I like Fuji film. I find the colours to be more satisfying than Kodak. Although I have a digital camera, there are times when I want a disposable 35mm camera. Now there’s a problem.
Fuji filed suit against a company back east that recycles one-time-use cameras. They won the lawsuit, claiming that the recycler infringed on their patents when they reloaded used Fuji cameras.
Now, whenever I use a disposable camera I make sure the prosessor recycles it. If they don’t recycle the camera, I go elsewhere. I buy recycled cameras from time to time as well (usually as an “extra” ar REI). With so much waste in the world, it feels good to do even the tiniest bit of recycling by occasionally buying the recycled cameras and making sure those Fuji cameras I buy are recycled.
But if Fuji is trying to put the recyclers out of business, then it just doesn’t feel right to buy Fuji products. If I knew that the Fuji camera would be recycled, then it wouldn’t bother me to buy a new one-time-use camera because someone else (and maybe I) would buy it again later. Now that it sounds as if Fuji is against recycling, I guess I’ll just have to shoot digital photos.
Dear Fuji: Is making a few extra pennies for your stockholders really more important than the impression that you are anti-environment?
[sub]Yes, I know this is a tempest in a teapot; but I like the idea of recycling.[/sub]
But, why don’t you just buy a cheap 35mm camera? Then you can buy the film you like best and not worry about recycling.
I really don’t understand using a disposable camera and then worrying about recycling. I would think that disposable cameras cause a lot more waste then regular cameras even if some people do recycle them.
By all means boycott Fuji if you want. I have refused to buy things from companies for less. It is your money and you should use it to buy what makes you happiest for what ever reason.
Surely they must or they couldn’t compete with Kodak/Qualex Labs which I know for a fact does reuse as many parts as possible (I used to drive photo-finishing routes for them via the courier company I worked for, dropping off finished photos and bringing back film and ,in the case of outlets that had 1-hour operations in-store, bags and bags of camera parts).
Perhaps what Fuji is doing is clamping down on small independent labs that are re-assembling and relabeling Fuji cameras rather than shipping back the parts. It’s Fuji’s patents;their right and their obligation to employees and shareholders to enforce them.
Fuji and Kodak recycle them by melting them down and remolding, Jazz (the company in the suit) uses them as-is and just relabels them with their own brand. (cite)
I do have an Olympus OM-1, but it’s a bit much to carry around sometimes. Anyway, I’m just miffed at the idea that Fuji is going after Jazz (thanks, SmackFu) for reloading the cameras. It’s all well and good to recycle the cameras by melting them down, but it takes less energy to simply reload the existing shells.
I think the consumer should decide. If one is worried about quality issues, then use a new camera. If one has faith in the reloader’s ability, then why not use a recycled camera?
Have to go with In Conceivable here. You could get a 35mm point-and-shoot for the price of a few disposables, and you recycling concerns would be reduced greatly.
In the back of my head I’m vaguely remembering the tidbit that Fuji films lean towards the “green” side and Kodak films lean towards the “red” side. So if you’re shooting a lot of outdoorsey photos (which sounds like what you’re doing) you should get Fuji because its colors are truer to grass & leaves, etc. If you do a lot of portrait type, indoor pictures you should use Kodak because it better replicates skin tones, etc. I have absolutely no cite for this and have no recollection of where I heard it, so maybe someone can chime in with actual info.
Re: the boycott. I’m of the opinion that you should buy a cheap 35mm camera. I bought a 35mm camera that came in a blister pack with a pair of binoculars for $10 at a Woolworths about 5 years ago. It took perfectly fine photos and we still have it around somewhere (I think it’s in the car or something). Disposable cameras are for people who get all the way to the amusement park and realise they forgot theirs, not for people who actually like to take pictures on a regular basis.
Gotta go with the flow here. If you’re a fan of being environmentally friendly, don’t use the disposables in the first place.
If you’re not willing to do that (whatever hassle/inconvenience it may be), then I’d say No, don’t boycott Fuji – if you can’t bring yourself to boycott disposable cameras, them you have no business throwing stones in your glass house.
I guess I should clarify: I use a digital camera for most photos. I have a 35mm SLR for other photos. But there are times when I need a disposable. (Unless I want to end up with a drawer full of cheap cameras every time I forget to bring the digi or SLR).
Twenty or so years ago, when I was selling that stuff, that was an impression that the general public had. Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, etc… reps said it was the Film Box Color Balance Phenomenon. In other words, the film box colors skewed the customer’s expectations and they saw what they were predisposed to see.
Film manufacturers have been trying for decades to get a “punchier” look for consumer films and a “natural” look for pro films.
Inertia is a hard thing to kill, tho. So, even if it was really balanced that way in the long ago past, it most likely isn’t today. Still, the customer bias persisits.
