Tiger 200 is decent for grab-and-go convenience if you're shooting 110 color(or if you're using a 110 camera that doesn't work with reloaded carts, like the Voltron cam I'm trying out currently), but yeah, otherwise I'm definitely reloading carts with better cut-down film. Makes a difference (especially something like Ektar or Provia, which really bring all the detail possible from this format and cameras, like the Pentax or Canon 110 ED 20).
Hi David, thanks again for interesting and valuable content. Your film's reviews are very much a big part what film photography is about (at least for me:) ). Even this particular Tiger 110 format film I probably will never use, the video is very interesting anyway. I am a bit surprised that there is not so many views (compared to some weaker content on RUclips), so I wish You that more people would find the way to Your videos, it's worth it. So, thanks again, best of luck and we will be eagerly waiting to see next episode.
Thank you, Mantas. The Kodak and Ilford film videos always do well. Many of these niche film stock videos don't, compared to other film reviews. I think it's that people who gravitate to the great films really want to make the most of them. Fun films like this aren't the darlings of the more technical crowd.
@@DavidHancock That is true of course. Anyway, the video is interesting because of insights, nice photos, and because it makes our general understanding/how we judge the film more rich and educated in some way. For sure, what You have done for popular film's testing with different developers are huge significant job and many people value that (I pick developers for HP5, etc. based on Your recommendations). Your "about film" series for me are very inspiring and assuring when picking film and developer. Best regards :)
I have the Pentax 110 so if I get negs only a safe move I think and I have a scanner Diginow is that a good move and I just purchased T 200 3 pack film. Cheers
I haven't used the Diginow so I can't speak to how it performs, but yes, this film should works well in your Pentax. That's what I used for most of the images in this video.
Did you develop 110 film personally? If so, can you do a short video on how (particularly, do you have 110 wheel or did you tape it to a 35 mm leader)? Thx.
There are a few nice shots there, considering the limitation of the format. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tiger 200 film was Kodak gold. Whatever the original source though, I don't have a desire to shoot 110 - Whilst I can accept the tiny size of the negative, the additional cost is hard to justify. If I wanted to take a small camera which can fit in my pocket, I turn to my Olympus Pen EE-3. I don't think that it's much bigger than a Pentax Auto 110 and whilst it doesn't have the flexability of the Pentax, I think that in most cases, it's not an issue. With the slightly larger neg, it gives fairly decent images all things considered. But, the biggest advantage is that you get close to 80 shots on a roll vs 24. Plus, the fact that it uses just standard film makes purchasing and processing so much easier and cheaper. So, with the 1/2 frame cameras offering so much more than 110, to me it's easy to see why they're a niche of a already niche film world.
Thank you! I completely concur, too, that half-frame is the way to go vice 110. Yeah, the cameras are slightly bigger, but my Olympus D3 is WAY better than the 110, owing I think solely to the better film quality available in 35mm.
I owned and used a Pen EE back in the 70's and 80's. I hated that camera because of the portrait orientation of the half frame. The Konica Recorder was a far better half frame because it had landscape orientation. However, I always had far more fun with using 110. A good camera, Like the Minolta 110 Zoom gave great results and didn't have that detested portrait framing.
@@artistjoh Fair enough - I get the dislike of the default landscape orientation. But, the Pen isn't hard to shoot rotated through 90 degrees with it being a one handed operation. At the moment though, with way too many caermas, I haven't used the Pen for a while and have been using a Rollei 35B when I want a very small pocketable camera which can produce great quality shots.
I bought a Minolta 450e 110 , I just bought 110 film , I'm a Canadian and bought 110 film from a company that's based in Canada and it still cost Me $30 for one roll , I just want to see the results that the Minolta 450e produces , the camera was made in Hong Kong , I'll probably never take any more pictures after one film pack but I'll just eat the cost , why would anyone go from 35 mm to 110 taking pics , Kodak started it in 1977 and most camera manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon dont know why really lol
True, but to that end I think better results could be had getting a 35mm to 110 film slicer (available on Etsy, not from me) and then respooling used cassettes with better-quality film like Gold 200, Ektar 100, Provia, etc.
@@DavidHancock Respooling film may also cause troubles like scratches or sometimes cracked cassettes and requires quite some skills. At the end of the day 110 is kind of a dead format, it's more like experiencing a different way of taking a photo rather than creating decent images. Still, nice video, very informative. Thanks!
Wow. That was harsh and obvious. 110 film so much fun and my favorite go to for casual shooting in the weekend with my Minolta zoom 110 or my Pentax Auto110. If you want perfection get yourself a Nikon Z9. 🙄
I think the only thing really harsh about this review was the contrast in the photos; I go out of my way to make these videos as balanced with positives and negatives as possible. The film and the format are what they are and, like I said in the review, I enjoyed using this film. I don't think anyone expects perfection from any 110 film, to but level setting people who haven't used it before and explaining why the film performs as it does will help people who pick this up for the first time get the most of of it.
