Film The Instant Revival (image thread)

[MoonMind]

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

MiNT InstantFlex TL70 Plus.

N.B. The image doesn't do the frame full justice - but my scanner's ceased working, and I'll have to try my best until I've figured out how to replace it (or get it back to work).

To all other afficionados: Please add your images as well!

M.

 

[wee-pics]

"my scanner's ceased working"
I've stopped using the scanner for years now. Instead I'm taking a photo of the prints with the 2.8/60mm macro mounted. Can't tell if the quality is better or worse, but I'm content with the results as I don't need posters printed from these, just normal size (max. 13x18 cm).

 

[MoonMind]

"my scanner's ceased working"
I've stopped using the scanner for years now. Instead I'm taking a photo of the prints with the 2.8/60mm macro mounted. Can't tell if the quality is better or worse, but I'm content with the results as I don't need posters printed from these, just normal size (max. 13x18 cm).

That's what I was trying to do - but I found (find) it tedious, and quality isn't convincing so far; at least I liked the results from the (just adequate) scanner component of my multifunctional printer better. But it's a fact that for instant images, scanning may be overkill. I just found the process way easier to control.

Anyhow, my OS seems to have decided not to recognize the scanner signal any more, at least not via shared network resources. I'll probably try connecting via USB before deciding on a way forward, but it may be time for a new photo printer anyway (I've already looked into options). My only concern is that the issues may actually be caused by the router rather than the printer, but I've so far not managed to identify any possible root cause. I'll fiddle with some ports, but ... well, it's mainly a nuisance.

M.

 

[MoonMind]

Three from the NONS SL660:

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

To give you an idea of the viewfinder (or rather, mirror) coverage, the ball was in the lower right corner ...

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

It's possible to get a feel for the actual framing. I still wouldn't bet on getting it right every single time, though.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Ever so slightly over-exposed, but I still like the result.

All in all, the NONS SL660 is a very rewarding camera to shoot because of the quality you can get from the system. Truth be told, I think the real gem is the NONS 50mm f/1.8 with its high contrast und good sharpness. But the SL660 is sturdy and reliable - a great base, and certainly one of the best instant cameras available today. The ability to adapt lenses from other systems is the icing on a very tasty cake.

M.

 

[MoonMind]

Two (more) from the Lomo'Instant Wide:

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Stacked filters (ND on UV) may have contributed to heavy vignetting - but the lower left corner seems less affected than the others. ND4, only some bright portions in the sky, no exposure compensation in-camera, so, potentially two stops underexposed; the sky doesn't show that, nor do the brighter clouds - I'd say about half to two thirds of a stop under-exposed in this brief drop of the light, nowhere near two stops as might have been expected. N.B. This print was dropped to the muddy ground and suffered some scuffs and scratches from getting cleaned and dried off ...

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

No ND, no exposure compensation in camera. I quite like the shot, but if anything, it clearly illustrates the problems Fujifilm Instax film has with bright areas: While the high-contrast scene's been well captured in the foreground, the sky's completely blown out.

It is what it is - but these shots show how much better both the NONS SL660 and the MiNT TL70+ can do, both in terms of exposure and IQ-wise.

I'd be really interested in seeing the results from the lens of the Lomo'Instant Wide Glass - but truth be told, the rest of the electronics are more or less the same, so I don't think the differences will be major - except of course for sharpness and probably contrast.

M.

 

[MoonMind]

Okay, please bear with me here for a moment ...

I found a way to "talk" to the scanning unit on my somewhat "old" (by technology standards) Canon Pixma MG7750; some of my earlier problems may be related to VPN - subnets and handshake and what have you. But that's not the point.

Here are the images I'm getting. Same prints!

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

In spite of a few minor teething problems, the results are so much better and more true to the originals that there's simply no question about the way forward. Heck, I'll even get another dedicated USB scanner if this setup doesn't work ...

M.

 

[MoonMind]

A couple from the Lomography Lomo'Instant Wide (the original).

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Sorry, sloppy scan, should have cleaned the glass first (the image itself isn't dirty or anything), but: Exposed for the sky - highlights nicely preserved, but murky shadows. Still, fine for an Instax image.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Overexposed and not very sharp in spite of the "right" setting on the lens ("1-2m" - I was about 1.5m away) - a typical "portrait" image as far as exposure goes on the Lomo'Instant Wide. The Wide Glass' "f/22" setting would have taken care of the DoF issues ...

M.

 

[NoSeconds]

My middle spawnling.

Instax Mini 40 with mono film, reproduced with my google pixel phone.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)