My mom cleared out her basement and gave me her old 110 camera she used back in the day. Anyone ever shot with this format? Looks like a roll is ~$10 and dev is $12 for 24 exposures. I don’t have high hopes since the negatives are so small, but it’s portable
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!
>>4308046I 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 MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1191Image Height1543Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUnknownPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution2400 dpiVertical Resolution2400 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2024:04:27 11:11:21Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width926Image Height1200
>>4308045>>4308051The 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.
>>4308051yeah just about. The current film is made by lomo though so there might be colour casts depending on which type you buy.
>>4308051yeah 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.
>>4308067To 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?
>>4308108I 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
>>4308045It's a format where everything was sacrificed to save space. Everything.
>>4308045Hi 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
>>4308045I 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.
>>4308045You 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 MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON Z 7Camera SoftwareNIKON Z 7 Ver.03.40Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mmImage-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:02:14 16:30:53Exposure Time0.3 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmImage Width1793Image Height1793Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>4308179>detail...comes from:[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON Z 7Camera SoftwareNIKON Z 7 Ver.03.40Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mmImage-Specific Properties:Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:02:14 16:30:53Exposure Time0.3 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmImage Width1994Image Height2561Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>4308055>sold as disposablethey 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
>>4308155I 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
>>4308191seems 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 funyeah yeah, i get it, but fuckin use kodak gold or some shit lol
>>4308215>only 5 good camerasThat’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?
>>4308188yeah 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
>>4308282Save 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"
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 OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2372Image Height1683
>>4308045I 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
>>4311593Cut your own, and you can 3d print a reel
>>4311593>and find a reel for patterson tanks that doesn't look skuffedsounds 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 skuffedwhat does that even mean?
>>4308389Looks like something Zach will take 10 years from now