[rollei_list] Re: Rollei A110/E110 & Rollei 16 - was Argomania
- From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:43:41 -0500
Thanks for posting your experience. Here's a reference relative to the
alleged film-flatness issue, and the quality of the images the format
and the cameras are capable of:
http://www.frugalphotographer.com/info-110.htm
And of course there is an entire cadre of devotees to this and other
miniature formats...
Eric Goldstein
--
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:09 AM, John Wild <jwild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I still have a Rollei A110 & E110 sitting on a shelf. The images were not as
> sharp as I had expected from a Rollei - fine from a Kodak Instamatic 110
> though - and found that the film was not held against the film gate by the
> cartridge - no fault of the camera but the cartridge system. I cut down a
> piece of clear acetate and lifting the paper leader a little, fitted it
> between the cartridge and the backing paper, this then pressed the emulsion
> against the film gate. The acetate was removed before sending the cartridge
> for processing and inserted into the next cartridge. Images were very sharp
> from then on.
>
> I also have a Rollei 16 and having bought a 100m roll of single perf. 16mm
> Tri-X, I 'rolled my own'. The resulting images were bitingly sharp although
> suffering from grain when enlarged to full plate. I also reversal processed
> the Tri-X which produced very contrasty transparencies. Home loading such a
> small size film gave rise to scratches on the emulsion whilst trying to keep
> the film tight on the spool. I did buy rolls of colour transparency and
> negative film too but never tried them because of processing issues.
>
> I see that Rollei 16 B&W film is being sold on Ebay by 'subtimes' - Item No.
> 200416825357 (and other types of 16mm cartridges too)
>
> John
>
>
> On 14/01/2010 03:30, "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> You could get a sharp picture in 110, and there were several fine 110
>> cameras, including a couple from Rollei. You just couldn't get a big
>> enlargement. Considering 99% of all images were never enlarged beyond
>> 4 x 6, that was not a problem for mot shooters...
>
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
