/p/ - Photography » Thread #3039189

[23 / 8 / ?]

25KiB, 500x220, 413x06jGtRL.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Tue 14 Mar 2017 17:27:08 No.3039189 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3039712

Anyone ever use something similar to this?
I really wanted a pocket camera and this is what I got.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Mar 2017 17:31:06 No.3039191 Report

Quoted By: >>3039199

I have an Instamatic 92. Reloading the 110 cassettes is pretty easy. They take 16 mm. film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Mar 2017 18:00:28 No.3039199 Report

Quoted By: >>3039513 >>3040353

>>3039191
Got any images?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Mar 2017 01:22:34 No.3039513 Report

Quoted By: >>3039529 >>3039530 >>3040353

>>3039199
Bump. Isn't the film hard to dev?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Mar 2017 01:38:17 No.3039529 Report

Quoted By:

Processing is simple, >>3039513
You just need to remove the film from the cassette and wind it onto a 16mm spindle, or an adjustable one and process like normal.
If you do want to shoot 110 film, grab some expired fuji colour on ebay, or some lomography 110 film (which is actually quite good)
Cameras I would reccomend for the format:
Pentax 110 Auto
Rollei A110
Minolta 110 Zoom SLR Mark ii
As for reloading, just spin some 16mm film onto an old cassette, there arent bulk loaders so you have to do it by feel and practice.
Any other questions feel free to ask.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Mar 2017 01:41:35 No.3039530 Report

Quoted By: >>3039574

>>3039513
No more difficult than developing any other film at home.

I've done bucket development with 16mm movie film, you could probably do the same with 110 if you couldn't find a development reel for it

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Mar 2017 03:16:28 No.3039574 Report

Quoted By: >>3039590 >>3039701 >>3040211 >>3040215

OP here, the film develops in c41, the problem is finding reels for it. But that's no problem, there's a store down the street from me that develops and color negative film, any size for 9 bucks. The problem for me is scanning.

>>3039530
I'd be interested in seeing somethings you shot with the 16mm.

Does anyone have any actual images they took with a 110 camera?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Mar 2017 03:36:39 No.3039590 Report

Quoted By:

>>3039574
If you just want the frame size, use a half frame camera.
As for scanning
Lomography has a 110 film holder on there website for shatbed or dslrcuck scanning.
It feeds fine on 35mm trays on dedicated scanners, just crop it properly after scan

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Mar 2017 08:49:11 No.3039701 Report

Quoted By: >>3040211 >>3040215

>>3039574
I shot the 16mm in a movie camera. Didn't really love it, the quality didn't make me want to go back.

Don't have it on hand unfortunately since I did it years ago, on the plus side it taught me how to do the B&W reversal processing.

Probably just get a half frame 35mm camera. Something like the Konica AA35 is about the same size as a 110 camera and infinitely better

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Mar 2017 09:24:13 No.3039712 Report

Quoted By: >>3040184 >>3040187

>>3039189
Buy a Sony a6000.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Mar 2017 02:32:37 No.3040184 Report

Quoted By:

>>3039712
GOD DAMN YOU SONY SHILLS ARE IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD! I KNOW THIS IS BAIT BUT I'M STILL TRIGFERED

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Mar 2017 02:42:02 No.3040187 Report

Quoted By:

>>3039712

I believe you mean Nikon P900.

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 110firepoopphoto.jpg, 239KiB, 714x1017

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9 Thu 16 Mar 2017 04:08:02 No.3040211 Report

Quoted By:

>>3039574
>Does anyone have any actual images they took with a 110 camera?

Pic related. Scanned some color ones with an old scanner long ago and here's one of the better, higher quality snaps that came out. Lomo 200 is the film type. You can get some pretty sharp images from these submini formats depending on the camera and situation. If kurwa makes a cameo appearance in this thread he can tell you more about it.

>>3039701
>I shot the 16mm in a movie camera. Didn't really love it, the quality didn't make me want to go back.

I think it varies on how you go about shooting it, the stock, the camera and the overall purpose of using the format. Take my case for example; I shot Tri-X reversal on a K-3 (non super) and although I went through Cinelab to develop it I was an idiot and didn't get it telecined by them. Not to mention there was no crystal-sync motor so any sort of light source would seem to flicker and you'd get variable frame-rates near the beginning/end of the wind.

