Fuji to close Crawfordsville film factory

There are 20 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Mar 3, 2008, titled Fuji to close Crawfordsville film factory. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

Tom Wood Volkswagen Looking for a Price Quote? Maybe You Need to Schedule a Service Appointment or Test Drive? Tom Wood Volkswagen, Indiana's Premier VW Dealer, Can Do It All Coast to Coast Imports Quality ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Bryan

Shelbyville, IN

#1 Mar 3, 2008
Even though this is sad are you really suprised by this? I'm shocked that it was still open since digital camera's came out years ago.
oh oh

Indianapolis, IN

#2 Mar 3, 2008
Mitch! You watching? Where are you? You get all the praise for bringing in jobs, but you take none of the blame when they leave.
Sketchy

Greenfield, IN

#3 Mar 3, 2008
oh oh wrote:
Mitch! You watching? Where are you? You get all the praise for bringing in jobs, but you take none of the blame when they leave.
You're going to blame Mitch Daniels for the closure of an antiquated factory which was building a component of old, nearly-obsolete technology? You have problems.
yeahright

Indianapolis, IN

#4 Mar 3, 2008
Here's the funny thing. Almost everyone I know with digital cameras takes the pic, passes around the camera right then for everyone to oooh and ahhh looking at the view screen, but then NEVER gets around to printing it. Their memory fills up and and then they get to deleting willy nilly, erasing memories. Digital photos are too easy for lazy Americans, the old fashioned shoot and develop film makes people work harder for good pictures.

Just my little old school rant for the day.
Ken

Indianapolis, IN

#5 Mar 3, 2008
Sketchy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're going to blame Mitch Daniels for the closure of an antiquated factory which was building a component of old, nearly-obsolete technology? You have problems.
Sketchy's absolutely right. My Dad was a 30-year Kodak veteran in Rochester, NY, and he's seen the former global giant tear down about 80(!) buildings in the area over the past 10 years. Just as George Eastman knew that the masses would like film on celluloid over glass 100 years ago, consumers today prefer digital over film.

Mitch Daniels can't be expected to save outdated technologies, but his people certainly should be looking for new industries/markets to compete in.
Ken

Indianapolis, IN

#6 Mar 3, 2008
yeahright wrote:
Here's the funny thing. Almost everyone I know with digital cameras takes the pic, passes around the camera right then for everyone to oooh and ahhh looking at the view screen, but then NEVER gets around to printing it. Their memory fills up and and then they get to deleting willy nilly, erasing memories. Digital photos are too easy for lazy Americans, the old fashioned shoot and develop film makes people work harder for good pictures.
Just my little old school rant for the day.
Very true, Old School. My dad's been published by National Geographic, and only recently bought a high-powered digital camera. It instantly changed his shooting habits.

To preserve the best images, digital shooters need to be sure they put the pictures on paper.
No Clue

Davenport, IA

#7 Mar 3, 2008
oh oh wrote:
Mitch! You watching? Where are you? You get all the praise for bringing in jobs, but you take none of the blame when they leave.
Blame this on Mitch? Are you serious? Please put down the Kool-Aid and step away.

“(click)”

Since: Mar 07

Indianapolis, IN

#8 Mar 3, 2008
It wasn't too long ago you had a one-hour photo lab at all malls and most strip centers. There's one left on the northeast side of town and they are struggling. With film sales dropping 20% each year more labs will close.
It's a shame. Film is still better than ones and zeros and quality one-hour shops are gone.
Tom Pain

Dublin, CA

#9 Mar 3, 2008
Undoubtedly it was the Union that brought about ths closing.
Digital Pro

Hammond, IN

#10 Mar 3, 2008
I know people that leave everything (years worth!) on the little storage card in the camera. Lose the camera or a little spark of static and all will be lost.
Most people are ignorant about the quality of digital. Digital pix are not nearly as good as film. Worse, JPEG file compression wrecks the image. The reason that you can get so many pictures on the little bitty storage chip is because the jpeg compression throws stuff away.

Always archive the original file on CD, using 'copy-paste', RAW if available. Never re-save in jpeg - it recompresses the already compressed file (use TIF). Be prepared to re-archive your life's memories when CDs become obsolete. Don't rely on your desk top printer for archiving. Most are not well calibrated and the ink will fade far faster than old fashioned emulsion prints. the well-advertised 'archive ink' system has very poor quality color in comparision to emulsion prints or professional dye systems (limitations of pigments vs dyes). Drugstore prints are just awful!- thats why they are only two bits. Home printers and inks will get better over the years.

Since: Dec 06

United States

#11 Mar 3, 2008
I have a roll of Kodak 35mm black & white slide film I'm keeping just so I can prove it once existed... Wish I'd kept a 110... but then they're $1 at local flea markets.

Film is dead but for some specific applications. Even my dentist's x-ray is digital now.
peace advocate

Indianapolis, IN

#12 Mar 3, 2008
How much did the State of Indiana give this Japanese company to move here,I will bet the Tax credits were about to run out and now they are headed to Mexico...
IPS graduates 46 percent

Greens Fork, IN

#13 Mar 3, 2008
yeahright wrote:
Here's the funny thing. Almost everyone I know with digital cameras takes the pic, passes around the camera right then for everyone to oooh and ahhh looking at the view screen, but then NEVER gets around to printing it. Their memory fills up and and then they get to deleting willy nilly, erasing memories. Digital photos are too easy for lazy Americans, the old fashioned shoot and develop film makes people work harder for good pictures.
Just my little old school rant for the day.
And thatís nice and all but if they just pass the camera around to show their friends and then delete them, did they really need printed in the first place? Maybe the digital camera cuts back on waste?
Get it

Fishers, IN

#14 Mar 3, 2008
Film and digital both take some competancy to use, "leaving everything on the little bitty storage card" is still better than opening the back of a film camera and loosing all the photos due to light.

I thought the argument of film vs digital had been put to rest, aleast it has among professionals.

You can do every bit as well with digital as with film now. Google Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III and do a little research on the amazing quality of digital. Even less expensive retail point and shoot digital cams look great now. There are thousands of sites offering free information on compression, storage, printing, etc. If the consumer makes even a small effort, all of the problems you descibe vanish.

The giant advantages to digital are in ease of use, control, immediate confirmation, ability to edit at home, and on and on and on...

There are actually a number of retail stores that have good dye-sub printing for the consumer. Online labs do even better by converting your digital print to a chemical/photo print on archival paper. All of this can be had for a dime for a 4x6 print!

I haven't picked up a roll of film since I picked up a digital camera.
Digital Pro wrote:
I know people that leave everything (years worth!) on the little storage card in the camera. Lose the camera or a little spark of static and all will be lost.
Most people are ignorant about the quality of digital. Digital pix are not nearly as good as film. Worse, JPEG file compression wrecks the image. The reason that you can get so many pictures on the little bitty storage chip is because the jpeg compression throws stuff away.
Always archive the original file on CD, using 'copy-paste', RAW if available. Never re-save in jpeg - it recompresses the already compressed file (use TIF). Be prepared to re-archive your life's memories when CDs become obsolete. Don't rely on your desk top printer for archiving. Most are not well calibrated and the ink will fade far faster than old fashioned emulsion prints. the well-advertised 'archive ink' system has very poor quality color in comparision to emulsion prints or professional dye systems (limitations of pigments vs dyes). Drugstore prints are just awful!- thats why they are only two bits. Home printers and inks will get better over the years.
hmmm

United States

#15 Mar 3, 2008
yeahright wrote:
Here's the funny thing. Almost everyone I know with digital cameras takes the pic, passes around the camera right then for everyone to oooh and ahhh looking at the view screen, but then NEVER gets around to printing it. Their memory fills up and and then they get to deleting willy nilly, erasing memories. Digital photos are too easy for lazy Americans, the old fashioned shoot and develop film makes people work harder for good pictures.
Just my little old school rant for the day.
Or they just do the prints from their home printer.
those good ol days

Columbus, OH

#16 Mar 3, 2008
what did mitch do to help...........zero...
Digital Pro

Hammond, IN

#17 Mar 3, 2008
Get it wrote:
Film and digital both take some competancy to use, "leaving everything on the little bitty storage card" is still better than opening the back of a film camera and loosing all the photos due to light.
I thought the argument of film vs digital had been put to rest, aleast it has among professionals.
You can do every bit as well with digital as with film now. Google Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III and do a little research on the amazing quality of digital. Even less expensive retail point and shoot digital cams look great now. There are thousands of sites offering free information on compression, storage, printing, etc. If the consumer makes even a small effort, all of the problems you descibe vanish.
The giant advantages to digital are in ease of use, control, immediate confirmation, ability to edit at home, and on and on and on...
There are actually a number of retail stores that have good dye-sub printing for the consumer. Online labs do even better by converting your digital print to a chemical/photo print on archival paper. All of this can be had for a dime for a 4x6 print!
I haven't picked up a roll of film since I picked up a digital camera.
<quoted text>
Losing 'lifetime' pictures because of a static spark is very common. Opening the back of a loaded camera is rare. Open the back and you might lose a couple dozen pix. The static spark often wrecks hundreds.

the average person does not take the time to educated themselves about file type. It is not explained by the manufactureres of the camera or software. they want easy. they want point-and-shoot. Some do not have internet (critical in your argument). Many are oldsters, don't forget.
And they are not about to spend $800 -$1200 for a camera. YOU might. They will not. And they often already own a great 35mm!

Ease of use? My 35 yr old 35mm is the easiest to use of all and it has NO automatic control. And better optics that the best digital system on the market, any brand.

I have the Cannon camera. It is not as good as film. However, I use it all the time. Depends on the final output. So, it has NOT been put to rest. Pros know when to use digital (there are many advantages) and when to use film. For the average point-and-shooter, a disposable film is better than a cheap digital. I see point-and-shoot digitals all the time. The customer always says "I thought digital was better. You mean I can't get a good 11 x 14?" Sad but true. And dye-sub sucks! Very limited color gamut. Dye-sub prints will never compete with a good dye system (its a science thing - chemistry and physics) But they are cheap and instant dry.

