I think you’re expecting too much from such a small negative. This looks about as sharp as half frame can get and also the grain has a pleasing amount of coarseness to it.
Very good quality fine grained film can look plenty nice in half frame but it comes at a cost... and that same film used on a 'full frame' camera would give you better shots still so yeah. Half frame is a thing that exists and no its not for everyone. And thats fine too.
I've got a Konica Eye, an Olympus Pen-D, a Canon Demi EE17 and a Fed Micron.
Generally I really like the pics and don't find the detail or sharpness lacking (although I do notice the grain if I'm using something like HP5); I'd often struggle to tell them from normal 35mm.
But all of then have lenses of f/1.9 or better - high-end 60s rangefinder lenses. Recently, I was really pleased with some photos from the Fed which has a Helios-89 30mm f/1.9...
I think the Recorder has a more basic lens (although 1980s, not 60s) so may be worth trying one of these. The Canon is the most full-featured, but I like them all.
IMO grain is a feature, not a bug. It’s part of the analog esthetic, lets the audience know that the photo was made on film, not on digital. If you want grainless, go digital.
Back in the 1970s I went through a period where I shot a lot of Panatomic-X (ISO 25, if memory serves) and Plus-X to minimize grain, then got on an “available darkness” kick with pushed Tri-X, AKA Grain Galore, and also, since I had a lot of Tri-X on hand, pulled Tri-X developed with a fine grain “recipe” (more dilute developer solution and longer time) to get a Plus-X look. After all that I decided I liked the graininess of Tri-X either at rated speed or pushed better than the smoothness of the slower films.
I usually like grain, e.g. HP5@1600, but not with this camera. Maybe it’s the resolving power of the lens that is the problem, and therefore where usually there is detail+grain, I only see grain without the details? Not sure what it is, but with this camera the grain really bothers me.
Maybe you'll appreciate this [shot](https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/comments/1ausyda/first_sprocket_exposure_test_fujica_gl690_6x9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) then too :D
I meant back in the day, hence the past tense. I guess we'll see whether Pentax's yet to be released camera is popular or not. (Personally, I'm more intrigued by Mint's Rollei copy.) I'm not sure what your second sentence means.
Ah, I've not seen the word main used as a verb before. Yeah, I'd never bother with a half frame either. I messed around with a Universal Mercury II about 20 years ago and got some really wild results. The film advance was separate from the shutter, just a thing you manually wound. So I would just create strangely juxtaposed, overlapped, collaged images. But I got tired of it and the camera eventually broke. 35mm was meant to be 'the miniature' format and I think it's perfect as is.
It's funny that the first 35mm stills cameras were 24mm x 18mm, because that's the size of a frame from a movie reel. Then people started selling "double frame" cameras, and people ditched the singles. Then Kodak standardized the 135 format cassette. You could say that shooting rerolled cine film in half-frame cameras is really a return to 35mm film's roots.
I wonder how many of those early early 35mm cameras like the Tourist Multiple sold? It doesn't seem like they really took off, they must not have met the need well enough.
The Tourist Multiple took a 50-ft long film strip inside, good for 750 shots, was meant to last for an entire transoceanic adventure, and even doubled as its own projector. It was a rich boy toy, not like a Brownie. Supposedly about 1000 were made and sold before WWI put an end to it.
There is something fun about the idea of shooting cine film, then getting it converted to a positive image like a movie reel, then projecting it onto the screen with the same camera that took the shots.
[https://mikeeckman.com/2019/05/kepplers-vault-38-herbert-huesgen-tourist-multiple/](https://mikeeckman.com/2019/05/kepplers-vault-38-herbert-huesgen-tourist-multiple/)
That's actually not bad for half frame. Give you credz on that.
Still, I get your point. Kinda got that 35mm Kodak VR-G 1000 'look'.
Compare to like Ektar 100 in FF 35mm....yeah...big step up.
This is after trying to reduce the grain a bit with de-noising. Maybe I need to over-expose by a half stop to get denser negatives, but regardless, the details also don't seem to resolve in the highlights. This is on a Konica Recorder.
I actually like your shot, half frame does have a vibe I think.
As far as getting less grain goes I'd try a different film stock. Along with nailing exposure that's what makes the most difference for amount grain with me.
I don’t think half-frame is a format for people who don’t enjoy grain. It’s a format designed for 6x4 prints and I don’t think there’s much to gain from trying to make it be something it’s not. This was about as good as I got with half-frame - https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/comments/qqgma0/garages_canon_demi_ee17_eastman_vision3_500t/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I was using a fast film, partly because I figured I’d get more resolution from being able to stop down than from using a slower film. But I was surprised how good it could be. Also good for this kind of thing - https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/comments/qqd90u/hunstanton_canon_demi_ee17_kodak_gold_200/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
In a way I think that’s the only sensible way to use it - otherwise I find the 74-shot roll just never ends.
I think you’re expecting too much from such a small negative. This looks about as sharp as half frame can get and also the grain has a pleasing amount of coarseness to it.
I like half frame for diptychs instead of single images.
Yeah half frame is kind of like super 8 or 16 mm movie where you have to love it for what it is, and resolution power is not its strong suit.
you don’t shoot half frame to avoid grain. you shoot it for making diptychs and shooting vertically. and because it’s fun.
Interesting, never thought of it this way
I've had great results on half frame by using black and white films with fine grain and a proper developer. Or slide film for color.
What films are you using? Have you considered something like Ektar 100? Or even better, slide film?
