110/16mm Camera Image Quality

[Timmyjoe]

This is how you do flash with 110/16mm photography:

The diabolical Minolta 16II flash photographer.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Cholentpot]

This is how you do flash with 110/16mm photography:

The diabolical Minolta 16II flash photographer.

Best,
-Tim

Still don't have flash bracket on my 16II. I have to shoot like Gilden.

 

[Huss]

This is how you do flash with 110/16mm photography:

The diabolical Minolta 16II flash photographer.

Best,
-Tim

Love it!!!

 

[Huss]

Pentax Auto110, Fukkatsu film.

I would not recommend Fukkatsu film at all. One roll has bright, vibrant colours. The other is grainy and murky like this one. While the image 'works' in that LoFi way, that was not the intention!
Lomo Tiger or expired Superia is so much better.

 

[ProgramPlus]

well that's not good. I have a roll of Fukkatsu color and B&W sitting in the fridge. May as well bust them out and see what I get

 

[Huss]

well that's not good. I have a roll of Fukkatsu color and B&W sitting in the fridge. May as well bust them out and see what I get

It is so hit and miss. Half my rolls look like garbage, the other half produce results like this:

 

[ProgramPlus]

If I got even 1-2 pics that good off a roll, I'm be pretty pleased. Thanks very nice!

 

[Timmyjoe]

Pulled out the Minolta 16II yesterday and loaded up some Plus X. I think if I keep the aperture at f5.6 or f8.0, I might be able to get some nice images from the tiny Chiclet sized negs.

This was wide open or f4 and it's not terrible.

Also found this scan from a few years ago, showing the difference between the Minolta 16II neg (on the bottom) and the larger Minolta 16QT neg (top). My Minolta 16QT has a badly aligned aperture frame as all the images come out tilted on the neg.

If you stop down the Minolta 16QT it does pretty well too.

Best,
-Tim

 

[ciniframe]

That top shot is in the 16II lens focus sweet spot. They came factory with focused fixed at 2.5M, or about 8ft. It’s too bad Minolta never updated that camera with a focusing lens. The FSU Kiev 30 proved it could have been done but the Kiev has its own problems such as limited shutter speeds with no ‘B’ setting and a slower lens at f3.5. Just got a Kiev a few months ago and the flash sync is inop but not worth sending back to Ukraine for a replacement that likely will have it’s own problems. Have shot one roll through and the framing and focus work.
Sigh, too many irons in the fire at one time to drop everything and focus on one hobby.

 

[Timmyjoe]

And finally, from my little test of the little cameras, here is a shot from a Lomography Baby Diana (the 110 film size version) with the 24mm plastic lens attached. (Kodak Double-XX processed in Rodinal 50:1 (so pretty grainy))

I've also shot some images with the included 12mm lens on the Baby Diana, and the results were less than impressive.

And here is my favorite 110/16mm camera to use, when it is working, but unfortunately it works for a while then locks up. It's been working this past year but again locked up at exposure 19 on this roll of Lomography Orca 110 B&W film (processed in Rodinal 50:1) and I can't seem to get it unstuck. I love the true rangefinder focusing with the camera, and it has a nice heft in the hand, but the locking up thing makes it not really a long term user.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

 

[Timmyjoe]

Interesting, nice close up. What camera were you using for these?

Best,
-Tim

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I keep meaning to get a Minolta QT but all the time it took to accumulate a decent amount of Minox cassettes makes me not want to try to accumulate the Minolta cassettes. It is too bad Minolta didn't make a fully featured QT. I wish Minox made a 16mm camera just like the smaller ones. That would have been sweet. 110 is too much of a kludge to get working with any other film.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Interesting, nice close up. What camera were you using for these?

Probably a QT; the file name indicates it was a test of 7266 Tri-X in reversal D-19. The QT and MG-s share most accessories, including close-up (80, 40, 25cm) diopters. The lens in the MG-s IS a touch better than the QT, so blue-tacking a #0 from the M16ii series onto it when requiring infinity is feasible. 1 out of 4 QTs I've landed have been fully functional (minus the meter--none have functioned correctly); 1 with a sticky shutter cock and 2 completely inoperable. Both of my MG-s examples are flawless, including the meter, when dialing in ~-1 stop to account for the increased modern battery voltage.

Edit: RIP Bob Saget from a fellow daisy pusher

 

[Cholentpot]

Got the Minolta 16II loaded up with some 250D to shoot some snow tomorrow. last time I loaded cine film in one of these little machines I killed the camera. This time I'll be more careful.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Probably a QT; the file name indicates it was a test of 7266 Tri-X in reversal D-19. The QT and MG-s share most accessories, including close-up (80, 40, 25cm) diopters. The lens in the MG-s IS a touch better than the QT, so blue-tacking a #0 from the M16ii series onto it when requiring infinity is feasible. 1 out of 4 QTs I've landed have been fully functional (minus the meter--none have functioned correctly); 1 with a sticky shutter cock and 2 completely inoperable. Both of my MG-s examples are flawless, including the meter, when dialing in ~-1 stop to account for the increased modern battery voltage.

