Punching Above it's Weight

<p>As ever, it is your technical mastery of light that allows such wonderful pictures. I was pleasantly surprised as my experience of 110 had been generally not very good. A lot of my friends when I was young had 110 cameras in the early 80's because they were so cheap and easy to run. Little that I saw in that format ever wanted me to take up photography in those days, although it must be stated that I didn't really know much about different sized films those days. There is some grain in darker areas but none of it feels unpleasant.</p>

<p>It always seemed to me that the main problem with "good" cameras for these cartridge films was that the camera was better than the accuracy of the cartridge. However, that seems to be belied by the quality you've got out of the darned thing.</p>

<p>Power to you.</p>

<p>This once again proves that no matter what tool a master photographer holds, be it quality or crap, wonderful photographs are the result. Bravo Rick, well done.</p>

<p>I especially like No.'s 4, 5, and 12.</p>

<p>A fascinating little bit of photographic history you have there, Rick. I don't know what Pentax was thinking (or smoking?) when they came up with the idea, but then again I think much the same of the Pentax Q (the digital Auto 110) and Pentax K-01 (the mirrorless camera with no viewfinder that's nearly the size of a DSLR). Once upon a time, Pentax (Asahi) was a wonderful and truly innovative company, but by the end of the '70s their innovations were becoming merely weird -- unlike Olympus, whose innovations continued to be interesting.</p>

<p>Still, you managed to pull some nice pictures out of it. I'm sure it was the best 110 camera ever made, though that's a rather left-handed compliment at best.</p>

<p>Les, the LX is a very nice camera from everything I've heard about it (I haven't used it), but really, what great innovation does it contain? It's a high-quality manual-focus SLR, yes, but I don't know of any feature in it that hadn't already been seen in cameras from Nikon, Olympus, or Minolta. It's more of an excellent synthesis than an innovation.</p>

<p>I often think about the Zeiss Ikon 126 cameras in the late 1960s. Like here; I wonder what were they thinking? Thoughts come to mind about pigs and lipsticks etc. The bottom line is: it ain't the camera it's the photographer. I recall reading be-bop innovator Charlie Partker could take an otherwise uplayable sax, with a popsicle stick for a reed and still play in his astonsihing style. So What possed these folks to buy into this 110 dream? Obviously .. if you build it others will buy it. </p>

<p>Rick, it is so much fun having you share your enthusiasm for many different cameras. Your ability as a photographer makes any camera look good.</p>

<p>Remarkable little cameras Rick, unfortunately my two examples have passed on. The results that you have there are really excellent indeed. There were many really interesting cameras made in the 110 format, with the little Pentax, Minolta Zoom, Rollei A110 and the various Agfa models.<br>

I have just bought a few rolls of B&W 110 film so when I work out how to process it I will post some results. Funny in these days of fading film availability that you can still get a new B&W 110 film...strange times!</p>

Good to see your responses. I'm no fan of the 110 format, and as several of you have suggested, the motives behind Pentax's development of the Auto 110 are somewhat of a mystery. The only advantage the 110 format offered was in the creation very small sized camera that could be tucked into purse or pocket, and which would produce postcard-sized prints for the album. The high-end Minolta, Rollei and Canon 110 pocket cameras performed this function quite well, to mention but a few, but the creation of an expensive mini SLR systems camera seemed a little odd. It was just difficult to see a market niche, given that enthusiastic amateurs found the tiny format just too inadequate and plumped for full or half-frame 35mm. In the days when I was involved with film processing we tried to push customers towards the larger formats, pointing out that a 5x7 inch print was really the acceptable size limit from a 110 negative, probably less from the horribly gritty 400 ISO film of the period. Higher resolution scans of these negatives would have been pointless, <strong>Steve</strong>, serving only to emphasise the grain.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks to all for the kind comments. Specifically: I'd never shot with a 110 before I picked up the Minolta Zoom a couple of years ago, <strong>Colin,</strong> having never found a use for one. I'd agree about the Olympus Trip's total superiority! You're right, <strong>Robert</strong>; the limits of the format's quality are beginning to show in these images. The resolving ability of the lenses far exceeds that of the film. To the best of my recollection I wasn't in Kentucky for the "Bowling Green" image, <strong>Les</strong>, and we'd love to have you living in Longwood Road, <strong>Maciek</strong>.

 

 

 

 

 

I haven't heard any reports of the quality of the Lomographic film, <strong>John</strong>, but I don't think I'll become a regular user. Perhaps <strong>Tony</strong> will be able to show us some results. Nice stash you have there, <strong>Ralf</strong>; these scans were straight off the Frontier scanner. I'd agree with you regarding Disc, <strong>Q.G</strong>; and some some of the better 126 cameras <em>were</em> capable of good work, despite the film flatness issues.

 

Thank you <strong>Bernard</strong>, <strong>Brett</strong>, <strong>Jeff</strong>, <strong>Chuck</strong>, <strong>Craig</strong>, <strong>Starvy</strong>, <strong>David</strong> and <strong>JDM</strong> for your input.

<blockquote>

<p>They look very low resolution</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, I must beg to differ. They don't look low-res to me.</p>

<p>Rick, I'm wondering if you could force the camera to expose the 200 speed film as 100?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Rick, I'm wondering if you could force the camera to expose the 200 speed film as 100?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Karim</strong>, some research suggests it should just happen... Kodak created a standard whereby the 110 cartridge was moulded with a tiny projecting ridge, or not, (or of varying lengths), and left it up to other manufacturers to decide what to do with it. This ridge, if present on the relevant cartridge, will depress a tiny lever in the body of the camera, thus "selecting" the ISO speed. Pentax chose 100 and 400 ISO. The 200 ISO films in my possession have the ridge, and while I can't confirm it , I've read that depressing the switch in the Pentax selects 100 ISO. Not having any other cartridges, I can't check this, but in theory the 200 ISO cartridges I used should have been rated at 100 ISO by the camera. However, while the negatives certainly didn't look overexposed, there were so many other variables involved that I can't state for sure just what was going on...</p>

<p>Very nice results from a 110 camera, Rick. Thanks for the great write-up and for sharing the pictures.</p>

<p>My pleasure, <strong>Andy</strong>. It's about time to get back to my comfort zone, with something a little larger...</p>

<p>Rick, your 110 shots bring back so many memories of 110 images of the past. I am not sure how 110 shots achieved that look that is so typical of the format but they are unmistakeable. Wonderful stuff!</p>

<p>1979 I bought one of these in Oamaru, more compact and pocketable for me in my newspapering youth. I ended up giving it to my mother, and replacing it with a Mamiya C3...</p>

<p>Rick, really first-rate compositions on your part, as always. Unlike Starvy, I <em>do</em> find the grain unpleasant, but not as bad as I remember it from my films at the time. I was a kid then, shooting 110 in the usual plastic-lensed "pocket" cameras (long flat form factor with bolt-action wind-on), which couldn't have helped. I was glad to see that grain go when 110 went out of favor and Disc film died out ... and saddened to see such grain return recently in mobile-phone snaps made at fixed f/11 or whatever, in dark pubs etc.<br>

<br />I wonder if at this point, decades on, Pentax would be willing to reveal the proprietary information of whether they ever recouped the R&D and tooling/production cost of this (bizarre, as others have commented) product line. I'd be curious.<br>

<em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Thanks, <strong>Dave</strong>;<em> I</em> certainly dislike the degradation of an image due to grain, unless it's used to effect, as in the work of practioners like Sarah Moon in her earlier works, and David Hamilton. Now we have "noise" as a digital equivalent, as you remarked...It <em>would</em> be interesting to see some market figures; apparently the original Minolta 110 Zoom was one of the great sales successes of it's era.</p>

<p>Thanks, <strong>Colin,</strong> I think it was the lack of tonal graduation due to the small negative that gives that distinctive "poster" look. Good move into the C3 <strong>Ian</strong>, that being my first "real" medium-format camera, also.</p>

<p>an interesting sidelight is that these lenses with fixed apperture of f2.8 work nicely on m4/3 (2xcrop 13x17 sensor) or 1.5 crop mirrorless cameras of course with appropriate adapters. Shades of 8x11 Minox also with fixed wide open apertures!</p>