Although aside from the stock I don't know what equipment you were working with at the time. Truth be told I'm not too keen on big name producers using for a feature meant to be shown in theaters considering you can get more out of 35mm for slightly more dollarydoos but for cheapskates and indietards it's good enough.

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 110firepoopphoto.jpg, 239KiB, 714x1017

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9 Thu 16 Mar 2017 04:11:01 No.3040215 Report

Quoted By: >>3040220 >>3040231

>>3039574
>Does anyone have any actual images they took with a 110 camera?

Pic related. Scanned some color ones long ago and here's one of the better, higher quality snaps that came out. Lomo 200 is the film type. You can get some pretty sharp images from these submini formats depending on the camera and situation. If kurwa makes a cameo appearance in this thread he can tell you more about it.

>>3039701
>I shot the 16mm in a movie camera. Didn't really love it, the quality didn't make me want to go back.

I think it varies on how you go about shooting it, the stock, the camera and the overall purpose of using the format. Take my case for example; I shot Tri-X reversal on a K-3 (non super) and although I went through Cinelab to develop it I was an idiot and didn't get it telecined by them. Not to mention there was no crystal-sync motor so any sort of light source would seem to flicker and you'd get variable frame-rates near the beginning/end of the wind.

Although aside from the stock I don't know what equipment you were working with at the time. Truth be told I'm not too keen on big name producers using for a feature meant to be shown in theaters considering you can get more out of 35mm for slightly more dollarydoos but for cheapskates and indietards it's good enough.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Mar 2017 04:18:38 No.3040220 Report

Quoted By: >>3040234

>>3040215
I can squeeze 8mp out of my 110 scans

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Mar 2017 04:45:58 No.3040231 Report

Quoted By: >>3040234

>>3040215
Did you develop it yourself?

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9 Thu 16 Mar 2017 04:50:32 No.3040234 Report

Quoted By:

>>3040220
That's about the maximum for 110 yeah.

>>3040231
No but if you have the materials to develop black and white or C-41 than it would work just the same for 35mm or 120.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 110-film.jpg, 63KiB, 667x1001

Anonymous Thu 16 Mar 2017 11:47:25 No.3040353 Report

Quoted By: >>3040356 >>3040360

>>3039199
I'm scanning it right now.

>>3039513
It's developed the same as all other film. This is Lomography brand slide film intended for cross processing, I guess that's why it has that yellow tint, which I expect I can fix in post.
I'll be reloaded the cassettes from a roll of 16 mm. Tri-X I bought. I also, by accident, bought ten rolls of Kodachrome, which I in my drunken state thought was Tri-X too, hah. That won't go in the Instamatic since I can't make the camera expose it hard enough.
The Instamatic 92 is fixed at f/11 and 1/60.
I bought a russian tank and reel system for 16 mm. on eBay. Mine was pretty cheap and shitty. The decent ones are kind of expensive.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img132.jpg, 217KiB, 745x1001

Anonymous Thu 16 Mar 2017 11:54:56 No.3040356 Report

Quoted By: >>3040357

>>3040353
This is Orca b&w film from Lomography. The film itself isn't bad and the low quality is because of the camera I used. It was my first camera ever, though, and I wanted to use it again for nostalgic feels.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img133.jpg, 286KiB, 741x1001

Anonymous Thu 16 Mar 2017 11:56:00 No.3040357 Report

Quoted By: >>3040358

>>3040356

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img135.jpg, 220KiB, 749x1001

Anonymous Thu 16 Mar 2017 11:57:48 No.3040358 Report

Quoted By:

>>3040357

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Untitled-1.jpg, 309KiB, 1001x732

Anonymous Thu 16 Mar 2017 12:02:35 No.3040360 Report

Quoted By: >>3040418

>>3040353
I mean, it's not great. Hah.
I might buy one of the better 110 cameras later. It's just fun side project, though, and I'm not really looking to spend much more than the €300+ I've already sunk into it

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Mar 2017 15:37:35 No.3040418 Report

Quoted By:

>>3040360
based 110 poster

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches