110/16mm Camera Image Quality

[Cholentpot]

OK, the sprocket holes threw me off. So you cut some 35mm down to 16mm, right?, and reloaded a FLING. Was is a pain to reload? Does it have a 110 cassette of some sort inside? I've reloaded 110 cassettes but never a single-use 110 camera. Just curious.

16mm motion picture cine Tri-X. The Fling was a cinch to reload. Issue is the way it's constructed, the cassette hangs off the sides so the reloaded 110 which is never really light tight would leak if not in the box I think. I reloaded into the box. I'll post up a photo of the shorn Fling at some point. It does vignette something awful. I suspect on native 110 film it doesn't matter though.

 

[Cholentpot]

Blam, that's a great combo. I had a similar cap incident with some ektachrome and there was some fogging but most frames weren't ruined. The film winding must be tight enough to form the littlest bit of a 'daylight spool' on the receiving side.

The grain & tonality remind me of a panchromatic version of FPP Sonic 25 (3378) which I've been shooting as of late. I've mixed up stock solutions of D-23, DK-60a, and D-19 to go along with last year's champion, a new gallon of Xtol, in hopes of squeezing flatter negatives out of this film. Great stuff if you can deal with its ortho-ness; a yellow filter might help.

Minolta MG-s, shutter priority
FPP Sonic 25; D-23 stock 8'
V800 scan & J5 digitization

View attachment 309767 View attachment 309768

First attempt with this combo to see the effect on contrast / density. Not as contrast-taming as I'd hoped, some uneven development (I'm looking at you, yankee clipper), and shadow speed suffers as well. Great middle tones though. The house and adjacent roof blew out much faster than the blue sky, which is odd. Maybe I need a UV filter.

A yellow filter might help but I think it's just the nature of this film, it just is like this. It's really not made for what we're doing with it. Either you're getting the shadows or the highlights but never both.

 

[xkaes]

Thanks for the info. If it's easier to reload than a regular 110 cassette, that's good news -- even if it's not the most flexible camera.

So you were using single-perf, Tri-X positive film? What's the ISO for shooting to create negatives? 125???

 

[Huss]

16mm motion picture cine Tri-X. The Fling was a cinch to reload. Issue is the way it's constructed, the cassette hangs off the sides so the reloaded 110 which is never really light tight would leak if not in the box I think. I reloaded into the box. I'll post up a photo of the shorn Fling at some point. It does vignette something awful. I suspect on native 110 film it doesn't matter though.

I don't recall it vignetting with a standard 110 film.

 

[Huss]

Rollei A110

 

[Cholentpot]

Thanks for the info. If it's easier to reload than a regular 110 cassette, that's good news -- even if it's not the most flexible camera.

So you were using single-perf, Tri-X positive film? What's the ISO for shooting to create negatives? 125???

Single perf Tri-X 7266. I shoot it at around 200 outdoors and rated slower under artificial light. Then again, in the Fling there's really no way to rate the film, it's one setting.

I don't recall it vignetting with a standard 110 film.

On standard 110 the vignetting would be cut off by the film borders. I got the full frame with the the reload.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Yeah, the characteristic curve is pretty steep, even steeper than Fuji x-ray film. The best bet for 'normal' contrast is probably overexposing at 6 or 12 ISO and using a super dilute compensation developer, ala your rodinal stand.

The datasheet confirms my suspicion of violet sensitivity, although the peak is clearly green.

The sensitivity curve is also a snazzy hat.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Rollei A110

Is that a coral tree at Bruce's Beach?

 

[Cholentpot]

Yeah, the characteristic curve is pretty steep, even steeper than Fuji x-ray film. The best bet for 'normal' contrast is probably overexposing at 6 or 12 ISO and using a super dilute compensation developer, ala your rodinal stand.

The datasheet confirms my suspicion of violet sensitivity, although the peak is clearly green.

View attachment 309781
The sensitivity curve is also a snazzy hat.

I rate at 25.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Another quick comparison of FPP Sonic 25 in 16mm.

Left -- Minolta SLR Mk ii @ f3.5 aperture priority. +2 exposure comp for net ISO 25 TTL metering; UV & 85B filter. Parodinal 1+150 60' semi-stand.
Right -- Minolta MG-s shutter priority, 40cm close-focus attachment. ISO 25 metering. D-23 stock 8'.

The response under filtration is surprisingly good. Maybe only needs +1 comp for the TTL meter... the Dmax is still super dense. The flatness and lower Dmax from the D-23 would be easier to print if I could only boost shadow speed. 12' in the soup with some filtration perhaps...

 

[Donald Qualls]

Here's a suggestion for that high contrast Sonic 25: Caffenol LC+C. I think I've posted the formula in another thread within the past couple years, but the web page I used to have went down when my ISP quit offering personal pages. I used to get results similar to H&W Control (without the speed increase), and much easier to mix.

Edit: I tried to get the Wayback Machine to show me my old web pages and it's blocked from my work network?! Anyway, try searching there for silent1.home.netcom.com and follow links to my photography pages.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I'll give that formula a whirl sometime soon. Here's a wayback machine link for reference: Developer formulae, dilutions, and times

The original formula (including quaint english measurements!)

Here's a quick conversion to a 200mL volume with the reagents I have on hand (assuming the washing soda is the decahydrate (Na2CO3*10H2O)

200mL Water
11.8g K2CO3
0.22g Ascorbic acid
2.5g instant coffee

Seems to be in the ballpark?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Hmmm. Yes, decahydrate is correct -- this stuff is sold (here) in card stock boxes that aren't anything like airtight, no inner bag or liner, so it'll be at equilibrium. Given 8 ounces is about 238 ml, roughly 80% of my figures seems close (for the ascorbic acid). I don't have a good feel for the density of either the washing soda or the coffee crystals to convert to mass; I always measured them with kitchen measuring spoons. I'd suggest verifying that first -- measure the way I did onto a scale, then use 80% of that figure going forward. And the exact grain measure on the ascorbic is because I used an ammunition reloading scale that's calibrated in grains...

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I used wikipedia's density for the decahydrate conversion and weighed a tsp of coffee to reach that figure. The carbonate content is very close to that of D-19 (~11g/200mL) and about twice that found in C-41 & ECN-2 color developers (~6.6g/200mL) so it seems rational.

Chiyoda Minolta 16
FPP Sonic 25, DK-60a 1+3 8'
V800 scan & J5 digitization



DK-60a generates decent negatives when bracketing some exposures a stop or two down. Great with Double-X as well.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, if you used real density figures, I'd have no argument then. Worst case, if your working solution differs a slight bit from mine, you'll have to adjust the development time a little.

I should note that a significant part of any speed gain you might see with this developer is the extended time and 3 minute agitation interval. The low agitation lets you develop longer without contrast getting excessive, which brings up shadows. I've found the same to be true with Parodinal 1:50 or 1:100.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Tried out the Caffenol-LC+C earlier and its quite promising despite a high base fog... but ooo that smell. It was overcast today and I suspect FPP 25 doesn't lose as much speed as my meter thought. There were a handful of well-exposed frames, but most were blown and I had to bleach & re-fix to get an image. The well-exposed negatives are good candidates for printing. All camera scanned with the J5 (i.e. minox-ish crop from a 14x10mm frame; edge distortion is due to the J5's lens, not the mamiya's).

Mamiya 16 De Luxe
FPP Sonic 25; Caffenol-LC+C 15'
Unbleached

Dilute copper bleach ~2', re-fixed. This eliminated the base fog (and probably a bit more) and appears to have copper-toned the remaining silver.

Edit: V800 'contact sheet'

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I've had good results with microfilm (Kodak RAM) in Caffenol Cl-Cn. I only used it a little because it is a pain to mix being as lazy as I am.

One developer that I thought had some promise is something I called microhooch. Basically it is a super dilute Rodinal mixed with sulfite to preserve it. I can't remember what the dilution was though. Might have been 1-100 or 1-200? I really should take notes. Lol. Gave some decent tonality to the Kodak RAM.

One developer I wouldn't mind trying again is Beutler's. It was a little too contrasty at regular strength, but maybe diluting it would make it decent for those high contrast films. Here is a scan from a print with Kodak RAM developed in regular Beutler's. Not too shabby.

Here is an image on Kodak RAM developed with Caffenol CL-CN. Holds up pretty well. It might have been a little underdeveloped but this is a straight scan on a flatbed. I don't recall what the neg looked like offhand.

Looking back through some of the negs I think microhooch might be a contender. I should probably shoot some more film and give that another go. I've moved on from the Kodak RAM to Fuji Super HR. The Kodak was really thin and hard to handle. All of this is reloading 110 and shot in a Rollei E110 with boatloads of ND over the meter.

I just put some Fuji microfilm in the Kodak Ektramax. Gonna have some fun.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Microfilms seem to be an odd segment of the market... no retail presence. They're excellent for submini use in any case; fixes in about 2 minutes flat. There's a panchromatic version of Sonic 25 but it's only available in 35mm.

I finally redeemed my long-suffering Amazon(R) Reward Points(TM) to upgrade my darkroom. Dissolving borax? No problem...

 

[xkaes]

There's a panchromatic version of Sonic 25 but it's only available in 35mm.

Is that a problem?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Microfilms seem to be an odd segment of the market... no retail presence. They're excellent for submini use in any case; fixes in about 2 minutes flat. There's a panchromatic version of Sonic 25 but it's only available in 35mm.

I finally redeemed my long-suffering Amazon(R) Reward Points(TM) to upgrade my darkroom. Dissolving borax? No problem...

View attachment 309925

What is the model on that Bronson? I've been thinking of getting one myself.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Slendor @ a princely $42.

 

[Donald Qualls]

but ooo that smell.

Oh, no question. I find original Caffenol smells like a broiler pan left out overnight after cooking a couple thick T-bones in it. But no question it does a good job.

Yeah, all Caffenols (in my experience) seem to bring up the fog. I wonder if you could add some potassium iodide to help rein that in? You'd probably have to develop 10-20% longer to compensate, though.

EDIT: Say, can you confirm whether that Sonic 25 is actually ortho or if it's actually blue-sensitive? FPP's blurb writer doesn't seem to know the difference (listing title says ortho but the text says "blue sensitive" and "won't render under conventional room lights") and they don't seem to have a "contact" link on their store pages. I'm inclined to ortho, based on the values in the leaves of those black-eye Susans...

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You paid only $42 for that dog and why did you name him Slendor?

Lol. Thanks, I'll check that out. Didn't know they were so cheap.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

EDIT: Say, can you confirm whether that Sonic 25 is actually ortho or if it's actually blue-sensitive?

It is ortho film; I posted the spectral response curve (snazzy hat) a bit further up the page. It can be developed by inspection under a red safelight just as Fuji's large format double sided x-ray films. It also has a noticeable UV sensitivity. The stripes/banding on the flower petals below are only visible in UV.

You paid only $42 for that dog and why did you name him Slendor?

Lol. Thanks, I'll check that out. Didn't know they were so cheap.

Its always easy to tell when new neighbors move in. Their dogs go apeshit whenever a guy with a camera wanders by. There's no way I'd ever spend $42 on a dog... a cat maybe.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have had five dogs is far, if I get another dog I think that I will name it "Such a good dog".