Guess I don't care what they say or encourage, If they have film I want, I'll buy it and use it as I please. Don't ever let someone else's opinion get in the way of your creativity.
Originally Posted by SkipA
Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel
I also consider APS as a consolidated enterprise of all major western film manufacturers and major camera manufacturers, indedendent of who actually íntiated it.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
In contrast to Disk Film, which was directed to a segment of amateur photography, APS was promoted by all participants as the amateur photographer medium. Something that relied an effeorts of all.
I consider it in general as a great idea, that soon was overtaken by digital amateur photography.
APS might have had a better life IF it had managed to come along several years earlier. As it was, it didn't arrive until just before the outbreak of consumer/prosumer digital, which didn't just put the last nail in its coffin, digital drove the wooden stake directly into the heart, sprinkled the holy water, incanted the exorcism rite, chopped off the head and stuffed the coffin of APS with garlic in one swell foop.
I was at the APS Kickoff in Hollywood, sitting right behind George Fisher. Kodak promised all kinds of digital imaging tie-ins, (like a magnetic coating), to make it a transitional product between analog and digital photography.
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
IMO, it was a waste of millions of dollars.
APS was on paper a very intelligent format.
Imagine projecting slides without having to mount frames, organize them into carriers and change them.
Imagine archiving films in their canisters with a clear record (on computer if needed) of their content.
Imagine changing rolls mid-way and reloading them without risks and without waste of film.
That, besides the solving of the loading "problem" (OK not really a problem but in any case a cartridge like APS or 126 or 110 inspires more confidence in the non-photographer).
Besides having appeared on the scene "late" and being overcome by the digital wave I think its main problem was to have chosen a format smaller than 135. That was evidently done in order to favour the production of small, pocketable cameras but it would certainly have discouraged serious photographers from adopting it.
If they had chosen an APS a little larger, with 135 frames, they would have probably had more success for the interoperability between 135 and APS (choice of traditional slide mounting or not, traditional sleeve archiving or not, easier compatibility with existing enlargers, and easier design of SLR based on existing design).
I suppose the APS format was since day one aimed at the the pocket camera market and not really meant to replace 135.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The APS format was chosen to be the same size as digital sensors! No more and no less. Digital sensors at that time and in planning were the same size as APS.
The frame was large enough for the vast majority of users (who never got prints larger than 4x6 anyway) and even for very nice 8x10s with the films available by that time.
It just cost too damned much to process, period, and 35mm had become quite automated enough for even snapshooters.
Not to forget that digital first used its very essence against itself by shooting it with a silver bullet.
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
Is APS totally dead?
Two things, one, I agree that it would have had more chance if it was designed to fit 35mm film instead of APS sensors, regardless of matching the sensor size, its main tout was the 3 options for panoramic or 8x10 or 8x12 ratios, however panoramic on such a small area isn't high enough quality for any real good pano, if it had 35mm it would have had a lot more detail.
I'm saying this because I know because I have one of the only (if not THE only) semi-pro camera ever made for APX which was made by canon (I can't get it out but I think it was the canon Xi or iX something like that) It had the normal canon EF mount (and probably can take the EF-S lenses for APS digital rebels I just don't own any of those lenses to try) which means I can throw on my 70-200 2.8 Mk II and shoot rediculous photos. Or if I owned it, the 14mm (22mm on this cropped frame film) prime for a pretty nice super wide pano. I still own the thing and have 2 rolls of APX in the fridge...
My pano shots on 4x(whatever) are grainy, and this was from new film stock at the time... Which is why I say the film wasn't big enough. Could have been the printer system, who knows, I was still in high school and I don't remember where I had it done.
Anyway the point is it could have been better, if the pros could latch onto it, people would have bought in (that's why I think having 35mm film would have been better). But pros mocked it for its small size and that trickled down to people not buying in (except my mom who still complains about wanting to use her elf camera but not having. Film...) maybe I should gift her my last 2 rolls this Christmas?
"...but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong..." ~Dennis Miller
The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller
You know, I forgot all about those panoramic settings. You're right - way too small for that. But I always considered cropping a letterbox shape out of a regular frame to be faux panoramic anyway. You could always do the same thing in printing. It's certainly not like, say, shooting 6x12 or 6x17cm on 120.