other film formats

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by PCportinc, Aug 22, 2003.

  1. PCportinc

    PCportinc Guest

    what happened to cameras which used 110, 126, and
    kodak ring or circle?

    why was 35mm preferred over these?
    if i have 110 or 126 negs, can any photo place
    make photos for me?
     
    PCportinc, Aug 22, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. PCportinc

    Alan Browne Guest

    Good question, but the groups you want are:

    rec.photo.equipment.stupid-formats-that-kodak-failed-to-introduce-because-they-do-idiotic-things-in-the-marketplace-from-time-to-time-like-those-formats-you-mention-and-aps
    AND
    rec.photo.film+labs-for-obsolete-junk
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 22, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. PCportinc

    Ken Cashion Guest

    Actually, it was a good question for photographers who are
    interested in all sorts of photography and recognizes that there has
    been a lot of evolution in the business.
    I remember press photographers who said that it would be a
    cold-day in hell when they went from 4x5 to 2-1/4x3-1/4!
    Then there were those who said, "Well, the films really have
    gotten better and it is easier to make a fast lens for a shorter focal
    length than a long one, so maybe there is a place for those little
    format cameras."
    I remember two of these photographers seeing a guy with a
    Rolli at a press breifing and saying that the Rolli shooter couldn't
    be taken seriously because of his minature camera.
    And films and reproduction capability got better.
    Then the only place for the minature cameras (35mm) was in
    combat (though many still used the 4x5) and maybe sneaky photography.
    So a good question could be: With the improvement in film
    quality over the recent years, why have we been burdened with such an
    old and out-dated format such as that dictated by 35mm film?
    (This is an unmootable question on the digital camera groups.
    They may know the answer there.)
    The split frame 35mm cameras would produce a really good image
    today and with few changes in other equipment.
    There was nothing wrong with the smaller films but the
    cameras. The camera can be made very good.
    But we no longer purchase by requirement and things are no
    longer made to satisfy technical requirements. They are marketed to a
    target and this marketing ability has improved faster than film
    quality.
    The marketing creates the need/desire.
    But then...maybe I might think this way because I am old and
    inflexible.

    Ken Cashion
     
    Ken Cashion, Aug 22, 2003
    #3
  4. PCportinc

    Duncan Ross Guest

    From: (PCportinc)
    110 and 126 are still going, 110 is easier enough to get processed and printed
    still, 126 is straightforward to get processed but a nightmare to get printed.
    Filmwise 110 film is still on the shelves, if you need new 126 film look up
    Ferrania on the web, if you need Magicubes or just flashbulbs in general see
    me. ;^D

    Disc film is definitely dead as a Norwegian Blue, as is Kodak Photo CD.

    For your second question, 110 can be printed by some labs, 126 by precious few.
    (although it is standard 35mm film it makes modern autoprocessors go nuts
    apparently).

    Hope that helps!
     
    Duncan Ross, Aug 22, 2003
    #4
  5. PCportinc

    Duncan Ross Guest

    From: Alan Browne
    You are Tony Polson. I claim my £5.
     
    Duncan Ross, Aug 22, 2003
    #5
  6. PCportinc

    Don Stauffer Guest

    35 was there first and the others did not offer enough advantages. 110
    and the disk film, in addition, were limited in quality by small size
    and hence lower resolution.

    Biggest thing these formats offered, cartridge loading, was soon matched
    by autoloading 35s.

    Also, 126 did not locate film in the focal plane very well, so focusing
    was spotty. Some shots would be okay, others out of focus. The
    cartridge lacked the pressure plate of conventional 35s and other roll
    film formats.
     
    Don Stauffer, Aug 22, 2003
    #6
  7. PCportinc

    Alan Browne Guest

    In that context I agree. But the formats mentioned were brought out to
    push the consumer side of Kodak films and nothing else.

    In that, Kodak et al hit the nail on the head with APS, but the format
    is intended for and useful to P&S consumers. The camera companies
    ignored APS for other more serious photographic pursuits.

    See above: there is so much available at 35mm as to make investments in
    a new system prohibitive.
    If the 4/3 dig. format takes off and if the densities there approach
    being able to make clean 24x18 prints, then we won't care about sensor
    size, but we'll all be replacing our lenses over time...

    But, repeating, the OP was mentionning "dead" formats like 110, 126 and
    disc...


    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 22, 2003
    #7
  8. PCportinc

    Alan Browne Guest

    Yeah, go ahead claim it.

