Minolta 16 Pics

[vonfilm]

Here are some scans from 30+ year old expired Kodak B&W acquired on Ebay and said to stored cold. I have since had some cartridges loaded with XP2 by Goat Hill Photo, so I hope the next roll will be better.


scan015 by vonfilm, on Flickr


scan010 by vonfilm, on Flickr


scan019 by vonfilm, on Flickr

scan009 by vonfilm, on Flickr

scan008 by vonfilm, on Flickr

 

[zuiko85]

I've been shooting these little Minolta submini's for years. I really like the 16II best. Such a sturdy and simple camera. Only disadvantage is the fixed focus lens and the fiddly distance and close up supplementary lenses.


Did you do your own developing? I always load and develop my own B&W in an ancient Yankee tank with adjustable plastic reels. For film I most use Eastman 16mm Double-X negative film. (Eastman cat# 7222 for 100ft. rolls) It is now about $36 shipped but you can get 60 loads out of 100 ft. with any reasonable care. With a slitter you can use any film you like, just not quite as cheap as 16mm stock.

 

[farlymac]

Looks about the same as when I was shooting one of these thirty years ago with fresh film.

PF

 

[zuiko85]

My Double-X negs do not have as much grain as the OP's samples, overall resolution is a little better also. I use HC-110 at 60:1 dilution as a one shot, 10~11 minutes at 68~70F with 5 sec. agitation every 2 minutes. I use a Mamiya 16mm enla-head to enlarge with 5X7 usually the largest size.


Some people ask why anyone would fool around with such a small negative, especially now that small digital sensors can do such amazing things. Don't have a logical answer for that. Guess it comes down to why have any hobby, if you are have fun with it then no reason is necessary.

 

[Dwig]

I shot with a 16II for a number of years in late Jr High and High School. I started by subminature shooting with dad's old Steky, a camera he bought in the late '40s. The attached pic of my parents is scanned from an undated commercially made print. Probably shot when I first got the camera. I generally did my own processing. The "texture" is a pebble "silk" texture in the print and my own printing was always done on glossy paper air dried.

 

[vonfilm]

My pictures were developed and scanned by Holland Photo, the only place I know in Austin that will develop anything but 35mm. I hope one day to develop and scan
my own film, but like many other things I haven't yet gotten around to it.

I am currently shooting some 400 Portra that I got from the UK in my Minox IIIs. I planto post the results of that soon.

I like to shoot in many formats. They all have there own charm.

 

[zuiko85]

vonfilm,

If just starting, getting into developing B&W does involve some initial expense but if you have more than a few rolls developed by an outside lab a month then you will quickly get your investment back.

Unfortunately the only new tank I know of with a reel that will adjust down to 16mm is the Yankee Clipper II. They will do 120, 35mm and 16mm film and B&H has them for $17 with free shipping. The tank is somewhat cheaply made but workable. I had one but lost it in a move years ago and now use a much older Yankee Master tank, still plastic but better made. Found it a photo swap & show for $5 several years ago.

 

[rovnguy]

I used to shoot my little sub-mini and then join my brother in the dark room while he developed and printed the film. This is one of the better shots.

 

[Dwig]

...
Unfortunately the only new tank I know of with a reel that will adjust down to 16mm is the Yankee Clipper II. They will do 120, 35mm and 16mm film and B&H has them for $17 with free shipping. ...

Depending on what camera you are shooting with there may be serious issues with using this tank & reel combo for 16mm. Since there are spiral guides on both faces of the reel it only works well with the original Minolta 16 format that fit the image in the center of the 16mm film with room for sprockets down both sides. This is the most common 16mm subminature format.

The later Minolta 16 format, like the Kodak 110 format, expanded the image size to nearly one edge and only works with single perf 16mm stock. This poses a problem when processes on reels in small tanks. The image area on one side is on the portion of film that is in one set of spiral grooves and is often unevenly processed. The old, extinct Nikor company made 16mm reels with the spiral track on only one side. These can process the 110 and later Minolta film properly. The downside is that they can only be found used (they turn up on eBay occasionly) and they are very, very difficult to load. I used SS reels for decades and can load 35mm and 120 reels effortlessly, but always found these 16mm reels difficult.

