Just tried shooting 110 film. Think I would like 120 film?

Paul Manuell · Jun 19, 2018

Ian Grant said:
Check out film sizes you'll find 110 roll film was approx 4" wide, was introduced around the mid to late 1890's, I can't access Wikipedia it's banned here in Turkey or I'd post a link. I think the last rolls were produced in the 1930's. Some cameras also took a plate back but not mine unfortunately.

Kodak later re-used the number for their first sub 35mm film format.

Ian

Ok, I didn't know there was another, older type of 110 film, but I think we all know that's not the one the OP is referring to.

Ian Grant · Jun 19, 2018

Paul Manuell said:
Ok, I didn't know there was another, older type of 110 film, but I think we all know that's not the one the OP is referring to.

Yes we assume the OP means the miniature Kodak format but it's also important to remember the earlier LF roll film version, I know others here have early Kodak 4a and similar 110 cameras because we've mentioned getting film slit to size.

On the subject of roll film sizes I saw a 10x8 ThorntonTourist field camera with a unique 10x8 roll film back, this had to date from 1887/8 before the Pickard family bailed out John Thornton's company, quite possibly a prototype as they were never marketed. We learn from the past

Ian

pentaxuser · Jun 19, 2018

Hopefully enough people have made this point in various ways already in this thread but I should have said that like a lot of others I used a 110 way back in the early 70s. When I made the "jump" to 135 it really was a jump in standards of resolution. My commercially processed prints from those days were barely good enough for 4x6 prints let alone 5x7.

OP you really will see a vast difference in quality with the move to 135 film

pentaxuser

AgX · Jun 19, 2018

I still have 8x10 colour prints from type 110 film on exposition at home and am still pleased with them, aside of the print-fading.

Ian Grant · Jun 19, 2018

pentaxuser said:
Hopefully enough people have made this point in various ways already in this thread but I should have said that like a lot of others I used a 110 way back in the early 70s. When I made the "jump" to 135 it really was a jump in standards of resolution. My commercially processed prints from those days were barely good enough for 4x6 prints let alone 5x7.

OP you really will see a vast difference in quality with the move to 135 film

pentaxuser

No-one in my family ever went down in size from 35mm, I think as soon as we saw the quality of friends images on the small 110 format they realised it would be a mistake, they'd seen the increased quality afforded by 35mm over 126, although that was more about camera quality and better exposure control.

By the time Kodak introduced the new 110 format I'd been using 35mm for a few years and had tried 120 and already knew that was the way I'd go. it was possibly 6 or 7 years after borrowing 120Yashicamat 124G that I finally bought a 6x6 TLR and I've not looked back moving to LF within another year or two for work.

It's important to try different formats see what suits one's needs, I do shoot 35mmstill but rarely compared to 120 and LF, it's a personal choice there's no right or wrong, in fact often the subject matter can dictate the format.

Ian

Meyer Trioplan · Jun 19, 2018

I like to load some of my 110 cameras with microfilm and have gotten some very dramatic results. I still need to take some time to try printing a few.

AgX · Jun 21, 2018

Ian Grant said:
No-one in my family ever went down in size from 35mm, I think as soon as we saw the quality of friends images on the small 110 format they realised it would be a mistake, they'd seen the increased quality afforded by 35mm over 126, although that was more about camera quality and better exposure control.

Most of the type 110 cameras were small, hasslefree, affordable cameras. And that made them attractive. And the Agfa ones were really sleak.

And that was why they were bought, though not by your family. The sheer amount of them at the used market shows that.

AgX · Jun 21, 2018

Meyer Trioplan said:
I like to load some of my 110 cameras with microfilm and have gotten some very dramatic results. I still need to take some time to try printing a few.

Do you still know which model you used for your sample photograph?

Meyer Trioplan · Jun 21, 2018

AgX said:
Do you still know which model you used for your sample photograph?

This was the Vivitar 742XL, a surprisingly solid model of theirs with a 24mm f/1.9 lens with 5 elements. I taped a piece of "clear" developed color negative film over the light sensor to extend exposure and then used an orange filter over both in the taming of the contrast. I seem to have my best results with Orange and Green Filters.

removed account4 · Jun 21, 2018

Meyer Trioplan said:
I like to load some of my 110 cameras with microfilm and have gotten some very dramatic results. I still need to take some time to try printing a few.

beautiful !

when i used a pentax auto110 i used it a lot and got great results .. one was published in fraction magazine others have been sold to people who don't express
a problem with results gotten from small negatives.

Paul Howell · Jun 21, 2018

A compromise would be a 35mm half frame, no warping of the cassette, up to 72 exposures on a roll of 36ex 35mm film, much better selection of film, for best resolution and grain Tmax 100. There were fixed lens, Canon, Mamayia, and SLRs, Olympus, and Konica SLR converted to half frame. Olympus Pen F and FT are become scarce, lens even scarce and like any camera over 40 years old repair and part can be a challenge. I have an unmetered F in my collection, have not shot with it in years, but a very cleaver design. With Tmax 100 it is possible to get a passable 11X14.

macfred · Jun 21, 2018

Paul Howell said:
A compromise would be a 35mm half frame ...

+1 !
There were a lot of remarkable dual frame and half frame 35mm cameras - here's a few Japanese models http://corsopolaris.net/supercameras/half/halformat6s.html
My personal favorite is the Konica IIIM rangefinder.

