Dude let it go.

>fuji
>making good film
they just make larpy micro four thirds cameras now

>>4303676
m43 have better resolution lmao
they just make larpy cameras and film for 16yo girls cameras

>>4303677
The X-T5 provably has more resolution than the gh6/g9ii. It just lacks that "low MP sparkle" (digital fake sharpness) - but i dont think anyone on /p/ has been into photography long enough to hear sparkle used to refer to low resolution cameras jaggy, aliased, fake-sharp look k3k

>>4303677
I get what you’re saying about instead, but if you use it in ways other than what Fuji intended, it’s not actually bad film. It performs quite well with a real camera and not whatever plastic lens shit Fuji shoves into their instead cameras. Really makes you wonder why they don’t make it easier to adapt or release a proper camera themselves. Can’t imagine that the physical camera sales are that much of a margin, is it?

>>4303674
No.
Demand is there.
Fuji shareholders can go eat fugu.

>>4303690
Fuckin phone posting on the shitter and didn’t even see instax change kek

>>4303690
Fuji can not even design a lens that's sharp wide open for their $8000 "medium" format gfx. It's all character/rendering memes even when you're paying them $10k. Why would they make a good ILC for instax?

>>4303690
>It performs quite well with a real camera and not whatever plastic lens shit Fuji shoves into their instead cameras
It does not. I modified my instax to take a nice mamiya press lens and it's still soft as shit. Colors are alright but it will never be sharp enough for anything serious.

>>4303711
>instant film
>serious
even back on the 4x5 days, it was just used to make sure your composition was correct, nothing more.

>>4303711
I don’t know what to tell you man, I’ve seen various posts all over the web of instax being shoved into different kinds of mf and lf cameras, and it looks great.

I’m still pissed that Velvia is gone

File: instax_mamiya_s.jpg (448 KB, 1657x3000)

448 KB JPG

>>4303713
I mean, it's "fine" but the shitty plastic lens is not the limiting factor here. Top two are with the mamiya, bottom is vanilla instax mini 8. No doubt wide would be better, and also if I fixed the vignetting from my adapter. I will say bokewhoring with instant is pretty fun.

>>4303749
Wait what?

>>4303857
they haven't announced it officially but it's been out of stock everywhere for like a year
now and then they fish a few rolls out of the deep freeze to string us along, that's a pattern with fuji. probably working on a deal with kodak to rebrand ektachrome as nuvelvia

>>4303872
The basic Fuji 400 you can get at Walmart is already repackaged Kodak

File: Screenshot 2024-04-13 164749.png (131 KB, 630x360)

131 KB PNG

>>4303669
hipsters are really paying 15/shot for this despite every shot being a spin of the roulette as to whether it will be good or not. Based youtube photochuds for making normies splurge on this stuff. I've heard them come up with some fantastic cope to help them be okay with a shot developing terribly kek.

>>4303886
It's kodak made to fuji's specs, limited to the capabilities of kodak's facilities. Kodak is now film sony.

>>4304030
Except the colours are actually good LOL

File: GF-XDhvXYAAIHnB.jpg (435 KB, 2048x1152)

435 KB JPG

I've been using this to take photos of people at local conventions.

The /cgl/ people get a kick out of it because it's so unique a process and it's a fascinating reveal when peeling it apart.

As an artistic medium, it gives fascinating results.. It's just become too unreliable to be anything more. And too expensive for something so unreliable.

OneInstant is even more unreliable. Albeit slightly cheaper.

>>4304543
>spending 150/shot for snapshits of soulless consoomerist animetards
Anon why

>>4304580
xe is going to tell you because xe is rich and can also pay to use a seat belt as a camera strap or sum shit

I think I have 10+ boxes in a fridge somewhere. I'm not really sure if I should sell them or shoot them, I don't have much time for shooting right now desu. seeing this post I looked how much they go for and it seems about 10x as much as I paid. I even have one box of 100c45 that I got as a present from my wife. And two boxes of 4x5 Astia.

File: instax scan 01 for web.jpg (912 KB, 1000x1570)

912 KB JPG

It can take a decent photo if focussed correctly using a decent lens, but has limited dynamic range and annoying reciprocity failure.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	3200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	3200 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:15 20:30:17
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1570

File: I've_Had_My_Fun.gif (1.74 MB, 520x413)

1.74 MB GIF

>>4304580
Meh. Makes people happy.

>>4304581
Well not quite but also feel like not far off either >>4304638

>>4303669
no, and honestly the way they handled it made me stop shooting anything related to fuji, it was the last straw in a long line of discontinuations so I just pulled the bandaid off and went to Ilford and kodak.

just wish Ilford had a Acros100 competitor in terms of reciprocity. hands down my favorite B+W film ever made

>>4303669
not likely

the current meta for photography is snapshitting on a sony alpha and having incredibly post processing skills literally just go on instagram and you'll see exactly that

>>4305189
The new acros is made by ilford tho so like, make of that what you want.

>>4305385
yeah I heard that's what they were doing with it, and my hope is whatever contractual obligations that fuji has with ilford is dissolved when they inevitably cancel it, because so far I can't see anything in ilfords lineup that can do 2+ minutes of exposure without compensation (I liked using it for long exposures)

>>4305409
why would they discontinue something they don't make? it's basically free money now, no work to make it and they can sell it at a premium due to brand recognition
corporate equivalent of amazon dropshippers

>>4305409
>I liked using it for long exposures
sounds interesting. mind posting something?

bough two packs for my rz67 last year, still haven't found the right special occasion to shoot it

>>4303677
>m43 have better resolution
no matter how hard you shill your poor man micro 4 sharts i will never buy it even for free.