlight this Comment Ben Heaven25/12/2009, 15:14
As a complete 'newbie' when it comes to large format I'm not sure how helpful my comments will be. However, I actually found the thought of using dds more appealing than quickloads when i first started (literally only a few months ago) due to both cost, and the sense of not having to rely too much on a more complex, costly product. Being able to buy a few boxes of out-of-date Velvia 50 from ebay was one of the reasons that I thought I'd give LF a go. If i had to fork out for a very expensive box of quickloads I'm not sure I would have ever tried it.
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist27/12/2009, 10:02
Hello Paul and any others who might have an opinion on this,
One of the big reasons I chose not to switch to QL but remain with DDS, is the fear that the QL holder would get damaged in just the dusty, windy conditions you mention. Once the holder is inoperable, all photographing stops. End of play. With DDS, the damage is contained. I found it easy to remove dust and sand with a toothbrush and any scratches are quickly dealt with in Photoshop. So the question: how robust is/was the QL holder?
Best regards, Charles
Highlight this Comment Paul Breitkreuz27/12/2009, 15:39
@ Charles, a good question overall. I found the Fuji QL's and the holder to be flawless. In fact, I dropped my QL holder in some extremely fine sand around Mono Lake when I first started using it. Much to my surprise with some aggressive field cleaning it kept right on working, although still a bit gritty with some noise too. Once I got to a clean environment I took it apart and really got it cleaned very well. After that episode many years back now, I bought a backup unit just in case. In the last several years of using the original holder, I've never had to go to the backup unit. I will say, that an ounce of prevention goes a long way too. When I return from every trip to the field, I use an air compressor with low setting to blow off and out all my hardware and field pack also. I will certainly be one who will find the QL's a big loss for convenience as well as quality. I've never lost a shot due to a QL or holder malfunction, however, my track record with DD units is not that perfect I'm afraid.
Highlight this Comment Richard Childs27/12/2009, 18:48
I have had two quickload holders fail on me in the past five years. Both in the field at a crucial time so I agree with Charles completly on this and now only use quickload as backup when I have run out of sheet film in the field.
If anyone is interested I weighed up the differences in film and holder weights with relevance to travelling (flying).
Quickload holder 350g 20 sheets in foil 400g
1xDDS 150g (fidelity elite) 10 sheets in foil 50g
When I next travel overseas I will save 1.4kg by taking 5 DDS and 120 sheets of cut film compared with Quickload and without the fear of the holder packing up while I'm away.
Regarding dust, I don't think there is much difference, just the need to be careful and clean.
I wish I had started using sheet film again years ago. Rather than lobbying Fuji to keep the quickload on we should be trying to get them to re-introduce to 50 sheet box.
Richard
Highlight this Comment Paul Breitkreuz27/12/2009, 23:45
@ Richard, excellent information about the weight issues. As I have never had to fly with my LF gear I've not needed to review that aspect with the two usages. I'm sure many have accepted the QL being dropped in the future and lobbying is out, but it was a nice concept when in good working order. At the cost of the loaders the failures at anytime would not be much fun at all including the lost photo opportunities and resulting down time. I agree on the 50 per box idea and need. I'm not sure why beyond some concern of expiration dates as to the plan for the upcoming 20 per box release in stead of 50. With the loss of Acros, apparently Astia too, and now QL's, I'm scratching my head big time. However, I'm also very good at adaptation as well.
Highlight this Comment Photography Courses16/09/2010, 16:14
Great article and very well written. Thanks!
Chris
Highlight this Comment Jim Hawthorne25/10/2010, 15:58
DUST prevention is the biggest advantage of quickload - it's almost impossible to get a 100 percent dust free shot on cut film and DDS - there always seems to be the minutest speck right in the middle of that otherwise perfect orange and purple aflterglow sky.
For those who prefer the look and realism of a traditionally printed Cibachrome/Fuji Crystal Archive darkroom print straight from the big slide (a necessity for some like me, who shoot a lot of low-light scenes because current scanning technology just doesn't extract enough subtle shadow detail for a decent print), dust is an absolute manace. Quickload will be sorely missed and I suspect I'll have to regress to some of my old rollfilm cameras for low light shots to eliminate dust.
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin25/10/2010, 17:52
Hi Jim, Thanks for the comment and I can agree with the fact that a dust free transparency is very difficult with DDS's.
I have to disagree with your comment about scanning technology not being able to capture as much shadow as cibachrome. In my personal experience, cibachromes clip shadows quite badly, and on the other side, my drum scanner can get more shadow detail out of a transparency than I can see if I hold it the slide up to a bare light bulb (feel free to send me a transparency and I'll do a free scan for you).
The other problem is, how do you get a dust free transparency in your enlarger? Surely there is the same problem doing so as getting a dust free transparency in a DDS?
Feel free to drop me a line if you want a scan done. (I have a Howtek Scanmaster 4500 with software that custom programmes the photomultiplier op amps).
Send us your comments
Comment Preview
Comment Formatting
The following are a some examples of how you can add links, bold text and lists to your comment entry. The section below this shows how they will look on screen. You should be able to see a preview of your post as you type.
Enter This
Get This
One or more consecutive lines of text separated by one or more blank lines.
This is another paragraph.
This is bold and italic
Links need angle brackets like so http://example.com/...
...or if you want to link some text you can!