Is APS totally dead?

I remember that time. The camera sizes and low cost were a big draw for the APS format for everyday photographers. My Canon Elph 2 was awesome as far as portability went and the cost was affordable for a broke graduate student. It easily fit in my pocket and the print quality was "good enough". That placed it ahead of 35mm point and shoots for the everyday picture taker (you know, the type who nowaday only snap pictures on their smart phone). I used it for years until I left it in a rental car. It served its purpose as far as keeping me shooting film is concerned, and I replaced it with an OM-1 just as film stuff started getting dumped on the second-hand market during the digital revolution.

cmacd123 said:

Agfa only seems to have introduced the "rapid" format by themselves.

Click to expand...

By themselves... Well, they were forced to come up with something to conquer Kodak's new Instamatic film. Though Agfa did not succeed to be successful in the USA with Rapid film. However Rapid cameras are very common here.
Finally they were licensed to use the Instamatic cassette and cancelled their Rapid cameras.

With the introduction of type 110 film Kodak changed their attitude and licenced Agfa from the start.

Type 126 was the last time Kodak started a film format on their own. With type Disc Fuji joined Kodak, but Agfa refrained.

So as others have said, APS may not be dead (technically) but it sure is on life support. It seems to have been deliberately designed to be difficult to work with in a home darkroom and no manufacturer seems to be making it any more, but it is still on shelves and in people's freezers. I liked the smaller cameras, disliked that the lenses did not also work on full frame cameras, a foreshadowing of things to come in the crop sensor vs. full frame wars (not too surprising since some early crop sensor DSLR's were based on APS camera bodies. So I say, "Good riddance!"

For an experienced darkroom worker, it is not difficult to work with APS.

PE

AgX said:

I read about the industry forcing new, expensive equipment into labs again and again. But only by north american members. Well, Rockwell put that up.
But never ever I read this argument over here. One reason may be that small labs were lesser here, but few huge industrial labs.

To be fair, a system that would have trickled consumers into having more prints and even more re-prints made, because it all got more simple, would have benefitted labs too. Thus if a lab was complaining it would have been with crocodiles tears.

Click to expand...

I am based in the UK and when APS was launched I was using my two local "high street" labs as well as a large mail order lab on a pretty much bi-weekly basis. I didn't have any discussions with the large mail order lab but the local guys specifically stated that they were effectively forced (or at least coerced) into investing in expensive APS equipment and associated "training" otherwise they'd lose their "Approved By Kodak" status or "Kodak Express" lab banner. In the 90s that yellow banner still counted for a lot.

It would have taken a hell of a lot of "extra prints" to recoup the cost of the new equipment and the compulsory "training" from Kodak. I think the labs saw it for what it was.....a money grab. Quite a few people I knew on the snap shot side of things bought APS cameras and were not impressed with the quality when they tried the bigger prints that were being pushed by the labs. Especially when they cost about 30% more than my 35mm prints which clearly looked superior. It left a lot of people wondering just why they'd spent money on this new system which was inferior to what had come before.

Mind you...those same people probably bought 3MP digital cameras a few years later too....

Thank you for your comment. I must admit I missed both, Disc and APS, due to career making me leave the photographic field for a while.

Yes, Kodak threatening small labs in the UK to recall their quality approval just for them not offering APS processing indeed looks like a money grab.

I must repeat... Kodak did not "invent" the APS format.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

I must repeat... Kodak did not "invent" the APS format.

PE

Click to expand...

Yes, quite so it was a consortium of the major players in the photo market at the time.

But it was Kodak who had their banner outside many of the camera shops and small processing labs, and I was personally told that they felt coerced into unwillingly investing in APS facilities under the thread of losing their Kodak certification.

I remember when APS was rolled out in 1996/97. I had a Fuji minilab and thought the expense of a new printer/processor for APS was out of my reach. I didn't feel under pressure from Fuji to invest but I knew that I would have to offer APS processing or loose business and customers.

Fuji head office offered a send out service but the turn around time was too great. Our competitor offered to us an APS dealership, a one day turn around service with 20% off their retail prices. They would collect and deliver and offered 30 days monthly terms. What was there not to like?

I quickly learned a lot from this. Being a dealer for our competitor, I also got all the advance notice of their up coming offers, prices and terms. I now knew in advance what they were up to and could pre-empt their offers with my own. I also learned how quickly APS took off processing wise and soon I had the figures for a comparison between the monthly spend with the competitor and the monthly repayments on a new APS machine lease. It was a simple matter of showing the bank/lease company the figures.

