Re: Goodbye to APS, and Question About CD-Rs.

Everything written in this thread so far is probably true.  That being
said,
however, I really enjoyed using my Canon Elph 2 (IXUS 2, Outside North
America, I believe) and I felt the photos were great considering the
format
and ease of use of the camera.  It reignited my interest in photography
after a hiatus of almost 30 years so it can't be too bad.

I still use it occasionally just for fun, and the local photofinishers
around here (Central Illinois) do a pretty good job.   Would I use if for
serious photography?  Probably not, especially if I expected to print
larger
than 8X10.  But as a "tag-along" camera it's been great.


"Jeremy" <jeremy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:f1Dyd.11403$Z47.3652@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "mort" <mort@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:41CA1241.EA32AAB1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > After 8 years of using my Elph and Elph 2 cameras, I have finally
> > suc***bed to the siren song of digital, inspired by Kodak's worsening
> > processing of APS and their taking longer and longer to deliver the
> > prints and reprints, all with the data on the back smeared and
> > illegible.
> >
>
> I believe that you've missed the point.  APS was never marketed toward
> serious amateurs.  It was an attempt to serve the consumer market, with
a
> format that was near idiot-proof.
>
> Studies revealed that there were a significant number of consumers that
> couldn't even get their 35mm film loaded correctly.  APS addressed that
> problem.
>
> APS also exploited the recent advances in wide exposure latitude films,
by
> allowing for a simple camera, without much in the way of exposure
control,
> to record the image on the film, and for the lab to then correct for
> exposure at the processing level.
>
> All of this was just a continuation of Kodak's long-held objective of
making
> photography easy for consumers.  ("You push the button, we do the
rest").
> That was a laudable objective.  It was NOT meant as a replacement format
for
> serious amateurs or professionals.  I defy you to show me where Kodak
ever
> marketed the format to any but consumer purchasers.
>
> The APS format was stymied by the advent of inexpensive 35mm Point &
Shoot
> cameras, that featured autofocus and sophisticated on-board automatic
> exposure controls.  I doubt that Kodak and Fuji would have developed APS
had
> the autoexposure P&S cameras come out just a few years earlier than they
> did.  Those P&S models even made loading film a fairly automated task.
And
> with the advent of P&S cameras with zoom lenses, it really made the APS
> format irrelevant.
>
> Kodak has had a long record of trying to bring photography to the
m*****.
> Granted, those of us that have more sophisticated equipment tend to look
> down on those consumer formats.  But they have served to put photography
> into the mainstream, and have made it possible for the rest of us to be
able
> to buy film and to get it processed at countless locations.
>
> It also enabled many of us to get exposed to photography at an early
age.
> Would I have become interested in photography, had my parents not owned
a
> Brownie Starmite?  I wonder . . .
>
> There are many millions of family photos, shot on simple cameras, that
> survive today.  They make no pretense to being "professional."  Yet my
old
> family photos, many of which were taken before I was even born, are
among
my
> most cherished possessions.
>
> Thank you, Kodak.
>
>