110/16mm Camera Image Quality

ciniframe · Apr 5, 2021

I have a unopened 100 ft. roll of old Ilford Pan F, expired in 2009, plus some left in a bulk loader. But I find it harder to work with than Double-X. I have to expose it at ISO 20 to get anything out of it in my usual HC110 @ 60:1 as a one shot developer. Thinking I should try a different dilution, perhaps 30:1 would be better. I really like HC110 because the syrup keeps so well. Bought that film back in the good old days when Freestyle had good bargains on short dated film. I think it was $12 each for the bulk rolls.

Donald Qualls · Apr 5, 2021

ciniframe said:
I really like HC110 because the syrup keeps so well.

Man, are you going to be disappointed when you buy your next bottle of HC-110...

ciniframe · Apr 5, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
Man, are you going to be disappointed when you buy your next bottle of HC-110...

Shouldn't have to for a while, still have an unopened bottle. I bought 2 about 5 years ago. Almost done with the first bottle.
But I'll bite. What is the new stuff like?
Won't keep? Weak? Had to take out newly banned chemicals? An earthquake!? Mighty floods!? Locusts!!!?
Help me out here, I'm grasping at the air.

ciniframe · Apr 5, 2021

Ah wait, found the thread here at Photorio. I'll read it over, that should clear up my questions.

ciniframe · Apr 5, 2021

Wow! Now I remember that thread. Eighteen pages and I only got through six pages.
Well, if push comes to shove I guess I could drink a lot of coffee, take a few vitamin C tablets and wee wee in the developing tank.....yeah sure...might work.

MattKing · Apr 5, 2021

The new HC-110 is bound to be fine for anyone who doesn't expect the unusual and extraordinary longevity that the old stuff offered (without Kodak ever promising).
There may be photographers who won't expose enough film to justify a litre bottle - 160 rolls at maximum.

Huss · Apr 5, 2021

ciniframe said:
..
Being cheap....well I prefer frugal, it is hard for me to get past the expense of 110, film wise. .

Not gonna deny that, it is expensive. $20 for 3 cartridges of 24exp Lomo Tiger.
But, if I measure using it in terms of the joy it gives me, and the improvement in mood and mental health, welll, priceless!

I've never tried to print this stuff in a darkroom, I can imagine that being quite frustrating. But for a while now I've scanned all my film no matter the format (ok used a digicam to do that) and it has been quite manageable to do.

The Lomo Tiger film lies very flat and is easy to handle. The discontinued Fukkatsu 400 curls up, and that bend is always there so the edges are off.
I still have some, but won't be buying any more of it.

Rollei A110, Lomo Tiger

ciniframe · Apr 5, 2021

For you Huss it's a bargain. I have never been an artist so I might get 1 shot I consider 'worth it' out of a 20 exposure roll. As for our mental health, photography works wonders and has less side effects. Sharing something we love with others is always good therapy.

Huss · Apr 6, 2021

Rollei A110, Fukkatsu 400

Huss · Apr 6, 2021

Rollei A110, Fukkatsu 400

Huss · Apr 7, 2021

For fun, I used for the very first time a different 110 camera. The kinda basic fixed focus thing that most people had. Same scene, same lighting conditions (bright sunny day), taken from the same spot. Only difference is the basic 110 had the Fukkatsu 400 film - which is more accommodating to exposure than the Lomo Tiger 200. So that if anything should have been in its favour..

I'll let you see if you can notice any difference.

Donald Qualls · Apr 7, 2021

Heh. Obviously the top one is less sharp and grainier (due to two stops of overexposure). I wonder if it would have been different if close to actual focus distance (probably between two and three meter, 6 to 10 feet) and two stops of neutral density over the lens?

Huss · Apr 7, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
Heh. Obviously the top one is less sharp and grainier (due to two stops of overexposure). I wonder if it would have been different if close to actual focus distance (probably between two and three meter, 6 to 10 feet) and two stops of neutral density over the lens?

That actually was the best shot from the entire roll! Others were closer, some farther away. Mixture of light... Notice also the unexposed rectangle at the top right corner. That's on every shot - must be something in the advance mechanism.
Anyway, I wasn't expecting miracles, it was a fun test. I was just hoping that I could have found one pic that hit the sweet spot!

p.s the basic 110 looks underexposed, not overexposed. The images are murky, over exposed would be much brighter.
I find my underexposed images are the ones that appear grainier.
That pic had seriously bright highlights in it, in the actual scene. Just like the one taken with the Rollei.

Huss · Apr 7, 2021

Rollei A110, Lomo Tiger

Cholentpot · Apr 7, 2021

It seems the 110 cartridge can hold a strip of film just about 34 frames in length if it were 35mm. I slit down some 35mm 500T and rolled it into a cart without backing paper. It jammed up at about what would be frame 33-34. However, cine film tends to be thicker than consumer stuff. I think it's possible to jam even longer lengths of film in the case if the film is thinner.

