110 camera and film discussion

[zuiko85]

Color negative films can generally be overexposed by 2 or 3 stops and still have good prints from these automated printing machines.
That was, or is the idea behind single use cameras. They had ISO 400 film but could cope with 3 stops overexposure in bright sunlight shooting at f11 at 1/100 sec. Dense negatives held detail and could still be printed through.

 

[seany65]

Doug: Me? Not "over-think" something? Are you crazy? lol.

zuiko85, I know that generally colour film can cope with quite a lot of overexposure, but I'm trying to be "disciplined" and give fairly close-to-correct exposure as one of the ways to try and improve.


Taking this post in a different direction, I recently corresponded with an ebay seller of a Minolta 110 slr mk2 camera which was being sold as "spares or repairs". On enquiring what the problem was, I was told "The lever is stuck" - it seems the wind-on lever wouldn't budge and the shutter button wouldn't move. So I started to fiddle with mine and the wind-on lever would only go part way. There's no film in and I'd recently taken the batteries out as I'd just finished two films (1 tiger 200, the other 1 Orca 100), so I put the batteries back in and fired the shutter. For some reason I'd closed the viewfinder blind and left the lens cap on. The speeds officially go to 1/4 of a second, but the shutter stayed open for quite a long time, even after I'd taken the lens cap off.

So I found out that:

The meter/camera can give much longer exposures than we are told, though I'm not sure if it'll be the "correct" exposure time.

Oddly, the viewfinder blind thingy wouldn't move during the exposure!

 

[seany65]

Just got back two films from the lab.

The tiger 200 pics aren't great or even good (well I took them, so...), but some pics look weird: rather blue-ish on most of the wardrobe pics (done to see see how much detail the film could show - it seems less than I can see in the 'finder) almost as if the yelow-ish wood grain had been patchily painted onto a blue background! A couple of pics had purple patches on them! On most pics it's quite difficult to see if zooming in-focussing-zooming out to frame the shot has any positive impact.

I'm going to have to do another tiger test film. I think I'll do 2 of each shot with one at "0" and one at "-1" exp comp.

The Orca pics are absolutely, mind-bogglingly bad. Badly underexposed and difficult to tell if they are in focus, and several pics are clearly out of focus. The pics were all done on bright days with lots of contrast (I know, I'm not the messiah, I'm a very naughty boy), but many of the other pics I've done with my other cameras were done in similar light and almost nonoe of them were abysmal as far as exposure goes.

I'll have to do another Orca test film, and take my variosix F to also take readings to see if the camera meter's playing up.

With both films I'll also have to do pics that were fucussed when zoomed in and then zoomed out to frame the shot and non-zoomed pics, to see if there's a discernable difference.

I will also have to find a way to hold the camera more steady, especially hen zoomed out.

 

[Doug]

Using the ISO 200 film will likely set the camera to expose it as Ei 100, for a one-stop overexposure. That should give you lovely results with good color and shadow detail. If this doesn't give good results, then perhaps the meter's not working well.

A proper zoom lens will stay in focus all through the zoom range, so it should be helpful to zoom to the long end for more exact focus, as you say...

 

[zuiko85]

I hear you seany65, it's always good to try to nail exposure. I don't shoot 110 but do shoot 16mm, usually a Minolta 16II. So far only B&W, the old Ilford Pan F (expired in 2009 but still seems to work good, slit to 16mm from 35mm, and Kodak Double-X in 16mm. Haven't loaded any color, didn't want to buy a C41 kit that would likely be good for 15-25 rolls. I'd never shoot that much. Might slit some older Kodak 400 Max and just drive it the 60 mile round trip to a local lab. They still do 110 so 16mm should not be a problem.

 

[seany65]

Doug, I have read that a bit of over-exposure is good for colour prints, and from what I can tell from a couple of pics of mine it's also good for making the grain a bit less apparent.

I have also read that Lomo 110 film is very inconsistant in quality, and it seems I may have found a "bad one" with my last film with the blue-cast on a few shots and purple patches on others, so I'm going to look at what I get from my next two tiger films and take it from there on whether to dump the rest and go "Expired" instead. The pics I got from an expired Agfa were decent enough, but with a warm tint.

