Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > Half Frames / Subminiatures

Half Frames / Subminiatures This forum is for all half frame 35mm cameras, including the very popular Olympus Pens and their SLR cousins, the Pen F and Pen FT, as well as all smaller than half frame subminiature film cameras.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 07-04-2018   #41
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 5,710
Those red dots are from light leaks through the backing paper of the film. Apparently the backing paper that Lomo has used is a little leaky/perforated. I have not noticed this on my Tiger 200 film, so it seems that it is a QC issue.
But I have with Orca! Mine had crazy backing paper mico-perferations. It can make for an interesting albeit unintentional effect.
This was taken with Orca and my Rollei A110. You again can see how sharp the lens is:

  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2018   #42
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 5,710
More with the Rollei and Orca film. I like this film a lot, but it seems very hard to get:

  Reply With Quote

Old 07-08-2018   #43
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
Why does Lomo make such a fuss of their 110 "Peacock" film going green etc. when cross-processed? Doesn't all slide film go a funny colour or two when cross-processed?

Is there anyone that processes and mounts 110 slide film? How easy is it to get slide viewers that can handle 110 slides?

How does it compare to Tiger 200 film?


While I'm here, is it usual for the wind-on lever of Minolta 110 zoom slr mk2s to wind-on even if a photo has not been taken first?

Any help would be much appreciated.


Edit: added the following bit after seeing Huss's post :

Thanks for those pics Huss. Did you process and print them yourself? The exposure seems right on for each photo. Have you got any opinion on whether it's similar to any 35mm film? Do you get those perforations in every Orca film, and have you noticed if they appear from a particular frame number?
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #44
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
Here are some links to shops/sellers I've bought Lomo 110 Tiger 200 film from, in case Lomo start stocking/sending it out again:

1) Analogue Wonderland: https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/collections/110-film


2) Bristol Cameras: https://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/adv...10+camera+film

You can't email Bristol Cameras, you have to phone them to ask questions.


3) WEX photo: https://www.wexphotovideo.com/film/#..._category_pg=1

WEX have been very helpful over the short time I've been emailing them, and 'Angela' has passed on my info about Lomo having no firm plans to restock 110 Tiger 200 film, to another dept. who will decide whether to contact Lomo and ask for more film etc.


4) M.S.Hobbies Ltd.: https://www.wexphotovideo.com/film/#..._category_pg=1


M.S.Hobbies handle Minox cameras and film as well. It has proved a little difficult getting Postage prices and so on from them. The website does seem to have improved since the last email I sent them.

I've just added a film to 'my cart' to see what would happen about indications of postage etc. The film would cost 8.75 according to the listing, this price is shown as 'sub total' in 'my cart', there is 11.50 below it with no indication what it's for and the 'Total amount' is 19.75 inc. tax. This is for one film.

HUH!? It can't be 11.50 tax as no-one else is charging that, and I'd be surprised if it was 11.50 postage. I won't go any further with it by going through the motions of paying for it (without the final 'confirm and pay'), in case something goes wrong.

Until I get clarification about this I won't be buying anything from them.


Edit: I forgot to include this ebay seller:

5) apdigi. Based in Hong Kong but it took less than a week for the box of "3x Lomo 110 Tiger 200" to arrive. The box cost 19.60, with free postage although I paid 1.50 extra for postage that was listed as being about a week quicker, but I could still be waiting in the first week of August.

Edit 2: Ordered another "3x box of tiger 200" last Thursday (12/7/18) and received it yesterday morning (17/7/18)! That's quick.
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-19-2018   #45
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
Has anyone got any idea why Lomography use bigger boxes for their single 110 films than other companies do?
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2018   #46
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
I know my minolta zoom mk2 uses a little metal cog thing to turn the take up spool that is inside the film cassette, but I've read that it can't use film that doesn't have the sprockets.

Is this true and if so why?

Any help would be appreciated.
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2018   #47
skucera
Registered User
 
skucera's Avatar
 
skucera is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Harrisburg, Oregon, USA
Posts: 230
Is it true? No....

All 110 cartridges have a cogged gear on the leading reel to pull the film across from the feed side to the side where exposed frames are stored. There's no such thing as a 110 cartridge without a geared sprocket.

Perhaps you're thinking about the single sprocket holes aligned to the corner of each frame? The spec for the 110 film system used a feeler to fall into this hole to signal the advance mechanism to stop advancing and to cock the shutter. Without this hole, most cameras will simply wind on until the end of the film. Also, if you try to use 16 mm movie film (if you can refill a 110 cartridge, which was intended to be single-use), then the many sprocket holes will stop the advance every 3/10 in., which will overlap photos.


Scott
__________________
1940 Kodak 35 Rangefinder
1955 Leica M3
1969 Canon New Canonet QL17-L
1976 Konica Autoreflex T3n
1977 Canon 110ED 20
1979 Minox 35 GL
1979 Olympus XA
1980 Pentax Auto 110
1987 Polaroid Spectra
1996 Canon EOS Elan IIe

Last edited by skucera : 07-21-2018 at 15:25. Reason: Correcting odd spacing
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2018   #48
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
Thanks for the info skucera.

I did begin to suspect that the film sprockets would 'probably' have something to do with counting the frames not long after posting, but as I wanted to be sure I left the question up.

I think I've reads that some 110 cameras can work without the film sprockets, is this true and if so how?
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2018   #49
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
Just run the first roll of 'Tudor 200' (exp 2006) through my slr mk2.

I tried to remember to do every shot twice, the first being at '0' exposure comp, (which is actually +1 stop 'cos of the film speed) and the second at -1 (which will be 'correct' when I'm using my fresh lomo 200), just to see what happens.

I'm sure a few pics will show camera shake partly 'cos the display was at "between 1/60 and 1/4" (according to the manual) sometimes though it was closer to 1/60, and partly 'cos I think I need new batteries and the display wasn't lighting up properly so I started to wind on thinking that was the problem.

I did remember to zoom in, focus and zoom out again though just to be on the safe side.

The wind-on lever being on the bottom of my camera hasn't turned out to be quite so awkward as I thought it would, especially when doing vertical shots.
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-25-2018   #50
skucera
Registered User
 
skucera's Avatar
 
skucera is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Harrisburg, Oregon, USA
Posts: 230
Sean, post your pics in a thread somewhere, or link to them so we can check them out. Remember, some of us are deeply geeky 110 enthusiasts who have not yet owned a Minolta 110 Zoom SLR Mk. 2.


Scott
__________________
1940 Kodak 35 Rangefinder
1955 Leica M3
1969 Canon New Canonet QL17-L
1976 Konica Autoreflex T3n
1977 Canon 110ED 20
1979 Minox 35 GL
1979 Olympus XA
1980 Pentax Auto 110
1987 Polaroid Spectra
1996 Canon EOS Elan IIe
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-25-2018   #51
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 5,710
. repeat of above.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-26-2018   #52
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
I'll be taking my first film to my local max speilmann tomorrow, well later today actually (27/7/18) and apparently it will be 2-3 weeks before I get them back.

IF there's 1 or 2 that ain't totally, utterly and completely embarrassingly bad I may post some.

I could shove them here or start a 110 photo thread for everyone's 110 photos.
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2018   #53
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
Just a little note about WEX photo, they have a weird system whereby their online shop says "Awaiting stock" even if they have stock of film etc. in one or more shops.

This is clearly so for their "3x Lomo 110 tiger 200" film. At present they have it listed as "Awaiting stock" even though they have it in stock in their London, Edinburgh and Bristol branches. This is because they supply on-line orders via their Norwich branch and they have none in that branch.

If you get to their listing of Lomo films and click on the tiger 200 listing, you'll get to the individual item details with "check stock near you", click on that and you'll see a list of branches they have stock in along with that branch's phone number. You then have to ring them directly.
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-16-2018   #54
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
Ok. two of you have only got yourselves to blame. Here's a pic form my first 110 film (12 year expired Tudor 200) through my mk2.

I went through them and decided this one was not quite as bad as the others in certain respects.

Click on the thumb for full sized pic:



I scanned this from a 5" x 4" print. I did it at 1200 pixels without "Descreening" which I thought would affect the grain, and without "Sharpening" which I thought would give a false impression of the print/lens. The only post-scanning processing that I did was with the Curves, Contrast/Brightness and Saturation controls to try to get the screen image as close to the print image as I could.

I was surprised at how smooth the grain looks. I know the pic doesn't look particularly sharp, but it is a lot bigger than the original and wasn't done in an enlarger. It does however show the heads of bolts in the stairs. The shutter was at or between 1/125 - 1/60, at somewhere near f3.5-5.6, with the lens longer than 25mm. I didn't make notes.

I suppose I should've corrected the 'slant'' in the pic, but that always causes a pic to need sharpening to compensate but I decided I wanted the pic to be as near to untouched as possible.

It may be wise to not use a pic by me to aid you in a decision to buy a mk2 or not. Perhaps one day I'll improve.
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-16-2018   #55
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 5,710
I think that's great Seany! Think about how big that is from that tiny negative.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #56
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
I think that's great Seany! Think about how big that is from that tiny negative.
Well, I wouldn't call it 'great', but the quality is better than I'd expected, bar the sharpness that is.

Perhaps the dots of the grain are smaller than the scanning dots and so you can't see them properly?
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #57
skucera
Registered User
 
skucera's Avatar
 
skucera is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Harrisburg, Oregon, USA
Posts: 230
Your camera did its part. The photo is well focused and well exposed, and it shows good dynamic range and contrast. It looks like you have a great little camera to enjoy. Composition can be improved with time and film and practice.

Thanks for showing us a shot.

Scott
__________________
1940 Kodak 35 Rangefinder
1955 Leica M3
1969 Canon New Canonet QL17-L
1976 Konica Autoreflex T3n
1977 Canon 110ED 20
1979 Minox 35 GL
1979 Olympus XA
1980 Pentax Auto 110
1987 Polaroid Spectra
1996 Canon EOS Elan IIe
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #58
jbrubaker
Registered User
 
jbrubaker's Avatar
 
jbrubaker is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by seany65 View Post
Ok. two of you have only got yourselves to blame. Here's a pic form my first 110 film (12 year expired Tudor 200) through my mk2.

I went through them and decided this one was not quite as bad as the others in certain respects.

Click on the thumb for full sized pic:



I scanned this from a 5" x 4" print. I did it at 1200 pixels without "Descreening" which I thought would affect the grain, and without "Sharpening" which I thought would give a false impression of the print/lens. The only post-scanning processing that I did was with the Curves, Contrast/Brightness and Saturation controls to try to get the screen image as close to the print image as I could.

I was surprised at how smooth the grain looks. I know the pic doesn't look particularly sharp, but it is a lot bigger than the original and wasn't done in an enlarger. It does however show the heads of bolts in the stairs. The shutter was at or between 1/125 - 1/60, at somewhere near f3.5-5.6, with the lens longer than 25mm. I didn't make notes.

I suppose I should've corrected the 'slant'' in the pic, but that always causes a pic to need sharpening to compensate but I decided I wanted the pic to be as near to untouched as possible.

It may be wise to not use a pic by me to aid you in a decision to buy a mk2 or not. Perhaps one day I'll improve.
I suspect your photo would be sharper if the negative was scanned directly rather than from a lab produced print. I know that the Minolta Mark II has avery good lens and is capable of sharp results. Did you look at the film with a loupe?
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #59
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
@Skucera: You're right of course. I just need to improve my handling skills. Which at the speed the weather is allowing at the moment (either far too sunny and hot to move, or so dull with fairly dark clouds it looks about to rain) and being on foot with no mobile shelter ie. car, doesn't really encourage taking chances, so the rate of progress will be a little slow until better/more settled weather turns up.

@jbrubker: I think you're right. The print was scanned on a canon lide 20, which I bought a good few years ago. I've not checked the negs, but I wasn't really going for the best results i could get, I was using an old film just to see if the camera worked and thus I wasn't as careful as I should've been. Now that I've seen the camera does work I'll be taking a lot more care and I may compare this set and the next few sets of negs to see if I can detect any differences as well as comparing the prints.
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #60
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
After a bit of consideration, I've decided to post this photo which is also from my first 110 film:

(click on pic)



I 'lightened' it a little bit, dropped the contrast a little bit and did my best to neutralize the colour-caste it had, I think partly due to the film having expired in 2006.

I decided to post it as I recently finished two more films, most of one being of the sunken boat, which I did because the above photo looks a bit too much like being just a 'record' shot rather than a 'photo'. I decided to try and go a bit 'abstract' with some of the shots but it'll be at least 3 weeks before I see them.
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #61
skucera
Registered User
 
skucera's Avatar
 
skucera is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Harrisburg, Oregon, USA
Posts: 230
If you don't mind seeing my inner "art fag" pop out for a moment, I really like this photo. The composition is really good, with the canal bank leading the eye really well... lots of interesting converging lines... lots of interesting light and dark areas working well together... evenly spaced bollards giving a good visual rhythm into the distance. It's a little sad for the boat owner, though.


Thanks for posting this one!


Scott
__________________
1940 Kodak 35 Rangefinder
1955 Leica M3
1969 Canon New Canonet QL17-L
1976 Konica Autoreflex T3n
1977 Canon 110ED 20
1979 Minox 35 GL
1979 Olympus XA
1980 Pentax Auto 110
1987 Polaroid Spectra
1996 Canon EOS Elan IIe
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #62
K14
Registered User
 
K14's Avatar
 
K14 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 244
Nice photo Sean. Yes a little adjustment helps on these expired films. What film were you using?

Gary
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #63
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 810
@Skucera: Thanks for the remarks. it was rather fortunate having the canal lock where it is, along with the curve of the canalside just beyond the bow of the boat.

Just in case anyone is wondering-No I didn't sink the boat to make the picture.


Or did I?


@k14: It was 'Tudor 200' that expired in 2006. The box said 'made in europe' so I hoped it was made by Agfa, as I'd seen a couple of pics taken using agfa film that was older but still looked decent enough in an ebay listing.
__________________
An ever-growing amount of photo-stuff and a never-growing amount of photo-talent.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:35.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.