Revisiting the Micro 110

Micro 110 camera with reloaded 110 cartridge

Having previously used the Micro 110 camera two years ago for the #shittycamerachallenge in June 2018, when the current three-month June to August 'Quarantine Special' challange was announced, I thought I'd revisit the camera. Choosing the Micro 110 was partly due to the camera fitting the ethos of the challenge, and also as it is eminently portable. However, due to being busy with work during this period I didn't embrace the current #shittycamerachallenge as enthusiastically as I might (I had initially thought I might choose a different camera for each of the three months of the challenge, but in the event I shot most of the photos in June, then as July came around I still had a part-used cartridge in the camera, which I thought I should finish, and having loaded one more cartridge, I used that for the rest of the month into the start of August). I used 110 cartridges reloaded with 16mm Kodak Photo Instrumentation film throughout, rather than use different film stocks, and, being double perforated, the sprocket holes show up prominently in all the images.

Micro 110 with Kodak Photo Instrumentation Film

I developed the film I shot in two batches, and based on the results from the first couple of rolls once developed, I made a few changes: the initial rolls had a lot of light leaks, partly solved by using more black tape, particularly on either side of the cartridges where it met the camera body, and shielding the camera from light more carefully when advancing the film (in the image at the top of this post, there is a rubber band around one side of the cartridge, intended to block the light where the camera body meets the cartridge, but this wasn't sufficient).

Micro 110 with Kodak Photo Instrumentation Film, showing light leaks

I also changed how I was framing the photographs, realising that with the small aperture and short focal length, the camera does give a reasonable depth of focus (at least in relative terms, given the limitations of the lens), and in the second batch of photographs, I looked for compositions in which subjects were closer to the lens; the camera is hardly designed for wide expansive views. I was also more conscious that with using reloaded cartridges, without the pre-exposed frame that 110 film usually imposes, the frame is much wider than the rudimentary viewfinder indicates, albeit with a pronounced fall-off towards the left-hand of the frame. I did utilise this to effect in the one shot in vertical format, below, which gets darker to the foreground, but would have been more better without the light leaks.

Micro 110 with Kodak Photo Instrumentation Film

Thinking about the #shittycamerachallenge, and using the Micro 110 these past three months, although the camera is clearly so cheap and basic, perhaps it isn't truly 'shitty'; perhaps what really makes for the spirit of the challenge is a camera with at least some pretensions, but one that falls far short. I did think that the Halina 35X embodies this, in that there was an intention in its design to make an inexpensive 35mm camera with all the features one might require in such a camera, but done badly. However, I no longer have the Halina 35X; the Micro 110 by contrast is nothing other than the cheap plastic novelty that it so clearly is.

 

127 Day Summer 2020

Rolleiflex 4x4 with Kodak High Resolution Aerial Duplicating Film

For last month's 127 Day on 12th July, I used the Rolleiflex 4x4 as I had done for 2019's summer 127 Day. This time I only used Kodak High Resolution Aerial Duplicating Film, as I didn't have any medium format film to cut down to 127 for the day, and cut this to size under safelights to roll it with 127 backing paper for shooting. I took some interior shots before taking a walk with the Rolleiflex (and a tripod).

Although I have been rating the High Resolution Aerial Duplicating Film at an exposure index of 2, I did attempt a couple of shots hand-held. Given the brightness of the sunlight mid-afternoon in July, this was just possible - the shot below was taken hand-held wide open (f3.5) at 1/15th; the reason for doing this was that the tripod I was using would not give me a high enough angle, and to help steady the camera I did brace myself for the shot against some convenient street furniture, and partly, I suppose, just to show that it was possible to shoot 2 ISO hand-held. (Most of the other images on this post were shot stopped down and exposed for a few seconds with a tripod in contrast to this).

As the High Resolution Aerial Duplicating Film is blue sensitive - like photographic paper - in sunny weather with blue skies (or blue skies and brightly-lit clouds, as I had last summer's 127 Day), these tend to be overexposed and almost featureless. In the image above, the fact that the camera was pointing upwards into a very deep blue sky with a bright foreground negates this somewhat. Other shots, like that immediately below show this difficulty quite acutely; most of the photographs I took on the day were framed to avoid including much or any sky in the image.

Having used the High Resolution Aerial Duplicating Film a fair bit more in recent months, I feel I've begun to understand how to handle it to get the best pictorial results (a purpose of which the film is not intended for). When I was first testing the film, I found it hard to control the contrast when developing the film with conventional film developers, and, at the time, I felt it was best suited to overcast conditions in order to achieve a good range of tones - taking photographs in bright sun seemed to produce negatives with blown highlights and little shadow detail, even when using Rodinal, which I thought would be ideal for the film at high dilutions. Since I've started using the film again more recently, I've been using Ilford Multigrade print developer, at quite high dilutions, with better results. Although I framed most of the shots I took on the day to avoid including too much sky in the frame for reasons outlined above, a number of shots did have patches of sunlight amid shadows, particularly those surrounded by trees and foliage, but these highlights aren't completely devoid of detail, which I would have feared would be the case previously.

The rolls I shot on 127 Day were tray developed by inspection under safelights using the 'see-saw' method in Ilford Multigrade paper developer diluted to around 1+50 (this wasn't very exact - I had already developed a number of paper negatives and sheets of ortho film in the developer in the same session, which I had diluted at about 1+25, and, before developing the Aerial Duplicating Film, I added more water to dilute it still further). The high dilution seems to affect development time more than contrast, but this does have the effect of making development easier by slowing it down; gentle agitation was provided by the slow see-saw motion of passing the film in and out of the tray of developer until the negatives looked dense enough. As the film itself is pretty transparent, or, perhaps more precisely, translucent, before fixing, it can be held up against the safelights to examine the development fairly closely.