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.
I still respect and admire you PE for your knowledge and clear thought processes, I just agree with diopositivo this time
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
<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.
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
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
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...
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.
I have seen a tremendously clear and detailed 4x5 foot poster printed from a disc negative.
Of course, it was done in Rochester to be used by senior Kodak management as part of a retirement party honouring a Kodak Canada employee who was:
1) known for many years as "Mr. Kodak" throughout the western half of Canada, because he was the only Kodak representative in that half of our country; and
2) forced to retire just a few month's short of his 50th anniversary with the company, due to Kodak Canada's mandatory retirement at age 65 rule (do the math).
As I understand it, much of the tremendous improvement we saw in films in the last 1/4 of the 20th century occurred because of the work done to make 110, disc and APS film viable.
A few points are missed here......
I have made 16x20 and 20x24 prints from 35mm color negatives.
As for film formats, I do not deny that Kodak introduced a host of film 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.
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.
Someone building low voulme tooling to make 126 or 110 could proably do this step with a regsiter contact printing frame after the film was perforated. And that can proably be done with the film flat on a set up with multiple punches, the holes do not have to be made with the same sort of spacing precison as for movie film..
Forgot to add, that although I can see where the pre-flashed borders would help large volume photfinishers in keeping the process in control, anyone (HI SIMON, Hi ADOX) who wnated to make a viable 126 or 110 film could omit that step without causing serious issues with either home or commercial processing given the low volume compaired to 35mm going through the machines.
Low volume APS is of course more dificult as it requires the thin film base and the clear magnetic coating on the back to be sure it will work with many existing cameras. Ad lets face it there are many more 126 and 110 cameras out there than there were APS cameras ever made.
I'm confused, aren't there formats more obscure than APS still in production?
I wonder if the guys of Lomo could take up the gauntlet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?