The spacing was quite wide with my Auto 110 though, I only got about 40 frames. I wonder if my Instamatic 60 would place the frames closer. I'll post up scans when I get the film scanned.

Donald Qualls · Apr 8, 2021

Huss said:
p.s the basic 110 looks underexposed, not overexposed. The images are murky, over exposed would be much brighter.
I find my underexposed images are the ones that appear grainier.
That pic had seriously bright highlights in it, in the actual scene. Just like the one taken with the Rollei.

I would have thought that simple camera was set to expose for ISO 100 -- but the Lomography Tiger is 200, and the Fukkatsu is (IIRC) 100 in a cartridge with 400 tab. Was that an auto exposure camera that reads film speed?

Huss · Apr 8, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
I would have thought that simple camera was set to expose for ISO 100 -- but the Lomography Tiger is 200, and the Fukkatsu is (IIRC) 100 in a cartridge with 400 tab. Was that an auto exposure camera that reads film speed?

The Fukkatsu film is ISO 400, with an ISO 400 tab for cameras that can read it. The basic 110 camera that I used has no provision to read film speeds, and a set single mechanical exposure with one shutter speed and fixed aperture (whatever those are). Only instructions are to use it in bright sunlight, which I did. So I'm guessing it's most probably about 1/125 and F11-16. But who knows?

Huss · Apr 8, 2021

FYI the Rollei is an AE camera with shutter speeds from 4 sec to 1/400, lens is programmed variable aperture 23mm f2.8, and it can be focussed.
IMO it really is the perfect 110 camera, as it is tiny and super high quality. If I wanted to mess around with changing lenses, I'd take a 35mm camera..

Donald Qualls · Apr 8, 2021

Huss said:
The basic 110 camera that I used has no provision to read film speeds, and a set single mechanical exposure with one shutter speed and fixed aperture (whatever those are). Only instructions are to use it in bright sunlight, which I did. So I'm guessing it's most probably about 1/125 and F11-16. But who knows?

Which then begs the question how a camera that was designed for Verichrome Pan or Kodakcolor II (125 and 80 speeds respectively) could underexpose ISO 400 film in bright conditions. Just one of those things that makes you go "Hmmm..."

Huss · Apr 8, 2021

Donald Qualls said:
Which then begs the question how a camera that was designed for Verichrome Pan or Kodakcolor II (125 and 80 speeds respectively) could underexpose ISO 400 film in bright conditions. Just one of those things that makes you go "Hmmm..."

I think the answer is the camera is a piece of poop.

Donald Qualls · Apr 8, 2021

Huss said:
I think the answer is the camera is a piece of poop.

You may be onto something there...

xya · Apr 8, 2021

Huss said:
... If I wanted to mess around with changing lenses, I'd take a 35mm camera..

... or take a pentax 110, not expensive theres days, a real slr with very good lenses...

ciniframe · Apr 8, 2021

Huss said:
I think the answer is the camera is a piece of poop.

When Kodak introduced 110 even their lowest spec camera, the Instamatic 20, had a 3 element f9.5 lens if my memory serves. Only later did they come out with the model 10 with a single element f11 plastic lens. Even that camera could make negs good enough for the then standard 3.5 X 5 inch ‘album’ sized print. Prints were much better from the model 10 than your sample. Of course when everyone jumped on the 110 ‘pocket camera’ bandwagon some truly horrible and cheap models were out there.

Huss · Apr 8, 2021

ciniframe said:
...Of course when everyone jumped on the 110 ‘pocket camera’ bandwagon some truly horrible and cheap models were out there.

Which is what I knowingly used. It was just for fun, I wanted to see, in perfect condition, if I could get anything 'decent' out of it. Because I know, for example, with disposable single use 35mm cameras like the Fuji Quicksnap, you can get good results in ideal conditions.

Huss · Apr 8, 2021

xya said:
... or take a pentax 110, not expensive theres days, a real slr with very good lenses...

Nah, like I said, if I was going to that trouble I'll pack a 35mm kit. The beauty of the Rollei is it is tiny - just a little bit bigger than the film cartridge. Smaller than the Pentax.
And the very fact that it does not have an interchangeable lens makes you just use it in a carefree manner, not think about changing lenses.
For me, 110 photography is just that - as simple as possible. The Rollei backs up that philosophy with outstanding results. And the 'spy camera' look is very cool - people have mentioned that to me when I'm using it!

Not knocking the Pentax, just not my thing. BUT I hope someone will post pics taken with it on this thread! Do you have one? If so, post!

110/16mm Camera Image Quality

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency