Developing APS

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>Hi.</p>

<p>I like APS. I think it could have been done a little larger, say, 18x32, but with finer-grained film it does produce interesting results. But it doesn't really matter because no one makes APS film anymore (that I know of). Still, a lot can be purchased online.</p>

<p>My local Kodak franchise says they can process APS. I've yet to test it - it's been years since I've sent them a roll. My question is, how much longer do y'all think they'll be processing it? APS is C41, so it can be processed anywhere (tho I understand the film is made of a different material, so I'd be curious to know if someone has really processed it at home). But by diy, you'll have to take the negative out and eventually cut it, and lose AR info, whereas traditionally they'll give you the processed roll inside the canister, which is a lot better regarding dust and scratches (provided you have a scanner that can do APS, of course). What do you think? Are there special processing machines involved? Will those be around much longer?</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p> </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I'm surprised you can find APS processing even now. Theoretically, once you get it out of the cartridge it's just C-41 like anything else. But it's only 24mm wide. I supposed that can go into an automated processor depending on how the rollers and other parts are set up. But I'm not sure how you would handle it in a home darkroom since it's not a standard width -- 126 cartridge film, for example, was 35mm wide so it could go on a standard 35mm reel. Were there any other formats that were 24mm wide so you could find a reel?<br /><br />If nothing else, you could see-saw the film through a tray of developer, but you'd really have to want to.<br /><br /></p>

[Colin O]

<p>It's my understanding that APS film is not made from different material - it's the same as regular 135 film - it just also has magnetic data tracks located along the edges of the film where data can be recorded for communicating optional information to the photofinisher.</p>

 

<p>There's some more info on the Kodak website here:<br>

<a href="http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/consumer/APS/redBook/aboutSystem.shtml">

http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/consumer/APS/redBook/aboutSystem.shtml</a></p><div></div>

[john_shriver]

<p>Any dip and dunk lab should be able to process it, if they have the magic machine to get it out of the magazine. (You might have to give them one, since professionals never really took to APS.)<br>

Harder is finding places that can scan it.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>The emulsions in APS were similar to other films. The support was PEN (polyethylene naphthalate) rather than the more conventional acetate or polyethylene terephthalate (Estar). PEN was the only material that could:</p>

<ul>

<li>be made thin enough to allow 40 exposures in an APS cartridge, </li>

<li>still be stiff enough for "thrust threading",</li>

<li>and survive a hot glove compartment without making the film so curly that it couldn't be handled in the film processor or printer.</li>

</ul>

<p>The magnetic recording layer covered the entire film--not just the edges. It was thin enough to be transparent although it was a bit orange. The orange color is one reason there never was a successful reversal film in APS. The thin magnetic layer required special magnetic write heads that compensated by recording the magnetic bits over larger areas than with conventional magnetic media. While the magnetic layer covered the entire surface the recording was only done on the edges. There were several pilot projects to use the full area but there was always concern that a magnetic head recording in the image area might cause scratches. </p>

[steve_parrott]

<p>APS does have some advantages, I just wish it was larger. I think it might have actually made some serious inroads into 35mm film usage if APS had not come out about the same time as digital was taking hold. I have a Nikon Pronea S APS camera which is a sweet little camera, and the APS film is sure easy to use. </p>

<p>Dwayes still processes APS, and I have had many rolls done always with good success. I think it is by far the easier way to go rather than trying to do it yourself. Get the photos scanned onto CD at time of processing. You get an index print of the photos as well as the image number on the film for any future processing / prints. </p>

<p>I found some of the Kodak "High Definition" APS film on Ebay, and the results were quite nice. The out of date film, (which all APS is now) does not seem to be a problem with any film I have used. I have even found this fim many times at our local Goodwill store for a couple of bucks for a 4 roll pack. I have noticed that the price for APS film is getting VERY HIGH on Ebay, absurdly high in many cases. As it is a finite product, I suppose that kind of thing is inevitable, but it did pretty much stop me from using the film.</p>

<p>It was fun using it for a while, but eventually you may find you tire of the smaller than 35mm negative and the cost and hassle of buying the film plus processing and shipping cost. Keep using it for long enough, and the huge benefits of digital really start looking good.</p>

<p>But again, I suggest you just use Dwaynes to process the film.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>Thank you all.<br>

I'm starting to believe film expiration really isn't an issue unless the storage conditions have been quite poor.<br>

If the folks at the lab stop developing it, then I'll see what to do.<br>

I'm a fan of large negative sizes, but don't mind a smaller one if it's on purpose. I only can't see myself ever using 110 film, that's really too small.<br>

Colin, great photo! Impossible to re-shoot now...</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Depending upon where in the world you are, if your local source stops, Dwayne's still processes APS and will scan it for you.</p>

<p>http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/newsite2006/color-neg-processprint.html</p>

<p> </p>

[glen_h]

<p>I had a roll processed and scanned at Walgreen's last month. I don't know that all stores still have the machine running, though. The roll was in a camera that I bought at a Goodwill store. All the shots are mine. The color is a little off, either from heat or light leakage. (How light proof are the cartridges?) </p>

[richard_eaton1]

<p>I use APS from time-to-time, although the stock of film in my freezer is getting low. Processing is from a good mail-order firm who use a top-end minilab and good printing equipment (they do a lot of professional work on other formats).<br>

