Teflon-Mike
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
WHAT! was so wonderful about 110 cartridge cameras!
HORRIBLE things.... like this!
Or worse... this!
Which is actually one of the LOMO range I believe!
A copy of a 1980's promotional plastic toy; with fixed aperture, and shutter, a plastic lens and no propper view-finder! These were considered utter do-dah even in the hey-day of 110 cameras... probably why the LOMO brigade love them...
The formats critics pointed to the tiny negative, just 13x17mm, about 1/4 the area of a 35mm film frame, and roundly pointed out that there was no way you could make a 'decent' enlargement from THAT.... which is probably true.
BUT.... WONDERFUL 110..... that was not what 110 was for. 110, was the mass market 'consumer-camera' of its day.
In the early 1970's when the format was introduced; photography was expensive. Film was expensive; processing even more so. People used it sparingly and made every fame 'count'. Consequently Dad would have the camera and take his time, checking meter readings and lens settings and stuff, never getting round to actually taking a picture! While Mum, of course would leave him to it. "No point asking ME to work that dang thing! I cant understand it" So people... well, Dads... could make a 24 exposure film last ALL YEAR!
And all they would ever make from their negatives were the 'economy' sized prints from the chemists. Maybe 5x4".. and they would RAVE about how good they were, because they were almost twice the size of the 2x3" contact prints, they USED to take with a 120 roll film camera before they were married... and they were in COLOUR! Sure... a half decent 35mm frame could be enlarged, well, slides would often be shown on a 36" screen.. maybe 28 or 30" wide. Which is pretty big; but no; MOST people looked at little fag-packet sized prints.
So.... Wonderful 110... well, 1/4 the area of negative, ought to be 'OK' up to at least 1/4 the size you'd commonly take a 35mm frame to... 7-8"? So a little 5x4" print ought to be more than acceptable.
And that was the point; not 'Quality'... but ACCEPTABLE Quality....
So, while the 35mm camera was evolving to become ever more sophisticated, with an ever wider range of features and automation; integrated metering, programmed exposure control and so on....
110 went Low-Tech... who needs all that cr....cra...... creativity!
Fixed focal length, probably around 20-25mm or so; equivilent of a 40 or 50mm lernse on 35mm; single aperture; maybe f8 or f11, and a fixed speed shutter, probably 1/30th or 1/60th.
That's it. Point, shoot, wind on.
You cant spend your time worrying about muggering with the settings.... there aren't any!
The camera relied entirely on film lattitude, to be able to get an image; and the chemists, to 'correct' exposure, when making the prints for you.
Not really all that wonderful, is it?
No. Not really. BUT.... that first picture of the pink Hanimex. Typical 80's 'Compact'... and I chose it because it IS pink!
Small; these things were typically about 4" long, 1" deep and 1" tall;
Easy to use; point, press, wind on. No baffling array of settings to choose from.
CHEAP The cameras cheap; The film was err... cheaper.... the processing was... hmm a BIT less expensive!
The cameras though were often given away with catalogues or magazines; Significantly putting them into the hands of Women, who would never otherwise of really thought about picking up a camera. And they either used them, or gave them the kids as a toy.
But; women loved these things; and exploiting a bit of femanine logic, as long as there is film in the camera, worry about how much it costs to process when you get to it.... they snapped away, kids playing in the garden; walks in the park; whatever! And of course the mail-order labs cashed in on that trend... truprint? Yup... rather than discount their processing charges, they gave away free film... ladies got their snaps back, and "Oh! I have another film to use....." so KEPT snapping away!
These things really brought photography to the masses. No serious photography, admittedly, but it REALLY was the 110 cartridge camera that got people taking 'every-day' photo's; not saving the camera for high-days and holidays, and starting the photo-taking trends that has evolved the market, and seen ever more user-freindly cameras with increasingly higher image quality.
BUT, back to the 110's.... I have been digitising a load of old 110 negatives, and yeah... well... they ent great... but... actually.... the yeild of what's passibly acceptable is NOT that bad....
Which made me wonder...... how much store we put in all the sophistication of our modern cameras..... how much of it is REALLY justified?
THE CHALLENGE
What IF... mimiicking one of those low-tech 110 cartridge cameras... I was to lock the zoom at conservative wide angle? Say 24mm or so, on my Crop; equivalent of 35mm on a FF/35mm film camera or about 18mm or so on a 110 Cartridge camera. Put the camera on 'Manual' and set the aperture to something middling, say f8? and the shutter to say 1/30th, sort of fixed setting of a typical 110 cartridge. Only user choice 110 snapper would have had was film speed... but even that was pretty restrictive; yes you could get slide or black and white as well as colour, but it would have probably been around the 100ASA mark, 60, 80, 120, possibly 200. I think that there was some 400 made towards the end, but really, most of it was 'around' the 100 mark.. so lets go with that and set ISO100 and be done!
No auto; no semi auto; no changing settings; POINT and SHOOT, with fixed perameters. See what we get. But of course... to annoy the in-camera pusists... the challenge would have to allow subsequent, correction, in Post-Process, as Truprint would have done to make prints from the cartridge negs.
Note... 'Corrections'... change the contrast and brightness, mess with the curves & colour balence; thats about all they would have done at the lab.
So... Have I done this? Do I expect any-one lse to have a go at it?
Err... no.
This post, at the moment an aid-memoir... so I don't forget the idea! Because I think I ought to have a go at it, at some point.... but in the mean time..... if any-one else thinks its a bit of a wheeze and wants to give it a go? Be interested to see what you get, and what your thoughts on it are.
HORRIBLE things.... like this!
Or worse... this!
Which is actually one of the LOMO range I believe!
A copy of a 1980's promotional plastic toy; with fixed aperture, and shutter, a plastic lens and no propper view-finder! These were considered utter do-dah even in the hey-day of 110 cameras... probably why the LOMO brigade love them...
The formats critics pointed to the tiny negative, just 13x17mm, about 1/4 the area of a 35mm film frame, and roundly pointed out that there was no way you could make a 'decent' enlargement from THAT.... which is probably true.
BUT.... WONDERFUL 110..... that was not what 110 was for. 110, was the mass market 'consumer-camera' of its day.
In the early 1970's when the format was introduced; photography was expensive. Film was expensive; processing even more so. People used it sparingly and made every fame 'count'. Consequently Dad would have the camera and take his time, checking meter readings and lens settings and stuff, never getting round to actually taking a picture! While Mum, of course would leave him to it. "No point asking ME to work that dang thing! I cant understand it" So people... well, Dads... could make a 24 exposure film last ALL YEAR!
And all they would ever make from their negatives were the 'economy' sized prints from the chemists. Maybe 5x4".. and they would RAVE about how good they were, because they were almost twice the size of the 2x3" contact prints, they USED to take with a 120 roll film camera before they were married... and they were in COLOUR! Sure... a half decent 35mm frame could be enlarged, well, slides would often be shown on a 36" screen.. maybe 28 or 30" wide. Which is pretty big; but no; MOST people looked at little fag-packet sized prints.
So.... Wonderful 110... well, 1/4 the area of negative, ought to be 'OK' up to at least 1/4 the size you'd commonly take a 35mm frame to... 7-8"? So a little 5x4" print ought to be more than acceptable.
And that was the point; not 'Quality'... but ACCEPTABLE Quality....
So, while the 35mm camera was evolving to become ever more sophisticated, with an ever wider range of features and automation; integrated metering, programmed exposure control and so on....
110 went Low-Tech... who needs all that cr....cra...... creativity!
Fixed focal length, probably around 20-25mm or so; equivilent of a 40 or 50mm lernse on 35mm; single aperture; maybe f8 or f11, and a fixed speed shutter, probably 1/30th or 1/60th.
That's it. Point, shoot, wind on.
You cant spend your time worrying about muggering with the settings.... there aren't any!
The camera relied entirely on film lattitude, to be able to get an image; and the chemists, to 'correct' exposure, when making the prints for you.
Not really all that wonderful, is it?
No. Not really. BUT.... that first picture of the pink Hanimex. Typical 80's 'Compact'... and I chose it because it IS pink!
Small; these things were typically about 4" long, 1" deep and 1" tall;
Easy to use; point, press, wind on. No baffling array of settings to choose from.
CHEAP The cameras cheap; The film was err... cheaper.... the processing was... hmm a BIT less expensive!
The cameras though were often given away with catalogues or magazines; Significantly putting them into the hands of Women, who would never otherwise of really thought about picking up a camera. And they either used them, or gave them the kids as a toy.
But; women loved these things; and exploiting a bit of femanine logic, as long as there is film in the camera, worry about how much it costs to process when you get to it.... they snapped away, kids playing in the garden; walks in the park; whatever! And of course the mail-order labs cashed in on that trend... truprint? Yup... rather than discount their processing charges, they gave away free film... ladies got their snaps back, and "Oh! I have another film to use....." so KEPT snapping away!
These things really brought photography to the masses. No serious photography, admittedly, but it REALLY was the 110 cartridge camera that got people taking 'every-day' photo's; not saving the camera for high-days and holidays, and starting the photo-taking trends that has evolved the market, and seen ever more user-freindly cameras with increasingly higher image quality.
BUT, back to the 110's.... I have been digitising a load of old 110 negatives, and yeah... well... they ent great... but... actually.... the yeild of what's passibly acceptable is NOT that bad....
Which made me wonder...... how much store we put in all the sophistication of our modern cameras..... how much of it is REALLY justified?
THE CHALLENGE
What IF... mimiicking one of those low-tech 110 cartridge cameras... I was to lock the zoom at conservative wide angle? Say 24mm or so, on my Crop; equivalent of 35mm on a FF/35mm film camera or about 18mm or so on a 110 Cartridge camera. Put the camera on 'Manual' and set the aperture to something middling, say f8? and the shutter to say 1/30th, sort of fixed setting of a typical 110 cartridge. Only user choice 110 snapper would have had was film speed... but even that was pretty restrictive; yes you could get slide or black and white as well as colour, but it would have probably been around the 100ASA mark, 60, 80, 120, possibly 200. I think that there was some 400 made towards the end, but really, most of it was 'around' the 100 mark.. so lets go with that and set ISO100 and be done!
No auto; no semi auto; no changing settings; POINT and SHOOT, with fixed perameters. See what we get. But of course... to annoy the in-camera pusists... the challenge would have to allow subsequent, correction, in Post-Process, as Truprint would have done to make prints from the cartridge negs.
Note... 'Corrections'... change the contrast and brightness, mess with the curves & colour balence; thats about all they would have done at the lab.
So... Have I done this? Do I expect any-one lse to have a go at it?
Err... no.
This post, at the moment an aid-memoir... so I don't forget the idea! Because I think I ought to have a go at it, at some point.... but in the mean time..... if any-one else thinks its a bit of a wheeze and wants to give it a go? Be interested to see what you get, and what your thoughts on it are.
