Fuji Superia being discontinued

FishyFish

FishyFish

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,792
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
https://www.zorkiphoto.co.uk/2017/05/superia-fujifilm-200-discontinued-film-photography/

“Superia 200 in all configurations and exposures (24 and 36) will be discontinued when stocks run out. Superia 400 in 24 exposure will be discontinued when out, 36 exposure will continue. Superia 800 and 1600 is already discontinued and out of stock. Fujicolor C200 will become the 200iso offering.

Consolidation of Photographic film will be on a worldwide basis however films affected will vary depending on markets, regions and availability.

Kind Regards

FUJIFILM UK Limited”
Click to expand...
 
I'm sad at the disappearance of yet another film but I won't miss it.
 
Trouble is that it is another of the cheaper films that we use to test cameras or that folks will use when they get into film photography and anything that makes it more difficult is a bad thing.
 
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. I use Superia all the time as a colour film. It gives decent results for a reasonable price. The others I have tried I don't like anywhere near as much.
 
I really do not understand the message manufacturers are trying to transmit, on one side they discontinue popular films, maybe not the best or the ones providing the bigger revenues, but everybody have used or continue using Superia at some point and C200 is not the same. But on the other side we have manufacturers like Kodak, Ferrania and Bergger coming back from the dead and restoring some film lines. So what is the message here???.

The only thing I know for sure is that they do not care about consumers/customers and this game they are playing with us is p***ing me off really bad.
 
I wish I knew what Jessops used to use for the colour film. I used to really like that as well. There is the Kodak more expensive consumer stuff which I haven't tried yet. Just seen it's about £6 a roll so that's why. Stupidly expensive compared to Superia which is usually £4 a time.

I can see me selling all my film stuff in a huff in the not to distant future :(
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit surprised to see Superia get discontinued as well. Perhaps Fuji reckon the consumer market has waned to the point that it's become uneconomical to keep making it, while there's still business to be had from the more specialist stuff (120 and sheet film, mainly). In other words, happy snaps on 35mm has just about gone as a mass market because everybody is using digital these days.

I hardly ever do colour in 35mm now - it's all 120, and I'm thinking of trying colour neg in 5x4 once I get more comfortable with the format and with colour processing at home (far too pricey to go making silly mistakes, especially with lab processing costs).
 
Is Agfa vista the Superia or the ordinary C200? I can't remember. If it's the ordinary C200 then I'd probably try the C200. If it's the superia then that's a double blow.
 
Last edited:
"Expensive" is relative. I just pulled down the Wallace Heaton Blue Book for 1970/71 from my shelves. At the time, I was a new graduate on a salary of £1200 pa, taking home just over £69 per month.

The Blue Book lists only two colour negative films (as against 10 reversal ones) both at near enough 76p in decimal money (15/2d and 15/3d). That converts to about 100 films to equal my monthly take home pay. At £6 a film, that would be a monthly take home pay of £600, or £7,200pa. Assuming tax at 50% has been deducted, that's an annual pay of just over £10,000.

To put this in a different context, a Hasselblad 500C with Planar lens comes in at £435.20 (converted) or over 6 months take home pay; a Pentax Spotmatic with f/1.8 lens just under £136 (two month's take home pay) and a Nikon Photomic FTN with f/2 lens £270.73 (about 4 month's take home pay). And in 1969 I was paying 62p per pound for fillet steak at the village butchers...
 
srichards said:
Is Agfa vista the Superia or the ordinary C200? I can't remember. If it's the ordinary C200 then I'd probably try the C200. If it's the superia then that's a double blow.
Click to expand...

I think C200 and Agfa Vista Plus 200 are the same film. I've never used Superia, but I don't like the fact that it's being discontinued. I'll buy a few rolls in though so I get chance to shoot it before it vanishes.
 
