Is APS totally dead?

I PM'd too earlier, guess you weren't talking to me lol


~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

That's fine if you got it... I've got a photo store I can return to...

I made and won a lowball bid on a small Canon APS camera, though it's not the Elph 2 I wanted. Too fast on the 99 cents bid...

There's a Titanium Contax up there to be had ... it's not as cheap.

Bill Burk said:

That's fine if you got it... I've got a photo store I can return to...

I made and won a lowball bid on a small Canon APS camera, though it's not the Elph 2 I wanted. Too fast on the 99 cents bid...

There's a Titanium Contax up there to be had ... it's not as cheap.

Click to expand...

No I haven't heard back from the PM lol

I've got the Canon XI SLR APX it's silly high tech for APX but fun.

If there are many rolls we should share


~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

You still get APX-film off the shelf of photo-stores around here.

I went to check.. My local lab still has the machine ...



Only $15 per roll... When you're the only game in town...

Lol


~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

My favourite lab still process APS, they charge 13.25$CAD (10.25US) for processing & prints or 4.25$CAD (3.30US) processing only. I still have a few rolls of Nexia 400, I'm thinking about getting an EOS IX to shot them.

Roll are still available in eBay.

StoneNYC said:

I went to check.. My local lab still has the machine ...

Only $15 per roll... When you're the only game in town...

Lol


~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

Click to expand...

Just a little heads up for anyone in the East of England......Ashcroft Stores on Bute St in Luton has some Kodak Advantix APS film for sale. I do not know the date, but it's behind the counter on a display along with batteries etc.

My .02.....I've talked to a few people who operate (or operated) high street photo labs and they certainly believe that there was a conspiracy to "force" them into investing hundreds of thousands in new Kodak approved APS processing. Because without that, they lost their "Kodak Approved" status which counted for something at the time. I know my acquaintances were (and are) very bitter about that. Some didn't take the plunge, lost the right to hang that big yellow sign outside their store and believe it killed their business. Some made the investment (mostly to keep "Kodak Approved" certification, they knew APS was a dead duck) and lost out financially too due to their investment never being recouped. They were also "encouraged" to push APS film by having it more prominently displayed compared to 135, to tell customers that it was the "next big thing" and they'd better invest in the system before 135 died out...and look, we just happen to sell handy-dandy APS cameras too! You may have come in for a £2 roll of Kodak Gold, but here have this £3 roll of APS film and a £90 camera!

The format actually wasn't completely without merit. The envisioned comprehensive line of films and cameras including professional slide and B&W film all with the ability to "hot swap" films and with some basic metadata wasn't totally out there....but the vast majority of cameras sold were cheap point and shoots, sold on the gimmick of "HDTV" shaped prints...given the poor quality of the lenses and then cropping the already smaller negative, these panoramic and "HDTV" (silly name, like "turbo" hoovers) photos looked pretty bad. I've also seen photos from APS SLR cameras and they did look really good....an advantage was that the cameras were a bit smaller and lighter than a 135 SLR but of course lenses weren't compatible so anyone using the format had to invest in a whole new system. The other advertising point was the fool-proof loading, which already existed in motorised 135 cameras and anything "instamatic". The more serious photographers probably didn't care about film loading. The public were also wary after the Disc fiasco...which just a few years before we'd been told was "the next big thing" only for it to produce photos inferior to previous formats and disappear from shelves very quickly. I never owned a disc camera and only actually saw one (my aunt tried the format and even snap shots were utterly dire). And how was one supposed to home process APS film, even B&W?

I can understand Kodak, Fuji et al not realising how fast digital would catch on....like many users I couldn't see it approaching the quality of film as quickly as it did. And bear in mind part of my degree gained in 1997 was studying theory, design and manufacture of CCD arrays...I just couldn't see a 6MP array of sufficient sensitivity and quality being viable price wise until the 2010s give what I knew and what had been observed in previous computer technology growth....how wrong I and others were on that one.

But APS never caught on with pros or serious amateurs. The snap shooters soon realised that 135 was better and crucially so much cheaper...APS processing was horrifically expensive and the films cost about 30% more too. The gimmicks of the aspect ratios were soon realised to be nothing more than cropping which could be achieved with 135 and scissors....and most such users weren't then interested in metadata. So most stuck with their existing P&S 135 camera and enjoyed cheaper film and processing.

Had digital actually taken another 10-15 years to mature and had phone cameras not become "a thing"....APS might have survived. Though most people I know who tried it (admittedly with low end cameras) could see the point no more than the shop owners who were being asked to push the format.

Agulliver said:

I never owned a disc camera and only actually saw one (my aunt tried the format and even snap shots were utterly dire).

And how was one supposed to home process APS film, even B&W?

