Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,971   Posts: 1,558,618   Online: 1070
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: New 110 Camera

  1. #11
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    It matters. If the film is divided with pre-exposed boundaries that means that the already tiny market for 127 film is to be divided according to the camera you own. You have to buy 127 "for the square format 13x13" or 127 "for the standard format 13x17". And if you own a 127 camera which uses the 13x19 format, you have to find yet another different film. All this really is industrially insane.

    Since roll film was invented the sensitive surface is continuous and is the camera which uses the roll freely.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  2. #12
    bsdunek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,126
    Images
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by nexus757 View Post
    Traditional 110 films were pre-exposed between frames, a feature intended to make it easier and more efficient for photofinishers to print: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film
    Whether new 110 films such as the Lomography or Fukkatsu releases have similar pre-exposures I have no idea. Kinda doubt it.
    I like getting those extra couple of mm's in my Pentax auto 110 using non-perf 16mm film slit from 35mm.
    As my illustration shows - Lomography films are pre-exposed. The B&W I develop myself, so it is on the film.
    My 110 cameras actually do have a slightly larger image which shows slightly on the pre-exposed edges. At least for B&W, I too would just as soon have no frames, but I guess I'm too lazy to slit and load my own cartridges.
    Bruce

    Moma don't take my Kodachrome away!
    Oops, Kodak just did!
    For all practical purposes, they've taken Kodak away.


    BruceCSdunekPhotography.zenfolio.com

  3. #13
    rhmimac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    227
    Images
    11
    Is it still possible to get these 110 colorfilm cassettes developed in a normal C41 lab?

  4. #14
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,011
    Well it's a natural development, isn't it? I mean, the premise of "Lomography" in the first place is using crappy cameras with crappy lenses for craptastic results. Using a tiny format for horrible grain on a plastic camera with a plastic lens should get your results to a whole new level of awful, which will be appreciated by masses of pretentious hipsters.

    /snark

    EDIT: I know that quality 110 cameras (Minolta and Pentax SLRs for two) were made and capable of quite nice results at reasonable print sizes for the format. Those might be fun to play with, though if I were buying a smaller than 35mm camera I'd go for 35mm half frame. But using such a tiny film on this thing - well, I just don't get it, but as long as folks are having fun with it and buying film, that's fine with me. They probably don't "get" my messing around with a 4x5 on a tripod either.)

  5. #15
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    It matters. If the film is divided with pre-exposed boundaries that means that the already tiny market for 127 film is to be divided according to the camera you own. You have to buy 127 "for the square format 13x13" or 127 "for the standard format 13x17". And if you own a 127 camera which uses the 13x19 format, you have to find yet another different film. All this really is industrially insane.

    Since roll film was invented the sensitive surface is continuous and is the camera which uses the roll freely.
    You're confusing 127 with 110. VERY different things. 127 is basically roll film like 120 only slightly smaller, about 4 cm across, thus the 4x4cm "baby" Rolleis. Far larger negatives than 35mm and capable of fine results with modern films if the camera is. 110 is a sub-miniature format with the sizes you list.

  6. #16
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Hilarious. With its teensy flash unit, it's perfect for Bruce Gilden's "Mini-Me."

  7. #17
    Joe VanCleave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    484
    Sigh.

    The biggest problem I have with Lomo cameras in general aren't the plastic build quality or optical quality or anything like that. For what they are, they're fine. I like the funky square formats and vignetting and all of that.

    No, my biggest gripe is exposure control. Almost all of the Lomos, with the exception of the LC-A, you only get one shutter speed and one f-stop, plus bulb. Maybe two f-stops on a better camera. That's it. For what C-41 processing is costing these days, blowing shots because of bad exposure is simply a waste. I'd rather be saving money by shooting a cellphone camera app, even a digital point and shoot.

    And don't give me that excuse about color film and its wide latitude. I want the look of a Lomo lens but want to control highlight and shadow exposure.

    I've been meaning to do a series of tests with my Lomo and figure out how to use ND filters and fast film to get accurate exposures with a handheld meter, in place of variable apertures and shutter speeds.

    I know - maybe it's along the lines of "polishing a turd," but for what film and processing costs, the least we should expect is a decent exposure from a Lomo, especially if you plan on scanning to digital.

    Instead of all the colorful new camera models they come out with all the time, how about a real f-stop ring? I'd even be willing to pay a bit more. That's why I haven't purchased any new Lomo cameras in the last few years, you just don't have any exposure control.

    <End rant mode.>

    ~Joe

  8. #18
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,442
    Images
    343
    Apart from format ratio, could someone explain to me the difference between a Lomo camera and a brownie 127?

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  9. #19
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,011
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Apart from format ratio, could someone explain to me the difference between a Lomo camera and a brownie 127?
    The Brownie doesn't have light leaks, isn't hard to load, and doesn't fall apart.

  10. #20
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe VanCleave View Post
    Sigh.

    The biggest problem I have with Lomo cameras in general aren't the plastic build quality or optical quality or anything like that. For what they are, they're fine. I like the funky square formats and vignetting and all of that.

    No, my biggest gripe is exposure control. Almost all of the Lomos, with the exception of the LC-A, you only get one shutter speed and one f-stop, plus bulb. Maybe two f-stops on a better camera. That's it. For what C-41 processing is costing these days, blowing shots because of bad exposure is simply a waste. I'd rather be saving money by shooting a cellphone camera app, even a digital point and shoot.

    And don't give me that excuse about color film and its wide latitude. I want the look of a Lomo lens but want to control highlight and shadow exposure.

    I've been meaning to do a series of tests with my Lomo and figure out how to use ND filters and fast film to get accurate exposures with a handheld meter, in place of variable apertures and shutter speeds.

    I know - maybe it's along the lines of "polishing a turd," but for what film and processing costs, the least we should expect is a decent exposure from a Lomo, especially if you plan on scanning to digital.

    Instead of all the colorful new camera models they come out with all the time, how about a real f-stop ring? I'd even be willing to pay a bit more. That's why I haven't purchased any new Lomo cameras in the last few years, you just don't have any exposure control.

    <End rant mode.>

    ~Joe
    What you need then is a simple plastic lens that will mount on a good quality camera. Lots of the large format folks are using simple plastic meniscus lenses with really interesting results. Shouldn't be too hard to cobble something together inside the gutted barrel of and old lens.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin