Welcome to

BY JAMES THOENES

I’ve identified what I believe are the four biggest mistakes the photographic industry has made. In their attempts to make products they think people will want, or to market products, photographic companies have made some pretty big mistakes. Some of these blunders were just a matter of not really thinking the whole process through. Others, a marketing attempt to make a product into something that it really was not. I’ll point out the four biggest mistakes I have seen the photographic industry make in my lifetime; see if you’ve come across them.
 

Blunder number one: The Kodak Disc Camera

The Kodak disc camera was an attempt to make a small easy-to-use camera for the average user. At that time, 35mm cameras were complex to use, and the only real choice for a point-and-shoot camera was the 110 camera. While other manufacturers may have made disc cameras, Kodak is the only manufacturer I can currently think of. The idea was good, a small easy to load film cartridge to go with a small camera.

What went wrong with the Kodak disc camera?

Well, first the film was too small. It made very grainy 4×5 prints. 5×7 prints made from disk negatives were awful. It was nearly impossible to get an 8×10 made by any film lab. This meant that additional sales of highly profitable enlargements were not possible to the owners of disc cameras. The negative was also a little bit more square then the popular 35mm format. A 4×6 print meant a lot of negative would have been cropped. Second problem, the cameras were not as small as they could have been. The shape of the disc cartridge encouraged a camera shape that did not fit in the pocket. Disc cameras, while very thin, were wide and tall. Roughly the size of a note card, they were too wide to fit in a pocket. Smart people, looking for pocket-sized cameras, stuck with the 110. While thicker than the disc camera, the 110 camera was the size of a pack of cigarettes, and fit easily in the pocket.
 

Blunder number two: The Advanced Photo System (APS)

Seeing the mistakes of the disc camera, plans were made to introduce a new format. The original idea was to combine the convenience of cartridge loading and the quality of 35mm. This time, the entire photographic industry was involved in creating the standard. Perhaps this is where it went wrong, a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Great new features were promised. The choice of multiple formats in one camera, and being able to switch a roll of film mid-roll for another film with a different speed and then return, sounded like a dream come true. These are things a true enthusiast would have use for.

So what went wrong with APS?

While the original plan sounded like they were planning for a 35mm size negative, and, in fact, APS is the same width as 35mm, the final formats chosen were closer to 110 in negative size. Had the final APS formats been larger and been able to match 35mm in quality, I think things would have been much different. As it was, APS, like the disc camera before, was competing with the 110 camera. With an image size nearly the same as the 110, no advanced amateur was satisfied with the quality.

While APS allowed a slightly smaller camera, APS cameras were still nearly as large as a 35mm point-and-shoot. All the great features promised that advanced amateurs sought, they could find in quality 35mm cameras that were comparably priced and with better image quality.

Also, the difficulty in working with the APS cartridge required film labs to install special equipment to handle. Many labs decided that it wasn’t worth the cost. That meant people who bought APS cameras had a hard time getting their film processed.
 

Blunder number three: Self Adjusting Film

First of all, there’s no such thing as self adjusting film. There was a groan from the audience at the trade show I was at when the Kodak representative introduced this film as self adjusting. This 800 ISO film, like other high-speed films, has a wide latitude. This means that it can withstand under and overexposure better than many slower films. This is a trait that many high-speed films have. However, the film does not self adjust to low light levels or bright light levels; that is something handled by the camera. Perhaps it was Kodak’s attempt to counter Polaroid’s One Film.

What’s wrong with this film?

Well under some circumstances an 800 ISO film does have some advantages; under others it is a terrible choice. 800 ISO film will expand the flash range, and it will increase shutter speed enabling sharper pictures. This will also allow for smaller apertures and more depth of field which will mean more of the picture will be in focus. But under bright conditions many cameras simply can’t adjust to keep the picture within exposure range. Pictures taken in bright snow or at the beach simply overexpose leading to extremely dark negatives. This goes beyond the latitude of the film and makes negatives that are difficult if not impossible to get a good print from. Also, high-speed films, including this 800 ISO film, are also far grainier than low-speed films. I can’t think of a worse film to use for taking close-up pictures of a newborn baby. Yet, it has been the unfortunate choice of many a proud father.
 

Blunder number four: Digital Photography

Not that digital photography is a blunder. There is no doubt that digital photography is the future of photography. In fact, I feel that you are unwise to purchase a film camera at this point for almost any purpose. The blunder came in claiming digital cameras had film quality long before they really did.

The first digital cameras were of extremely low resolution, and still the manufacturers claimed they were photo-quality. Unfortunately, what looks nice on a computer screen sometimes looks terrible in print. Early consumer digital point-and-shoot cameras took pictures that were really no better than the disc camera. Even now, many digital cameras available have no better resolution than the APS camera. Also, early digital cameras had a sluggish response, which frustrated those who bought them. Many people who spent large amounts of money on early digital cameras were so dissatisfied, they have yet to replace those digital cameras with newer, higher quality models, and have continued using their film cameras.

These are four blunders that I believe the photographic industry has made. What if the disc camera really had a decent size negative? What if the Advanced Photo System had stuck to the 35mm format and simply improved it? What if self adjusting film had just been marketed as a film that would be great for sport pictures? What if digital camera manufacturers had simply been more honest about what they meant by film quality? The answer is a lot of people would be much happier with the pictures they’ve taken.

James Thoenes is a professional photographer with over 20 years in photography. Learn how to take better photos at his website, Photography by JET.