Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,706   Online: 975
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    65

    APS/Advantix Film Discontinued

    Anyone else notice that Kodak has just now quietly discontinued the last APS/Advantix film? Might be a good time to take a last spin with your APS camera while there is a little fresh still on the shelves.

    I doubt anyone will ever be able to reload this format as some do with 110, so after it's gone it really will be dead as disc:

    http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...S&pq-path=1096

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,124
    Kodak has had a bad history in coming up with odd film sizes. I think that it was their hope that other camera manufacturers would get on the band wagon. Add to the list instatmatic, 828, and 620 films.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  3. #3
    chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Kodak has had a bad history in coming up with odd film sizes. I think that it was their hope that other camera manufacturers would get on the band wagon. Add to the list instatmatic, 828, and 620 films.
    Fuji also made APS film, and the cameras were made by Kodak, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, and Minolta. So, it did catch on with manufacturers, but I think consumers were turned off by the high price of the film and especially high price of processing compared to 35mm film. I worked at a one hour lab when this stuff was introduced years ago and people bought the cameras cause they had a lot of cool features, then were SHOCKED by the processing cost, nearly twice 35mm at that time!
    Chris Crawford
    Fine Art Photography of Indiana and other places no one else photographs.

    http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

    My Tested Developing Times with the films and developers I use

    Become a fan of my work on Facebook

    Fort Wayne, Indiana

  4. #4
    bsdunek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,152
    Images
    211
    And the fact that it came out just as digital was taking hold. Double Whammy!!!
    Bruce

    Moma don't take my Kodachrome away!
    Oops, Kodak just did!
    For all practical purposes, they've taken Kodak away.


    BruceCSdunekPhotography.zenfolio.com

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    235
    Good riddance.

    APS cameras weren't significantly smaller than 35mm, the cartridges were a pain in the rear for the lab tech, and prints were significantly grainy beyond 4x6 (which was already a bit of a stretch for the format).

  6. #6
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Kodak has had a bad history in coming up with odd film sizes. I think that it was their hope that other camera manufacturers would get on the band wagon. Add to the list instatmatic, 828, and 620 films.
    APS was the result of a collaborative effort of the major film manufacturers and the major camera makers. It certainly wasn't Kodak all by themselves.
    Who didn't jump on the band wagon the way they had hoped was the public.
    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.

  7. #7
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,918
    Images
    60
    And APS was intended to be the transition point into a film and digital combination - same size film and sensors, enhanced data storage capabilities, etc.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  8. #8
    DBP
    DBP is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,886
    Images
    34
    Not exactly shocking. APS was always a hard film to find a use case for, even if not the misbegotten mistake disc film was.

  9. #9
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,882
    I always thought it had potential for miniature cameras. Unfortunately the APS cameras weren't that much smaller than 35mm cameras for some reason.
    f/22 and be there.

  10. #10
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    APS was the answer to questions that the film industry kept asking for decades, it just arrived late.

    First of all, it is fool-proof. You just insert a plastic cartridge inside the camera and close the door. Just like with 126 or 110. This is very important if you want to increase film sales. Many persons, my parents included, would just have the roll loaded in the camera by the shop-keeper. And when they have finished the roll, they keep all the camera to the shop. Imagine how much that can damage film sales.

    Also, the APS format allows the use to change, in a perfectly easy and error-free way, a roll mid-way. You can switch from ISO 100 to ISO 800 and back with almost the same ease as with digital. The camera IIRC remembers where the cassette was extracted and when you put it again in the camera it aligns the film with the first useful frame, no error, no waste.

    The APS format gives the user the negative (or possibly slides) back inside the cartridge, where they can be perfectly preserved for decades. No more stripes of 4 when you have sleeves of 6, no more dust and scratches on old negatives. You never touch negatives or slides. You don't need cutting and touching to frame slides (you don't frame slides).

    It is possible to devise, and it was done, APS film scanners where you just put the cartridge in it, and the scanner will scan the entire roll in sequence, without need of assistance. Now you either deal with - in the best case - stripes of 6 frames, or you scan mounted slides one by one. It goes without saying that with mounted slides you have dust problems that are possibly very reduced with APS cassettes (the cartridge is light-tight and so also pretty much dust-tight).

    Is possible to devise a slide projector that is programmable for each cartridge so that the scanner knows which slides it has to skip during projection. No more frames, no more putting all the frames inside carriages with the occasional slide upside-down, and then putting them again inside the plastic box. And imagine a slide projection without all the click-clack-stomp between frames (and without stuck slides).

    I think APS was basically a great idea, with some flaws IMO:

    1) they chose a format smaller than 24 x 36. That condemned the format to the casual user niche. Professionals need quality. Advanced amateurs mostly tend to copy the behaviour of professionals or what they perceive as such. By choosing a small film surface, they confined the APS format to the typical Instamatic or 100 or photodisc user. If a camera wants to exploit all the possibilities of the APS it has to cost something more than the bare minimum. Slides, where the APS format could have had a very bright future, were entirely missed because slides are for advanced amateurs looking for quality, not for the Instamatic market.

    2) The producers presumably did not help financially the laboratories. Laboratories had to make an investment to work with APS. Most didn't. That alone would have killed APS, a new format needs acceptance all over the productive chain.

    3) The old same VHS - Betamax story, or the PC effect. Once there is a huge "installed base" for a certain platform, for a new platform it is quite difficult to entrench itself in the market. People want to use their investment. Professionals need to use their heavy investment. Even if the film surface had been deemed enough quality-wise, professionals would not invest in a totally new system (new camera and new lenses at least). Again, professionals acceptance is the key to the high-end amateur market, where probably most of the money is.
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 08-01-2011 at 05:57 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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