- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,654
- Format
- 35mm
Huss,
Are the above color shots done with a Rollei A110? And is the "framing" on the Lomography film the reason the edges look like a double exposure? The Lomography film has the pre-exposed framing, but the Rollei A110 has actually a wider picture area per frame? Do I understand that correctly?
Thanks.
Best,
-Tim
Huss,
Are the above color shots done with a Rollei A110? And is the "framing" on the Lomography film the reason the edges look like a double exposure? The Lomography film has the pre-exposed framing, but the Rollei A110 has actually a wider picture area per frame? Do I understand that correctly?
Thanks.
Best,
-Tim
Nice. I need to check if I can get that film in single perf (or in shorter rolls than 400' in 35 mm, to feed my stereo camera).
Minolta QT, f/3.5 1/30s
Double-X, HC-110 B 20'
View attachment 334432
This is probably about as far as I'd try to push this combo.
With just a little more light (and slightly better composition) I'd prefer it over the 35mm frame below. Maybe the development made the difference... I've not much experience pushing Double-X.
Nikon FG-20, Nikkor 28mm f/2 aperture priority
Kentmere 400 @ 1600; HC-110 H 38'
View attachment 334434
400 is probably the useful limit.
Nice! Dig the pink corkscrew shot.
Interesting that this is the most active image thread on this site..
the quality people are getting from 110/16mm is surprisingly good.
Nice! Dig the pink corkscrew shot.
Interesting that this is the most active image thread on this site..
Yes, and the quality people are getting from 110/16mm is surprisingly good.
The cameras have always been this good (at least the ones that weren't aimed a know-nothing, two Christmases on a roll family users), but the film got good enough to really show it only after the cameras were all discontinued.
Minox can do really well, too, if the film is exposed and processed correctly. Too bad the only other commercial format that small was Disc -- the film was as good as any other '90s Kodak stock, but the cameras couldn't take advantage of the resolution.
Yup, all those Lomo Purple pics from the same 'roll' in an A110. And correct, the A110 can show more than what is defined as the 110 frame - as do my Pentax Auto 110s. I think pretty much all 110 cameras do? Of course I could have cropped out the overlapping stuff, but I think it gives an interesting context, and is fun.
Too bad the only other commercial format that small was Disc -- the film was as good as any other '90s Kodak stock, but the cameras couldn't take advantage of the resolution.
$$$$$What was Kodak thinking???
Huss,
Looking at the sample shots on Lomography and then at your shots, you must be really manipulating the scans hard to bring in the "normal" colors, right?
The cameras have always been this good (at least the ones that weren't aimed a know-nothing, two Christmases on a roll family users), but the film got good enough to really show it only after the cameras were all discontinued.
What was Kodak thinking???
$$$$$
When did 110 film get good enough? My Fuji Superia 110 dated 2000 is better than my fresh Lomo Tiger.
This, plus the fact that no one had said a word about 126 and 110 not being home processing friendly (both were difficult, compared to 35 mm, to get out of the cartridge and impractical to reload -- even though Minolta, Mamiya, and several other 16 mm formats had reloadable cassettes before 126 was introduced, never mind Minox). Kodak never wanted consumers to reload their own film, though -- they sold 35 mm in bulk because it was a traditional consumer expectation going back to when it was the only way to feed your Barnack Leica (before Kodak made a preloaded 35 mm cassette that would work in both Leica and Contax cameras) -- not because they made better margin on that channel. So paper-backed roll film was pushed over 35 mm cassettes, even when the image area was about the same (828) and it wasn't any easier to load (828 again -- the size of the spools and backing makes 828 more difficult to load than even 1930s vintage 35 mm cameras with hinged backs) -- and then one-use cartridge films (126 and 110).
Film in general got a lot better through the 1980s and 1990s -- Kodacolor II was ahead of any C-22 even in 1972, and Kodak just kept improving the emulsions right up until the digital crisis almost killed them. But 110 cameras were basically gone by 1985, except for simple fixed-everything "toy" cameras, because 35 mm drop-in loading had matured, giving 4x the image area, lower cost per frame, and much wider choice of film speeds and emulsions. Once DX coding (and cameras that could read it) came along, the two-speeds limitation of even the better 110 cameras put the nails in the coffin of the format.
Even if you compare machine-made 4x6 prints, you can likely make a case that any film made after 1990 is better than anything you could buy in 1980.
Lomography Tiger *is* Kodak film (the 200 speed consumer stock, Gold?) cut and confectioned by/for Lomography. If it's inferior to 20+ year old Fuji, it's likely because by 2000 Fuji consumer films were, in general, better than Kodak consumer films (IMO) and Kodak has made few improvements in consumer films since they started shutting down lines around 2005.
Actually I think it is the other way round. The Lomography sample shots always seem to be cross processed, saturation cranked etc. All I am doing is converting from neg to positive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?