Sun, lots of light, as much light as possible.
If you're in the shade, near dusk or dawn or indoors, use the flash.
Pics will be grainy but with character.

Happy snapping!

File: 1995_FR09.jpg (872 KB, 926x1200)

872 KB JPG

>>4308046
I tested the flash and it works fine. A while ago I scanned a 110 roll from the 90s, is this about what i would expect today?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1191
Image Height	1543
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2024:04:27 11:11:21
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	926
Image Height	1200

>>4308045
>>4308051
The cartridge formats like 110 and 126 were made for people that were too amateur or much in a hurry to be expected to even load and rewind 35mm film. Just pop the cartridge in, and go. Camera size and convenience was more important than image quality. These formats died once manufacturers figured out how to make passable 35mm cameras so cheap that they could be preloaded with film and sold as disposable.
I had that exact same or very similar 110 camera when I was a kid. The same posted here looks about right.

>>4308051
yeah just about. The current film is made by lomo though so there might be colour casts depending on which type you buy.

>>4308051
yeah that's about the limit. even the "pro" bodies like the pentax and minolta 110 still don't get great sharpness despite some really nice lenses. I've heard a number of reasons for this, the film is too small, there is no backing plate putting pressure on the film to keep it flat, etc.

>>4308067
To me it’s looks grainier and blurrier than could be explained by size alone. I mean if you cut out a 17x13mm rectangle out of a good sharp 35mm negative and blew it up, it would not look as bad as 110 usually does. I always assumed it was because 110 cameras were plastic disposable camera tier. But maybe the most reason so few bothered to make real cameras for the format was because it was impossible?

>>4308108
I feel like the lack of flat film plane thing may be the true reason. If you examine the cartridge, technically the hard plastic backing is supposed to keep everything flat and aligned, but how much tolerance is allowed there really? There isn’t a spring plate or pressure plate or anything like that. And it doesn’t take much at all to fall out of the critical sharpness region. Though I think the scan posted here may be an exceptionally bad combination of many factors, if you look at other scans of 110 it’s not quite nearly as bad. And your idea of cutting a rectangle out of 35mm is essentially how people re-spool these cameras these days. See here an example taken with one of the top 110 cameras https://www.lomography.com/cameras/3342516-minolta-110-zoom-slr/photos/20578615?order=popular

>>4308045
It's a format where everything was sacrificed to save space. Everything.

>>4308045
Hi anon, 110 is a meme shitty format. You don't want to shoot it.

This is a relic, it's a funky cool old school camera that's in a weird VHS tape format so it should be kept in a clearcase on a shelf somewhere but you shouldn't try to regularly shoot with it.
Just admire it, for what it is.
Shoot a bit for fun but don't expect anything good at all.

35mm is already a small format.
110 is basically micro four thirds size for reference. Due to 110's small size and analog format.. you're going to incur even bigger losses when trying to digitize it. Nobody even makes quality 110 film scanners. Just 35mm and medium format machines, you'll have to camera scan if you want to DIY any good and even a 1:1 macro on a fullframe camera won't yield good resolution from 110 film, ironically 1:1 macro on micro four thirds is a better option as the sensor is basically the same size as the film but if you want to use a bigger/better camera to scan 110, you'll want a 2x macro lens and a robust sacn setup since you'll need good alignment of focal plane and really accurate focus to get anything good.

110 is an abandoned format for a reason.
It's not worth the trouble, and it never delivered high quality results even with darkroom printing. Trying to digitize it is an even bigger uphill battle.

>>4308120
>MUH SHARPNESS!!
You know people just do shit for fun right

>>4308045
I potentially love 110. Potentially bc the though like all the 110 Kodachrome & Ektachrome 110 slides I’ve got from my childhood, the only 110 film left today is Lomo, which, though they are dedicated af, is actually fairly plebbit-tier film. What i like about it is, if i dont want to see grain, I’ll just shoot with my z7 and make crystal clear images. If i shoot with fulm, its bc i want to make a final image that looks like a film image. When you scan a slide to a final output size, the grain, vignetting, hazing, CA, light leak fx & characteristics of anal log image-making are 4x bigger than 35mm. That said, you have to decide thats what you want to see in the image.

File: 1-Detail.jpg (939 KB, 1793x1793)

939 KB JPG

>>4308045
You can get some decent detail if you start with a decent 110 camera. But probably not an old plastic P&S box. More like a Rollei or Minolta or the new Lomomatic 110.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7
Camera Software	NIKON Z 7 Ver.03.40
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:02:14 16:30:53
Exposure Time	0.3 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Image Width	1793
Image Height	1793
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 2-NZ70262-50mc-110-10kx8k.jpg (1.3 MB, 1994x2561)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4308179
>detail
...comes from:

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7
Camera Software	NIKON Z 7 Ver.03.40
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:02:14 16:30:53
Exposure Time	0.3 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Image Width	1994
Image Height	2561
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4308055
>sold as disposable
they were never disposable. i cant find it, but some other anon posted a how its made video of a fuji factory which reloads and rebuilds all the "disposable" cameras

>>4308155
I was thinking about making some 110 films of my own. Prob make a slicer and slice & perforate Ektachrome slide film into 110 rolls. Those cunts, they have all the luck. Probably need a source for cartridges, maybe Darkroom dotcom since they develop it & prob just pitch all the empties. It'd be a fucking job though, I'd need to make a machine that does it 24/7. I'm sure lomo would love to do it but prob doesn't want to get sued to betsy by kodiak

>>4308191
seems a borderline inexcusable waste of ektachrome desu. there are only maybe 5 cameras total worth using it with. the other plasticy "lomo"esque cameras won't make the most of the film.
>just for fun
yeah yeah, i get it, but fuckin use kodak gold or some shit lol

>>4308215
>only 5 good cameras
That’s 4 more cameras than I’d need to be interested. How many good cameras do you need there to be to want some decent film to shoot with yours?

>>4308188
yeah that was a cool video, I thought I bookmarked it but I guess not. very impressive how thorough those nips were, polishing the lenses and everything.
In my family we always pulled the cameras apart to fish the film out and sent it to a lab like normal film because the processing was cheaper that way for some reason. So we sent a lot of those cameras straight to the landfill.

OP here thanks for the info. I’m going to shelve this one. That $20 can be better spent on more 35 or 120 film instead that actually looks good

>>4308282
Save it for when your dumb zoomer girlfriend wants "hella retro photos like scott pilgrim you know bro like we're gonna be playstation one today"

File: image_123650291.jpg (635 KB, 2372x1683)

635 KB JPG

Old here. I think this is one of the pics I took with the camera like OP. It and the others that I suspect of being from that camera are prints 3.5 x 4.375 inches in size.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2372
Image Height	1683

>>4308045
I mean...if you want to play with it just because, go ahead. But 110 and Kodak Disc were dog shit. They looked bad at 3x5.

i'd shoot lots of 110 if i could bulk roll hp5 and find a reel for patterson tanks that doesn't look skuffed

>>4311593
Cut your own, and you can 3d print a reel

>>4311593
>and find a reel for patterson tanks that doesn't look skuffed
sounds like you just didn't look and wanted us to do the work for you, faggot, there's plenty of results for 110 reels on ebay from reputable brands and offbrand chinese
>b-but skuffed
what does that even mean?

>>4308389
Looks like something Zach will take 10 years from now