RE: Re: Why I Love the APS Format
COOL.. and here I thought sweat shops and Dickensian workhouses were things that only occured a long time ago or in 3rd world emerging economies... oh.. wait... we're in Canada strike that thought *smirk* Dave snip Did you know that the employees are discouraged from speaking to one another? Seriously, they're supposed to go to their machine and do their work and not talk to anyone. Had a few friends who worked there while getting through school. -Aaron /snip mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . - 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 .
Re: Why I Love the APS Format
On Friday, March 15, 2002, at 12:05 AM, Jim Apilado wrote: When APS was introduced in 1997, I recall Popular Photography magazine speculating on whether a 35mm APS system could have come out. I wonder why the camera makers and film manufacturers did not come out with a 35mm APS system instead of the APS format? Technology has improved 35mm film offerings over the years. Except for the DX feature, 35mm cartridges, are still the same as when I started photography back in the early 1960's with an Argus C3 brick. Easy answer: the APS system was not about better pictures. It was about selling the customer a new camera and selling the labs a new printer. Also, the most expensive part of the film -- silver content -- has been significantly reduced, and yet the price of the film was higher. APS was a way to reduce shrinking profit margins in the photo industry. -Aaron - 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 .
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. 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. Kev. - Original Message - From: Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 5:05 AM Subject: Re: Why I Love the APS Format When APS was introduced in 1997, I recall Popular Photography magazine speculating on whether a 35mm APS system could have come out. I wonder why the camera makers and film manufacturers did not come out with a 35mm APS system instead of the APS format? Technology has improved 35mm film offerings over the years. Except for the DX feature, 35mm cartridges, are still the same as when I started photography back in the early 1960's with an Argus C3 brick. The main regret I have with APS is that Kodak and Fuji never introduced slide APS film into the U.S. I would enjoy my Nikon Pronea (the original one) more had slide film been introduced. Jim A. - 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 .
Re: Why I Love the APS Format
- 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 .
Why I Love the APS Format
Why do I love the APS format? (I've never actually used the APS format.) Because when I have prints made from a roll of 35mm film, the negative numbers end up being printed on the back. (I understand that this numbering on 35mm negative prints is a byproduct of using equipment that can also do APS processing.) 1. I appreciate having the negative numbers on the back of prints when I want to have some reprints or enlargements made. No more of those tedious and error-prone attempts at matching prints to their corresponding negatives... 2. I love having the negative numbers (or shot numbers) on the back of prints when I'm testing out some lenses. All I have to do is to keep a little log of lens/aperture/FL/etc. used for each shot number, to match up the resulting prints with their corresponding test situations later on. E.g., today I took advantage of some beautiful weather here to do some 600mm testing. I was comparing these 600mm setups on an LX: 1. A* 600/5.6 (in all its pale mint green glory - g) 2. A* 300/4 with A 2X-S (=600/8) 3. F* 300/4.5 with A 2X-S (=600/9) 4. Vivitar Series 1 600/8 Solid Cat 5. Novoflex 600/8 6. Novoflex 400/5.6 with Novoflex 1.5X TeleExtender (=600/8) Now I can't wait to get those ~numbered~ prints back. Ya just gotta love APS... ;-) Fred - 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 .
Re: Why I Love the APS Format
Don't forget the free index prints you now get with 35mm to :-) --- Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do I love the APS format? (I've never actually used the APS format.) Because when I have prints made from a roll of 35mm film, the negative numbers end up being printed on the back. (I understand that this numbering on 35mm negative prints is a byproduct of using equipment that can also do APS processing.) 1. I appreciate having the negative numbers on the back of prints when I want to have some reprints or enlargements made. No more of those tedious and error-prone attempts at matching prints to their corresponding negatives... 2. I love having the negative numbers (or shot numbers) on the back of prints when I'm testing out some lenses. All I have to do is to keep a little log of lens/aperture/FL/etc. used for each shot number, to match up the resulting prints with their corresponding test situations later on. E.g., today I took advantage of some beautiful weather here to do some 600mm testing. I was comparing these 600mm setups on an LX: 1. A* 600/5.6 (in all its pale mint green glory - g) 2. A* 300/4 with A 2X-S (=600/8) 3. F* 300/4.5 with A 2X-S (=600/9) 4. Vivitar Series 1 600/8 Solid Cat 5. Novoflex 600/8 6. Novoflex 400/5.6 with Novoflex 1.5X TeleExtender (=600/8) Now I can't wait to get those ~numbered~ prints back. Ya just gotta love APS... ;-) Fred - 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 . __ Find, Connect, Date! http://personals.yahoo.ca - 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 .
Re: Why I Love the APS Format
Why do I love the APS format? (I've never actually used the APS format.) Because when I have prints made from a roll of 35mm film, the negative numbers end up being printed on the back. (I understand that this numbering on 35mm negative prints is a byproduct of using equipment that can also do APS processing.) Not true! Our old, outdated Konica minilab, that does only 35mm and 110, also prints the negative number on the back of the print. It reads the bar code at the edge of the film that contains brand, ISO, and emulsion generation as well as negative number. Bill KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: Why I Love the APS Format
What kind of resolution do you think it takes to do a very good 4 x 6 print? I could show you some printed on an HP PhotoSmart 100 that were made with a Fuji DX-10, a 0.85MP camera. That's the print size most APS shooters get and I doubt if you could tell any difference in quality between the Fuji DX-10 and the APS of your choice at that size. I always thought it took 5 or 6 MP digital cameras to make a decent 8 x 10. Now I know that a Canon D30 can do very good 11 x 14 prints, with a good printer. Len --- - Original Message - From: Kevin Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Why I Love the APS Format It just seems to me that APS has arrived about ten years too late. As a small and easy to use format for consumer-level cameras, it's great but compared to digital it's old news. It's resolution is higher than digital but less than 35MM. Most people looking for convenience use digital; I do. I use a Minolta Dimage 7 which when married to the convenience of the PC and Photoshop, APS seems like the dark ages. It seems as old as the horrible 110 and disc formats Kodak was hawking years ago. Today I can make a video CD in ten minutes that I send to my grandparents and they can play it on their DVD or email pictures to be turned into prints. At the end of the day, compact and small cameras using negative film are at about the end of their life, as digital cameras get cheaper and the resolution higher, formats like APS will all but disappear. Kev. - 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 .
Re: RE: Why I Love the APS Format
Yep.No numbers on my BW prints unless i take in some select or 400cn,than i get them.At least the lab doing my delta 400 stuff puts them in order so i can number them myself. Dave Begin Original Message From: David Chang-Sang [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:52:20 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Why I Love the APS Format Hey Hey.. remember that those numbers don't necessarily (at least I've never seen them) on the back of BW film :) nor do I get index prints perhaps it's time to start developing my own huh.. *smirk* mmm BW.. Cheers, Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aaron Reynolds Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why I Love the APS Format On Thursday, March 14, 2002, at 04:34 PM, Fred wrote: Why do I love the APS format? (I've never actually used the APS format.) Because when I have prints made from a roll of 35mm film, the negative numbers end up being printed on the back. (I understand that this numbering on 35mm negative prints is a byproduct of using equipment that can also do APS processing.) The joke is, this (and index prints) was supposed to be an APS-only feature, to lure people to APS. Why it wasn't implemented properly years ago for 35mm is beyond me. Most minilab machines print a print number on the back, so the operator knows where on the film to look if redoing a bad print, but until APS they weren't really lined up with the actual frame numbers (they always started at 1, no 1A, etc). -Aaron - 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 . - 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 . End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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 .
Re: Why I Love the APS Format
- Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds Subject: Re: Why I Love the APS Format On Thursday, March 14, 2002, at 06:00 PM, Brendan wrote: Thats cause mini labs send BW out to someone else to do it the old fashioned way. Naahhh, it's too expensive to proof by hand. Time is money, and the hourly wage of a decent printer would kill you if you had them proofing for 50 cents an image. Mostly it's either an old colour machine converted, or an old bw high speed machine. No one is going to convert a $250,000 Frontier for BW. Qualux Canada does their BW on a Gretag 3140, which was the first printer I worked with. Awful BW, too. 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 .
Re: Why I Love the APS Format
Actually, as I've learned recently from Creative Memories (for whom my wife is now a consultant), APS film uses a different base than standard neg film. The net result is that APS negs are designed to outlast all other types of film. Is there anyone out there with more information regarding this feature of APS? Collin * Get over it. Dr. Laura --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] - 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 .
Re: Why I Love the APS Format
- Original Message - From: Collin Brendemuehl Subject: Re: Why I Love the APS Format Actually, as I've learned recently from Creative Memories (for whom my wife is now a consultant), APS film uses a different base than standard neg film. The net result is that APS negs are designed to outlast all other types of film. Is there anyone out there with more information regarding this feature of APS? The base is polyethylene, or some such. It should last well into the mext millenia. Unfortunately, the problem with film is not the base, but the emulsion. In this, APS is much the same as other films. 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 .
Re: Why I Love the APS Format
When APS was introduced in 1997, I recall Popular Photography magazine speculating on whether a 35mm APS system could have come out. I wonder why the camera makers and film manufacturers did not come out with a 35mm APS system instead of the APS format? Technology has improved 35mm film offerings over the years. Except for the DX feature, 35mm cartridges, are still the same as when I started photography back in the early 1960's with an Argus C3 brick. The main regret I have with APS is that Kodak and Fuji never introduced slide APS film into the U.S. I would enjoy my Nikon Pronea (the original one) more had slide film been introduced. Jim A. From: Len Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:29:44 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why I Love the APS Format What kind of resolution do you think it takes to do a very good 4 x 6 print? I could show you some printed on an HP PhotoSmart 100 that were made with a Fuji DX-10, a 0.85MP camera. That's the print size most APS shooters get and I doubt if you could tell any difference in quality between the Fuji DX-10 and the APS of your choice at that size. I always thought it took 5 or 6 MP digital cameras to make a decent 8 x 10. Now I know that a Canon D30 can do very good 11 x 14 prints, with a good printer. Len --- - Original Message - From: Kevin Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Why I Love the APS Format It just seems to me that APS has arrived about ten years too late. As a small and easy to use format for consumer-level cameras, it's great but compared to digital it's old news. It's resolution is higher than digital but less than 35MM. Most people looking for convenience use digital; I do. I use a Minolta Dimage 7 which when married to the convenience of the PC and Photoshop, APS seems like the dark ages. It seems as old as the horrible 110 and disc formats Kodak was hawking years ago. Today I can make a video CD in ten minutes that I send to my grandparents and they can play it on their DVD or email pictures to be turned into prints. At the end of the day, compact and small cameras using negative film are at about the end of their life, as digital cameras get cheaper and the resolution higher, formats like APS will all but disappear. Kev. - 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 . - 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 .
