110/16mm Camera Image Quality

[Cholentpot]

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

Most 110 cameras over shot the frame I believe.

Edit - Jinx Donald.

 

[Huss]

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

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.

 

[Huss]

Minolta 16 QT, yellow filter
Foma R100 @ 50; D-19 reversal 6'
View attachment 334223

Those look really good!

 

[Huss]

 

[Huss]

ok, that's it from that roll..

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

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).

I obtained two unopened 25' Double8 daylight spools with a camera purchase. I've shot it in 35mm a couple of times in the past and used Foma's reversal kit to decent results. It's available in 35mm & 16mm single-perf 100' rolls @ freestyle. It must be reversal processed to produce anything close to 'normal' results due to the presence of the silver AH backing. That limits it's flexibility a bit compared to Eastman Kodak's 16mm stocks but it's a nice change of pace on occasion.

Minolta 16ii with yellow filter
Foma R100 @ 50; D-19 reversal 6'

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Minolta QT, f/3.5 1/30s
Double-X, HC-110 B 20'



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'

 

[Patrick Robert James]

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

The most I've been able to get out of XX is 640 and that was really at the edge of telling myself I was being delusional. It was also in lower contrast light in the evening. 400 is probably the useful limit.

 

[Donald Qualls]

400 is probably the useful limit.

I've shot Double X at 400 with excellent results. I need to get more of it rolled up and shot, now that I'm getting my darkroom back in full operation.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Minolta QT
ImageLink HD @ ISO 12; D-23 1+3 12'


Edit: and a crop from a 6x8 frame of bergger 400 in a speed graphic roll back for comparison.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Nice. Imagelink is good stuff.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Minolta 16ii with yellow filter
Foma R100 @ 50; D-19 reversal 6'




Minolta QT
Vision3 250D @ 100; ECN-2 N-1 (pulled one stop in dev; 2'30")

 

[Huss]

Nice! Dig the pink corkscrew shot.


Interesting that this is the most active image thread on this site..

 

[Truzi]

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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

I love that this supposed dead format gets so much activity here. I think it's because we're actually going out and shooting and then showing results rather than arguing about which cameras/lens/film is better/worse/over/under rated.

We're having fun.

As per quality, it's not just the stocks that have gotten better. Scanning techniques have really improved and there is loads more available information on processing and general handling of the film. This in turn leads to better results.

But in the end it's really just people having a good time shooting.

Has anyone posted any disk shots yet?

 

[Kino]

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.

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?

 

[xkaes]

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.

There were a few disc cameras that did, but only a few, and they were cost-killers. Minolta & Fuji, for example, had disc cameras with top-quality, focusing lenses, but that's all the control you had. Nothing like a Minox, for sure. But the stupid disc DISCs made enlarging a horror story -- and self-reloading impossible.

What was Kodak thinking???

 

[xya]

What was Kodak thinking???

$$$$$

 

[Huss]

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?

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.

 

[Huss]

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.

When did 110 film get good enough? My Fuji Superia 110 dated 2000 is better than my fresh Lomo Tiger.

I think it has more to do w how we handle our film. Back in the day most processors did not give a rat‘s caboose about your 110 images, as you were an amateur who obviously didn’t know better.
Today I/we scan (me w a digicam) our 110 images w the same care as if they were 35mm or 120 images.

 

[xkaes]

There is no shortage of 110 cameras (just like with 16mm cameras) that have great glass and produce great images -- if "used as directed."

 

[Donald Qualls]

What was Kodak thinking???

$$$$$

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).

When did 110 film get good enough? My Fuji Superia 110 dated 2000 is better than my fresh Lomo Tiger.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Film got better and Kodak researched ways to use less film and silver to increase its profits.

 

[Kino]

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.

That's bizarre... Well, good to know; thanks!

I ordered a couple of rolls of the Purple to try in my Pentax Auto 110.

This should be interesting...