Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,963   Posts: 1,523,258   Online: 1004
      
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 80
  1. #51
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,931
    Images
    65
    A few points are missed here......

    I have made 16x20 and 20x24 prints from 35mm color negatives. Since the APS film is the same as 35mm but just a bit smaller, then by extrapolation we can make about 11x14 and 16x20 prints from APS with the same quality. The film is not grainier, it is smaller. And on the negative itself, a panoramic image still occupies the same frame size.

    As for film formats, I do not deny that Kodak introduced a host of film formats. But, some formats came from other companies and thus the format wars began. So, it was not a matter of Kodak doing it by themselves. Also, as Kodak began to dominate the market, the size wars stabilized on just a few dominant formats.

    As for producing some of the formats today, this would take a lot of equipment that just does not exist. In addition, at least 126 required an extra step in preparation in which the entire strip of film was flashed to form frames around the sites where the image was to be placed on exposure. In other words, a 125 film strip was designed to have a constant exposure level (at least as much as possible) to give higher quality and more uniform processing by having the developer remain in better balance.

    All of these smaller formats were made possible by the C41 process and the finer grained films. IMHO, I agree with everyone that 110 and Disc films failed in both grain and sharpness, but our children loved those cameras and carried them everywhere. They took a lot of photos, and they told us that their friends loved them. So, acceptance depends on market. I hated them personally.

    PE

  2. #52
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    I have made 16x20 and 20x24 prints from 35mm color negatives. Since the APS film is the same as 35mm but just a bit smaller, then by extrapolation we can make about 11x14 and 16x20 prints from APS with the same quality.
    Depends on what you mean for "just a bit smaller".

    135 format is, roughly, 24 x 36 mm = 864 sqmm.

    The "full frame" of the APS format, APS-H, is 30.2 x 16.7 mm = 504 sqmm.

    So the full frame (markedly rectangular) gives a surface which is 42% less than 135.

    What people would normally use and experience is the classic format, APS-C. That's 25.1 x 16.7 mm = 419 sqmm. That gives a surface which is 51% less than 135.

    Most people using P&S wouldn't print big in any case so the marketing choice for APS and P&S made sense. But P&S are just a segment of the market.
    When enlarging a bit more seriously half the surface or twice the surface matters!

    No wonder APS did not find any market beyond colour negative. B&W and slide film, which are used by advanced amateurs and pros, people who make enlargements, made no sense on APS. That, in turn, condemned the format as a "snapper" format and I think would have failed to supplant 135 (as it was probably hoped by the proponents) even without the advent of digital.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  3. #53
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,931
    Images
    65
    And this area is why I compared a 35mm 16x20 with an APS 11x14 which is about 50% difference in area!

    PE

  4. #54
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,030
    Images
    223

    Is APS totally dead?

    Ok this isn't a great example since there are a lot of variables unaccounted for, BUT

    PE you have to remember the pano shots were cut outs of the top and bottom which means the surface area was VERY small, smaller than 110 and perhaps disk too.

    But they would enlarge them to for the height of 4inches in a standard print... See...

    If you look at the detail, the non cropped image of the tree is fairly clear

    The stretched out panos look blurry/out of focus and grainy...

    This is because the cameras made had crappy lenses, and crappy lens+less surface area of film=crappy photo...

    I have better images off of a 110 roll taken with one of those "spy" cameras you got from an arcade gallery with 100 tickets!

    So APS was bad not only in ultimate surface area, but if you blow up (pano) an area of film that isn't pin sharp to begin with because its taken with an elf camera, you get blurry pictures, I don't care what the data on the specs of the film are and that you can "Technically" blow it up to 11x17, in reality that's untrue because the stats are based on perfect DO glass lenses in a test lab, not realistic ones sold to consumers.

    The real test is how your final product actually looks in the real world...

    Also I have fond memories of 110, they WERE easy to take with you even without a purse but they were also cheap, Advantix was not.

    I don't quite follow the 126 description, I'm not understating about the frame "flash" thing. How does that affect affect development?

    Also sorry if this sounds angry, it's not, I just haven't had my coffee yet

    I still respect and admire you PE for your knowledge and clear thought processes, I just agree with diopositivo this time


    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #55
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I still respect and admire you PE for your knowledge and clear thought processes, I just agree with diopositivo this time
    This can happen in the best families, don't worry
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  6. #56
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,931
    Images
    65
    Hey guys, I'm not upset.

    The thing is Stone, that I shot all of my APS using a Nikon Pronea which can use regular Nikon lenses and so I took the same lens and used it on my 2020 and on the Pronea and compared images that way. I agree that many APS cameras had bad lenses. Today many P&S cameras do too and they give a given film a bad name.

    No worries here.

    PE

  7. #57
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,030
    Images
    223

    Is APS totally dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Hey guys, I'm not upset.

    The thing is Stone, that I shot all of my APS using a Nikon Pronea which can use regular Nikon lenses and so I took the same lens and used it on my 2020 and on the Pronea and compared images that way. I agree that many APS cameras had bad lenses. Today many P&S cameras do too and they give a given film a bad name.

    No worries here.

    PE
    Very fair.

    I just went out and shot a roll of the Kodak Advantix just to prove myself wrong and realize you're right haha.

    I'm planning to crop after so I'm not concerned either the magnetic data, but does anyone have a reel to process this in a JOBO/Patterson at home?

    And how can I scan it? My scanner doesn't have APS size holder... Haha




    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    <snip>
    No wonder APS did not find any market beyond colour negative. B&W and slide film, which are used by advanced amateurs and pros, people who make enlargements, made no sense on APS. That, in turn, condemned the format as a "snapper" format and I think would have failed to supplant 135 (as it was probably hoped by the proponents) even without the advent of digital.
    When you think about the quantity of 35mm equipment out there in 1996, APS never really had a chance of supplanting 35mm. The only way manufacturers could do that would be to discontinue 35mm cameras and withdraw 35mm film, and consequently shoot themselves firmly in the pre-digital foot. APS offers no technical or optical advantages over 35mm unless you're an incompetent who can't load a camera properly. APS = massive fail. But the marketing guys loved it. :-D

    Cheers,
    kevs
    Last edited by kevs; 11-03-2012 at 03:30 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo
    testing...

  9. #59
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,151
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Very fair.

    I just went out and shot a roll of the Kodak Advantix just to prove myself wrong and realize you're right haha.

    I'm planning to crop after so I'm not concerned either the magnetic data, but does anyone have a reel to process this in a JOBO/Patterson at home?

    And how can I scan it? My scanner doesn't have APS size holder... Haha
    Guess I'm lucky, one of mine does. The Minolta Dimage Scan Multi with APS Adapter AD-100... (I bought it before joining APUG, it sits gathering time)...

    Last Saturday I stopped by my local camera store and they had a few APS cartridges on the shelf. Almost grabbed them. I was on a mission though, so I picked up some chems and 35mm 100 TMAX instead...

  10. #60
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,151
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by kevs View Post
    When you think about the quantity of 35mm equipment out there in 1996, APS never really had a chance of supplanting 35mm. The only way manufacturers could do that would be to discontinue 35mm cameras and withdraw 35mm film, and consequently shoot themselves firmly in the pre-digital foot. APS offers no technical or optical advantages over 35mm unless you're an incompetent who can't load a camera properly. APS = massive fail. But the marketing guys loved it. :-D

    Cheers,
    kevs
    The tiny Elph's were pretty darned cool. And they look just like digital P&S cameras. I thought of picking up one just so I could shoot film incognito.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin