110/16mm Camera Image Quality

[Donald Qualls]

Interesting. Was that reversed with light exposure or chemically (with a reversing color developer or separate bath)? If the former, this could be an effect of insufficient reversal exposure.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Interesting. Was that reversed with light exposure or chemically (with a reversing color developer or separate bath)? If the former, this could be an effect of insufficient reversal exposure.

Light; Usually I remove the film from the reels when doing reversal to ensure sufficient re-exposure but maybe not that time since there was no remjet to deal with prior to bleaching. In any case, experimenting with color filter packs on your lightbox when viewing, copying, or digitizing film seems like it could eliminate some post-processing corrections.

I shot around this weekend with a motley 16ii kit and 500T@320 corrected with an 81b filter for f/16 1/500s in full sun. Following in the 16s' style of accessory lenses I also pocketed a .66 wide angle converter, a #3 close-up (puts focus at ~25cm), with stock #0, #1, and #2 in the pouch. The combination allows for indoor and outdoor shooting using available light.

A couple wide shots:

And a close-up:

Not exactly a Phase One.. but I like it.

 

[Cholentpot]

Light; Usually I remove the film from the reels when doing reversal to ensure sufficient re-exposure but maybe not that time since there was no remjet to deal with prior to bleaching. In any case, experimenting with color filter packs on your lightbox when viewing, copying, or digitizing film seems like it could eliminate some post-processing corrections.

I shot around this weekend with a motley 16ii kit and 500T@320 corrected with an 81b filter for f/16 1/500s in full sun. Following in the 16s' style of accessory lenses I also pocketed a .66 wide angle converter, a #3 close-up (puts focus at ~25cm), with stock #0, #1, and #2 in the pouch. The combination allows for indoor and outdoor shooting using available light.

A couple wide shots:
View attachment 287785
View attachment 287787

And a close-up:
View attachment 287786

Not exactly a Phase One.. but I like it.

View attachment 287789

Huh.

Never thought to use a wide angle converter on one of these.

Here's some 16mm Plus-X shot through a 35mm SLR. A Promaster PK2000 Super or something. With a 24mm lens on the front. Film flatness was an issue as well as spacing and some major double exposure. I have better luck with the MTL3 using this method.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Correction lenses and afocal converters are both things fixed-focus 16mm have brought me to appreciate through experimentation... especially since you can flip the converter around for the opposite effect.

Edit: I've only exposed one or two loads of 16mm b&w spun into 35mm cassettes. Keeping the film centered while loading is important for framing & frame spacing. Any camera that relies on sprocket-based advance is out of consideration, but taping leader directly to the take-up spool has been workable in the cameras I've tried (Hanimex M35, Retinette IA).

Some 16mm chrome panos sounds fun... might be able to fit 2 in a 35mm slide mount.

 

[Cholentpot]

Correction lenses and afocal converters are both things fixed-focus 16mm have brought me to appreciate through experimentation... especially since you can flip the converter around for the opposite effect.

View attachment 287795

Edit: I've only exposed one or two loads of 16mm b&w spun into 35mm cassettes. Keeping the film centered while loading is important for framing & frame spacing. Any camera that relies on sprocket-based advance is out of consideration, but taping leader directly to the take-up spool has been workable in the cameras I've tried (Hanimex M35, Retinette IA).

Some 16mm chrome panos sounds fun... might be able to fit 2 in a 35mm slide mount.

When the pano works, it's quite something.

Pixpanorama, Plus-X.

 

[furutadrop]

When the pano works, it's quite something.

Pixpanorama, Plus-X.
-SNIP FOR SIZE-

Nice! Is that ice over the water or waves?

 

[Cholentpot]

Nice! Is that ice over the water or waves?

It's an eroding beach. That's silt and sand.

 

[furutadrop]

It's an eroding beach. That's silt and sand.

I really quite love this.

 

[Cholentpot]

I really quite love this.

I have some color shots that I've yet to develop of this. I stumbled on this place.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If I had a mill I would love to make a cheap XPan. Convert an old Minolta or Canon rangefinder, one of the automatic ones from the 70s, into a panorama 16mm camera. I think that would be something nice to have and fun to use.

Now that I am thinking about it, I might have a pano mask for the autofocus Minolta camera. I should check to see if I do or if I'm just imaging it.

I need to dig out my Rollei again and put some film in it. Been a while.

Those are great panos Cholenpot.

 

[Cholentpot]

If I had a mill I would love to make a cheap XPan. Convert an old Minolta or Canon rangefinder, one of the automatic ones from the 70s, into a panorama 16mm camera. I think that would be something nice to have and fun to use.

Now that I am thinking about it, I might have a pano mask for the autofocus Minolta camera. I should check to see if I do or if I'm just imaging it.

I need to dig out my Rollei again and put some film in it. Been a while.

Those are great panos Cholenpot.

Thanks!

If you makes some pano 16mm cameras save one for me.

This is from the promaster. Plus-X once again.

I've had better luck using the MTL over the Promaster with this method. For some reason the MTL held the film flatter.

Microfilm through the MTL3

 

[Cholentpot]

Alrightythen!

I put some 16mm Tri-X through my Century Graphic using a 6x9 back. Xpan move over.

 

[4season]

Alrightythen!
I put some 16mm Tri-X through my Century Graphic using a 6x9 back. Xpan move over.

You are a sick and twisted individual, and I mean that as a complement

 

[Cholentpot]

You are a sick and twisted individual, and I mean that as a complement

Badge of honor my friend

Now, without custom equipment, is there any way to go bigger? I know there are 6x12 holders for 4x5 but I'm not paying nearly 1k for this.

 

[Donald Qualls]

There are 3D Printable 6x12 backs for 4x5 Graflok mount. If you have (access to) a well-working filament printer, you can print one for $10 or so in filament and 20-40 hours of machine time (at a guess). Filament choice for certain parts that need to be opaque may be critical, depending on how thick they are and your infill or wall thickness settings. Pretty sure these require you supply a dark slide -- I've downloaded files, but haven't examined them in detail.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Badge of honor my friend

Now, without custom equipment, is there any way to go bigger? I know there are 6x12 holders for 4x5 but I'm not paying nearly 1k for this.

There are Chinese 6x12 Graflok backs that aren't too expensive. Also, there are quite a few pinhole 6x12 cameras if that is something you are interested in doing. I have a Holga 6x12 myself and it isn't too bad. I don't think 6x12 backs are a thousand dollars. Even the Horseman one is about $500 last time I checked.

I still like the idea of a 35mm to 16mm converted camera. I think that would be fun. Don't have the equipment to do it right though. If you are looking for more resolution you could always try microfilm. Fuji microfilm is pretty cheap on Ebay these days.

Frankly I think you should just keep doing what you are doing. They have a great character.

 

[Cholentpot]

There are 3D Printable 6x12 backs for 4x5 Graflok mount. If you have (access to) a well-working filament printer, you can print one for $10 or so in filament and 20-40 hours of machine time (at a guess). Filament choice for certain parts that need to be opaque may be critical, depending on how thick they are and your infill or wall thickness settings. Pretty sure these require you supply a dark slide -- I've downloaded files, but haven't examined them in detail.

I'm not a 3D printing guy. I only have so much organic processing power. Another hobby on top of my myriad of hobbies might not go will with the boss.

There are Chinese 6x12 Graflok backs that aren't too expensive. Also, there are quite a few pinhole 6x12 cameras if that is something you are interested in doing. I have a Holga 6x12 myself and it isn't too bad. I don't think 6x12 backs are a thousand dollars. Even the Horseman one is about $500 last time I checked.

I still like the idea of a 35mm to 16mm converted camera. I think that would be fun. Don't have the equipment to do it right though. If you are looking for more resolution you could always try microfilm. Fuji microfilm is pretty cheap on Ebay these days.

Frankly I think you should just keep doing what you are doing. They have a great character.

I have microfilm. It has a few issues though. It's really slow., it's very contrasty, and it's very very prone to scratching. Although, now that I have a stainless reel I should give it another chance. Hmmm. Maybe it's time for microfilm in a 6x7 back just because...

 

[Donald Qualls]

Another hobby on top of my myriad of hobbies might not go will with the boss.

Hence why I mentioned "access to" such a machine. Effectively, finding someone to print the unit for you should still undercut even a bargain basement old school 6x12 by hundreds of dollars. I'll be the first to admit that 3D printing can cost you all the time you were spending on photography (though it need not be hugely expensive or take up a great deal of space).

 

[Cholentpot]

Hence why I mentioned "access to" such a machine. Effectively, finding someone to print the unit for you should still undercut even a bargain basement old school 6x12 by hundreds of dollars. I'll be the first to admit that 3D printing can cost you all the time you were spending on photography (though it need not be hugely expensive or take up a great deal of space).

3D printing is in my future somewhere no doubt. There local library has a 3D printing service I've yet to take advantage of. Might bear looking into at some point...

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Alrightythen!

Very nice indeed; film-flatness seems to be an issue in my 4x5 roll holder w/ 35mm (discovered during a botched reversal attempt on CDI CN film). If there isn't official or slang terminology for film format subbing (including slitting & rebate exposure cases), there probably should be.



I pocketed the QT for some more predictable results.

Vision3 500T / 81B

Taken at f11 and f22, respectively. The QT is at infinity focus in the second image, but diffraction (aka 'global bokeh' ) is very apparent at such a small aperture.

 

[Cholentpot]

Very nice indeed; film-flatness seems to be an issue in my 4x5 roll holder w/ 35mm (discovered during a botched reversal attempt on CDI CN film). If there isn't official or slang terminology for film format subbing (including slitting & rebate exposure cases), there probably should be.

View attachment 288582

I pocketed the QT for some more predictable results.

Vision3 500T / 81B
View attachment 288584
View attachment 288585

My solution for film flatness is I made a leader out of 120 backing paper. I taped the film to the paper lead and it holds enough tension to keep it flat. I've seen this format subbing called Filmhax or film hacking. Either way it's fun and upsets people.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I used some scrap 16mm for leader taped the 35mm into a 120/6x8 roll back for a 4x5 camera... a real film-o-rama I'll try a 120 paper leader on my next hax attempt.

A couple more from the QT. Large, colorful, high-contrast graffitied walls are a boon for sub-mini formats.

 

[Cholentpot]

I used some scrap 16mm for leader taped the 35mm into a 120/6x8 roll back for a 4x5 camera... a real film-o-rama I'll try a 120 paper leader on my next hax attempt.

A couple more from the QT. Large, colorful, high-contrast graffitied walls are a boon for sub-mini formats.

View attachment 288587
View attachment 288588

We don't get scoob on our local vandali...graffiti

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

16ii w/ Double-X @ 500; old HC-110 1+63 14' from today.

'Pounds per square inch'

 

[Cholentpot]

16ii w/ Double-X @ 500; old HC-110 1+63 14' from today.

'Pounds per square inch'
View attachment 288846

This looks more in line with the results I get.