<br />I've not (so far) had any problems with film outdated up to 7-8 years, and the cartridges seem totally light-tight (perhaps more so than 35mm), so long as you're reasonably careful and don't leave them in the sun all day!</p>

 

[john_fortelka]

<p>I ran across this forum while looking for input on a possible replacement for my current APS processor. I really lament the passing of APS. The fact is that because of peripheral vision, the human eye is closer to a panoramic mode than the restrictive 4 x 6 aspect ratio. On a couple of trips abroad (and stateside) with my Minolta APS SLR, I had a great time with the panoramic mode, getting great shots which would not have been nearly as picturesque or dramatic with "regular" 4 x 6 aspect ratio. The pics which come to mind most are the vertical panoramics I took of the statuary on the outside of Chartres Cathedral, among others. Those shots would not have been nearly as dramatic with "regular" mode. Even everyday shots closer to home are sometimes enhanced with the panoramic mode. Ah, progress, ain't it great?</p>

[Colin O]

<p>Much as I also enjoyed using my Olympus Centurion camera, the APS panoramic mode is a contrivance. The panoramic mode doesn't make the picture any wider; it just records on the film, in an automated way, that only a central 3:1 strip of that frame should be printed 10 to 12 inches wide (when the non-panoramic frames are printed 6 or 7 inches wide). Exactly the same effect can be reproduced by enlarging any frame to 10 or 12 inches wide and cropping to a panoramic format. You can do this with any film or digital format, there's nothing particular about APS really. The fact that the viewfinder switched to a panoramic crop did help to visualise the effect though.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

'The fact that the viewfinder switched to a panoramic crop did help to visualise the effect though"

 

Well, but for some of us that means an awful lot!

Our Canon 70d does have 16:9, 4:3 and - bliss! - 1:1 modes, but the viewfinder doesn't have any masks to reflect that

(that I have been able to see). So how can one compose a picture? (I'm just unable to do anything decent in live view,

unless it's iPad-sized)

[James G. Dainis]

<center><img src="http://www.jdainis.com/pan_pic1.jpg"><BR><B>Normal shot<P>.<BR>

 

<img src="http://www.jdainis.com/pan_pic2.jpg"><BR>

"Panorama" shot</b></center>

[glen_h]

<p>I have a Holga 120T with the 16 shot insert (and no 12 shot insert) but a square viewfinder. I try to imagine which parts are in the shot when I take the picture.<br>

The disposable 35mm panoramic cameras have a 24mm lens. I always figured that with a 24mm lens on an SLR I could get the same pictures.<br>

<br />Does a 4x10 panoramic print cost less than an 8x10?</p>

 

[Colin O]

<p><em>"Does a 4x10 panoramic print cost less than an 8x10?"</em><br>

It depends on the photofinisher. You cannot say in general, though probably 8"x10" will be more expensive. Remember that with some Photoshop, you can put two 4"x10" images together and print one 8"x10" and then guillotine into two panoramic prints.<br>

I just checked Dwayne's and they seem to charge a set amount for a set of APS prints, regardless of how many panoramic prints are included. I remember being charged exorbitant rates by some photofinishers who charged extra per panoramic print.</p>

[john_fortelka]

<p><em>"Exactly the same effect can be reproduced by enlarging any frame to 10 or 12 inches wide and cropping to a panoramic format. You can do this with any film or digital format, there's nothing particular about APS really."</em><br>

That's exactly the reason I bought an APS camera! I couldn't see me sitting down with a dozen 8 x 10's (even if they weren't any more expensive than a panoramic print) and trying to decide where to crop to obtain the desired effect. Also, seeing the scene through the viewfinder with all three possible modes often made me change my mind about which size for the final print. I sometimes changed to panoramic because of the enhanced effect of the wider mode. Also, I remember often changing to 4x7 because it turned out that 4x6 wasn't quite wide enough for what I was trying to shoot! My digital super-zoom offers 16:9 mode, but that equates to a 4x7 print at best. Leaving aside the question of prints from uploaded photos, how difficult would it be for digital camera makers to offer a mode close to the APS panoramic aspect ratio?</p>

[tony_duda]

<p>APS did have some things going for it; I found the mid-roll change feature helpful. I still have some Agfa, Fuji and Kodak APS film tucked-away in the freezer but, when it's gone, it's gone, unfortunately. I still have some Fuji F100, which I believe was the emulsion the first 35mm Reala was based on. It had finer grain than their D100. I have Nikon Pronea 6, Nikon Pronea S, Minolta Vectis S-1 and Canon EOS iX SLRs, but they're soon to be paperweights. Not that I acquired them because I thought APS was going to be successful; the writing was on the wall fairly early on after APS made its debut. I just thought they were (and still are) very cool beasts. The one thing I did find was that Fuji's first generation APS film seemed much better than Kodak's, especially the 400 ISO. The exception was Kodak's 100 ISO, which was a fine. Once Kodak improved their Advantix film, it was on par with Fuji's, if not a bit better. I want to use the cameras again, but I have mixed feelings about doing so. I guess it's my way of delaying the end.</p>

[tony_duda]

<p>What mail order labs has anyone used recently to process their APS film? Have you been happy with the results?</p>

[richard_eaton1]

<p>For anyone in the UK - I use Photo Express, Hull, Yorkshire. Always top quality work from APS and 35mm (and digital), usually returned in the next day's mail.</p>