    (confused)
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 22, 2003
    #8
  9. PCportinc

    Alan Browne Guest

    ....agree with everything you say, except your parting shot. Digital is
    well on its way to becoming most serious amateurs and pros "film" of
    choice. It is but a question of time.
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 22, 2003
    #9
  10. I used my Pentax A110 just last week at a rock concert where the idiotic
    staff wouldn't let me take my ME Super in because it was 'professional
    photography equipment'!!!!!
    Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have taken it if this wasn't the case, but
    it did mean I could fit an SLR and four lenses (one zoom and three primes)
    into one small camera bag designed for a digital camera.
    You can still get 110 film easily enough, but unfortunately none of the
    films are particularly good quality - Kodak make a 110 cartridge with some
    horrible ISO400 'Gold' film (the results are terribly grainy). I think Fuji
    makes the best 110 cartridge with ISO 200 Superia film.
    Most big one hour labs will tell you they'll have to send it away for
    processing, I think it would be near impossible to get any 110 film
    processed by a one hour service, but finding places that will do it in a
    week is easy. However, I tried a new place recently and I think they messed
    up. All the shots were heavily contaminated with light and I only got about
    half the pictures I should've had. I think it must have been so long since
    they last got a 110 film, that they couldn't figure out how to open the
    cartridge up properly.
    You can still buy slide mounts for 110 film format, I've been considering
    getting some and then scanning the negs. If only I could get some decent
    slide film in a 110 cartridge, I reckon the results would be really quite
    good.

    Chris.
     
    Chris Barnard, Aug 22, 2003
    #10
  11. PCportinc

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Some of those improvements have given new life to older gear. I think part of the resurgence of interest in old cameras, like folders, is due to their good results using modern
    films.
    The 35 mm format is very successful, and the movie industry is still using a similar film for a great deal of work. Basically, it is the established leader. There are consumer
    films like APS, which do explore new ground, and it is possible to buy 110 film at some department stores. What would be interesting is if the 16 mm film format goes to any
    still camera developments, though I doubt there is much market for it.
    I think you mean cameras like the Olympus PanF, and other half frame cameras. Some of the minilab gear may not work well doing automated printing in that format. However, I
    have seen a couple articles about professionals still using the PanF. Definitely still a functional change from 35 mm.
    Probably just made to a profit point. It is a shame that half frame options for 35 mm do not exist in the new market. With the mostly electronic film advance, it could be a fun
    settings option for a camera. As it stands, only the Hasselblad XPan takes advantage of that idea, though in the opposite direction to get larger than 35 mm panoramic views.
    That is the hope, though it is not always effective. What is bad is pushing ever increasing features over simplicity and ease of use. I doubt many people ever look into the
    owner's manual far enough to understand the settings on their cameras.
    No . . . but there is a market for that as well. ;-)
    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>
     
    Gordon Moat, Aug 22, 2003
    #11
  12. ..
    . . . . . . but why would you want to ?

    ;^)
     
    Tony Parkinson, Aug 22, 2003
    #12
  13. PCportinc

    Peter Chant Guest

    Is 126 the big cartridge thing that goes in my dad's instamatic?
     
    Peter Chant, Aug 22, 2003
    #13
  14. PCportinc

    Meryl Arbing Guest

    Well, I agree. But there are still some old Zeiss Ikon Contaflex 126 cameras
    out there with some really nice lenses. Actually, the Contaflex 126 was a
    good example where the camera was better than the film.
     
    Meryl Arbing, Aug 22, 2003
    #14
  15. PCportinc

    Meryl Arbing Guest

    Well, I will stand by that statement.
    The apparent popularity of digital has more to do with a combination of
    marketing hype and techno-whiz-bang 'cool'. It is not that digital has
    reached and exceeded the quality standards of photographers but that the
    quality standards have been lowered to reach digital.

    I remember one of my last outings with a digital camera. I was shooting a
    St. Patrick's Day parade and I had lots of memory cards and 3 spare
    batteries. (I still had my Yashica T4 super in my coat pocket.)
    Unfortunately, the digital camera let me down (as it had several times in
    the past) and ran out of power long before the parade was over. I pulled out
    the Yashica and finished the parade in film.

    The next day, I had both the digital prints and the film prints in my hands
    so I could compare them side by side. Same position, same lighting, same
    day, same scenes and the film shots were so much better in every way that I
    sold off all of my digital cameras and returned 100% to film.

    It was an epihany...a paradigm shift...an eye-opener! Prior to that, I would
    have guaranteed that the shots I was taking with my digital were far
    superior to anything I would get from old, obsolete, film technology. I was
    caught in a techno-haze and didn't want to believe that the digital cameras
    (that I had paid so much for) wouldn't be 'better' than film cameras...but I
    was WRONG!

    Digitial shots that I was particularly proud of, now, didn't look so great.
    Had the pictures changed? No...what changed were my quality standards once I
    saw what film could do. The digital shots didn't look so go any more. Once I
    had a 35mm film shot I took in honour of a friend's birthday and I had it
    enlarged to 8x10. Inkjet 8x10s, (that I thought good enough to display on my
    walls and had given to friends as gifts) looked pretty shabby in comparison.

    It was enough to get me to swear off digital completely and there has been
    nothing that I have seen posted as samples of current digital cameras
    (costing thousands of dollars) has impressed me. Neither 6Mp nor 8Mp nor
    11Mp has reached the point where I can see any advantage to justify the
    excessive costs of digital gear.
     