That's how I got into APS processing. Yes there was a chance to increase prices (as with any new product) but not as much as some labs wanted. The market will always dictate. From a labs point of view, APS was very easy to handle, auto film extractor, process, auto film re-attacher , printing was just pop the cassette into film slot and press start. Surprisingly the films printed on auto came out very good (unlike 35mm).

I had a lot of customer who were genuinely sad at the demise of APS, They loved the simplicity of it. 25 shots was ideal for them. Pop a fresh film in, shoot it, pop it in for D&P , sit back and enjoy. These customers did not like the change to digital.

By the way, I stayed a dealer with the competitor for many years after that, sending the odd E6 for processing and still getting the advance offers. Nine years ago the competitor closed down. I on the other hand..................................................

Thank you for this report from a european lab-owner perspective.

For our father/son outing, my 8 yr old son’s camera for the day is a Canon Elph 2 with 120 total exposures to shoot.

Yesterday, I saw a hardware store selling a 3 pack of fuji aps film. It was closed so I probably should go back and check it out for myself.

TheGreatGasMaskMan said:

Yesterday, I saw a hardware store selling a 3 pack of fuji aps film. It was closed so I probably should go back and check it out for myself.

Click to expand...

Maybe they have more in the backstore?

Photo Engineer said:

For an experienced darkroom worker, it is not difficult to work with APS.

PE

Click to expand...

Precisely right! But Kodak had to come to enter the departing train! From my sight APS was a conception from the need of the complete camera industry (demand for film based cameras suffered from year to year - digital was not more than a toy for the minority of an amatheuric mass at midt 90s)

with regards

APS was designed with the size and format of digital sensors in mind. That is, the sensors of that day and age. It was also designed to record information such as found in some digital image file formats.

PE

foc said:

Yes there was a chance to increase prices (as with any new product) but not as much as some labs wanted. The market will always dictate. From a labs point of view, APS was very easy to handle..

Click to expand...

Hi foc!

OK - from this point you are right - it was of course a chance to increase pricing - but that was not
the full conception from the "lab side view"!
APS was intended to come as the biggest deal in history of photography!
From the knowlage of today it sounds (from the backwards sight) like a joke - but it is true !

The advantage to labs was more in regards to minimize costs (automatiation)! The investment for
new machines was high - but from the economical factor - big labs felt fine!
But listen : the highest premise was to reach a maximum proportion of APS in concern to 135-36 in a short run, the perspective
in regard of the long run was to replace135films for the
amatheuric sector >90%!!!!!
So the full conception of APS (to labs side) was for bigger and biggest labs! Of course one made
some offer to minilabs because the final solution was the replacement of 35mm film !
And minilabs would had lost there business ! You mentioned calculation!
Was the intention to destroy the business of minilabs? Of course not (minilabs have played a role)!
But in case of trouble the deal was made with big labs!!

The technical side of APS design :
The conception was a modern small cassette without the need of perforation! Amatheuric
cameras had a high marked penetration from motorizised types!
The conception was in regard of smaller cameras AND higher format!
Engeneers offered prototypes from flat cassette with more space (~15 - 20% in comparison to
24x36) - that was an advantage in regard of quality AND smaller cameras!

Canon and some others made contracts with Fuji and Kodak (last ones offered the willing to bring that film format APS had a need of ! (There advantage = higher pricing) - do you remember Agfa APS FILMS btw?

What about the role of labs in that play ? A magnetic stripe onto the film to record the data of first
made prints! The need of second prints for amatheuric photographers was over decades to have same colors like they got from 1. printings!
The issue that (in some cases) a second print was better filtered than first prints (for example
from other lab) was the all time problem for amatheuric shooters = (prints looking not the same like the first ones)
So a same bad filtered print was part of the need of the recording datas beside recorded
cropping with APS magnetic track!
Of course the oposite was also within that guaranteed workflow (same correct filtering)!

At last the profit from more negative format was away because Canon and other cameras manufacturers wanted much smaller camera design (big labs decided to magnetic track to print different formats (high , classic ,panorama) Panorama???
In fact many people ordered panorama prints (how nice by the way) from negative squere with much to smal space !

What was the intention? A new generation of cameras to replace more of a billion 35mm systems
of the worlds saturated market! A higher automatization grade for labs to reduce their costs
(Not possible for mini labs to the short run) And a better quality!

So that last part (better quality from film negative) was the new duty for film manufacturers!
Both (Kodak and Fuji) guaranteed highest quality with APS (never seen before )!

So we may ask PE again - : how to get much more quality from smaler negative squere with more
speed? Hope you can feel that irony PE!

