Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Goodbye to APS, and Question About CD-Rs.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
December 22, 2004 10:33:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

After 8 years of using my Elph and Elph 2 cameras, I have finally
succumbed 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 bought a 5MP Canon S500 Digital Elph. The pictures are sharper than
the APS, I can print them on my home printer whenever I want to, and
even the 8.5 x 11 " prints are sharp, with good color. Kodak seems to
be in a downward spiral of withdrawing from conventional film, while
not making great strides in the digital world.

I'm planning to download images from my camera's CF cards to my PC, and
then burning them to CD-R as data. Will this work, considering that my
camera does only JPEG? Will I then be able to make prints from the CD-R?
CD-R storage seems to be safer, and infinitely cheaper, than storage on
CF cards.Thanks.

Morton

More about : goodbye aps question

Anonymous
December 22, 2004 10:55:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darrell wrote:
> One of the
> better CD-R is Delkin's
> http://www.delkin.com/delkin_news_press_release.php?id=...

Nice link, it's good to see somebody focusing on quality and longevity.
I wonder if they will make DVDs though, CDR is getting small for
uncompressed high-megapixel photos.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 2:13:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darrell wrote:
> "mort" <mort@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:41CA1241.EA32AAB1@cloud9.net...
>> After 8 years of using my Elph and Elph 2 cameras, I have finally
>> succumbed 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.
>>
> APS, the let's reinvent the wheel. Kodak last attempt was "Disc Film"
> in the early 1980's. Kodak has NEVER got it right, IMHO they surprise
> me they haven't gone bankrupt. They are a history of.. well
> stupidity! Let's see a few highlights;

126 Instamatic in the 1960s; 110 in the '70s; Disc in the '80s; APS in
the '90s - with (I believe) the possible exception of APS - each format
had a shorter lifespan and worse quality than the previous. I got out
of photofinishing before APS came along, but of all the 'rolls' of Disc
film I ever worked with, I saw exactly ~one~ decent print come from
it... ={ APS has some interesting features, but it still couldn't beat
good ol' 35mm.

And then came digital...
Related resources
December 23, 2004 4:05:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"timeOday" <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote in message
news:zrudnUgFcZAprlfcRVn-rg@comcast.com...
> Darrell wrote:
> > One of the
> > better CD-R is Delkin's
> > http://www.delkin.com/delkin_news_press_release.php?id=...
>
> Nice link, it's good to see somebody focusing on quality and longevity.
> I wonder if they will make DVDs though, CDR is getting small for
> uncompressed high-megapixel photos.

Delkin is probably rebadging MAM media, they do list a 75 year DVD;

http://www.mitsuicdr.com/products/dvd/index.html

As well as a familar CD-R;

http://www.mam-a.com/products/Gold/archive.html
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 4:03:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Greetings Mort,

Sounds like you have a great camera there, digital is amazing.

Sorry to learn that you did not get good service from your printing efforts,
however, did you ever try a different processor? Might make a difference if
you use your camera in the future.

Good luck with digital, you are going to enjoy it. By the way, the Kodak
EasyShare software that is included with Kodak cameras includes directly
links to processors to make it easy to print on your home printer, or via
their digital services which are really pretty good. You may want to
experiment with them some time. Also, once you upload your images to Ofoto,
you can store them online and share them with others etc. if you like. They
will also make lots of variations on your images including making a CD.

You should be able to burn a CD of your digital images in JPG or any other
format. The key to reading image files is in the software you use, not so
much the CDBurner.

Talk to you soon, Mort,

Happy Holidays
Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company





"mort" <mort@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:41CA1241.EA32AAB1@cloud9.net...
> After 8 years of using my Elph and Elph 2 cameras, I have finally
> succumbed 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 bought a 5MP Canon S500 Digital Elph. The pictures are sharper than
> the APS, I can print them on my home printer whenever I want to, and
> even the 8.5 x 11 " prints are sharp, with good color. Kodak seems to
> be in a downward spiral of withdrawing from conventional film, while
> not making great strides in the digital world.
>
> I'm planning to download images from my camera's CF cards to my PC, and
> then burning them to CD-R as data. Will this work, considering that my
> camera does only JPEG? Will I then be able to make prints from the CD-R?
> CD-R storage seems to be safer, and infinitely cheaper, than storage on
> CF cards.Thanks.
>
> Morton
>
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 6:22:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rudy Benner wrote:
> Is there any difference between data or music CD-rs? I don't think there is.
>

There is a difference between blank CDs sold labelled as music as
opposed to data CDs.
Blank "music" CDs work in stand-alone CD recorders, like the stereo
systems that have recorders and cannot use standard data CD blanks.
I believe that there must some sort of label or tag pre-burnt into the
boot(?) sector of the music CD blank that the recorder can recognise.

The "music" labelled disks are more expensive and so I've never bothered
trying them in my computer to burn data onto.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 6:22:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41ca485e$0$7600$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Rudy Benner wrote:
> > Is there any difference between data or music CD-rs? I don't think there
is.
> >
>
> There is a difference between blank CDs sold labelled as music as
> opposed to data CDs.
> Blank "music" CDs work in stand-alone CD recorders, like the stereo
> systems that have recorders and cannot use standard data CD blanks.
> I believe that there must some sort of label or tag pre-burnt into the
> boot(?) sector of the music CD blank that the recorder can recognise.
>
> The "music" labelled disks are more expensive and so I've never bothered
> trying them in my computer to burn data onto.

They should work just as well as non-music CD-R.

I've backed up photos onto HP CD-R Music discs on four different occasions
and I used Ahead Nero 5 to create the discs. No errors were reported during
the data CD write process, and the photos on the disc were subsequently read
without error.

Other CD-R Music media may work just as well... HP Music CD-R is just the
media I had available to me at the time.

Other programs such as Adaptec/Roxio Easy CD Creator may work just as
well... Nero 5 is just the software that was included when I purchased my
CD-R drive.
--
Signed,
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 7:30:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <H42dnWbd-5SU7VfcRVn-vw@giganews.com>,
Bob Harrington <rch.NOS-PAM@blarg.net> wrote:
>Darrell wrote:

>> APS, the let's reinvent the wheel. Kodak last attempt was "Disc Film"
>> in the early 1980's. Kodak has NEVER got it right, IMHO they surprise
>> me they haven't gone bankrupt. They are a history of.. well
>> stupidity! Let's see a few highlights;
>
>126 Instamatic in the 1960s; 110 in the '70s; Disc in the '80s; APS in
>the '90s

Let's not forget 620.
December 23, 2004 8:13:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"mort" <mort@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:41CA1241.EA32AAB1@cloud9.net...
> After 8 years of using my Elph and Elph 2 cameras, I have finally
> succumbed 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 masses.
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.
December 23, 2004 8:15:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"timeOday" <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net> wrote in message
news:zrudnUgFcZAprlfcRVn-rg@comcast.com...
> Darrell wrote:
> > One of the
> > better CD-R is Delkin's
> > http://www.delkin.com/delkin_news_press_release.php?id=...
>
> Nice link, it's good to see somebody focusing on quality and longevity.
> I wonder if they will make DVDs though, CDR is getting small for
> uncompressed high-megapixel photos.

The major difficulty is that neither CDs nor DVDs were designed to be
archival media.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 8:38:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
> In article <H42dnWbd-5SU7VfcRVn-vw@giganews.com>,
> Bob Harrington <rch.NOS-PAM@blarg.net> wrote:
>> Darrell wrote:
>
>>> APS, the let's reinvent the wheel. Kodak last attempt was "Disc
>>> Film" in the early 1980's. Kodak has NEVER got it right, IMHO they
>>> surprise me they haven't gone bankrupt. They are a history of.. well
>>> stupidity! Let's see a few highlights;
>>
>> 126 Instamatic in the 1960s; 110 in the '70s; Disc in the '80s; APS
>> in the '90s
>
> Let's not forget 620.

I remember processing a couple rolls of 116 (think I have that right...)
back in the mid '70s - looked like sticks of dynamite, they were so big!

Bob ^,,^
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 8:59:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <H42dnWbd-5SU7VfcRVn-vw@giganews.com>,
"Bob Harrington" <rch.NOS-PAM@blarg.net> wrote:

> 126 Instamatic in the 1960s;

The first 6 or 7 years of my >30-year-old archive is in 126 format. I then
switched to 35mm.

I sure would like to learn of a negative scanning solution for my 126 negs.

<sigh>
JR
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 10:17:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <jim.redelfs-B237EB.17592323122004@news.central.cox.net>,
Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:

> In article <H42dnWbd-5SU7VfcRVn-vw@giganews.com>,
> "Bob Harrington" <rch.NOS-PAM@blarg.net> wrote:
>
> > 126 Instamatic in the 1960s;
>
> The first 6 or 7 years of my >30-year-old archive is in 126 format. I then
> switched to 35mm.
>
> I sure would like to learn of a negative scanning solution for my 126 negs.

126 negatives are 35mm in width. the problem is finding a negative
carrier that masks the image properly.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 12:05:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "Darrell" <no@spam.here> stated that:

>Just make sure you update as technology advances, I do have an 8" floppy
>disk above my computer as a reminder of this.

Heh. I threw out my last box of 8" floppies a few years ago, because I
was running out of space & was only keeping them out of nostalgia.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 2:34:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:f1Dyd.11403$Z47.3652@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "mort" <mort@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:41CA1241.EA32AAB1@cloud9.net...
> > After 8 years of using my Elph and Elph 2 cameras, I have finally
> > succumbed 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 masses.
> 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.
>
>
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 4:42:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Harrington wrote:
> Chris Brown wrote:
>
>>In article <H42dnWbd-5SU7VfcRVn-vw@giganews.com>,
>>Bob Harrington <rch.NOS-PAM@blarg.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Darrell wrote:
>>
>>>>APS, the let's reinvent the wheel. Kodak last attempt was "Disc
>>>>Film" in the early 1980's. Kodak has NEVER got it right, IMHO they
>>>>surprise me they haven't gone bankrupt. They are a history of.. well
>>>>stupidity! Let's see a few highlights;
>>>
>>>126 Instamatic in the 1960s; 110 in the '70s; Disc in the '80s; APS
>>>in the '90s
>>
>>Let's not forget 620.
>
>
> I remember processing a couple rolls of 116 (think I have that right...)
> back in the mid '70s - looked like sticks of dynamite, they were so big!
>
> Bob ^,,^
>
>
>
I had an 828 folding camera in the early 60s. As I recall, it was 35mm
size roll film.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 4:48:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41ca485e$0$7600$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>Rudy Benner wrote:
>>
>>>Is there any difference between data or music CD-rs? I don't think there
>
> is.
>
>>There is a difference between blank CDs sold labelled as music as
>>opposed to data CDs.
>>Blank "music" CDs work in stand-alone CD recorders, like the stereo
>>systems that have recorders and cannot use standard data CD blanks.
>>I believe that there must some sort of label or tag pre-burnt into the
>>boot(?) sector of the music CD blank that the recorder can recognise.
>>
>>The "music" labelled disks are more expensive and so I've never bothered
>>trying them in my computer to burn data onto.
>
>
> They should work just as well as non-music CD-R.
>
> I've backed up photos onto HP CD-R Music discs on four different occasions
> and I used Ahead Nero 5 to create the discs. No errors were reported during
> the data CD write process, and the photos on the disc were subsequently read
> without error.
>
> Other CD-R Music media may work just as well... HP Music CD-R is just the
> media I had available to me at the time.
>
> Other programs such as Adaptec/Roxio Easy CD Creator may work just as
> well... Nero 5 is just the software that was included when I purchased my
> CD-R drive.

For computer use there is no difference between "music" CDs and CDR
blanks, but I am pretty sure that the stand-alone (or stereo system)
music CD recorders need the special "music" CDs.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 4:48:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

For stand alone recorders - Possibly, I've never used a stand alone
recorder. However I have successfully recorded music (both mp3 and wav)
files to standard CD blanks and they play just fine on my stereo system, my
car player and my portable CD player.

Until I saw this thread I was under the assumption that music CDs were
standard blank CDs whose manufacturers paid some sort of licensing fee to
ASCAP or something like that.


"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41cadb0f$0$7597$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> > "dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:41ca485e$0$7600$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >
> >>Rudy Benner wrote:
> >>
> >>>Is there any difference between data or music CD-rs? I don't think
there
> >
> > is.
> >
> >>There is a difference between blank CDs sold labelled as music as
> >>opposed to data CDs.
> >>Blank "music" CDs work in stand-alone CD recorders, like the stereo
> >>systems that have recorders and cannot use standard data CD blanks.
> >>I believe that there must some sort of label or tag pre-burnt into the
> >>boot(?) sector of the music CD blank that the recorder can recognise.
> >>
> >>The "music" labelled disks are more expensive and so I've never bothered
> >>trying them in my computer to burn data onto.
> >
> >
> > They should work just as well as non-music CD-R.
> >
> > I've backed up photos onto HP CD-R Music discs on four different
occasions
> > and I used Ahead Nero 5 to create the discs. No errors were reported
during
> > the data CD write process, and the photos on the disc were subsequently
read
> > without error.
> >
> > Other CD-R Music media may work just as well... HP Music CD-R is just
the
> > media I had available to me at the time.
> >
> > Other programs such as Adaptec/Roxio Easy CD Creator may work just as
> > well... Nero 5 is just the software that was included when I purchased
my
> > CD-R drive.
>
> For computer use there is no difference between "music" CDs and CDR
> blanks, but I am pretty sure that the stand-alone (or stereo system)
> music CD recorders need the special "music" CDs.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 4:48:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.aps,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <rrIyd.6346$k25.2645@attbi_s53>, JunkMonkey
<Jnkmonkey@notscape.not> wrote:

> For stand alone recorders - Possibly, I've never used a stand alone
> recorder. However I have successfully recorded music (both mp3 and wav)
> files to standard CD blanks and they play just fine on my stereo system, my
> car player and my portable CD player.
>
> Until I saw this thread I was under the assumption that music CDs were
> standard blank CDs whose manufacturers paid some sort of licensing fee to
> ASCAP or something like that.

that is correct.

there is a flag on the music cds which the cd recorder checks.
standalone recorders will refuse to record on cds without the flag and
computer recorders don't care.

another difference is that music cds are optimized for slower burn
speeds (a standalone burner is usually 1x) and data cds can handle the
fastest burners available.
!