    Meryl Arbing, Aug 22, 2003
    #15
  16. They died.
    35mm is clearly a brilliant compromise between quality and convenience.
    Sure, MF is better quality, but it's a major pain to use. The smaller
    formats don't provide enough added convenience over 35mm to be meaningful.
    Of course digital does (no film costs, instant gratification), so that's why
    consumer digital is doing to 35mm what 35mm did to MF.
    No idea.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 23, 2003
    #16
  17. PCportinc

    Meryl Arbing Guest

    I have a local lab that I deal with and they do traditional enlargements and
    NOT digital printing and I know exactly which labs in my city use a Fuji
    Frontier (and I avoid them like the plague!).

    I have had a chance to download samples from 11Mp and I still am not
    impressed. It is about 1/2 of the resolution I get from 35mm and nowhere
    near what my 50 year old 6x6 TLR delivers. (Thinking that the 11Mp matches
    35mm is a symptom of the digital delusion...people were claiming (and
    sincerely believing) parity with 35mm film since the 2Mp cameras came out!)

    When I think about digital I see limitations, restrictions and a lack of
    freedom and NOT the other way around. I always felt that I was tied down by
    the battery problem...the file storage problem...and the weight of
    accessories that had to be carried with digital while travelling. At home, I
    felt tethered to the computer.

    Now, with film...I never worry about having to have 5 sets of fully charged
    batteries in my pockets...sorted according to charged and discharged. I
    don't have to worry about always making sure I carry my charger with me when
    I go on a trip and juggling the batteries in the charger...with film, I buy
    one battery before I go on a trip and I have no doubt that it will last me
    for the entire time. (Actually, my local camera store has a battery 'club'
    which gives me FREE, fresh batteries for my SLR for 5 years!!) Travelling
    with digital, I had to have a laptop or a storage device with me to off load
    the memory cards...and they had batteries TOO!!

    When I was done with a film, I have a nice Lowepro film vault so I don't
    worry about running out of storage space. I vividly remember being on a 2
    week holiday with ONLY digital cameras..what a fiasco! Sure, the party line
    says: "You can shoot as much as you like..." but that isn't true! You can
    only shoot up to the limits of your storage and THEN you have to stop
    shooting; find a place to sit down where you can see the LCD; and start
    weeding out the shots that you think (based on the view on the 2" LCD) which
    shots you are going to delete (forever) in order to free up some space. (Oh,
    while you are staring at your LCD the battery dies!!)

    Oh yes, cards these days are quite huge but so are the new file sizes so, it
    equals out...you buy a Hi resolution camera with anhuge file size and you
    have to buy a huge storage card to hold a worthwhile number of shots..unless
    you decide to reduce the resolution (and file size) of each shot which
    defeats the purpose of the fancy Hi res camera!

    When I use film, every shot is at FULL resolution and a couple of bricks of
    film takes up no more space than a pair of shoes in my luggage and, if I run
    out of film...there aren't many places where I can't buy more.

    Digital, for me, is a step backwards in quality and convenience. A
    limitation and not a freedom.
     
    Meryl Arbing, Aug 23, 2003
    #17
  18. PCportinc

    McLeod Guest

    The writing is on the wall, whether you want to believe it or not is really
    unimportant. The technology blew away darkroom work with the introduction
    of Photoshop 4 years ago. The quality of dslrs reached centerspread
    magazine quality at least 2 years ago. Even the wedding photographers are
    now rapidly switching to digital cameras.
    That said, there is still room for people who want to make chemical prints
    in their basement, and artists who want to print 30x40" black and white
    fibre based prints.
    Just don't try and make us believe that 35 mm film cameras have much of a
    future...even 3 years from now.
     
    McLeod, Aug 23, 2003
    #18
  19. PCportinc

    Nick C Guest

    You omitted the effectiveness/creativity of using available multitudes of
    various film types in conventional 35mm cameras that tend to enhance a
    pictorial scene to the photographers delight which can later scanned and
    become digitized, while still having the original neg.

    The fact remains, with the exception of specialized photographic markets
    most benefited by digicams, the need for digicams is not as much of a
    necessity as you allude them to be. If digicams outside the markets of
    industrial necessity were to disappear, film would still be scanned
    providing digitized pictures to those who want digitized pictures. Yet, if
    35mm film cameras were to suddenly disappear, we would be faced with having
    to be somewhat satisfied with a lesser variety of creative photo conditions,
    which may to some degree be offset by the increasing use of existing or
    newly developed filters.

    Consider also, that we have yet to reach a period in time where comparisons
    can be made between the useful lifespan of film cameras as opposed to the
    useful lifespan of digicams. We already know that cameras made up to 50
    years ago (and in some cases longer) can provide esthetically worthwhile
    scenes, especially when coupled with the technical expertise of behind the
    scene technicians.

    Digicams have yet to achieve that level of useful confidence.

    Nick
     
    Nick C, Aug 23, 2003
    #19
  20. The biggest drawback of digital is that it is as contrasty as a fast
    slide film. Comparing prints, you were not comparing camera formats, you
    were comparing printers. Have a digital photo printed on a
    Tektronix/Xerox Phaser dye transfer printer sometime, and you would
    probably revise your opinion.
     
    Larry Caldwell, Aug 23, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.