Zuiko, "nailing" the exposure is ideal, especially if we can't process the film ourselves and compensate with paper grade and development, but being a talentless bozo who is easily confused, it probably won't be very often that I manage it.

I was pratting about with my 110 slr mk2 and I decided to look through the lens with the back open and the shutter on "B". "B" is described as a "Mechanical Speed" (it's not, the batteries must be in and working, but the meter doesn't work), but the shutter wouldn't stay open even with the button held down and a couple of times it didn't stay open when the back was shut, so I'm wondering if there could be a shutter accuracy issue and that's why a couple of the tiger prints are underexposed by quite a lot, and why all of the Orca prints are very underexposed.

If only Ilford made the Orca film, we'd then know it was the camera, metering or processing at fault for any technically bad pics.

 

[skucera]

Sean, too bad your shutter isn't staying open or even opening. I thought the Minolta 110 SLR's used an electro-magnetic shutter. Have you tried your experiment with fresh batteries?

Scott

 

[seany65]

Scott, I did think about that, but even though I've had the batteries for a couple of years, they've hardly been used and have been mostly out of the camera in an old plastic film tub. Even so, I've just ordered some more batteries, 2 for this camera, 2 for another slr mkII that I'm waiting for (I hadn't planned on buying it, but it was cheap. What? If women can use that excuse for buying stuff they don't need, so can I, lol.), and 1 for my ricoh 500gx and I'll be dumping the "old" ones I have now, just to be on the safe side.

I have started a new Orca film and been doing 3 versions of each pic (I'm not cheeky enough to call anything I do "photographs", lol.), at "0", "+1" and "+2" Exp comp just to see what happens.

I'll also be able to see what the shutter on my 2nd mkII does with new batteries, when it arrives.

Is it possible for batteries to provide enough power to give a "correct" reading (when compared to a gossen variosix f) but NOT enough power to the shutter to keep it open long enough?


On a different tack, I've been in contact with Lomography about whether the pinholes in their Tiger 200 films are a "design choice" in order to give the red dots on the prints, and I've been told that it's a problem with their old stock and should not occur on their new stock. I note that in the "shop" on their website, their 3x tiger box now has a woman on the front holding a bunch of flowers and not the (Shetland?) Pony. So it seems the red dots are not deliberate and they've been working on the problem, although why it would take so long is puzzling.


On yet another tack, I've been wondering how bright the focusing screen on the Pentax Autio 110 is, and how easy it is to focus the 25mm lens? I realise that the screen will be brighter than the one on an slr MKII, but the viewfinder image would be around the same size in both cameras when the mkII's zoom is set to 25mm.

 

[neal3k]

About the Pentax auto 110 focusing screen. I have been using mine for a few years now and have never noticed a dim screen problem. I have my 24mm on it right now and did some focusing in dark and light conditions. The ground glass seems to be easier for me to use than the split image in the center. But it is still easy to focus.

 

[skucera]

About the Pentax auto 110 focusing screen. I have been using mine for a few years now and have never noticed a dim screen problem. I have my 24mm on it right now and did some focusing in dark and light conditions. The ground glass seems to be easier for me to use than the split image in the center. But it is still easy to focus.

I've been using my Pentax Auto 110 since 1982, and I've never noticed a dim viewfinder either. (OK, I have only used it a couple of times in the last two years... a problem with having too many film cameras and too many 110's.)

Scott

 

[seany65]

neal and Scott: thanks for the info about the auto 110. I find it quite hard to focus using the area around the rangefinder on my slr mkII. I don't think they wanted us to use that area for focusing, which is a bit annoying as sometimes it's quite difficult to find a suitable thing to aim the rangefinder at.

 

[skucera]

neal and Scott: thanks for the info about the auto 110. I find it quite hard to focus using the area around the rangefinder on my slr mkII. I don't think they wanted us to use that area for focusing, which is a bit annoying as sometimes it's quite difficult to find a suitable thing to aim the rangefinder at.

Sean,

I find the ground glass viewfinders in SLR's hard to use too, especially now that I'm older and use progressive lenses in my glasses. The split prism center works well for me, but I have to be careful which part of my glasses I look through. (Oh, to have young eyes again!)

Actually, I find using rangefinders easiest to use now that I'm older. It's a shame that there are very few rangefinder 110's, because I've always enjoyed gadgety little cameras. I think I own an example of each, like the Canon 110 ED 20 or the Kodak Instamatic 60. Anyway, I have 35 mm rangefinders for a fun day out just taking pictures.

Scott

 

[seany65]

Scott, I'm sure you know about the minox 110s, which has a rangefinder, and the fact that it's got a bit of a built-in lenshood arrangement. Probobaly rather expensive these days though.

I've been tempted to get one, but as there's no exposure compensation I'd probably not as that stuff can be pretty useful.

I've got 3 rangefinders as well. I had a 4th, an Ansco Super Regent, but the focus ring seized up solid, sometime AFTER I'd had it "serviced", which included work on the stiff focus ring. It had come back feeling alright. My Super Solinette is still working well though, after it's "servicing", dunno if it was done by the same "Tech".

The Zenit B/Prinzflex 500 has a very good ground glass screen, and is much brighter than I'd expected. I had one for a few weeks, but it was at the time I had about 14 cameras and some had to go.


Edit: Forgot to add: If anyone uses one of the new batch of Lomo Tiger 200 (with the woman holding a bunch of flowers on front of the "3x" box, NOT with the shetland(?) pony, or WITH the vegetables on the single box, NOT the man with the orange suit), and if you DON'T cover the back of the camera to prevent light going through the backing paper, could you please let us know if you still have any of the "Traditional" red dots show up? Lomo told me they had been working on the problem.

 

[seany65]

The Minolta zoom 110 mk II is a great camera - I have 2 of them. However, do yourself a favor and get some fresh film. I don't believe you will get acceptable results from 1994 Color film. Lomography sells fresh film in 110 cartridges. The Minolta mark II does require actual 110 film because it needs the index holes for the film advance to work, so no reloaded film unfortunately.

I know this is a rather late reply, but I had to mention that earlier this year I got an "in date" Lomo tiger film back from the processors and the results were worse than the the '94 film! Grainier, less sharp (even though I used a tripod with this film) and there were some purple and some green patches in some of the pics. I'd been edging towards cutting down on the number of cameras that I have and these problems, as well as having to zoom in, focus and zoom out without touching the focus ring, made me decide that this should be one of those to go.

 

[KoNickon]

Anyone know where 110 can still get processed? By which I mean, developed, scanned, printed. My local place will develop it, same with 127, but that's it. That's better than nothing though!

 

[Pál_K]

Anyone know where 110 can still get processed? By which I mean, developed, scanned, printed. My local place will develop it, same with 127, but that's it. That's better than nothing though!

Blue Moon Camera and Machine.

They do all my color work - I have compared their results with numerous labs and their color work is easily the best. Also, they print optically in many cases (see their website).

They handle 8x11mm Minox through large format, plus offer film and processing for “obsolete” films.

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with them in any way, nor do I benefit from recommending them; I am just a customer.

 

[KoNickon]

Thank you!

 

[skucera]

I know this is a rather late reply, but I had to mention that earlier this year I got an "in date" Lomo tiger film back from the processors and the results were worse than the the '94 film! Grainier, less sharp (even though I used a tripod with this film) and there were some purple and some green patches in some of the pics. I'd been edging towards cutting down on the number of cameras that I have and these problems, as well as having to zoom in, focus and zoom out without touching the focus ring, made me decide that this should be one of those to go.

I've seen really uneven results from Lomography 110 rolls that are fresh. I think that Lomo's background of enjoying highly imperfect image capture as part of their esthetic means that they are really not worried about delivering good quality film all the time. Some rolls are great and some are faded, grainy, with holes in the 110 packing paper that causes pinhole artifacts. This lack of quality really takes much of the geeky joy out of my using my collection of 110 cameras.

Scott

 

[lxmike]

I used to use a simple pair of nail clippers to adapt the small plastic nub on the side of the film cassettes when shooting film through my Pentax 110, I eventually got rid of all my 110 kit, a Pentax 110 was cute but a Rollei 35 and/or Olympus XA was about the same size, (ish), and gave me 35mm negs, hence the dropping of the 110.

 

[KoNickon]

Remind me -- removing that nub enabled you to set the film speed manually? (What is the default speed the cassette nub would program in, 200?)