The Girls laughed at my small....

Click image for larger version  Name:	2AE6AD0A-DDCD-4996-B7BD-38FD71F40940.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	213.2 KB ID:	4775593 Click image for larger version  Name:	2AE6AD0A-DDCD-4996-B7BD-38FD71F40940.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	213.2 KB ID:	4775593 Click image for larger version  Name:	2AE6AD0A-DDCD-4996-B7BD-38FD71F40940.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	213.2 KB ID:	4775593 ....more. Not too bad eh? Back when these cameras were in use, the standard size print made was just about the size you see it on a phone. This, from a fingernail size negative.
 
With such a suggestive thread title, I just had to check it out and see what you were up to!

I'm amazed at the quality of these photos, considering the camera. I think I had such a camera as a kid, but I never got film for it.

- Murray
 
This thread is the antithesis (at least in (in Hegelian philosophy) of everything almost every photographer lives for - the cherished principle of cameras and lenses (and by direct inference certain body parts) that "mine is bigger than yours"...

But then small cameras have their place - I occasionally take out my Lumix GF1 kit and am always amazed at the quality of the images such a small beast can produce.
 
Click image for larger version  Name:	9634E7A4-A0A9-4001-B6B2-3072C39C2E69.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	272.3 KB ID:	4775778 They’re so toy like, it’s hard to believe. But, actually 110 is 13x18mm, these cameras are 14x14, so in essence it’s square format 110. The lens on the mighty appears to be a front convex meniscus, then the shutter and stop, and a reverse cemented achromat, giving an Anastigmat lens. The images I posted are iPhone pics of the negative color inverted. I know a careful scan or good Wet print would be better.
 
Back
Top