seany65
Well-known
@spavinaw: From what I've read on the internet, 110 cameras that autoset the film speed for their meters (Don't they all?) have trouble reading the tab for the 400 asa speed so you have to trim it, (I don't know if that means cutting it all off or what) for the camera to sett the speed for the meter to 400.
I don't know if any of it's true.
I don't know if any of it's true.
seany65
Well-known
@Huss: So Lomo Tiger 110 has a slightly cool caste?
Thanks for the info. Although it may now be redundant info.
Thanks for the info. Although it may now be redundant info.
seany65
Well-known
Lomo may stop 110 tiger film!
Lomo may stop 110 tiger film!
Yesterday I sent Lomography an email asking about when they expect new stocks of Tiger 110 film.
From the reply I've just received from Ja Lim of Lomography, they have no definite plans to re-stock 110 tiger film.
So unless we can all keep asking for it to persuade them to keep producing it, it looks like this is the end for 110 film!
Which is rather annoying.
I have asked them about their Lobster and Peacock films and whether they plan to continue with those films. I also said that I think they should keep up with the Tiger film and drop the Lobster and Peacock films as I can scan a Tiger print and manipulate the scan to make it look like it's from either a Lobster or Peacock print scan.
Lomo may stop 110 tiger film!
Yesterday I sent Lomography an email asking about when they expect new stocks of Tiger 110 film.
From the reply I've just received from Ja Lim of Lomography, they have no definite plans to re-stock 110 tiger film.
So unless we can all keep asking for it to persuade them to keep producing it, it looks like this is the end for 110 film!
Which is rather annoying.
I have asked them about their Lobster and Peacock films and whether they plan to continue with those films. I also said that I think they should keep up with the Tiger film and drop the Lobster and Peacock films as I can scan a Tiger print and manipulate the scan to make it look like it's from either a Lobster or Peacock print scan.
Contarama
Well-known
@seany65
Last roll of 110 I shot was about 2 years ago. Processing only plus a cd was not quite $20. As I recall it is a little bit more of a pain to set up their machine for processing hence the extra charge. I dont use my Pentax system any more.
Last roll of 110 I shot was about 2 years ago. Processing only plus a cd was not quite $20. As I recall it is a little bit more of a pain to set up their machine for processing hence the extra charge. I dont use my Pentax system any more.
farlymac
PF McFarland
If you go to Camera-Wiki.org, and look up Sedic cameras, you'll see a photo on the front page of the very model I used to have. I think it predates the Pentax 110. The winder had a coffee grinder noise when operated, and the coverings were peeling everywhere. I remember running one cartridge through it, as I really only got it for the novelty of the thing. The best thing about it was the mini potato masher flash.
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Sedic
PF
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Sedic
PF
seany65
Well-known
@Contarama: I see. While I presume $20 isn't really all that much for you, I can see why it may seem a bit expensive when all you're getting is a cd with scans that may not be very good.
I took the first film (which was mono) I put through my Ricoh 500GX to a shop called 'Jessops' in Manchester. They wanted £18 for processing and printing to 6x4, so I just got the pics scanned to a cd. I think they are rather poorly scanned.
Luckily there is a branch of Max Speilmann near me who only charge £10 for processing and printing to 6x4.
They'll only be charging £12.99 for any 110 film I take, though I don't know what size they'll print to.
@farlymac: Was the model you owned an XF-33? Is the motordrive the black T-shaped thing or does it include the black box thing behind it?
I took the first film (which was mono) I put through my Ricoh 500GX to a shop called 'Jessops' in Manchester. They wanted £18 for processing and printing to 6x4, so I just got the pics scanned to a cd. I think they are rather poorly scanned.
Luckily there is a branch of Max Speilmann near me who only charge £10 for processing and printing to 6x4.
They'll only be charging £12.99 for any 110 film I take, though I don't know what size they'll print to.
@farlymac: Was the model you owned an XF-33? Is the motordrive the black T-shaped thing or does it include the black box thing behind it?
seany65
Well-known
I was wondering if anyone can tell me if the Depth of Field is different for 110 film compared to 135 film, if all other things are exactly the same?
skucera
Well-known
Smaller lenses and smaller aperture openings both make for greater depth of field. If you're into "bokeh" then smaller lenses may not interest you. However, 110 lenses of small size and f4.5 or greater often don't need much focusing adjustment to have every depth in acceptable focus. This is why so many 110 cameras are focus free.