 

[Murray Kelly]

I have used a Paterson Universal 3 tank. I had to file a slot to allow the spirals to approach and lock for 16mm but it was easy.
When pushed all the way down I load and develop Minox successfully. Can't say I had problems with one edge of 16mm being underdeveloped.

This is a 50+ year old print I scanned - FP3 in Beutler developer. This was in my original Minolta I.

 

[squareshooter]

You guys are my heroes. I guess I have a dozen "spy" cameras some including the whole "velvet" lined presentation kit and everything. The next step is to see what I have got and what fits what (I have some film casettes) and then take some photos and get 'em developed.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Stumbled across this old thread. Would be great if folks who have shot and scanned 16mm negatives from these old Minolta cameras would post sample pics. Here's a few of mine, most have been posted elsewhere before:

Below images were made with Kodak Eastman Double-XX (7222)

The images below here were made with discontinued Kodak Eastman Plus-X (7231)

Best,
-Tim

 

[Kenzie]

A few test shots from my cut-down Fomapan:

 

[Timmyjoe]

Nicely done Kenzie.

 

[Kenzie]

Thanks, not bad for a first go! 16ii next!

 

[zuiko85]

The examples posted don't look as sharp as I've seen from a 16P or Ps Minolta. Don't know if this is a scanning issue or the negs are soft. The 16P is fixed focus at 5m (16.4 ft.) and at f3.5, wide open, DoF is stated to be from 10 to 37 ft., this would be for the then 'album' sized print of 3.5X5in. But even if pictures were shot wide open I think they should look sharper. With my Ps I always try to use f8 or smaller for any distant objects I wish in focus.

About the 16II, that model is fixed focus at 2.5m (just over 8 feet) and if shot wide open a distant object will not be sharp. They are hard to source but I'd try to fine the aux lens set that has the #1, #2, and #0 lenses in it. The #0 lens is a minus .25 diopter that will bring focus out to 10m (33 ft.) and will allow infinity focus, or close enough, at all apertures. This set is the most single useful accessory for the 16II in my experience. I often leave the #0 lens on my own 16II all the time for general picture taking outdoors. The #1 and #2 lenses are plus diopters that bring the focus closer than 2.5m.

Without using the #0 lens just use the smallest stop you can if you want the background to have the best detail/sharpness.

The 16P and Ps only had a close up lens set made for them, otherwise the only way to control focus is the choice of aperture.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Best,
-Tim

I don't agree, I think these images look pretty darn sharp from a negative the size of a Chiclet.

Best,
-Tim

 

[zuiko85]

I don't agree, I think these images look pretty darn sharp from a negative the size of a Chiclet.

Best,
-Tim

Sorry Tim, I was commenting on the samples put up by Kenzie, but forgot to mention that. Your prints are fine and mirror the 5X7 results I get out of my 16II, if I'm careful. My major problem is that the only native 16mm film I have now is Double-X which I expose at ISO200 and develop in 60:1 HC-110 as a one shot. Unless I'm willing to slit some T-max I just put up with the grain.

On your 16II samples did you use the #0 aux lens for the 'L' platform shot? Or did you just shoot at a smaller aperture? The distant objects in that picture look plenty sharp. Which line it that? I lived in Chicago in the 70's and first lived on the north side and took the Howard L then later moved to Winnemac right off Lincoln and rode the Ravenswood L to get back and forth to work in the loop.

 

[Kenzie]

I know this was from months ago but I think it may be a scanning issue. Negatives are sharp when held up to the light. Any tips for scanning such a small frame size?

 

[Murray Kelly]

Kenzie, I know it's hardly a solution, but I have had best success with the Kiev 16mm scanning by placing the film on the copier (flat bed) at the highest resolution. So far the Microtek allegedly does 4800 dpi but I bought a carrier for my Optic scan 8100 and didn't use it yet.
I like the Kiev because it has a focus adjuster but looks a dog compared to the Minoltas. I have 4 of those.
I will post (fingers crossed) a frame from a film by Kodak called ImageLink HQ a Techpan descendant. I went mad and bought a bunch before I found out how hard such films are to process. Slit TMax 100 is my next experiment.