That's one way to look at costs. The way I'm looking at them is, if I duff up a sheet of Fomapan devved at home, it costs a quid. If I duff up a sheet of, say, Ektar devved at a lab, it costs a tenner. The cost of film and processing isn't everything of course - there's still the time spent going out to take the photos, the cost of fuel and food when doing so, and the potential cost of having to return and try again. But a tenner for a pop for one duff shot would still sting.
 
Have shot a few rolls of it over the years & it's a nice film. Have read poor reviews of Kodak Colourplus & for what Kodak Gold costs I would rather pay a bit more for Ektar or Portra 160. At times you can find 5 packs of Portra 160 for around £30.

Made a decision a while back to start buying Kodak over Fuji where I can. At least they seem to be trying to better the film situation unlike Fuji.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
"Expensive" is relative. I just pulled down the Wallace Heaton Blue Book for 1970/71 from my shelves. At the time, I was a new graduate on a salary of £1200 pa, taking home just over £69 per month.

The Blue Book lists only two colour negative films (as against 10 reversal ones) both at near enough 76p in decimal money (15/2d and 15/3d). That converts to about 100 films to equal my monthly take home pay. At £6 a film, that would be a monthly take home pay of £600, or £7,200pa. Assuming tax at 50% has been deducted, that's an annual pay of just over £10,000.

To put this in a different context, a Hasselblad 500C with Planar lens comes in at £435.20 (converted) or over 6 months take home pay; a Pentax Spotmatic with f/1.8 lens just under £136 (two month's take home pay) and a Nikon Photomic FTN with f/2 lens £270.73 (about 4 month's take home pay). And in 1969 I was paying 62p per pound for fillet steak at the village butchers...
Click to expand...

Best post this year..
 
The pulling of Poundland Agfa Vista (being C200) may well be linked. Cannot see Fuji continuing to supply their only 200 ISO film to somebody to badge as Agfa and undercut them.
 
ariel7515 said:
I really do not understand the message manufacturers are trying to transmit, on one side they discontinue popular films, maybe not the best or the ones providing the bigger revenues, but everybody have used or continue using Superia at some point and C200 is not the same. But on the other side we have manufacturers like Kodak, Ferrania and Bergger coming back from the dead and restoring some film lines. So what is the message here??
Click to expand...
I suppose the new films are targeted at a particular market - professionals, artists and younger (or born-again) film enthusiasts who want a different look to digital. It's very much smaller than the old mass market that Superia was made for, but could be more sustainable in the long run (Ilford are apparently seeing annual growth, as are Kodak with their pro emulsions). I guess it didn't make much sense for Fuji to sell two different 200 ISO consumer films, but it's a pity Superia was the one they axed, and a shame that the 800 and 1600 have gone the same way. I wonder if Superia 400 is long for this world? It used to be my standard film before digital, and I also liked the 800. But DNH might be right about supporting Kodak from now on - I can imagine Fuji exiting the colour negative market first. All the same, I grabbed a couple of 5-packs of Superia 200 earlier (decent price from Calumet, but nearly all their branches are out of it; none at 7dayshop and prices are rising on Amazon). Incidentally, thanks for mentioning Bergger - I'd missed that one, and it looks interesting.
 
Retune said:
I guess it didn't make much sense for Fuji to sell two different 200 ISO consumer films.
Click to expand...

This.

To be fair, I could not understand how they had two films at ISO 200 for so long. It only makes sense to streamline your offering. They even had Pro 160NS alongside those for ages too, although that is now only produced for larger formats.

At least Fuji have continued to offer colour negative, slide, and black and white films. For everyone that is complaining about Fuji, how many slide films can you currently purchase from Kodak, Bergger, or Ilford?
 
skysh4rk said:
...At least Fuji have continued to offer colour negative, slide, and black and white films. For everyone that is complaining about Fuji, how many slide films can you currently purchase from Kodak, Bergger, or Ilford?
Click to expand...

See?... that is exactly the issue, not if a type of film dies, they have achieved to make us see like they are doing us a favor by continue offering film, or more than the competition, so we have to be thankful with Fuji for taking our money...
 