I've been really lucky with my QT, everything works including the meter. I use a 1/3N battery and a special adapter I made for it. But I don't think the lens is as nice as the lens in the Canon 110ED. Wish I could combine the Canon 110ED lens, and its rangefinder focus, with the light meter in the QT and the way you can set the shutter speed and aperture on the QT, and have it all use a Minolta cassette (which I find easier to load with 16mm film compared to the 110 cassettes). That would be a nice package.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Yep, it's a shame all the innovation in 16mm cameras seemed to happen after the industry adopted the 110 cassette. It's interesting to me that despite not requiring film sprockets for advance, all of the Minolta 16 cameras' frame areas assume there will be at least one set of sprockets present. Obviously designed with reuse in mind. Maybe Minox already held the rights to a sprocketless full-width submini film format?

Some folks here might find this interesting; 'A History of Microfilm'

 

[Donald Qualls]

all of the Minolta 16 cameras' frame areas assume there will be at least one set of sprockets present. Obviously designed with reuse in mind.

I've seen scans of original Minolta 16 and 16II manuals that included instructions on reloading the cassettes. In those days, they assumed you've be using double perf 16 mm or double 8 (same film, different perf size/spacing), hence the 10x14 frame. The switch to the larger frame came from switching to single perf 16mm and pushing the image over toward the non-perfed edge (hence later instructions to load the perfs toward the cassette bridge).

 

[Timmyjoe]

Yes, as Donald says, Minolta expected folks buying their little 16 series cameras to reload the cassettes with 16mm motion picture film, they show you how right in the user manual. That's why they took the sprocket holes into account.

The two systems that really made it hard for reloaders are the 110 and 126 format systems, because of the spacing of that one sprocket hole per frame, and designing cameras that needed that one sprocket hole per frame to cock the shutter.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Mg-s 250D f2.8 @ 1/30s in unnatural light, processed ECN-2 N+0. Hastily wet scanned on a V800 w/ auto-adjustments and manual black point. 2-3 stops underexposed judging from the negative.

Spot the remjet clouds...

 

[Cholentpot]

Mg-s 250D f2.8 @ 1/30s in unnatural light, processed ECN-2 N+0. Hastily wet scanned on a V800 w/ auto-adjustments and manual black point. 2-3 stops underexposed judging from the negative.

Spot the remjet clouds...

View attachment 295335

Do you rub your fingers on the film after the fix? I find the REMJET needs the be manually rubbed off.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I generally don't perform a pre-wash and remove the entirety of the remjet from the film base after the stop bath and prior to bleaching & fixing, in a tray. Those marks (purple-ish 'clouds' on the right of the frame) are from the base side of the film touching the emulsion side as I remove it from the reel. Usually I can avoid it, but it is quite tricky to get out of the emulsion when it happens. The same applies to 35mm Vision3 except its about 4x as filthy per frame.

I find any attempts to remove it in-situ via washing on the reel introduces a remjet 'snow' into the emulsion, still requires manual intervention for complete removal prior to bleach&fix to avoid contamination, and while it can 'fixed' by digital ICE scanning, seriously degrades the image quality. Using the official pre-wash formula and/or moving a wash to after the stop might be something to try but I'm not that fussed about it. It was meant to be removed by a purpose-built machine anyway... a real 1st world photographer's problem

1/60s shutter priority under artificial daylight, haphazardly dry scanned by wedging the unflattened film into one side of a 35mm holder. And Tri-x 7266 in D-19 reversal, digitized with a D850 with a reverse mounted nikkor 24mm af-d. There's a hotspot present due to insufficient masking of the postive.

 

[Cholentpot]

I generally don't perform a pre-wash and remove the entirety of the remjet from the film base after the stop bath and prior to bleaching & fixing, in a tray. Those marks (purple-ish 'clouds' on the right of the frame) are from the base side of the film touching the emulsion side as I remove it from the reel. Usually I can avoid it, but it is quite tricky to get out of the emulsion when it happens. The same applies to 35mm Vision3 except its about 4x as filthy per frame.

I find any attempts to remove it in-situ via washing on the reel introduces a remjet 'snow' into the emulsion, still requires manual intervention for complete removal prior to bleach&fix to avoid contamination, and while it can 'fixed' by digital ICE scanning, seriously degrades the image quality. Using the official pre-wash formula and/or moving a wash to after the stop might be something to try but I'm not that fussed about it. It was meant to be removed by a purpose-built machine anyway... a real 1st world photographer's problem

1/60s shutter priority under artificial daylight, haphazardly dry scanned by wedging the unflattened film into one side of a 35mm holder. And Tri-x 7266 in D-19 reversal, digitized with a D850 with a reverse mounted nikkor 24mm af-d. There's a hotspot present due to insufficient masking of the postive.

View attachment 295336 View attachment 295337

I generally have no issue with my Remjet removal. Baking soda prewash with heavy agitation. Rinse and shake until water looks mostly clear. After blix I remove from reel and rub under stream of water. I see-saw film through the stab after.

 

[Huss]

Mg-s 250D f2.8 @ 1/30s in unnatural light, processed ECN-2 N+0. Hastily wet scanned on a V800 w/ auto-adjustments and manual black point. 2-3 stops underexposed judging from the negative.

Spot the remjet clouds...

View attachment 295335

Love the colour in this pic!

 

[Huss]

Rollei A110, Lomo Tiger