@@DavidHancock I see. However the video ends with a very categorical commitment like: "never again" which doesn't seem very encouraging for those who may have wanted to try...
@@gianlusc I understand that perspective, and I understand why you hold it. I believe that same closing paragraph also notes that I plan not to use this again primarily due to cost and the relative benefit with this particular film stock. I will still maintain that this review isn't particularly harsh.
The 200 ISO for a 110-only film is absurd. Most 110 cameras expose for 100 ISO, and a minority can do 400 ISO, but Lomography does not provide the proper cartridge tabs for correct ISO reading by the camera. So why choose 200 ISO and rely on film latitude. Personally I don't like Tiger. I prefer Peacock processed as E6, sharper and better colors than Tiger. I also prefer Metropolis over Tiger. I do like shooting 110 because I like to exploit grain. But I also hate the pin holes that Lomography puts into the backing paper. Orca I like for 110. It is the sharpest of Lomography's 110 offerings, and gives pleasing results. I can remember when Kodak sold Verichrome in 110. It had less contrast than Orca, but developed in a slow metol developer it was also very sharp. And had zero light leaks.
I would be lying if I said I would shoot Tiger again, and for the points you made. I have taken to covering the frame count window on my cameras with tin foil and black tape when I use Lomography 110 film. For years, I thought those dots were just emulsion flaws until I tried covering the window one time.
@@DavidHancock Considering that zero 110 films had this pinhole problem prior to Lomography this has to be deliberate action by Lomography to create the "lo-fi" look. If it were a manufacturing defect they have had many years to solve it, but it persists, hence a deliberate decision to retain it. It is extremely annoying and I don't know anyone who likes it. We need to speak up about it with complaints to Lomography so they eventually stop doing it. It is the sort of thing that inhibits potential growth in the format, and we want it to thrive long term.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
![Lomography Lomomatic 110 - Camera Review, Image Samples & A Brief History of 110! [Instant Review]](/img/1.gif)
Tiger 200 is decent for grab-and-go convenience if you're shooting 110 color(or if you're using a 110 camera that doesn't work with reloaded carts, like the Voltron cam I'm trying out currently), but yeah, otherwise I'm definitely reloading carts with better cut-down film. Makes a difference (especially something like Ektar or Provia, which really bring all the detail possible from this format and cameras, like the Pentax or Canon 110 ED 20).
Definitely yes. The film quality of the higher-end stocks really shows up in 110.
Hi David, thanks again for interesting and valuable content. Your film's reviews are very much a big part what film photography is about (at least for me:) ). Even this particular Tiger 110 format film I probably will never use, the video is very interesting anyway. I am a bit surprised that there is not so many views (compared to some weaker content on RUclips), so I wish You that more people would find the way to Your videos, it's worth it. So, thanks again, best of luck and we will be eagerly waiting to see next episode.
Thank you, Mantas. The Kodak and Ilford film videos always do well. Many of these niche film stock videos don't, compared to other film reviews. I think it's that people who gravitate to the great films really want to make the most of them. Fun films like this aren't the darlings of the more technical crowd.
@@DavidHancock That is true of course. Anyway, the video is interesting because of insights, nice photos, and because it makes our general understanding/how we judge the film more rich and educated in some way. For sure, what You have done for popular film's testing with different developers are huge significant job and many people value that (I pick developers for HP5, etc. based on Your recommendations). Your "about film" series for me are very inspiring and assuring when picking film and developer. Best regards :)
really beautiful images!! thanks for the video. Im thinking of giving it a try
Thank you!
I have the Pentax 110 so if I get negs only a safe move I think and I have a scanner Diginow is that a good move and I just purchased T 200 3 pack film. Cheers
I haven't used the Diginow so I can't speak to how it performs, but yes, this film should works well in your Pentax. That's what I used for most of the images in this video.
"that no one asked for" welp after buying the lomomatic 110 with some Tiger, I explicitly asked for it and you delivered 🎉
:D
Did you develop 110 film personally? If so, can you do a short video on how (particularly, do you have 110 wheel or did you tape it to a 35 mm leader)? Thx.
I do, the B&W. I use some 110-size stainless reels. They are an absolute pain to use.
There are a few nice shots there, considering the limitation of the format. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tiger 200 film was Kodak gold. Whatever the original source though, I don't have a desire to shoot 110 - Whilst I can accept the tiny size of the negative, the additional cost is hard to justify. If I wanted to take a small camera which can fit in my pocket, I turn to my Olympus Pen EE-3. I don't think that it's much bigger than a Pentax Auto 110 and whilst it doesn't have the flexability of the Pentax, I think that in most cases, it's not an issue. With the slightly larger neg, it gives fairly decent images all things considered. But, the biggest advantage is that you get close to 80 shots on a roll vs 24. Plus, the fact that it uses just standard film makes purchasing and processing so much easier and cheaper. So, with the 1/2 frame cameras offering so much more than 110, to me it's easy to see why they're a niche of a already niche film world.
Thank you! I completely concur, too, that half-frame is the way to go vice 110. Yeah, the cameras are slightly bigger, but my Olympus D3 is WAY better than the 110, owing I think solely to the better film quality available in 35mm.
@@DavidHancock Agreed - The Oly D3 is way better. Plus, you get to choose from the wide range of 35mm films, rather than the restricted stock of 110.
I owned and used a Pen EE back in the 70's and 80's. I hated that camera because of the portrait orientation of the half frame. The Konica Recorder was a far better half frame because it had landscape orientation. However, I always had far more fun with using 110. A good camera, Like the Minolta 110 Zoom gave great results and didn't have that detested portrait framing.
@@artistjoh Fair enough - I get the dislike of the default landscape orientation. But, the Pen isn't hard to shoot rotated through 90 degrees with it being a one handed operation. At the moment though, with way too many caermas, I haven't used the Pen for a while and have been using a Rollei 35B when I want a very small pocketable camera which can produce great quality shots.
😃😃
I dig the grain of 110 film ... I actually miss Disc film ... made real chunky 8x10 prints!!!
My first camera was a Le Clic disc camera. Those prints had the image clarity of the random patterns in brick walls. :D
I bought a Minolta 450e 110 , I just bought 110 film , I'm a Canadian and bought 110 film from a company that's based in Canada and it still cost Me $30 for one roll , I just want to see the results that the Minolta 450e produces , the camera was made in Hong Kong , I'll probably never take any more pictures after one film pack but I'll just eat the cost , why would anyone go from 35 mm to 110 taking pics , Kodak started it in 1977 and most camera manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon dont know why really lol
Dang that's a lot of money for 110 film. What company did you buy it from?
Well, for 110 film there are not many choices so this film is very useable from that perspective.
True, but to that end I think better results could be had getting a 35mm to 110 film slicer (available on Etsy, not from me) and then respooling used cassettes with better-quality film like Gold 200, Ektar 100, Provia, etc.
@@DavidHancock Respooling film may also cause troubles like scratches or sometimes cracked cassettes and requires quite some skills. At the end of the day 110 is kind of a dead format, it's more like experiencing a different way of taking a photo rather than creating decent images. Still, nice video, very informative. Thanks!
8x10 has 234x the area of 110
Thank you! That's the number I needed. 😀
Wow. That was harsh and obvious. 110 film so much fun and my favorite go to for casual shooting in the weekend with my Minolta zoom 110 or my Pentax Auto110. If you want perfection get yourself a Nikon Z9. 🙄
I think the only thing really harsh about this review was the contrast in the photos; I go out of my way to make these videos as balanced with positives and negatives as possible. The film and the format are what they are and, like I said in the review, I enjoyed using this film. I don't think anyone expects perfection from any 110 film, to but level setting people who haven't used it before and explaining why the film performs as it does will help people who pick this up for the first time get the most of of it.
@@DavidHancock I see. However the video ends with a very categorical commitment like: "never again" which doesn't seem very encouraging for those who may have wanted to try...
@@gianlusc I understand that perspective, and I understand why you hold it. I believe that same closing paragraph also notes that I plan not to use this again primarily due to cost and the relative benefit with this particular film stock. I will still maintain that this review isn't particularly harsh.
I just wanna use my Pentax Auto 110. Someone make 110 not difficult please.
:D It's easy, just expensive.
The 200 ISO for a 110-only film is absurd. Most 110 cameras expose for 100 ISO, and a minority can do 400 ISO, but Lomography does not provide the proper cartridge tabs for correct ISO reading by the camera. So why choose 200 ISO and rely on film latitude.
Personally I don't like Tiger. I prefer Peacock processed as E6, sharper and better colors than Tiger. I also prefer Metropolis over Tiger.
I do like shooting 110 because I like to exploit grain. But I also hate the pin holes that Lomography puts into the backing paper.
Orca I like for 110. It is the sharpest of Lomography's 110 offerings, and gives pleasing results. I can remember when Kodak sold Verichrome in 110. It had less contrast than Orca, but developed in a slow metol developer it was also very sharp. And had zero light leaks.
I would be lying if I said I would shoot Tiger again, and for the points you made. I have taken to covering the frame count window on my cameras with tin foil and black tape when I use Lomography 110 film. For years, I thought those dots were just emulsion flaws until I tried covering the window one time.
@@DavidHancock Considering that zero 110 films had this pinhole problem prior to Lomography this has to be deliberate action by Lomography to create the "lo-fi" look. If it were a manufacturing defect they have had many years to solve it, but it persists, hence a deliberate decision to retain it. It is extremely annoying and I don't know anyone who likes it. We need to speak up about it with complaints to Lomography so they eventually stop doing it. It is the sort of thing that inhibits potential growth in the format, and we want it to thrive long term.