Peeling apart dreams: Death of FP-100C
March 19, 2016 7:20 PM   Subscribe

For many analogue photographers, peel apart film was their instant film of choice. FujiFilm, citing poor sales (and resurgence of their integral films), has decided to discontinue their line of FP-100c pack film. There has been recent buzz around former Impossible Project Founder, Florian Kaps, about meeting with FujiFilm executives. As of now, more than 18,000 signatures have been registered for Change.org's 'Save Fujifilm FP100C Instant Films' petition. Will the film survive?

For those unfamiliar with the medium, check out Japan Camera Hunter's Guide To Peel Apart Film.

The beauty of this this film is that many old cameras can still use this film. In addition, it is a very 'hackable' medium. Check out DIY pinhole cameras and use of 'polaroid backs' on everything from Holgas, 35mm Cameras, to Hasselblads and Large Format Cameras.

While transfers are more difficult on FP-100c than the discontinued Polaroid Packfilms, FP-100c has a gorgeous colour saturation that can be witnessed throughout various photo boards.
posted by aeroboros (11 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite
 
Yay! Expensive low-quality photography is saved!!
posted by scruss at 7:36 PM on March 19, 2016 [11 favorites]


I have just recently gotten into 4x5 photography, and it was a bit of a bummer to hear the news. That being said, I imagine that Impossible Film or some other niche distributor will find a way to make it profitable, probably through buying out old patents and raising prices through the roof. I really do see film photography continuing to exist indefinitely, though only through a transformation to a hobby for the rich. It will simply become a status-thing whose virtues are unnecessary work, retro-chic, exclusivity, and esotericism.

As of right now, I bought a beat up camera and some junky lenses for around 500$ in total, which amounts to the price for some amateur digital equipment. I shoot x-ray film, which is orthochromatic, perhaps not as versatile as some people might like. It's fun. I'm not the future face of film, to be sure.
posted by constantinescharity at 8:00 PM on March 19, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yay! Expensive low-quality photography is saved!!
posted by scruss at 7:36 PM on March 19 [3 favorites +] [!]
Expensive, perhaps*

Low quality? Perhaps you are thinking of integral or 'lomography', but I've always found the quality FP-100c exceptionally to be quite good. Fujifilm always seemed more technically accurate than Polaroid and Kodak films I've shot. I've also used this film for studio work and was pleased with the shots.

* The upfront investment of digital is more massive than a decent packfilm camera. Regarding film price, you are going to choose your shots much more carefully if you know you paying $2-$5 a pop. I've taking a lot less shots on my film camera because of the price, which puts my investment into film cameras well below my high end digital camera. And frankly, I am more proud of the film captures.
posted by aeroboros at 9:31 PM on March 19, 2016 [5 favorites]


Ugh, I wish I was in a position to buy 100 packs.
posted by rhizome at 10:39 PM on March 19, 2016


I feel bad for guys like Louis Mendes who basically make a living off this stuff.

On the other hand, when they discontinued the 4x5 version a few years ago I sold the last 6 boxes I had sitting at home for $50 a piece so I'm sure he's got plenty stashed away himself...
posted by Venadium at 6:09 AM on March 20, 2016


  Low quality? Perhaps you are thinking of integral or 'lomography',

Nope. Used to shoot with a Polaroid back on the RB67. Results were pretty horrid.

The thing about slow photography is that — in addition to all the dicking about with the equipment and process — you have to go to the massive effort of convincing other people that it was worthwhile and that you made ᴀʀᴛ. If I see a good picture, I don't care how you made it, pretty much. It takes a lot to make people care that you went to all that effort.

But at least it's not about those inexplicable Instax kids.
posted by scruss at 8:21 AM on March 20, 2016


I think it almost goes without saying that analog photographs look very different from digital photographs, and that's most of the point of taking analog photos. For instance, Ian Ruhter's wet plate collodion process photographs are stunning when you see them in person, almost iridescent, and in his case the medium is what makes all the difference. There's no way you could have just taken the same "good pictures" with a digital camera and produced the same effect.
posted by Dr. Send at 8:35 AM on March 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


I certainly can't fault Ruhter's participation level for waiting for that perfect shot while schlepping about a portable darkroom full of iffy chemicals. Getting the MSDS for some of those through national park officials must've been hell in itself. I'm sure they look beautiful if you can find the gallery they are displayed in, but on the web, they look kinda ‘neat instagram filter, bro’.

One could rig up a blue laser scanning lightjet and print digitally onto collodion plates. It might even come out looking less distressed.
posted by scruss at 10:02 AM on March 20, 2016


Jesus that sucks. I have four packs of them in my refrigerator right now. They've been there about a decade because my camera that uses this film broke and I never got around to fixing it. I had some of my greatest moments of artistry with that film. Sad.
posted by spicynuts at 1:15 PM on March 20, 2016


"Nope. Used to shoot with a Polaroid back on the RB67. Results were pretty horrid."

Since I had the luck of seeing a bunch of Mapplethorpe's peel-apart Polaroid work, along with Robert Frank and Ansel Adams' work, and they all managed to get fantastic results with unrivaled color depth, I'm gonna guess that despite an awesome camera, the pretty horrid results were not a result of the film.

The thing about slow photography is that — in addition to all the dicking about with the equipment and process — you have to go to the massive effort of convincing other people that it was worthwhile and that you made ᴀʀᴛ. If I see a good picture, I don't care how you made it, pretty much. It takes a lot to make people care that you went to all that effort."

This is such a bizarre complaint. Like, if you see a photo on integral film, it's immediately apparent how it was made. The only way this really makes sense is if you're never looking at physical photographs anymore, so questions of printing and process are more removed. And even with "fast photography," I still care how people got cool shots, even through digital editing processes. This just makes you sound like a cranky philistine.

But at least it's not about those inexplicable Instax kids.

Instax has a decent lens for midrange shots, and has an amazing color depth that's pretty much impossible to equal with a digital shot. Plus, it's physical and can't be (easily) duplicated, which makes it more intimate. Aside from being $1 a shot, it's great for parties.

"I'm sure they look beautiful if you can find the gallery they are displayed in, but on the web, they look kinda ‘neat instagram filter, bro’."

Well, again, the answer to this seems to be "Stop basing your opinions on the idea that everyone is a shut-in." Yes, if you're just looking at things on your phone, you can be happy with Instagram. Declaring everything else worthless because you don't care enough to see it is like the analog photography version of "My kid could do that."
posted by klangklangston at 4:17 PM on March 20, 2016 [3 favorites]


Heard the news recently and made it a point to get out there this weekend to take shots with my remaining fp-100c and fp-3000b (discontinued in 2014, I think?). Having recently refurbished a few land cameras (including teaching them to use modern batteries), I feel alternately dumb and sad.
posted by destructive cactus at 4:54 PM on March 20, 2016 [1 favorite]


« Older *Face* the future   |   From Arachnophobia to Argo, Goodman is our... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments