Wow Huss, that came out really nice. I wish Lomography wouldn't burn that border onto each frame of their film, you can see how you had more image than that border allowed.
Best,
-Tim
PS: Do you process your own color film Huss, or do you send it out. And if you send it out, who did you send the 110 film to, to have it processed?
Oh sure, I'd love to get me one if they didn't cost an arm and a leg.
Try the E110. Basically the same camera except the E110 has a kind of aperture priority.
xya, I have a Viscawide with extra cartridges that I haven't been using. Contact me offline with an offer. Terry Martin, wd4aon@arrl.net
xya, I have a Viscawide with extra cartridges that I haven't been using. Contact me offline with an offer. Terry Martin, wd4aon@arrl.net
Just spent an hour catching up on this thread. Lots of great posts! This thread is more active than many of the more common film format threads; great work!
?No-one is shooting 110/16mm for 'serious' work.
?
I am, and I suspect others too, based on the quality of work presented. Personally I don't even consider 16mm a 'Lo Fi' format.
The last work I had in an invited show was Minox.
Interesting question I’d like to chime in on. Lo-fi is more a style than format it would seem. Everything from 6x9 box cameras to 8x10 pinhole to ‘hit’ style cameras can be lo-fi. I’ve made a bunch of home made cameras that use 4x5 film holders and found lenses (not all of which cover 4x5, it’s a ‘cut and try’ sort of thing) and use photo paper in them as negatives. They are pretty much all lo-fi as regards results.I stand corrected.
Good on you for promoting this wonderful format. I just shot most of a roll of slit 250D in an Auto 110 because of the rare sunny and warm day we're having.
Out of curiosity, what would you consider a lo-fi format?
Interesting question I’d like to chime in on. Lo-fi is more a style than format it would seem. Everything from 6x9 box cameras to 8x10 pinhole to ‘hit’ style cameras can be lo-fi. I’ve made a bunch of home made cameras that use 4x5 film holders and found lenses (not all of which cover 4x5, it’s a ‘cut and try’ sort of thing) and use photo paper in them as negatives. They are pretty much all lo-fi as regards results.
So….lo-fi? Could be more the final image results than the format.
what would you consider a lo-fi format?
Lo-fi is more about the camera than the film format, especially with modern films like T-Max 100 (medium speed, grain comparable to old Panatomic or Tech Pan) or XP-2 Super (latitude to burn, virtually grainless at or below EI 400).
i've got lo-fi cameras up to 6x9 cm, defined by little or no exposure control, little or no focus control, and meniscus lens (prone to field curvature, especially if convex to the world). The 16 mm ones I've used most and most recently are surely not lo-fi if the photographer does his/her part. Kiev 30 or 303, Minolta 16 MGs and QT, Pocket Instamatic 60 (auto exposure, but has a rangefinder!).
The Insta 60 is very capable. Battery is the issue.
I bought a 3D printed one with four 357 alkaline inside. There are reloadable shells and .stl files to print your own as well.
Just going back to the 70s I equate that Lo-fi term with Diana and other plastic lens cameras. Most 16mm and the nicer 110 cameras have excellent lenses. I do agree the results with these cameras can be very Lo-fi when not using microfilm.I stand corrected.
Good on you for promoting this wonderful format. I just shot most of a roll of slit 250D in an Auto 110 because of the rare sunny and warm day we're having.
Out of curiosity, what would you consider a lo-fi format?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?