Why is APS so disliked?

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>APS 'tax': After speaking with my photo shop, it is now the same price for D&P and scan to CD for both 35mm and APS. This is now common practice in most shops I have found. The taxation is over.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> A Canoscan 4400f produces nice scans, and they run around $100. Just a thought. Very happy with the quality from mine. $4 for processing, scan myself, then take just the images I want printed in. Not too shabby if you ask me.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Who can tell about film formats? 35mm film was a terrible idea that worked -- thirty per cent of the film area is wasted for the drive sprockets, unnecessary with the frame rates in still photography. The cartridge was one of the things that made it so useful -- lots of frames, relatively easy to load, very secure when done and rewound. APS had some very nice ideas that didn't work. If APS had given us a film area equivalent to 35mm, or if it had come out sooner, or if it hadn't been priced higher than 35mm, it would have done much better.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Before I got into photography. Friends really liked APS - easier to load and smaller. Some of my friends even said that APS produced very nice photographs over 35mm point and shoots. Now looking back, I still like APS, the con being that the film and d+p was more.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I still keep a roll in my Elph that takes me about a year to finish because I keep it in my black coat i only use in the winter and then only some days.......<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6058444-lg.jpg" alt="" width="511" height="591" /></p>

<p> Taken with the Tele Elph A pissed off 3 legged coon Kodak C-41 B&W film flash at night.</p>

[ken_thalheimer]

<p>I think David Haas said it all very well.<br>

It was also perceived as a way for film & camera manufacturers to sell more film & cameras. A ruse that thankfully was a miserable failure</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>As I hope Digital is LOL</p>

[mwr]

<p>>A special emulsion was developed for the APS system to help make up for the reduced negative size. Later, that emulsion was used for 35mm film as well and so the gap in quality between the two formats opened up again.<<br>

Yep, and that didn't take long. I shot 35mm film until mid 2002 and never saw the point to APS. If I wanted a really small camera, I used my Olympus XA. Otherwise my Olympus OM-1. I saw no reason to compromise image quality by using APS film (and it was compromised compared to 35mm). I recently had most of my film slides and negatives scanned and I'm glad they weren't taken with APS film.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I have made other postings on the APS format. I sometimes use it and still like it. In my case I started to try it many years after it was introduced so the equipment cost very little. The APS format had some interesting lessons for digital equipment even if there were some digital cameras prior to 1996. Today we have two main DSLR formats, DX and FX or full frame. The 4/3 format is a distant third but there is some interesting equipment in that format. It is easier to design and manufacture high quality lenses when the lenses have to cover a smaller format. The smaller format and shorter lenses are easier to correct for optical problems. When someone considers a DSLR now there are many factors to consider, including cost. In absolute terms a full frame sensor will give better quality than a DX sensor so you have to know what conditions you will shoot under and how large your prints will be. If you are going only up to 8X10 or 11X14 then the best DX format DSLRs will still give excellent quality. If you need to do more cropping or to enlarge past 11X14 then the larger sensor will be helpful. After that is settled you can think about dynamic range, image stabilization, low light performance and what kind of flash equipment is available.<br>

With good film a very respectable 8X10 can be made from an APS negative. I have made much larger prints which still have excellent sharpness. Part of the compromise in making APS SLR cameras was that the lenses were mostly very slow. This was all done to keep size and weight down. If you owned faster Nikkor or Canon EF lenses in various focal lengths then you could supplement the slow zooms for shooting with Nikon or Canon APS SLR cameras. Most likely APS shooters did not already have these faster lenses so when they used the longer and very slow zooms they were forced to use 400 or 800 speed films. The 800 speed Fuji APS film was my favorite. What we are seeing now is the introduction of some fast single focal length lenses for the DX format but the fact that they are fast means that there isn't as much savings in size or weight. Th main advantage would be that the lenses, especially wide angles, are better optimized for a digital sensor. Having a digital camera with very good high ISO performance will allow you to shoot even in very low light with a slow lens but this combination will not allow much in the way of selective focus. The Canon G10 is a good example of this. At the long end of its zoom range the lens is so slow that it will only stop down about one more stop. This doesn't mean yo can't get a sharp image but it does mean that the depth of field will be about the same for all shooting at the long end.<br>

When the higher cost of an FX system is looked at carefully, many advanced amateurs and even some professionals will still conclude that an APS size sensor is adequate for that they do. </p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Hector;<br>

One also had the 1930's thru 1980's 828/Bantum roll film that was 35mm wide too; but used more of the 35mm width. The images are 28x40mm on Bantum.</p>

<p>Another 35mm width film is/was the 1963 126/Kodapak its image is about 28mm square on the negative; and about 26 to 26.5mm usable depending on the enlargers holder.</p>

<p>35mm film goes back to 1889 and Edison's Kinetoscope for peep shows.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetoscope"><strong>Edison's Kinetoscope</strong> </a><br>

<strong><br /> </strong><br>

The sprocket holes on both sides were added to transport the moving film.<br>

*35mm* film was used for movie cameras; ie moving groups of images on peep show boxes before it was used in still cameras; thus that is why there are sprocket holes on most 35mm films. In some 35mm microfilm like used on Aperture/Hollirith cards there is no sprocket.</p>

 

[randrew1]

<p>APS doens't get much respect in this forum, because there are better choices for professionals and advanced amateurs. The amatuers who used APS were very loyal. They appreciated the drop in load, multiple formats, and index prints. The amatuers who rejected APS did so mostly because of the price of processing. The APS consortium tried to design a system that enabled re-prints and enlargements. This potential extra business was not enough to please lab owners who had to buy new equipment and demended a rapid return on investment. Some lab owners gouged APS customers with charges exceeding $50 if there were many pan prints in a roll.</p>

<p>At its peak, the APS films amounted to about 7% of the volume of 35mm film. Planners had projected a much higher penetration. 620, 127, 126, 120, and even disc formats had done better. Since many of us have been shooting 35mm since the 1960's it is hard to remember that 35mm did not become the predominant amateur format until the 1980's. The Canon Sureshot with autofocus was the prototype for convenient P&S 35mm cameras. </p>

<p>There were major marketing mistakes with APS in addition to mismanagement of the lab owner's valid concerns. In 1996 Kodak expected to announce the product and let the orders roll in. The internal trials and focus groups all provided very positive predictions. A focus group allows at least 30 minutes to get familiar with the product. Internal trials provided free double prints. Participants were more than willing to study the system. What they failed to consider was that once indoctrinated, customers were loyal, but there was no obvious advantage to the inexpeirienced user to get them to switch. Product placements on Oprah, Rosie Odonnel, and QVC were spectacularly successful, but 30 second TV spots were worthless. While I hate the genre, infomercials would have been the ideal way to sell the cameras.</p>

<p>As many others have stated, digital cameras soon overtook APS among amateurs. If the price of processing had been lower and the marketing had been more effective, APS would have grown more, but it would still be where it is today with digital P&S camderas ruling the amateur world. </p>

[ecarter]

<p>The biggest problem with APS was that it came out just in time to start competing with digital. APS actually had a lot of great things going for it - I liked the idea that the negative/film was generally better protected in the APS case - cartridge/film handling for the photographer is easier and frankly having a "data" layer on the film itself is a very cool idea. On the other hand, processing the film appears to have been a PITA. For many amateurs and point-and-shooters out there, negative size just isnt' a concern. Heck, 35mm is a compramise format itself - it took off because convenience won out over absolute quality for the unwashed masses.<br>

If it hadn't been for digital, APS might have gained some traction and taken over - but digital possessed many of the good characteristics of APS without a lot of the drawbacks. A lot of people pooh-pooh APS and it certainly has shortcomings, but to me most of that seems to come from 35mm "snobbery" and digital just doing what APS claimed to do, only better for a fairly undemanding mass audience. If APS had come along 5-10 years earlier, things might have turned out quite differently for it...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Thanks for the reminders, Kelly. I <em>was</em> thinking those were later.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>I hate APS because I hate the kinds of cameras that shoot APS. I might have given it a try if the film itself wasn't so dang expensive. If I want smaller negatives than 35mm, I shoot half-frame and I get twice as many images per roll, twice the bang for the buck. One thing that excited many users at first about APS was the ability to do "panoramic" shots. But considering that an APS panoramic shot is still not even as wide as a 35mm negative, and about half as tall... there's not much panoramic about it except the proportions. Now, if Kodak had stepped up to bat and introduced a REAL panoramic format with 1:3 proportions that filled the frame and super wide lenses on the camera, they probably would have made some serious huge waves. But what they did instead was make a "panoramic" camera that was rediculously more expensive than the Vivitar PN2011 panoramic plastofantastic $2 camera that produces a cropped "panoramic" image with a larger negative.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>It is the added processing costs that are disliked; and not the cameras.</p>

<p>Ebay came out in Sept 1995. I started selling in 1996. One may ponder the *work flow* of shooting film and scanning it versus just using a direct digital capture; for an Ebay auction back in 1996; when I already had a VGA digital. One could shoot Ebay auction images with an Olympus 35mm P&S in macro mode back in 1996; and flatbed scan it at 300 dpi on a consumer flatbed from Fries that had a negative adapter. With APS our first APS film scanner was a Canon FS 2710 35mm scanner. </p>

<p> fSome of use to like to shoot old Tri-x; develop B&W ourselves. With my A110 Rollei I used Verichrome Pan and Tri-x besides C41 prints and slides too,</p>

<p>The whole APS system was designed to have somebody else process ones films; thus the dinky elph cameras looked cool but one didnt have the option of home processing. APS only has roughly 56 percent of the film area of standard 35mm ; and often APS cost more per print for processing. Plus a subset of films were made for it; and home processing was not part of the design.</p>

<p>****Kodak failed to consider that Joe Six Pack and Joe Plummer would *care* if they paid more per print. Many friends that drank the APS koolaid were really excited about the cameras; modes of aspect ratios; tidy clean negatives stored in the cassette; but turned off by the increases in actual cost per print.</p>

<p>Its like one had this great car and one had to use a super premium gasoline that cost 35 percent more; and the car was really no better in performance than the old klunker. Even a person on skid row is not going to pay extra for food; wine that is no better than another.</p>

<p>Thus the Kodak APS marketing worked to get many folks to try APS; but many folks ditched the APS system for the cheaper per print costs of 35mm (in most places). It really is not a non respect issue on the customers side; it is on the Kodaks side. They basically did the classical new razor model of King Gillette; but after awhile the higher cost razor blades (APS prints) was rejected by Joe Six pack.</p>

<p>For many Joe Six packs and soccer moms their prints are about 4x6 inches. When folks APS prints look about the same as ones from 35mm; the users KEY COSTS ARE PROCESSING. Kodaks goobers in marketing were very stupid; ie dolts. They assumed that the common chap; the common family would NOT CARE if the prints cost a heck of alot more to process. The disrespect is with the Kodak folks; the detached from reality stiffs who assumed that for folks who shot prints for eons would actually care about print pricing. It is a GREAT Classical corporate management detachment from reality; assuming that the common man would like the new Koolaid that costs more; but tastes the same or even worse.</p>

<p>They failed to figure out that if a C41 lab had to buy a bastard new module for APS; that they would have to charge more to pay for this *capital investment*.</p>

<p>The whole APS thing is classical corporate assuming that the common man would pay extra for a service or task that really has little extra value.</p>

<p>They might as well market a new flashlight that uses a bastard APS battery that costs more than a D cell; and has one half the usable power on life. After the Christmas gift newness wears off the old pocket book gets considered. Whether one is making printers; cameras; razors; cars; skill saws; IF one has a weird more expensive consumable that costs alot more; some folks will bail if there seems to be no added benefit of the GIZMO. Thus if one markets a new circular saw with a weird new diameter and new weird hub size; if it really adds no extra value compared to an existing standard the product may fail; or not eclipse the others.</p>

<p>There is a limit to what folks will pay extra for a recuring ccst of using a device. If it costs alot more with little or no benefit folks often go back to a lower cost gizmo. Thus if your APS camera of 1996 had a local lab that the per print costs were sort of in line with 35mm; none of this makes any sense. IF your APS camera of 1996 had a lab that charged 35 percent more; it makes more sense why you bailed back to 35mm.</p>

<p>Thus one may ponder if Kodak really thought a local lab would not have to somehow charge more for processing APS with the extra APS stuff; or if Kodak actually considered if the common Joe would stay with a cool new system that cost more per print.</p>

<p>Thus many folks just got an APS then went back to old 35mm; maybe to a great Olympus Stylus camera.</p>

<p>Here I have used Kodak stuff since the 1950's; the APS adventure by Kodak and others seemed like a boondoggle when introduced; a last gasp in making a unique razor ; with unique blades. IF the per print pricing was NOT higher in most places APS would have gotten a stronger marketplace. Somewhere deep in Rochester on State Street there was a major goof or assumption; that labs would buy APS processing equipment and not consider internal rate of return; or that Joe Six pack would not care about costs.</p>

<p>The 4 folks who worked for me that got APS cameras back IN 1996 TO 1997 all went back to 35mm; then later mostly to digital. The reason they went back to 35mm was processing costs; ie the basics.</p>

<p>It is the added processing costs that are disliked; and not the cameras.</p>

<p>It is like owning a diesel car where there is no diesel; or it costs way more. After awhile folks shun consumer items that cost more to operate and have little if any benefits.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>One of the most comical things to hear is the APS tax is over.<br>

Now one has the APS delay too!<br>

In some places even old Walmart processes 110 in house with one hour service; but APS is now farmed out; a weird twist in the old obsolete surviving; with newer/better Kodak Disc dead and buried; and newer/better APS having to be farmed out.</p>

<p>It really doesnt matter if APS costs the same as 35mm in Pluto; where it costs more folks reject it;and still do.</p>

<p>APS does cost more in some places and or has to be farmed out too; thus the APS tax is over is a cute saying in a fairy tale.<br>

Rejecting consumer items that cost more and add little if any value is as old as man.<br>

One may ponder if somebody 50,000 years ago marketed APS spearheads that cost 35 percent more than normal ones; BUT worked no better than that folks would notice?</p>

<p> </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>35mm P&S also had panoramic cameras too. They have a shutter/blind that cuts down the 24mm dimension in one or two sizes. The film processor senses the blank area at the top and bottom; an makes a 4 inch wide print to almost 12 inches. I made a Zorki 35mm for C41 panoramic shots as a mock up once; I used the orion 15 28mm F6 lens; I bonded on a thin mask to cut down the 24mm dimension.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>APS was a solution in search of a problem.</p>

[andrew_gale]

<p>Came out too soon before digital, which killed APS in terms of size (one of its main positives).</p>

<p>Also, im not sure that people who knew what they were doing liked the odd film size and the fact that each frame used less film and thus gave a worse quality shot than 35mm. Its <strong>kind of</strong> like DX/FX today, although not exactly. DX will be gone in a few years just like APS.</p>

<p>It was not aimed at pros and it was never set up to develope at home or in your own darkroom, and the odd formats never lent themselves to be easily printed. Also, they never had any pro APS cameras! Was there B&W APS film? I cant reember it but there may have been, in any case, it wasnt adopted by anyone who was spending lots o thier money on this format, thus, it had to be marketed to people who didnt buy a whole lot of it, and probably wernt so excited about getting a new camera to shoot it with.</p>

[constance_cook]

<p>Yes, there was B&W APS film. I have some frozen in the spare freezer.</p>

<p>And no, I didn't just race out to get a new camera. I have cameras. Man, do I have cameras.</p>

<p>Conni</p>

<p>Conni</p>

[rjacksonphoto]

<p>I remember being annoyed when APS came out as it appeared to be a pure marketing ploy. In my mind, this was confirmed by the cropped "panorama" mode. Some people just never seemed to undersand that this wasn't really a panorama (Kodak et al's intention, I'm sure). I do recall that some improvements in emulsions resulted from the otherwise ill-fated venture...</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>What is funny is that the year it came out was the year i got my first Kiev 60.... I had access to a Dark room and I did not get my first APS camera until 2 years ago through a Goodwill store.... Funny how things are... the Cameras are both still working.</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>Here is a theory, laid out in several points:</p>

<p>1) 35mm is the smallest format that is reliably useful for very good 8x10 enlargements. (This is as much a point for discussion as it is an actual fact.)</p>

<p>2) APS has a smaller negative.</p>

<p>3) The main advantage of APS was ease of loading.</p>

<p>4) With the advent of easy-loading 35mm cameras the main reason for preferring APS disappeared, but the disadvantage (smaller negative) remained.</p>

<p>5) Therefore, APS was doomed, even without the advent of good digital cameras.</p>

<p>By the way, what I can't figure out is why Kodak didn't develop APS around 35mm film stock instead of a subminiature format. Possibly it might have been a success if they had done that.</p>

<p>Here's a final question: as the film era winds down, what formats will survive for a long time? Here is my answer (not too original I might add). There will be four long-term survivors: 1) 35mm, 2) 120, 3) 4x5, and 4) 8x10. It seems to me that one could justify each of those formats, with relatively little compelling reason for the survival of other formats. Interestingly, each format is approximately 2X larger than the next smaller format, taken in terms of linear dimension.</p>

<p> </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Kelly,<br>

Thanks. I didn't know about the Bantum format.<br>

I said that the film area devoted to the sprockets wasn't necessary for the frame rates of still photography. The big double sprockets are most important for motion pictures, which need to move film faster, making for much greater stresses. In the later years of 35mm still photography, the speed of movement did get close, as motor drives with high frame rates moved film twice as far for each frame, than movie cameras did. Still, certain MF still cameras have some pretty fast motor drives, and get along without sprockets.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>10 frames a second a roll is gone. Yes they got fast but never hit Movie film speed. I do believe 35mm was 30-32 FPS and at double frame that is 20 FPS.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>I really don't have much reason to not like APS. I don't shoot it but I have been interest in getting a camera to shoot it. I think I would be much more likely to shoot it if there were an array of SLRs available to shoot it with. Most (if not all) of the cameras lack being able to set you own exposure. I think it is great to take snapshots. Porbably the easier for a consumer than 35mm. Also, I am not that fond of the Kodak films that are available in APS format. I think they may still have HD400 and if they do, I will consider a camera.......</p>