[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 51GQYV11WGL._SX466_.jpg (40 KB, 466x363)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
what the fuck is this nonsense. was it toooooo bad that one STANDARD roll that lasted for 80 years they needed to invent this MARGINALLY SMALLER retarded roll? no wonder film fucking died.

got me this """advantix""" camera, now, are these cartridges reusable? can i load it with say some fresh film?

fucking kodak fuck.
>>
>>3468882
cool useless post, fagtron.
>>
>>3468875
Film with an APS-C crop.
Adorable.
Too bad it's dead.
>>
File: lmaoooooo.jpg (416 KB, 1404x792)
416 KB
416 KB JPG
>kodak in charge of taking bussiness decisions
lool

alright this piece of shit camera i wont ever try to use it, but it has a roll inside, so im going to develop it and post the literal nudes it has inside. wish me good luck ;)
>>
File: 1555972787796.jpg (131 KB, 1062x912)
131 KB
131 KB JPG
>>3468875
>>3468891
Any quality documentation on Kodak's business shenanigans? This all sounds as a riveting read.
>>
>>3468903
countless articles on the web, its like a whole cliche in management courses, kodak 101: how to fuck your shit up good.

and i remember their last one, they brought back ektachrome, but in a vegan version: turns out it looks like shit. thank you kodaks ur literally gold.
>>
File: very_gooder.jpg (682 KB, 1600x1056)
682 KB
682 KB JPG
Hey faggots don't shit on the best format
>>
File: HIPSTUR.jpg (3.42 MB, 2588x3954)
3.42 MB
3.42 MB JPG
The cameras were ridiculously tiny ergonomic marvels, the film area absolutely big enough to offer good consumer prints with how state of the art film stocks have become.
>>
>>3468875
how can one company who had everything piss it all away so badly
>>
>>3468945
wow it sure looks like shit.

from what ive gathered, only 10 yo expired APS film goes to garbage. have in mind you can shoot 20yo gold and itll look most of the time excellent.
>>
>>3468948
yes bro my Nex-3 diy poorly edited mirrorless soviet prime lens macro scans of expired badly kept old film are the last nail in the coffin for the entire format and film system. Sure showed'em
>>
>>3468950
>wow kurwa your pics sure inspired me to try X system/format!
said no one ever.

if anything you serve as a gatekeeper for those still cheap cameras.
>>
ever seen the ads for advantix?
>woo lets see the vacation pics!
>oooo im a bloody retard and i didnt load the camera, it has no photos vacation ruined lolololol
leave it to kodak fuji and whoever else to ruin something that was perfect and nice as it was (they all teamed up to create this monstrosity, btw).
>>
i shot few rolls back in time and liked the concept. image quality wasn't as good as 35mm but cameras were small and rolls could be taken out and put back in camera at any time. there were even possibility for saving "exif" data.
>>
My first non-disposable camera was one of these. It was perfect for a kid - fixed focus, auto exposure, cheap, and you couldn't mess up APS loading. My Dad bought me a big box of film the first summer I had it and I took photos almost every day. I have an album of 4x6 prints from that camera and they look a lot better than cheap digital point and shoot images. It fit in my pocket and it was hassle-free. For the average unskilled photographer who just wanted to take decent snapshots it was a great format.
>>
File: 1541965317223.jpg (103 KB, 500x271)
103 KB
103 KB JPG
>>3468875
>>3468882
>tfw no superior 126 cartridge square format
>>
>>3468947
>how can one company who had everything piss it all away so badly
By being American. Same thing happened to your democracy.
>>
>>3468875
Advantix was truly a blunder
>>
File: DSC_8767.jpg (92 KB, 758x506)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>3468875
at the time they thought they could charge americans more for 1/2 the amount of film on a roll.
had cheap digital not come along it would have been a major boost in revenue for Kodak.
Remember a 2mp digital camera was around $1000

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D300S
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern974
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4288
Image Height2848
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution120 dpi
Vertical Resolution120 dpi
Image Created2012:05:11 16:18:26
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/4.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance0.60 m
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length28.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width758
Image Height506
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
I worked in a photo lab when this shit was around so I think I can say with full honesty backed by experience

>Fuck that
>>
>>3469008
126 is the shit
>>
I used to have an aps camera. It was fun for snapshitting with. Being able to swap a roll halfway and continue with it later was fucking awesome. Picture quality was good for small prints.

But yeah, after I got my first digital compact I never used that thing again.
>>
>>3468875
That was the problem. Anyone could make the standard roll, you couldn't lock the users and minilab operators in your own system.
>>
>>3468942
>they brought back ektachrome, but in a vegan version
Wait what? Did they change the emulsion? I was just about to order some e100 to try it out, I've never shot ektachrome before.
>>
>>3469395
>Implying it was just Kodak
>>
>>3468903
>kodak attempted to ruin 120
>kodak did ruin Polaroid
>kodak attempted to ruin 35mm
>kodak attempted to bullshit disk film
>kodak discontinued all of their actually good films
>half of the kodaks I see cant even be used
>literally have a collection of kodak fuck ups just for as a constant reminder of their idiocracy

How can one company be so based?
>>
>>3469414
They had to change it because some of the chemicals were pretty niche to film and are no longer available/manufactured in bulk.
>>
>>3469194
>Being able to swap a roll halfway and continue with it later was fucking awesome
Really? That sounds nice.
>>
>>3468946
>the film area absolutely big enough to offer good consumer prints
Those scans you posted will only look okay at 6x8 and below. Although lower-ISO film should've been better.

>>3472466
>kodak invented the digital camera and deliberately avoided capitalizing on that
>>
File: filmIndicator.gif (5 KB, 246x196)
5 KB
5 KB GIF
>>3472484
Not all cameras supported it though which was a bit of a bummer.
>>
>>3472484
>Really? That sounds nice.
yeah they really wanted to cater to the retards that dont know what kind of photos they want to take.
>>
>>3472644
>implying that part of the fun isnt working with the whole roll instead of just one photo

Part of the fun is taking something that has limits and pushing (or pulling) it. Wouldnt expect a digitard to understand that when 99% of your skill comes from how much you spend on photoshop
>>
>>3472466
>>3472517
>>3468891
>>3468875

You guys shit talking Kodak know nothing about the history of photography, nor George Eastman. HINT: he invented, dry glass plates, ROLL FILM, brought photography to the masses, etc. The man was literally a business genius, it was only after he died that it turned to shit.
>>
>>3473833
wow thanks for the wiki history lesson bro
>>
>>3473833
We are clearly talking about Kodak the company, not George Eastman.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.