What's the difference between Superia 1600 and Natura 1600? The former is listed as NA by Macodirect, the latter available. Both priced €12.95, which is, um, gulp!

Superi 400X is not a bad day to day film; I use it in the Agfa Vista 400 version, bought in bricks of 10 from AG it works out less than £3.50 per film. Portra or expired Reala for better subjects (like Cornwall!).

I think a lot of these discontinuations are related to volume. Production lines for the big 3 will have been set up in days of high volume, and will become increasingly uneconomical as volumes decrease. If they can cut out some varieties and hence increase volumes of what remains, they may be able to keep them going. Could explain why they are saving the cheaper of the two 200 ISO films. The Pro films presumably always had higher margins built in. The new start manufacturers are setting up based on lower volumes and boutique scale, with tiny staffs. Film Ferrania are already having problems scaling for the P30 orders they have, goodness knows what the final retail of the slide film will be!
 
ariel7515 said:
See?... that is exactly the issue, not if a type of film dies, they have achieved to make us see like they are doing us a favor by continue offering film, or more than the competition, so we have to be thankful with Fuji for taking our money...
Click to expand...

Right, so you're upset with Fuji for eliminating redundant film emulsions (how many consumer ISO 200 films do you need?), while offering the most diverse range of films on the market, but happy with Kodak who had already chopped a lot of their films, but have committed to bringing back one single slide film, but haven't actually done so yet.

:thinking:
 
skysh4rk said:
Right, so you're upset with Fuji for eliminating redundant film emulsions (how many consumer ISO 200 films do you need?), while offering the most diverse range of films on the market, but happy with Kodak who had already chopped a lot of their films, but have committed to bringing back one single slide film, but haven't actually done so yet.
Click to expand...

Maybe I've expressed it wrong, when said "they" I was meaning not only Fuji but all manufacturers. I'm not happy with Kodak, Fuji or any of them.

skysh4rk said:
how many consumer ISO 200 films do you need?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking that to me?, ask Fuji why there were more than one line of consumer ISO 200 film offered at the same time in the past, as far as I know C200 is not the same as Superia, so it is not just about film's sensitivity. But if you ask me, I would prefer to have several from where to choose and not to be forcibly limited to only one line.

What I am trying to say with all of this is that film photo is slowly but surely converting in something more expensive and exclusive and, in general, we are accepting that gladly, even happy that they are making us the favor. And for what?... for something that is mass produced, and in the best case a film that was developed 17 years ago.
 
H'mm a lot of Japanese parts and assembly are made\done in cheap labour countries, now if they had done that with film they could have kept costs down and profit up? The puzzle is:- how was Agfa Vista (C200) sold for £1 going thru' shop, middlemen, carriage, storage space etc and everyone making a profit.
 
ariel7515 said:
Maybe I've expressed it wrong, when said "they" I was meaning not only Fuji but all manufacturers. I'm not happy with Kodak, Fuji or any of them.
Click to expand...

Right, my apologies; it seems I have misinterpreted your previous statement, as I thought that you were happy with Kodak, but not with Fuji.

ariel7515 said:
What I am trying to say with all of this is that film photo is slowly but surely converting in something more expensive and exclusive and, in general, we are accepting that gladly, even happy that they are making us the favor. And for what?... for something that is mass produced, and in the best case a film that was developed 17 years ago.
Click to expand...

Well, as @StephenM has highlighted, the cost of film relative to wages is actually much cheaper than in the past, so I'm not sure that things are really that expensive... yet.

Also, I'm not sure if we're accepting it gladly, but we have to be realistic. Do I want to see films dropped? No, not really. But it's unreasonable to expect manufacturers to produce these many different types of emulsions given the drop in film users over the past two decades. It is probably better for the industry to have 10 well supported emulsions than to spread those purchases over 50 different types of film, for example. We need critical mass.

There's evidence that film is making a small, but noticeable resurgence, so I am currently optimistic about its future, although I expect that we will continue to both lose and gain emulsions along the way. For those emulsions I want to continue, I will just try to do my part to support them by making regular purchases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top