bmattock
Veteran
Today, I helped my wife clean out our storage unit, getting things organized and so forth. I happened upon an old box of mine, and looking inside, I found several vinyl pouches that contain hundreds and hundreds of old 35mm and 110mm negatives. These date back to my days in the US Marines, circa 1979-1985.
I grabbed them and brought them home. Some are hopelessly scratched up, but some had survived relatively intact in their glassine envelopes, particularly the 110 film.
Remember 110 format? I had a Pentax 110 SLR, really a dandy little unit, which I carried with me everywhere in the USMC. Guys were always complaining about my compulsive camera-carrying, but when I'd get the prints back, they'd always want a copy for their mom back home.
Anyway, I have no way to scan a 110 negative properly, but just for fun, I put a strip in my 35mm carrier for my Minolta DiMage Dual Scan III and fed it in. I was surprised!
Here's a scan of a buddy of mine, Mike Amen (currently a SFC with the Oregon National Guard), in Okinawa Japan in 1981. Not bad for the technology of the time!
Perhaps I need to be finding me another of those old Pentax 110's. Never figured out what became of mine...
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I grabbed them and brought them home. Some are hopelessly scratched up, but some had survived relatively intact in their glassine envelopes, particularly the 110 film.
Remember 110 format? I had a Pentax 110 SLR, really a dandy little unit, which I carried with me everywhere in the USMC. Guys were always complaining about my compulsive camera-carrying, but when I'd get the prints back, they'd always want a copy for their mom back home.
Anyway, I have no way to scan a 110 negative properly, but just for fun, I put a strip in my 35mm carrier for my Minolta DiMage Dual Scan III and fed it in. I was surprised!
Here's a scan of a buddy of mine, Mike Amen (currently a SFC with the Oregon National Guard), in Okinawa Japan in 1981. Not bad for the technology of the time!
Perhaps I need to be finding me another of those old Pentax 110's. Never figured out what became of mine...
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
And just to demo the quality of the camera / film combo at that time...here's a blow up of the sign over Mike's head...
Last edited:
Bill, they do amazingly well considering the film format is only 14x17mm. When taking some photo art classes back in the 80's I'd sometimes shoot some Verichrome Pan with one, soup the negs in Kindermann tank & reels, and make the best 8x10 I could on the Beseler with a 30mm Minolta 110 format enlarging lens... Just a contrarian gesture in silent defiance of the fancy SLRs most other students were using. Nobody ever commented on the image quality or guessed they were shot with 110. 
I too need to dig out some of those negs and scan them...
I too need to dig out some of those negs and scan them...
I still have my Instamatic 48; one of the few RF 110's made. I am afraid that I do not use it too much, It is much bigger than the Pentax SLR.
jdos2
Well-known
I've an old 110 Minolta SLR.
It takes "acceptable" pictures, but nothing to write home about.
Looking for one? Like, for the cost of shipping and perhaps a meal?
It takes "acceptable" pictures, but nothing to write home about.
Looking for one? Like, for the cost of shipping and perhaps a meal?
P
pshinkaw
Guest
I too have noticed that my old 110 negatives are pretty good, but I also fond out that those color negatives I had processed this year and last year were terrible.
The film is actually supposed to be better than it was back in the 70's. I think the newer 1-hour processing technology must be wreaking havoc on the tiny negatives.
You can get 110 rangefinders for not much more than a song on e-Bay now. Pocket Instamatic 60's and Canon 110 ED's go for around $25.00. Kodak and Fuji 200 speed color negative film is still readily availabe, and these emulsions should be at least as fine grained as the 80 speed Kodacolor of 1973 when 110's first came out. However, I juct can't seem to find a processor who can do these without ruining them.
Anybody out there shot some 110 recently?
-Paul
The film is actually supposed to be better than it was back in the 70's. I think the newer 1-hour processing technology must be wreaking havoc on the tiny negatives.
You can get 110 rangefinders for not much more than a song on e-Bay now. Pocket Instamatic 60's and Canon 110 ED's go for around $25.00. Kodak and Fuji 200 speed color negative film is still readily availabe, and these emulsions should be at least as fine grained as the 80 speed Kodacolor of 1973 when 110's first came out. However, I juct can't seem to find a processor who can do these without ruining them.
Anybody out there shot some 110 recently?
-Paul
bmattock
Veteran
Paul,
I don't know how well (or if) this will work for 110, but I've had the exact same problem with 35mm 1-hour processing lately (in fact, ALL processing, even at so-called 'custom' labs). The negs come back all scratched and impossible to scan - it's very frustrating.
We have a 'pro shop' here in Albuquerque, and I've spoken to them about it - they're family-run, the owner is very concerned, they claim they're being REALLY CAREFUL, but the negs are just destroyed as far as scanning goes. Doesn't show up on prints, of course, just negs scanned with my Minolta Scan Dual III.
However, I stumbled across a solution - and you might want to try it...
I found out (by accident) that it is the act of printing the negs that does most of the damage. Those printing machines are automated and not gentle.
So, I ask them to PROCESS, CUT & SLEEVE my negs, but NOT PRINT them and NOT SCAN them. I got a few disbelieving looks at first, and I've had a few refusals, but surprisingly, most of the one-hour places I've tried will do it if you insist.
What's more, processing only costs about $2.00 per roll, instead of typical one-hour prices of $5 or $6 per 24-exposure roll.
You have to be VERY SPECIFIC about what you want, and if they act like you're from Mars, you can ask them to look carefully in their prices lists or ask to speak to a manager. I've found that all the Walmarts and Walgreens and grocery stores in my area WILL do processing only, and WILL charge much less per roll, once they figure out that they're allowed to do it.
I've got my guy in the grocery store trained now. He always knows what I want.
Anyway, I've found that the scans I'm getting now are SUPER CLEAN compared to just a few weeks ago. I'm so sorry that it took me this long to figure it out!
You might try this for your 110's and see how it goes...
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I don't know how well (or if) this will work for 110, but I've had the exact same problem with 35mm 1-hour processing lately (in fact, ALL processing, even at so-called 'custom' labs). The negs come back all scratched and impossible to scan - it's very frustrating.
We have a 'pro shop' here in Albuquerque, and I've spoken to them about it - they're family-run, the owner is very concerned, they claim they're being REALLY CAREFUL, but the negs are just destroyed as far as scanning goes. Doesn't show up on prints, of course, just negs scanned with my Minolta Scan Dual III.
However, I stumbled across a solution - and you might want to try it...
I found out (by accident) that it is the act of printing the negs that does most of the damage. Those printing machines are automated and not gentle.
So, I ask them to PROCESS, CUT & SLEEVE my negs, but NOT PRINT them and NOT SCAN them. I got a few disbelieving looks at first, and I've had a few refusals, but surprisingly, most of the one-hour places I've tried will do it if you insist.
What's more, processing only costs about $2.00 per roll, instead of typical one-hour prices of $5 or $6 per 24-exposure roll.
You have to be VERY SPECIFIC about what you want, and if they act like you're from Mars, you can ask them to look carefully in their prices lists or ask to speak to a manager. I've found that all the Walmarts and Walgreens and grocery stores in my area WILL do processing only, and WILL charge much less per roll, once they figure out that they're allowed to do it.
I've got my guy in the grocery store trained now. He always knows what I want.
Anyway, I've found that the scans I'm getting now are SUPER CLEAN compared to just a few weeks ago. I'm so sorry that it took me this long to figure it out!
You might try this for your 110's and see how it goes...
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
oftheherd
Veteran
Nice tip. Thanks.
P
pshinkaw
Guest
I haven't had too many scratch problems. My main complaint has been that 110 negatives look extremely grainy, like silver negatives that have been processed in hot developer. They look terrible compared negatives made back in in the 1970's.
The next time I take one of these cartridge cameras out for a spin, I'm going to ask my local custom lab to try a dip and dunk rather than use an automated processor.
-Paul
The next time I take one of these cartridge cameras out for a spin, I'm going to ask my local custom lab to try a dip and dunk rather than use an automated processor.
-Paul
O
Oldprof
Guest
Sorry, but I can't see using 110 film for serious work or even family snapshots. If you want a tiny camera get a Chinon Bellami and get wonderful prints from 35mm film. I prefer the Bellami over the various Minox 35mm cameras because the film advance mechanism is much more robust and dependable.
bmattock
Veteran
Oldprof,
To each his own! I find it fun and exciting to dig out my old 110 negs and scan them, and I remember (perhaps it is only nostalgia) how much fun I had taking them with my nifty little Pentax Auto 110 SLR way back when.
I agree that 35mm is always going to be preferable to 110 for any kind of serious work - and if size is a problem, I've got an Olympus XA that does outstanding work.
But fun is fun! There are people who shoot the sub-minis with great delight, and I say more power to 'em!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
To each his own! I find it fun and exciting to dig out my old 110 negs and scan them, and I remember (perhaps it is only nostalgia) how much fun I had taking them with my nifty little Pentax Auto 110 SLR way back when.
I agree that 35mm is always going to be preferable to 110 for any kind of serious work - and if size is a problem, I've got an Olympus XA that does outstanding work.
But fun is fun! There are people who shoot the sub-minis with great delight, and I say more power to 'em!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
P
pshinkaw
Guest
My favorite 110's are those I took on canoeing trips. The original Pocket Instamatics could actually be dunked in the water without harming them. We just put them in the back window of the car to dry out (film would get ruined though). You could do things with those $20 cameras that you woun't dare do to even an inexpensive 35. Remember, these were the days before single use (so-called disposable) 35's, especially the waterproof ones.
Also, people didn't take you seriously with a 110. Most people didn't change their behavior if they saw you whip out one those "toys". Since a lot of people still don't take them seriously, they still are usefull for candids
-Paul
Also, people didn't take you seriously with a 110. Most people didn't change their behavior if they saw you whip out one those "toys". Since a lot of people still don't take them seriously, they still are usefull for candids
-Paul
O
Oldprof
Guest
Bill Mattocks wrote:
"To each his own!"
I couldn't agree more. It's not for me to dictate which cameras other people should use or love. Thanks for your input Bill.
"To each his own!"
I couldn't agree more. It's not for me to dictate which cameras other people should use or love. Thanks for your input Bill.
When using 110 I've tried to keep to relatively simple compositions that don't depend on intricate details or textures. And the presense of unimportant texture masks grain.
When using medium format or larger, on the other hand, I can indulge in more subtlety and celebrate the richness of texture and detail.
When using medium format or larger, on the other hand, I can indulge in more subtlety and celebrate the richness of texture and detail.