Meyer Trioplan · Jun 21, 2018

jnanian said:
beautiful !

when i used a pentax auto110 i used it a lot and got great results .. one was published in fraction magazine others have been sold to people who don't express
a problem with results gotten from small negatives.

As an online admirer of your work, Thank You!

110 was a medium that, in its early days, offered some camera models that were too advanced for the film of the era. I find I’ve gotten some great results on later vintage Superia and Centuria, and of course Microfilm.

peoplemerge · Jun 21, 2018

So it depends on how you think you might want to shoot.

I just went to Hawaii with a Rollei A110 and a Rolleicord. (Geeks will note both are tessars lenses.) It was a superb shooting experience. I shot the “capture the moment” shots on the 110 camera, and “take the time to make something beautiful” on 120. 110+120 is a great combination where you decide how much grain you want.

Though if you think you want the tri-x street photographer look, it’s 35mm

AgX · Jun 21, 2018

Meyer Trioplan said:
This was the Vivitar 742XL, a surprisingly solid model of theirs with a 24mm f/1.9 lens with 5 elements.

An alternative model would be the Agfamatics 5008 & 6008 Macro.
https://st.museum-digital.de/data/san/images/201306/11103729677.jpg

Agfa only went up to a Tessar type F2.7 lens. But this model as you see not only yielded continuos focussing down to 0.5m! But in addition a macro setting put a close-up lens in working, yielding a distance of 0.25m.

However all that stretched far the precision in film plane a type 110 cassette would yield.

Meyer Trioplan · Jun 22, 2018

I had my eyes peeled for a 6008 or even a 5008, but they aren't too common on these shores. That and the Chinon 77/Argus pocket have been the elusive ones for me.

I will say the Vivitar 742 and the Canon 110ED are possibly my favorites, with the Ektramax not far behind.

railwayman3 · Jun 22, 2018

I use both 35mm and 120, but tend to keep the latter for more considered and careful shooting....perhaps when it's an outing arranged just for photography when the light and subjects are
particularly interesting and worth spending time, and effort carrying the kit. The results from 120 are a little better technically, e.g for large prints, but 35mm is fine for general purposes.

I've used 110 (and Minox 8x11) but both need extra care and skill . In the early 2000's I tried Minox seriously as a tiny take-it-anywhere camera, but, to be totally honest, my smartphone takes equally good record pictures when it's the only gear I have with me.

Sirius Glass · Jun 22, 2018

I have a single 35mm frame camera and it find the negative is really to small and can easily get too grainy.

Ces1um · Jun 22, 2018

@christislord So what did you decide?

nascarfann · Jun 23, 2018

Ces1um said:
@christislord So what did you decide?

I am going with 35mm, maybe half frame. I am too much of a grain person for 120.

Ces1um · Jun 24, 2018

christislord said:
I am going with 35mm, maybe half frame. I am too much of a grain person for 120.

Well, blowing up a half frame shot will definitely help you along with that! I find half frame cameras really interesting. They appeal to my frugal nature, but I always get so impatient to develop my photos even with just 36 shots that I catch myself shooting 120 and 4x5 just because I get my photos back to view faster. You'll definitely save money! There are some nice half frame cameras out there for sure! Best of luck

btaylor · Jun 24, 2018

My first decent camera was an Olympus half frame with zone focusing. It worked very well. Though 72 frames was an awful lot to get through to see your pics! I still have some slides, they still look good. I would second the Tmax 100 for b&w.

ReginaldSMith · Jun 25, 2018

christislord said:
I want to really shoot more film and I am trying to decide between 35mm and 120. I really liked shooting 110 film because of the pocket size, and was wondering if I should try 120. I don't have much money so it's really one or the other. Any advice would be appreciated.

Are you referring to Kodak's 110 cartridge film that was used in Pocket Instamatic cameras? If so, why not move UP and Back to "126" Instamatic cartridges. Cameras go for about $1.

One plug for the 126 would be the beautiful square format!

swchris · Jun 25, 2018

Or use a Robot camera, which uses 35mm film and 24x24mm negative size...

regards,
chris

Dismayed · Jun 29, 2018

The OP wants to share photos on line, too. Does he have a scanner? Does he intend to print from scans? If yes to print from scans, and assuming that budget matters, then a good film scanner and 35mm makes sense.

So what does the OP intend to shoot? For action or low light, then 35mm, and perhaps with auto focus. Otherwise there are a lot of excellent manual focus choices. The Contax/Yashica CY cameras are very fine. Or a nice Nikon AF, such as the F100.

On developing B+W film - Kodak XTOL is very safe, and it costs about $10 to mix up 5 liters of stock solution (that should last for 6 months if stored properly). Fixer and Perma-Wash are also needed. Don't drink them and you'll be fine.

Just tried shooting 110 film. Think I would like 120 film?

Should I use

35mm

120

Paul Manuell

Ian Grant

pentaxuser

AgX

Ian Grant

Meyer Trioplan

Attachments

AgX

AgX

Meyer Trioplan

removed account4

Paul Howell

macfred

Meyer Trioplan

peoplemerge

AgX

Meyer Trioplan

railwayman3

Sirius Glass

Ces1um

nascarfann

Ces1um

btaylor

ReginaldSMith

swchris

Dismayed

Just tried shooting 110 film. Think I would like 120 film?

Should I use

35mm

120

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency