----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Hall Subject: Re: Why I Love the APS Format
> I can only speculate that 35mm APS never came out for the following reasons: > > For most 35MM users, APS solved problems no one ever had. What kind of > second-rate lamers can't either load a film or count the frame numbers on > the negatives properly? APS would also dilute the market for 35MM meaning a > likelyhood of manufacturers having to build both regular and APS versions of > their cameras. Films like Kodacrome 64 could still outperform anything on > APS and the archival quality of Kodachrome is I think second-to-none if > carefully stored. When I was working as the production manager of a local wholesale lab in 1984, we had a bunch of Kodak guys hanging around for a while asking questions and filling out questionnaires. It turned out that this was the start of APS. At the time, the biggest problem we had with customers film was mishandling, both at the loading stage or at the rewinding stage. Right up there was not setting film speed correctly, and not being able to read negative numbers correctly on reprint orders. This was in the days prior to DX encoding, and all the extra edge writing that came to pass because of it, which has added to the confusion. The idea of APS was to address all of these problems, by automating film handling completely, and to obviate the necessity of looking at negatives by giving out an index print, with the frame numbers on it. All of these problems were overcome with 35mm by the end of the 80s, with the introduction of the Minolts FreedomIII, and the Maxxum 5000 (I think), both of which used a very unique 2 stage loading system, as well as DX encoding and motorized film transport. The world is full of what you so dismissively call "lamers". These are the same people, I suppose, who could be dismissed as bad drivers because they have automatic transmissioned cars, and bad cooks because they use an electric oven, rather than an open fire. Or, it might just be that the nuts and bolts of photography are not important to them. All they want is a good result back from the lab, and an easy way to choose reprints. > > The basic principles of taking pictures is essentially still the same as it > was in Fox Talbot's days; we're still exposing a light sensitive emulsion to > capture images; people like Kodak have unfortunately been trying to reinvent > that for years. It would make more sense to me to standardise on 35MM and > look at enhacing that. Kodak invented photography as we know it. They are not reinventing anything, they are trying to take it back to it's original function, which was to make picture taking as easy as possible. It would make even more sense to standardize on medium format, as the results are superior. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