Impossible ! But at this point the APS intention changed into "Hocuspocus"!

Kodak and Fuji have given guarantee for much more quality from films with more negative squere
but within the APS consortium camera manufacturers decided to smaller format!

Both kept their promise - a new generation of films with phantastic improvements came out!

With these new film technology APS indeed compensated disadvantage of smaller format!
But what about the replacement of 135-36 format?
Kodak and afaik Fuji reserved new film technology exclusive for several month for APS?
BECAUSE WITH NEW FILMS 35MM HAD OF COURSE THE BETTER QUALITY IN COMPARISON!

THAT WAS THE FINAL END OF BOTH (FIRST APS, LAST 135 FILM) DUE TO UPCOMMING DIGITAL!

Remember : there was a bestselling Canon IXUS (APS) but the 2. Canon IXUS (Digital) was sold
with numbers of factor x20!

So the conception of APS consortium was like to dig own graves! And camera manufacturers win
that battle (replacement of 35mm film > 97%) but for the long term they also digged own graves!
Because electronic giants entered the photographic market : Sony for example!
Have you heared about a camera (no video) from Sony in the past?
First Minolta had to die!!

with regards!

trendland said:

Canon and some others made contracts with Fuji and Kodak (last ones offered the willing to bring that film format APS had a need of ! (There advantage = higher pricing) - do you remember Agfa APS FILMS btw?

Click to expand...

Agfa made part of the APS consortium. I have seen the documents.

Of course there are Agfa APS films and Agfa APS cameras around.

AgX said:

Agfa made part of the APS consortium. I have seen the documents.

Of course there are Agfa APS films and Agfa APS cameras around.

Click to expand...

Yes I remember - but I wasn't sure - thanks AgX

with regards

I realy know just one person who bought an APS camera and he of course was not amused about that deal 3 years later - in 2004 he told me :

"There are just 2 films avaible for my APS camera? Perhaps one in addition (bw)!"
The "prejudicial situation for everything with film in future" was my answer to him!

with regards

Photo Engineer said:

APS was designed with the size and format of digital sensors in mind. That is, the sensors of that day and age. It was also designed to record information such as found in some digital image file formats.
PE

Click to expand...

1. What was the reason for the APS film size to be similar to the digital sensor size? Even if film laboratories were intending to scan the piece of APS film and print digitally onto paper, why would the size need to be similar to a digital sensor?
2. I understand the early attempts to record information such as date or exposure onto the magnetic strip. That was a good idea to incorporate some sort of metadata. One person who responded above noted that prints made automatically from APS cartridges usually turned out very well, I assume because the machine could read exposure information from the magnetic strip..

Kodachromeguy said:

1. What was the reason for the APS film size to be similar to the digital sensor size? Even if film laboratories were intending to scan the piece of APS film and print digitally onto paper, why would the size need to be similar to a digital sensor?

Click to expand...

The only thing that comes to my mind would be the interchangability of SLR-lenses with future digital cameras.

However: Was not Film APS format on the market before Sensor APS format ??

The theory was that it is silly to make precision holes in film, wasting 1/3 of the area just to drive the film through a camera. By cutting the film 28mm wide, one could still get a "decent size" negative.

the film had a preprinted serial number and so the matching of negatives and orders could be automated. no need for Twin-check tabs.

the consumer was seen as a klutz, and so they never even SAW the negatives. Which were indeed probably safer kept in the cartridge. the original prints had both the film serial number and the exposure number so the customer could order reprints without needing to get finger marks on the negative.

image size did get back to somewhat normal after 110 and Disc. not that much smaller than 35mm

cameras were fully auto load and rewind, and the magnetic feature made it posible to design a camera that allowed mid-roll switches. (although with the limited selection of available types of films, I do wonder WHY one would bother. Perhaps Slide film was part of the "next Phase"

Cartridge is more pocket friendly than 110.

cmacd123 said:

(although with the limited selection of available types of films, I do wonder WHY one would bother. Perhaps Slide film was part of the "next Phase"

Click to expand...

Also, why no black-and-white?

Helios 1984 said:

Also, why no black-and-white?

Click to expand...

Chromogenic black and white was available for aps cameras

cmacd123 said:

Perhaps Slide film was part of the "next Phase"

Click to expand...

No, there already was APS slide film, even offered in the deepest of province of Germany.

However I never came across mounted APS transparencies...

I have no idea why this size was selected but I can guess. Kodak, as you know, had the first patent on the digital camera. That is on record. They had whipped up some camera designs with Canon and Nikon and were trying to tie it all together with the lens compatibility noted above.

Other than that, I have no suggestions.

PE