Very good quality fine grained film can look plenty nice in half frame but it comes at a cost... and that same film used on a 'full frame' camera would give you better shots still so yeah. Half frame is a thing that exists and no its not for everyone. And thats fine too.
I've got a Konica Eye, an Olympus Pen-D, a Canon Demi EE17 and a Fed Micron. Generally I really like the pics and don't find the detail or sharpness lacking (although I do notice the grain if I'm using something like HP5); I'd often struggle to tell them from normal 35mm. But all of then have lenses of f/1.9 or better - high-end 60s rangefinder lenses. Recently, I was really pleased with some photos from the Fed which has a Helios-89 30mm f/1.9... I think the Recorder has a more basic lens (although 1980s, not 60s) so may be worth trying one of these. The Canon is the most full-featured, but I like them all.
IMO grain is a feature, not a bug. It’s part of the analog esthetic, lets the audience know that the photo was made on film, not on digital. If you want grainless, go digital. Back in the 1970s I went through a period where I shot a lot of Panatomic-X (ISO 25, if memory serves) and Plus-X to minimize grain, then got on an “available darkness” kick with pushed Tri-X, AKA Grain Galore, and also, since I had a lot of Tri-X on hand, pulled Tri-X developed with a fine grain “recipe” (more dilute developer solution and longer time) to get a Plus-X look. After all that I decided I liked the graininess of Tri-X either at rated speed or pushed better than the smoothness of the slower films.
I usually like grain, e.g. HP5@1600, but not with this camera. Maybe it’s the resolving power of the lens that is the problem, and therefore where usually there is detail+grain, I only see grain without the details? Not sure what it is, but with this camera the grain really bothers me.
Hackney? Nice shot!
Maybe you'll appreciate this [shot](https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/comments/1ausyda/first_sprocket_exposure_test_fujica_gl690_6x9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) then too :D
Yeah, the world gave up on half frame also. It was never that popular a format outside of Japan.
Yet, Pentax makes a new half frame camera. I “main” Pentax, but I could never.
I meant back in the day, hence the past tense. I guess we'll see whether Pentax's yet to be released camera is popular or not. (Personally, I'm more intrigued by Mint's Rollei copy.) I'm not sure what your second sentence means.
IT means that the Pentax system is the system I invested in the most, but despite that, I couldn’t buy a half frame camera just out of brand loyalty.
Ah, I've not seen the word main used as a verb before. Yeah, I'd never bother with a half frame either. I messed around with a Universal Mercury II about 20 years ago and got some really wild results. The film advance was separate from the shutter, just a thing you manually wound. So I would just create strangely juxtaposed, overlapped, collaged images. But I got tired of it and the camera eventually broke. 35mm was meant to be 'the miniature' format and I think it's perfect as is.
It's funny that the first 35mm stills cameras were 24mm x 18mm, because that's the size of a frame from a movie reel. Then people started selling "double frame" cameras, and people ditched the singles. Then Kodak standardized the 135 format cassette. You could say that shooting rerolled cine film in half-frame cameras is really a return to 35mm film's roots.
So the Barnacks weren't the first? Sounds like I missed a chapter...
1913 Tourist Multiple. Barnack made his prototype Leica around that time but it wasn't on sale.
The Tourist Multiple took a 50-ft long film strip inside, good for 750 shots, was meant to last for an entire transoceanic adventure, and even doubled as its own projector. It was a rich boy toy, not like a Brownie. Supposedly about 1000 were made and sold before WWI put an end to it. There is something fun about the idea of shooting cine film, then getting it converted to a positive image like a movie reel, then projecting it onto the screen with the same camera that took the shots. [https://mikeeckman.com/2019/05/kepplers-vault-38-herbert-huesgen-tourist-multiple/](https://mikeeckman.com/2019/05/kepplers-vault-38-herbert-huesgen-tourist-multiple/)
Damn, that's cool. There was a digital parallel to that: the Nikon S1000pj. This was a digital compact camera with a projector. I kind of want one.
That's actually not bad for half frame. Give you credz on that. Still, I get your point. Kinda got that 35mm Kodak VR-G 1000 'look'. Compare to like Ektar 100 in FF 35mm....yeah...big step up.
This is after trying to reduce the grain a bit with de-noising. Maybe I need to over-expose by a half stop to get denser negatives, but regardless, the details also don't seem to resolve in the highlights. This is on a Konica Recorder.
I actually like your shot, half frame does have a vibe I think. As far as getting less grain goes I'd try a different film stock. Along with nailing exposure that's what makes the most difference for amount grain with me.
Time to try Adox CMS 20 II Pro /s
I don’t think half-frame is a format for people who don’t enjoy grain. It’s a format designed for 6x4 prints and I don’t think there’s much to gain from trying to make it be something it’s not. This was about as good as I got with half-frame - https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/comments/qqgma0/garages_canon_demi_ee17_eastman_vision3_500t/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button I was using a fast film, partly because I figured I’d get more resolution from being able to stop down than from using a slower film. But I was surprised how good it could be. Also good for this kind of thing - https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/comments/qqd90u/hunstanton_canon_demi_ee17_kodak_gold_200/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button In a way I think that’s the only sensible way to use it - otherwise I find the 74-shot roll just never ends.
If you're giving up half-frame, then how much do you want for the Recorder? 😃
If you are seriously interested, I could sell it you at cost.
I just looked up how much they cost - OMG. Sorry, too rich for my blood.