Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

First Pentax Auto 110 shots (18mm, 24mm & 50mm lenses)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:09 am    Post subject: First Pentax Auto 110 shots (18mm, 24mm & 50mm lenses) Reply with quote
50mm (roughly equivalant to 100mm fov on 35mm):



24mm (roughly equivalant to 50mm fov on 35mm):



24mm (roughly equivalant to 50mm fov on 35mm):



18mm (roughly equivalant to 35mm fov on 35mm):



18mm (roughly equivalant to 35mm fov on 35mm):



Last edited by Richard_D on Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:47 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
wow that's smell negative and it's a nice smell Smile
very nice result for such a weather


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
wow that's smell negative and it's a nice smell Smile
very nice result for such a weather


Thanks!

The processing is pretty poor (or the film has been badly stored) as all shots had a weird blue/green cast.

Considering it's grotty ISO 400 with a negative 1/4 the area of 35mm they're not too bad.

The scans are straight from 3"x5" machine prints.

I think it's worth trying a cartridge of ISO200 in better light and with a different lab.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Richard_D wrote:
poilu wrote:
wow that's smell negative and it's a nice smell Smile
very nice result for such a weather


Thanks!

The processing is pretty poor (or the film has been badly stored) as all shots had a weird blue/green cast.

Considering it's grotty ISO 400 with a negative 1/4 the area of 35mm they're not too bad.

The scans are straight from 3"x5" machine prints.

I think it's worth trying a cartridge of ISO200 in better light and with a different lab.


So far as I recall they were all like that. I had a 110 format pocket cam and the results were purely suitable for record shots, not something you'd want for quality keepers. It was a great little cam to keep in the glovebox/pocket just in case, but that's all that could be said in its favour.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:


So far as I recall they were all like that. I had a 110 format pocket cam and the results were purely suitable for record shots, not something you'd want for quality keepers. It was a great little cam to keep in the glovebox/pocket just in case, but that's all that could be said in its favour.


I think the lenses are capable of far better results - if 100 ISO was still available I think the results could be quite reasonable - the resolution is there, but masked by the noisy grain. I'll probably give a cartridge of 200 ISO film a go in better light.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Richard_D wrote:


I think the lenses are capable of far better results - if 100 ISO was still available I think the results could be quite reasonable - the resolution is there, but masked by the noisy grain. I'll probably give a cartridge of 200 ISO film a go in better light.


Of them all, the P110 was the best and its lenses should far outstrip the films available, true. Istr that the range of films made at the time was fairly restricted, but you might be lucky to find some 100ASA still held somewhere. I don't recall if 50ASA was ever made in 110.
I wonder if reloadable cartridges are to be found and if 16mm cine film is close enough to be used.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:
Richard_D wrote:


I think the lenses are capable of far better results - if 100 ISO was still available I think the results could be quite reasonable - the resolution is there, but masked by the noisy grain. I'll probably give a cartridge of 200 ISO film a go in better light.


Of them all, the P110 was the best and its lenses should far outstrip the films available, true. Istr that the range of films made at the time was fairly restricted, but you might be lucky to find some 100ASA still held somewhere. I don't recall if 50ASA was ever made in 110.
I wonder if reloadable cartridges are to be found and if 16mm cine film is close enough to be used.


I've had a browse and some of the sub-minature fans do have ways of reloading cartridges: http://www.geocities.com/markhahn2000/110_reload.htm

but I think it's more effort than I'm prepared to put into this system.

200 ISO Fuji Superia's available in date which shouldn't be too bad (hopefully!). I think it's going to be more of nice little toy than for serious regular use, but I'll try and get something a bit better out of it.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Richard_D wrote:

I've had a browse and some of the sub-minature fans do have ways of reloading cartridges: http://www.geocities.com/markhahn2000/110_reload.htm

but I think it's more effort than I'm prepared to put into this system.


What a lot of faffing around. Still, if they're keen it's their own time.

Quote:
200 ISO Fuji Superia's available in date which shouldn't be too bad (hopefully!). I think it's going to be more of nice little toy than for serious regular use, but I'll try and get something a bit better out of it.


Best of luck with it. I don't suppose there are many buyers of 110 film left now, since the target market for that will have changed to exclusively P&S digital now.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Do they still sell this somewhere or is the website old?

http://www.ferraniait.com/solutions/photography/110.htm


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes Solaris branded ferrania is available mail order from a few suppliers. I may try it sometime, but I've just picked up two rolls of indate Fuji Superia of ebay (now discontinued) so I'll give them a go.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:
So far as I recall they were all like that. I had a 110 format pocket cam and the results were purely suitable for record shots, not something you'd want for quality keepers. It was a great little cam to keep in the glovebox/pocket just in case, but that's all that could be said in its favour.

Both Pentax and Minolta did have somewhat higher quality 110 format cameras -- of course, the lack of a decent pressure plate did limit the obtainable IQ. The top models of both makes were used by a few notable photographers even for landscape photography, not f/64 LF type but more "On the Road" type, not in the record shot sense of the present, sharp dSLR photos but more to distill the essence, just like many photographers used e.g. a Polaroid SX-70, which sure wasn't one of the sharpest cameras around. Unless you are documenting something, sharpness and resolution are perhaps the two most insignificant elements in a photograph, alone they are just something anemic, even petrified, but sometimes they may, of course, impart the final but only very rarely the decisive touch to an even otherwise good photo.

I do own a Minolta 110 Zoom SLR like this http://my.reset.jp/~inu/ProductsDataBase/Products/MINOLTA/110-ZOOM/110_ZOOM.htm
, and if it were possible to easily obtain film for it, I would still be using it. For several years I used it as a complement to my Rolleiflex 2.8E Planar, and neither of these cameras could have replaced the other one. However, I shot maybe 10 times as many frames with the Minolta as with the Rollei, and I do mean usable frames, not snapshots, the proportion of keepers was probably about the same with both these cameras, i.e. quite high compared to the present, digital era -- every frame shot was an expense for a non-pro.

There is and must be a place for the f/64 school of photography, but otherwise the emphasis on sharpness and resolution is just a perversity and distraction. For most people a very good camera is just a hindrance, they become serfs of the inessential, kitsch, they lose their contact with the essence of the subject and concentrate on the new clothes of the Emperor. Like any other element in a picture, also resolution must be justified or even demanded by the subject, resolution cannot be an end in itself -- except in purely technical test photos, to map out the capabilities of a tool, to see whether the resolution is there for the rare moments when you really need it. Quite too easily a technically perfect photo depicts just itself, people see just the perfection and not really the purportedly depicted subject.

I play with my "perfect" lenses but I may mount the technically worst one when I really go out to take photos in earnest -- and I often did take the Minolta rather than the Rollei for an assignment, that is, when I felt it was the better tool for the task at hand or just for my mood at that moment.

Veijo


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Veijo, don't you think that sharpness - being related to perception - has more to do with the composition of an artwork (should we dare to call this way our photos) than with a mere technical factor?

Look at the painters: there are painters for whom sharpness is only somwthing that happens very locally, in the most important point of the painting - think of Monet for instance, especially the late one of the nymphees. Big surfaces of blurry paint, and an accent or two of sharp details.

There are other painters like Dali where the sharpness becomes a surreal mean - everything is sharp, even what is not supposed to be.

There are painters like Tiziano who can make paintings with incredibly detailed parts, where nature would not be so detailed, and manufactured parts like shirts, for instance, that would normally call for a lot of detail rendition, that he painted with just a couple of brush strokes. He used sharpness in his compositions, as a way to select what is important and what is not important, based not on optical laws (like Leonardo used to do), but solely on psychological importance.

-


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:

So far as I recall they were all like that. I had a 110 format pocket cam and the results were purely suitable for record shots, not something you'd want for quality keepers. It was a great little cam to keep in the glovebox/pocket just in case, but that's all that could be said in its favour.


So, the 1980s equivalent of the cameraphone Confused


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Veijo, don't you think that sharpness - being related to perception - has more to do with the composition of an artwork (should we dare to call this way our photos) than with a mere technical factor?

Look at the painters: there are painters for whom sharpness is only somwthing that happens very locally, in the most important point of the painting - think of Monet for instance, especially the late one of the nymphees. Big surfaces of blurry paint, and an accent or two of sharp details.

There are other painters like Dali where the sharpness becomes a surreal mean - everything is sharp, even what is not supposed to be.

There are painters like Tiziano who can make paintings with incredibly detailed parts, where nature would not be so detailed, and manufactured parts like shirts, for instance, that would normally call for a lot of detail rendition, that he painted with just a couple of brush strokes. He used sharpness in his compositions, as a way to select what is important and what is not important, based not on optical laws (like Leonardo used to do), but solely on psychological importance.

-


If you read carefully what I wrote, there is no disagreement:
"Like any other element in a picture, also resolution must be justified or even demanded by the subject, resolution cannot be an end in itself". I am not against resolution per se but against forgetting everything else, forgetting depiction. I would use resolution in all the ways you mentioned, even excessively if the excess were essential, I do use.

Veijo


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vilva wrote:

If you read carefully what I wrote, there is no disagreement:
"Like any other element in a picture, also resolution must be justified or even demanded by the subject, resolution cannot be an end in itself". I am not against resolution per se but against forgetting everything else, forgetting depiction. I would use resolution in all the ways you mentioned, even excessively if the excess were essential, I do use.
Veijo


Yes, I was not in fact, contradicting what you wrote, just presenting a different perspective on the same landscape, so to say.
I fully agree that too many photographers are obsessed with things like sharpness and bokeh, and too often forget how important the composition is in a photograph. Galleries are full of pictures and photo tests, endlessly evaluating these aspects on the technical point of view, and only rarely on the compositional point of view.
-


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I used to carry one of those as a second camera (to my OM4). It was a great little machine and I thought the IQ of the pictures was extraordinary, especially when one compared it with the consumer 110's at the time. Got stolen though Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad

patrickh


PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
Farside wrote:

So far as I recall they were all like that. I had a 110 format pocket cam and the results were purely suitable for record shots, not something you'd want for quality keepers. It was a great little cam to keep in the glovebox/pocket just in case, but that's all that could be said in its favour.


So, the 1980s equivalent of the cameraphone Confused


Pretty much. Invaluable when that's the only cam you have available, but crap otherwise. They were a good idea let down by the materials of the time (the film).
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1