Minox 8x11 - Flying with gear

I've always had the itch to play with a Minox submini, but I've never scratched it. Nice to see these little beauties still in use.
 
I processed the Minox film from my trip two days ago and scanned it with the Leica CL yesterday. I need to re-visit my Minox film processing technique—I've gotten too used to processing 6x6 and not working hard to minimize grain—but there's a charm to using this camera, and a charm to the photos it makes that always makes me smile.


Kids Waiting for a Plane, Mom Looking On - Salt Lake City 2021
Minox B
Agfa APX100
ISO 100 @ f/3.5 @ 1/15
Scanned with Leica CL​

The processing was with HC-110 mixed 1:49 for 8 minutes at 74°F. I probably over-agitated it, and I know I made a mistake on the wash and shocked the film with water that was a bit too warm. I made the scan using the Leica CL fitted with the Leica Focusing Bellows-R and the Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm lens, and rendered the resulting DNG file with LR per my usual workflow, netting a 20MPixel final image.

It looks nice printed at 6x8 inch image area on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper, not bad for a 19x enlargement of these teensy negatives! :)

Enjoy!
G
 
Godfrey said:
It looks nice printed at 6x8 inch image area on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper, not bad for a 19x enlargement of these teensy negatives! :)

Enjoy!
G
Click to expand...

I'm sure it does look great presented in that manner. I can't think of the name of the famous singer from the British Isles. The one with crazy glasses, but I read that he collects small photographic prints: 5x7 prints.
 
Appears you used the ISO 100 film? Wonder what these could do with this Adox CMS 20 II film. But I believe you need a special developer to get the ultra fine grain and grey range. At least out in bright sunlight the ISO of 20 would be easy to expose for with the fixed 3.5 aperture.
 
charjohncarter said:
I'm sure it does look great presented in that manner. I can't think of the name of the famous singer from the British Isles. The one with crazy glasses, but I read that he collects small photographic prints: 5x7 prints.
Click to expand...

Thanks John!

Do you mean Elton John? He used to wear all kinds of outrageous glasses with his costumes in performance. :)

I make and collect all manner of small prints, it's rare that I want anything much over 11x17 inch print size because it becomes a storage and display problem.

I've never quite understood the fascination with the gigantic prints that people make ... I only have so much wall space in my home and can only display nicely about six prints larger than 8x11 or smaller. I guess people who make gigantic prints are looking to entice owners of huge homes and/or big business spaces to become customers. I have way more photographs in photo books and folios than I can fit on my walls ... :)

G
 
zuiko85 said:
Appears you used the ISO 100 film? Wonder what these could do with this Adox CMS 20 II film. But I believe you need a special developer to get the ultra fine grain and grey range. At least out in bright sunlight the ISO of 20 would be easy to expose for with the fixed 3.5 aperture.
Click to expand...

Yes, this was shot with APX100. As I said, I made a couple of errors in the processing workflow which exaggerated the grain, but by and large it's nowhere near as fine grained and high actuance as APX25 or others. I haven't tried the ADOX CMS 20 II film (hadn't even heard of it, to be honest) but since I still have a dozen or two rolls of APX25 to use, and at least another twenty-pack of APX100, I'll put it on my list to experiment with next time I need a film supply. :)

I should try splitting up a few rolls of XP2 Super as well, using EI250 and C41 processing. Should be a great low-light film for Minox format: the dye image when exposed at that index gives stunning retention of detail in the shadows and never blocks up the highlights, with minimal grain (the dye blobs all grow and fuse into one another, giving a very smooth effect).

My Minox film processing workflow for APX 25 & 100 I worked out years ago. Same chemistry, but very very light agitation and slightly cooler developer temperature works better.

Fun fun fun!
G
 
Great real story, Godfrey! I've got the kit and kaboodle
with a black B, IIIs, Minox enlarger, tank, tripod, copy
stand, flash, etc. Plus a Minolta Rokkor-X 30mm/2.8
for other enlargers (Durst M601 condenser and 45 Super
Cromega), also good for sectional enlargement from 35mm.
Back in the day at 17 I had my first Minox before
I had a 35mm camera. Film has always been expensive,
but using Blue Moon's preloaded saves a lot of frustration
using the splitter. Never used color and sent out the film
for processing. Blue Moon's film has the 'hook' to attach
to the Minox tank.
Remaining analog for now. My scanner is collecting dust!
 
Godfrey said:
Thanks John!

Do you mean Elton John? He used to wear all kinds of outrageous glasses with his costumes in performance. :)

I make and collect all manner of small prints, it's rare that I want anything much over 11x17 inch print size because it becomes a storage and display problem.

I've never quite understood the fascination with the gigantic prints that people make ... I only have so much wall space in my home and can only display nicely about six prints larger than 8x11 or smaller. I guess people who make gigantic prints are looking to entice owners of huge homes and/or big business spaces to become customers. I have way more photographs in photo books and folios than I can fit on my walls ... :)

G
Click to expand...

That's right; Elton John. I'm also the same as you and Elton, I much more enjoy small prints.
 
Hari said:
Here's my favorite clip from the TV series "Mission Impossible".
The actor is holding the black B backwards:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnr5UwoP9d0
Click to expand...

Okay, that's the funniest thing I've heard/seen all day. :D
That scene were Peter Graves is looking over his shoulder with a funny look on his face almost made me fall off my chair. I imagine the thought bubble: "That's a lot of pictures of your nose there...!"

thx!
G
 
Hari said:
Great real story, Godfrey! I've got the kit and kaboodle
with a black B, IIIs, Minox enlarger, tank, tripod, copy
stand, flash, etc. Plus a Minolta Rokkor-X 30mm/2.8
for other enlargers (Durst M601 condenser and 45 Super
Cromega), also good for sectional enlargement from 35mm.
Back in the day at 17 I had my first Minox before
I had a 35mm camera. Film has always been expensive,
but using Blue Moon's preloaded saves a lot of frustration
using the splitter. Never used color and sent out the film
for processing. Blue Moon's film has the 'hook' to attach
to the Minox tank.
Remaining analog for now. My scanner is collecting dust!
Click to expand...

I love shooting with Minox 8x11 and many other film cameras. But "remaining analog" is impossible for me ... I've been using digital imaging technology to render photographs—whether captured on film, vidicon tube, or digital sensor—since the 1980s when I worked at NASA/JPL. :)

The first camera I bought for myself was a Minolta 16-Ps, somewhere about 1964. It (and two rolls of film plus processing) was a grand total of $22 then ... and it had taken me three months to save that out of my lunch money allowance at the time. A Minox IIIS at the time was an 'out of the question' luxury item: it was priced at $140 for the standard model in Joseph D. Cooper's wonderful book ULTRA-miniature Photography, published in 1958, and I bought the Minolta 16-Ps about a half a dozen years after that!

I acquired my first Minox camera in the same time period that I worked at NASA, but I didn't do much with subminiature and Minox photography until the 1990s. And then, for 15 years, I never went anywhere without one in my pocket... and made hundreds and hundreds of photos with them. :)

Good times, fun memories.

G
 
I'd like it if they would make a digital Minox B with the same form factor as that the film B. I'd buy one. I imagine it would not have an LCD screen.
 
Rob-F said:
I'd like it if they would make a digital Minox B with the same form factor as that the film B. I'd buy one. I imagine it would not have an LCD screen.
Click to expand...

But it could be configured to use a cell phone a to review. But since cell phone cameras are getting so good anyway I think maybe a digital Minox would be a tough sell.
Hard for any digital camera to stand against the onslaught of the phone.
 
It’s embarrasing, but when I got my Minox tripod a few years ago I thought something was wrong with the bracket which holds the camera - the release didn’t align with the shutter button. Well... the camera must first be extended to its operating position!!!

As for spies, John Walker used a Minox C to photograph secret Navy documents for the Soviets - he was a spy for 18 years. Details:

https://news.usni.org/2014/09/02/john-walker-spy-ring-u-s-navys-biggest-betrayal

He would drop off the film cassettes in a can that was buried in a park. I lost the link, but it was estimated he made the over 250,000 photos with one Minox before the shutter failed.
 
Rob-F said:
I'd like it if they would make a digital Minox B with the same form factor as that the film B. I'd buy one. I imagine it would not have an LCD screen.
Click to expand...

zuiko85 said:
But it could be configured to use a cell phone a to review. But since cell phone cameras are getting so good anyway I think maybe a digital Minox would be a tough sell.
Hard for any digital camera to stand against the onslaught of the phone.
Click to expand...

They is a question mark. I don't know that Minox has the resources for such a development project at this point. That said, someone tried to do a camera like that, with a small detachable lcd. It was not much of a success, which likely had more to do with when than what. :)

It is indeed hard to compete with the couple of past to current generations of smartphone cameras. The major reason for wanting a dedicated camera, for the average picture taking need, comes down to mostly form factor and ergonomics. Cell phones are a bit awkward to hold steady for the best results, whereas a Minox is very ergonomic and amazingly easy to hold very steadily.

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top