However, there were some 110 cameras with quality optics and quality focusing mechanisms. My first camera, the Pentax Auto 110, can resolve very well and can be focused very precisely with all of its lenses... well, except for the one pan-focus lens offered. I never bothered buying that lens. The maximum aperture is f2.8 for all its lenses, so low light will require a flash.
The Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60 also offers great optics and a fairly easy-to-use rangefinder. It too has good resolving power and can be focused precisely. Its f2.7 lens also isn't the best for low light photography, so a flash is handy.
My Minolta Weathermatic-A is a view camera with lower resolving power and only five zones for the focus... all selectable with icons. Aperture is f3.5, so it it relies a built-in flash, and has a fairly broad depth of field. There's no discernible bokeh with this camera.
My Canon 110ED 20 has a fairly fast f2.0 lens and an excellent rangefinder. It has pretty good resolving power and works fairly well in low light. I've actually gotten some good bokeh on bright days when focusing up close.
My Voigtländer Vitoret 110 (my second one because the first broke when shooting its first roll) has a fairly small aperture of f5.6 so it is effectively an infinitely variable zone focus view camera. Its viewfinder shows only three depth icons, and depth of field is very great... almost pan-focus. I've never seen any bokeh with this camera. It is only useful in bright sunlight, and even a living room in daylight gets the low exposure warning lit.
My Rollei E110 uses a moderate f2.8 aperture, so low light photography requires a flash or a tripod. I haven't seen any bokeh with this camera, and focusing is very forgiving... which means that it has pretty good depth of field. I also have a Rollei A110, but its film advance broke halfway through my first roll of film, which was a real disappointment.
So, that's my experience with 110. Comparatively, 35mm cameras have much less depth of field, especially at larger aperture openings.
Scott
However, there were some 110 cameras with quality optics and quality focusing mechanisms. My first camera, the Pentax Auto 110, can resolve very well and can be focused very precisely with all of its lenses... well, except for the one pan-focus lens offered. I never bothered buying that lens. The maximum aperture is f2.8 for all its lenses, so low light will require a flash.
The Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60 also offers great optics and a fairly easy-to-use rangefinder. It too has good resolving power and can be focused precisely. Its f2.7 lens also isn't the best for low light photography, so a flash is handy.
My Minolta Weathermatic-A is a view camera with lower resolving power and only five zones for the focus... all selectable with icons. Aperture is f3.5, so it it relies a built-in flash, and has a fairly broad depth of field. There's no discernible bokeh with this camera.
My Canon 110ED 20 has a fairly fast f2.0 lens and an excellent rangefinder. It has pretty good resolving power and works fairly well in low light. I've actually gotten some good bokeh on bright days when focusing up close.
My Voigtländer Vitoret 110 (my second one because the first broke when shooting its first roll) has a fairly small aperture of f5.6 so it is effectively an infinitely variable zone focus view camera. Its viewfinder shows only three depth icons, and depth of field is very great... almost pan-focus. I've never seen any bokeh with this camera. It is only useful in bright sunlight, and even a living room in daylight gets the low exposure warning lit.
My Rollei E110 uses a moderate f2.8 aperture, so low light photography requires a flash or a tripod. I haven't seen any bokeh with this camera, and focusing is very forgiving... which means that it has pretty good depth of field. I also have a Rollei A110, but its film advance broke halfway through my first roll of film, which was a real disappointment.
So, that's my experience with 110. Comparatively, 35mm cameras have much less depth of field, especially at larger aperture openings.
Scott
Last edited:
seany65
Well-known
Thanks for the info skucera.
That's quite a collection of 110s. Never wanted a minolta 110 slr?
That's quite a collection of 110s. Never wanted a minolta 110 slr?
skucera
Well-known
No, I bought one about two months ago, but I was busy at work and haven’t gotten through the test roll yet. I can add an opinion about it after I develop the roll.
Oh, I learned yesterday why my local film developer suddenly charges much more to develop and print 110 film lately... the mini-lab that did 110 natively broke down and there are no repair parts available, so they develop 110 film by hand, scan it, and make digital prints. I’ve got to find a new developer for 110... maybe Blue Moon in Portland.
Scott
Oh, I learned yesterday why my local film developer suddenly charges much more to develop and print 110 film lately... the mini-lab that did 110 natively broke down and there are no repair parts available, so they develop 110 film by hand, scan it, and make digital prints. I’ve got to find a new developer for 110... maybe Blue Moon in Portland.
Scott
seany65
Well-known
Did you get a mk1 or mk2?
Please let us know what happens with the test roll.
Shame about their 110 mini-lab. On the other hand I don't suppose they'd do special processing for you, like pushing?
Please let us know what happens with the test roll.
Shame about their 110 mini-lab. On the other hand I don't suppose they'd do special processing for you, like pushing?
skucera
Well-known
Sean, I got a Mk. 1. It was really dirty when I bought it, and it took quite a bit of cleaning to get the nicotine smoke off of it. Luckily, the main lens had its lens cover on it, and it was clean.
As you can guess, I have always had an interest in small, gadgety cameras. The Minolta Zoom SLR is the latest 110 to enter my little collection. I'm also most interested in cameras that caught my eye years ago that are now a bargain now that they're being donated to thrift shops. I rarely spend more than $15 on a camera, especially for a 110.
My local film developer will happily do custom darkroom work, but at a price. However, their scanner is fairly low resolution, about 5 megapixel for 35mm or 2.3 megapixel for 110. That makes the prints from scanned 110 film really unsharp compared to their old analog photo printing. It may be the impetus I need to finally get my darkroom set up, because I have a 110 negative holder for my Beseler enlarger. I just need the trays and chemicals... simple to get.
However, we digress from the theme of this thread....
Scott
As you can guess, I have always had an interest in small, gadgety cameras. The Minolta Zoom SLR is the latest 110 to enter my little collection. I'm also most interested in cameras that caught my eye years ago that are now a bargain now that they're being donated to thrift shops. I rarely spend more than $15 on a camera, especially for a 110.
My local film developer will happily do custom darkroom work, but at a price. However, their scanner is fairly low resolution, about 5 megapixel for 35mm or 2.3 megapixel for 110. That makes the prints from scanned 110 film really unsharp compared to their old analog photo printing. It may be the impetus I need to finally get my darkroom set up, because I have a 110 negative holder for my Beseler enlarger. I just need the trays and chemicals... simple to get.
However, we digress from the theme of this thread....
Scott
Last edited:
seany65
Well-known
skucera,
Eeewww, nicotine stains (and probably stink too)! I suppose you didn't just shove it in a sink full of hot water and soap? lol.
Is a thrift shop the same as a charity shop, where people donate old stuff so that the shop can raise money for a particular charity?
I don't think you've digressed, you're still talking about 110 film even though what you wrote is about processing and scanning/printing it.
This thread is meant to be about anything to do with 110 cameras and film.
Eeewww, nicotine stains (and probably stink too)! I suppose you didn't just shove it in a sink full of hot water and soap? lol.
Is a thrift shop the same as a charity shop, where people donate old stuff so that the shop can raise money for a particular charity?
I don't think you've digressed, you're still talking about 110 film even though what you wrote is about processing and scanning/printing it.
This thread is meant to be about anything to do with 110 cameras and film.
K14
Well-known
Just got a batch of photos from Blue Moon Camera in today. They are stellar for 110 development. Getting prints is a little more money but well worth it.
I shoot with the Pentax auto110 24mm lens the cult lens. Let me tell you this lens is the king of 110, gives you the frame of the human eye. You can take pictures of things through microscopes and telescopes.
Here are some pics of the moon and a snowball bloom taken through a cheap 60mm Meade refactor telescope.
Huss
Veteran
Do what I do, scan 110 film w a Nikon D850 and get 47mp files..
Love the moon shot! The flower one seems to have a blue scan line about 1/8 way up going across the entire image?
seany65
Well-known
k14: I Hope you don't mind me saying this, but the flower pic looks out of focus to me.
The moon pic does seem sharper even with the earth's atmosphere affecting the 'seeing'/sharpness.
While I'm here, I was wondering what print size gives a full frame print without cropping, beyond that of the negative carrier that is?
Edit: k14: At the time the pentax auto 110 came out I thought it would have the best lenses, mainly because I thought they wouldn't design a new camera with interchangeable lenses and make them crap lenses. About the time the minolta 110 slr mk2 came out I'd been reading "What Camera Weekly" for a while (IIRC), and had been given a mental bias against zooms lenses by them, and i presume also by other magazines, so again I thought the pentax lenses would be the best.
I never did any research regarding either camera as I was only interested in 'proper' cameras like nikon fm's etc. but I always thought that if I went 110 I'd get a pentax auto 110. I now know that if I'd ever gone into a shop to try one I would not have bought it as it's too small and there's no control over the exposure.
I've never understood the idea behind their pan-focus lens. There you have a camera which only gives you control of the focusing and framing and they produce a lens that stops you being able to focus it, and thus they turn it into a glorified keystone/boots/no-name no control, box?
The moon pic does seem sharper even with the earth's atmosphere affecting the 'seeing'/sharpness.