The gimmicks of the aspect ratios were soon realised to be nothing more than cropping which could be achieved with 135 and scissors....and most such users weren't then interested in metadata.

Click to expand...

Disc cameras are not rare at fleamarkets over here. I would say 1 on 3 APS ones.

Though I yet have to come a cross an "APS album" filled with films and prints.

APS film can be homeprocessed, though the industry did not offer the apt accessories to the homeworker. The main market for APS were users looking far a good, small, hasslefree camera with unique film features. Quite the opposite of the average darkroom worker.

The data stored on the film was in first instance aimed at the industrial lab, by that benefitting their printing.

The choice of aspect ration was no gimmick. It showed the user what to expect and enabled him to get the respective print without hassle. Imagine doing so with an industrial lab and type 135.

Agulliver said:

... Some didn't take the plunge, lost the right to hang that big yellow sign outside their store and believe it killed their business. Some made the investment (mostly to keep "Kodak Approved" certification, they knew APS was a dead duck) and lost out financially too due to their investment never being recouped. ...

Click to expand...

Whereas such coercive tactics may be legal, I think it's a rotten thing for a company to do. Shame on those who conceived that.

It's unfortunate Kodak didn't have the vision and the courage to introduce a film format that would've been superior to 35mm - perhaps keeping or even reducing camera size. For example, instead of a 24mm x 36mm frame on 35mm width film, they could've tried a 30mm x 45mm frame on that same 35mm width film (preserving the aspect ratio) and have small sprockets only between the frames. Image area would increase from 864 sq mm to 1350 sq mm. I think that's significant.

Theo Sulphate said:

It's unfortunate Kodak didn't have the vision and the courage to introduce a film format that would've been superior to 35mm - perhaps keeping or even reducing camera size.

Click to expand...

APS was not a sole child of Kodak but of a group consisting of the leading film and camera manufacturers. The time for Kodak solely introducing a new format as they did with type 126 was long gone.

Heightening mage quality resolution-wise was no issue for the consumer back then.
And still today the majority of what is cranked out at industrial labs over here are small prints and photobooks.

"Hot swap" was IMHO the big, big plus of APS. For a tourist, the possibility to swap easily to a high-speed film when he enters a museum or a church, or a restaurant, and then swap again to 100 ISO when outside is very attractive, both to the advanced amateur and to the unsophisticated photographer. It's something that's useful also for a birthday party. If digital photography had never happened I imagine APS would have had a fair share of the photographic market.

The industry made mistakes but also did had successful ideas. When one-use photographic cameras were introduced I thought they were the ultimate in consumerism and stupidity. They weren't and they had a great success. In the last years of film production one-use cameras were selling a lot.
I had one myself in the glove compartment of my car, to be able to take pictures of a car accident if I had one.
People would buy them for a hike in the mountain or to go to the seaside, and maybe for turism in dangerous areas of town, and for how knows which other reasons. Possibly somebody is so afraid of loading an instamatic cartridge into a camera, and a one-use camera solves the problem.

Sometimes marketing departments are not so totally out of touch with real or "latent" needs.
APS delivered on a number of fronts, it certainly could have been quite successful with time. I think overall it was a good idea.

AgX said:

...
Heightening mage quality resolution-wise was no issue for the consumer back then.
...

Click to expand...

Well, that's true. The typical consumer probably loved the idea of a drop-in film cartridge and a small camera.

I remember the square Canon Elph and sleek Nikon Nuvis S as being very stylish.

A very interesting thread from nearly five years ago (I see that I posted in Sept 2012!), with some thoughtful recent additions. My wife used an APS camera for several years in the 2000's for family and holiday pictures (before I got her into "serious" photography.....) and the easy of use, and the finished prints (with CD scans and nice Kodak filing boxes), were all that were needed for the purpose.

APS still seems to be hanging-on since my posting, and perhaps will still do so while usable (if outdated) film and specialist processing is still available. It was certainly an ingenious and comprehensive design, intending to meet several needs as they were seen and foreseen at the time. However, changes came more quickly and in ways not envisaged......other excellent ideas have gone the same way, as a music enthusiast minidiscs come to my mind. A great design, but somewhat superceded by CD's, and partcularly by MP3 players.

The one thing you cannot feasibly do with 135 or 120 is hot swapping....which does leave analogue nuts like me still taking multiple camera bodies on holiday or compromising with 400ISO film. Those of us who can hand hold slow-ish shutter speeds are at an advantage too. I think that ability could have been the biggest plus point for APS, but for the serious photographers (amateur or pro) the minuses outweighed it....then digital came along and even in the early 2000s a decent (in today's parlance "bridge") camera could do 100,200,400ISO.

But that hot swapping as you call it would be more advantageous to the advanced amateur.
And only advanced camera models employed that feature of the APS cassette.

So what is the verdict? Has anyone figured out how to reload the cartridges and process the film in a daylight tank?

For handling the cassette there were dedicated tools, a reel would have to be adjusted to the film width.
Many cameras did not use the magnetic strip, so one could substitute with common film.

Theo Sulphate said:

Whereas such coercive tactics may be legal, I think it's a rotten thing for a company to do. Shame on those who conceived that.

Click to expand...

nonetheless, this is very common in many industries. My brother is a GM mechanic. He and some of his coworkers certified in EV repair even though they don't sell, and would rather never service EVs. But GM requires dealerships to maintain certain levels of service staff training in order to maintain their franchise, and so he gets trained on EVs. Microsoft has requirements for vendors to become Microsoft certified partners.

Agulliver said:

The one thing you cannot feasibly do with 135 or 120 is hot swapping....

Click to expand...

Well, this became relegated to the body, in the case of 120. Theoretically, I could buy a bunch of 135N backs for my Bronica if I wanted to live swap 35mm, but I do that with 120 backs.

What would be the purpose of using APS film now? Using an APS camera? There are plenty of cameras that take picture with the same (lack of) quality as APS cameras using film currently available, so I don't see the need.

There are countless cameras with better image qualities than a pinhole camera. And there are still people who focus by hand when since long a machine can do that for you. And some are using a triplet lens when there is a double Gauss one available.
All our photography at Apug is questionable.


By the way, the range of APS cameras goes from single use cameras up to autofocus SLRs.

abruzzi said:

nonetheless, this is very common in many industries. My brother is a GM mechanic. He and some of his coworkers certified in EV repair even though they don't sell, and would rather never service EVs. But GM requires dealerships to maintain certain levels of service staff training in order to maintain their franchise, and so he gets trained on EVs. Microsoft has requirements for vendors to become Microsoft certified partners.

Click to expand...

Cisco too....in order to be an authorised seller of Cisco products a vendor must take tests every couple of years to prove they know how to support the products. These tests cost a hell of a lot and are a significant revenue stream for Cisco, for lots of customers want Cisco products (they're good, after all) and a company must be certified in order to purchase them from Cisco to sell on to customers. Cisco won't sell to any company which doesn't have certified people on staff.

The whole thing with Kodak certified labs was centred around the fact that Kodak enjoyed an excellent reputation for film and processing quality. So that big yellow sign outside a camera shop or lab helped business. The world over you knew you could get decent film processing wherever you saw that sign. Obviously certain minimum standards had to be met in order to be Kodak Certified...with regards to the machinery used, it's maintenance, freshness of chemicals and training of staff. When APS came along, in order to keep Kodak certification the labs needed to install the *very* expensive (sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollarpounds) equipment and ensure all staff were trained in handling APS film regardless of whether they intended to process it. There was no option of keeping "Kodak Certified for 135" (126,127,120,220,110 formats)....labs were told they'd lose their certification unless they invested in the new machinery. Shops which also sold hardware were instructed to push cameras too..."Oh, you;re using that old 35mm film...it's going out you know, might not be made much longer...try this shiny new APS camera"....Imagine you are in 1997 again and you live within easy distance of three camera shops which process film....hitherto all three have been Kodak certified for years and one suddenly loses that certification.....you're probably going to use the other two. Imagine you're on your travels in an unfamiliar town and see two labs/shops....one Kodak certified and one not....you're probably going to choose the one with the familiar yellow banner.

In much the same way, the compact disc very nearly flopped until the record industry collectively pressured record shops to devote more space to CDs than records and cassettes in an effort to make them appear far more popular than they were....sometimes even subsidising the shops for a time.

ultimately, APS was killed because of two things....in my view. It really didn't offer most users anything they wanted badly enough to invest in a whole new system....and then digital came along which had every "advantage" offered by APS plus the enticement of instant gratification.

For a shortime, rather recently produced product that failed I see a too high number of samples on the used market.
It seems the sales were along the lines with what was expected up to 1999, though I am lacking figures at hand.

Agulliver said:

C...ultimately, APS was killed because of two things....in my view. It really didn't offer most users anything they wanted badly enough to invest in a whole new system....and then digital came along which had every "advantage" offered by APS plus the enticement of instant gratification.

Click to expand...

I am not sure of the benefits of APS other than loading, which was just as easily handled by 126. I always assumed that Kodak introduced APS so they could sell new cameras and processing equipment.

Other than loading:

-) easy, safe storage of negatives
-) smaller cameras
-) facilitated printmaking at the industry, at higher quality
-) eaysy choice of aspect ratio for prints
-) metadata for the consumer
-) print order information already via the camera
-) repeatable image quality with re-prints
-) cassettes swapping midfilm