So, now you know. Everything in life is not about you. There are many, many different angles to every situation. Because it works for you and you find it easy and you find it every bit as good, does not mean that all sorts of different people of different backgrounds, ages, and income will find the same result.
Mr Obvious

New Kensington, PA

#18 Mar 3, 2008
Ken wrote:
<quoted text>
Mitch Daniels can't be expected to save outdated technologies, but his people certainly should be looking for new industries/markets to compete in.
And they are...that would be the other job announcements we see from the likes of web pharmacies, Honda, etc. all creating JOBS in Indiana.
Get it

Worthville, KY

#19 Mar 4, 2008
"not about me"? Don't take this too personally Digital Pro. This isn't about either of us, it's about technology.
I understand ESD, but have never seen it actually happen with a flash storage card. It is not at all "very common". Getting film prints back from a retail photo processor that are improperly developed and enlarged is VERY common. One of the reasons to move to digital - the consumer has control over image and printing.
If you are saying many people don't take the time to learn the operation of their camera, you are right. A point and shoot film camera is perfect for them, same for non technical older folks. Digital takes more technical expertise, but yields far more when you put the time in (and yes $)By the way, there are countless D photo sites on the net, forums, and manufactureres sites that DO explain the ins and outs of digital, the good and the bad and the how to.
I will also agree a cheap digital is not as good as film. A good digital will exceed film. I qualify my remark by saying a full frame sensor for digital. Yes, they are expensive. If you want to go bargain basement stay with film, lot's of bang for the buck. You started out by trashing digital by saying it's not as good as film, no qualifications. I spent a lot of time in a BW darkroom in the 70s and have shots thousands of rolls. I am not trashing film.
Best optics? Are you saying they quit making good glass 35 years ago? What do you think Canon and Nikon are making now? Glass (optics) have gotten far better with better manufacturing technology, regardless of whether it's going on a SLR or DLSR.
Is there still a need for film? Sure. Are people moving away from it? Sure. Reminds me of the old argument audiofiles have regarding the best amplifiers are still tube based.
Digital Pro wrote:
<quoted text>
Losing 'lifetime' pictures because of a static spark is very common. Opening the back of a loaded camera is rare. Open the back and you might lose a couple dozen pix. The static spark often wrecks hundreds.
the average person does not take the time to educated themselves about file type. It is not explained by the manufactureres of the camera or software. they want easy. they want point-and-shoot. Some do not have internet (critical in your argument). Many are oldsters, don't forget.
And they are not about to spend $800 -$1200 for a camera. YOU might. They will not. And they often already own a great 35mm!
Ease of use? My 35 yr old 35mm is the easiest to use of all and it has NO automatic control. And better optics that the best digital system on the market, any brand.
I have the Cannon camera. It is not as good as film. However, I use it all the time. Depends on the final output. So, it has NOT been put to rest. Pros know when to use digital (there are many advantages) and when to use film. For the average point-and-shooter, a disposable film is better than a cheap digital. I see point-and-shoot digitals all the time. The customer always says "I thought digital was better. You mean I can't get a good 11 x 14?" Sad but true. And dye-sub sucks! Very limited color gamut. Dye-sub prints will never compete with a good dye system (its a science thing - chemistry and physics) But they are cheap and instant dry.
So, now you know. Everything in life is not about you. There are many, many different angles to every situation. Because it works for you and you find it easy and you find it every bit as good, does not mean that all sorts of different people of different backgrounds, ages, and income will find the same result.
fujifuji

Indianapolis, IN

#20 Mar 4, 2008
I actually work at the Crawfordsville Fujifilm lab and while we were having a huge decline on roll work (film), we were also having a huge decline on digital work as well. Blame who you want, just don't call our lab "antique", don't sit here and pretend you know what's going on because not even the employees at the lab completely know. The economy sucks right now so no one is wanting to spend money on film, developing, or even digital printing right now. That, in my opinion, is why Fuji is closing down us and Maryland. We're not obsolete, we've been adapting constantly, yet we still do everything you know us for. For goodness' sake, we have customers who still send 110 work to us! We do 110, black and white, C-41, slides, 35mm, APS, prints from CD, prints from prints, etc. The labs are also the people who make your t-shirts, puzzles, ornaments and other products that you order from your local Walmart, Sam's Club, and other retailers.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Crawfordsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
forum restaurant (Aug '13) Apr 27 concerned citizen 9
yamato in crawfordsville now hiring (Feb '14) Apr 27 concerned citzen 3
Fireworks (Jun '14) Apr 27 The Fuze 6
mushrooms Apr 7 cantwait 1
News Ladoga Academy wants to meet neighbors (Jul '08) Apr '15 amber 137
indiana childrens christian home (Aug '09) Apr '15 Paul 18
Indiana Children's Christian Home (Jun '12) Mar '15 Paul 4
More from around the web

Crawfordsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]