While I'm here, I was wondering what print size gives a full frame print without cropping, beyond that of the negative carrier that is?
Edit: k14: At the time the pentax auto 110 came out I thought it would have the best lenses, mainly because I thought they wouldn't design a new camera with interchangeable lenses and make them crap lenses. About the time the minolta 110 slr mk2 came out I'd been reading "What Camera Weekly" for a while (IIRC), and had been given a mental bias against zooms lenses by them, and i presume also by other magazines, so again I thought the pentax lenses would be the best.
I never did any research regarding either camera as I was only interested in 'proper' cameras like nikon fm's etc. but I always thought that if I went 110 I'd get a pentax auto 110. I now know that if I'd ever gone into a shop to try one I would not have bought it as it's too small and there's no control over the exposure.
I've never understood the idea behind their pan-focus lens. There you have a camera which only gives you control of the focusing and framing and they produce a lens that stops you being able to focus it, and thus they turn it into a glorified keystone/boots/no-name no control, box?
seany65
Well-known
Does anyone know who makes the Lomo Tiger film?
Does anyone know if it's just re-badged film that is actually expired or if it's a copy of an old film? If it is a copy, what's it a copy of?
It does seem rather grainy in the pics on the web that I've seen, so I'm presuming it's an old film. Well, there ain't much incentive for the makers to make a modern emulsion is there?
Does anyone know if it's just re-badged film that is actually expired or if it's a copy of an old film? If it is a copy, what's it a copy of?
It does seem rather grainy in the pics on the web that I've seen, so I'm presuming it's an old film. Well, there ain't much incentive for the makers to make a modern emulsion is there?
K14
Well-known
From what I read it is a fresh emulsion film. My pictures above that everyone is criticizing is shot with Tiger ISO 200. I doubt that it's expired especially with a 2020 expiration date.
Huss
Veteran
Do you think they are criticisms or observations? I don't think anyone meant to offend here. You don't see the blue line on the flower shot ? The blue line is a scanning issue from your lab. It's good to notice these things and mention it to the lab so they either redo it (it's happened to me too) or pay more attention next time.
As I mentioned, I think the moon shot is very nice.
As for the film, mine shows (by date) that it is fresh and it behaves that way shooting/processing it.
seany65
Well-known
k14, Thanks for the info about the emulsion being a fresh one. Though I am wondering if the 'design' of the emulsion isn't quite as up-to-date as one would get with a 'new emulsion' for a 35mm film, if you see what I mean.
I fully understand that the pics above were done on Tiger 200 and am pleased to see some examples from it, thanks. I wasn't so much 'criticising' it as 'critique-ing' it (there is a difference, honest!) and making an observation. I got myself into a slight bit of trouble o in another thread yonks ago by mentioning sharpness in a photo, but it seems it was more the scanner and monitor as the poster said the photo itself was sharp.
One thing that is puzzling me about Tiger 200, though is: why the ruddy-blink is it a 200 asa film, when probably most 110 cameras could only read 100 and 400 asa speeds? Could it be the makers decided that most colour print film benefits from a bit of over exposure?
I've also noticed a couple of bright 'dots' and 3 red 'dots' on your flower photo, k14. I've seen a thread somewhere in the interwebnet which showed a few examples of photos with a lot of these dots and other people saying they had similar dots but not so many. Someone even mentioned that Lomo/the makers of the Orca film do something to the end of that film to give some 'random' results! Dunno if that's true though.
Do I take that those dots are not usual?
Does anyone use much of their Orca film, if so, what do you think of it?
I fully understand that the pics above were done on Tiger 200 and am pleased to see some examples from it, thanks. I wasn't so much 'criticising' it as 'critique-ing' it (there is a difference, honest!) and making an observation. I got myself into a slight bit of trouble o in another thread yonks ago by mentioning sharpness in a photo, but it seems it was more the scanner and monitor as the poster said the photo itself was sharp.
One thing that is puzzling me about Tiger 200, though is: why the ruddy-blink is it a 200 asa film, when probably most 110 cameras could only read 100 and 400 asa speeds? Could it be the makers decided that most colour print film benefits from a bit of over exposure?
I've also noticed a couple of bright 'dots' and 3 red 'dots' on your flower photo, k14. I've seen a thread somewhere in the interwebnet which showed a few examples of photos with a lot of these dots and other people saying they had similar dots but not so many. Someone even mentioned that Lomo/the makers of the Orca film do something to the end of that film to give some 'random' results! Dunno if that's true though.
Do I take that those dots are not usual?
Does anyone use much of their Orca film, if so, what do you think of it?