Anybody gone fully from 35mm to 120?

[Robert Lai]

Saying goodbye to a lot of 35mm gear

Saying goodbye to a lot of 35mm gear

I have had the same thought as you over the past few months. So much so, that I've put my M7 up for sale on the big auction site, along with a few very expensive M mount lenses. Although the Leica image quality is unbeatable for 35mm film, it's still 35mm film in the end. And, it's a very expensive way to imprint these little postage stamp size negatives.

My Nikon gear will soon follow on the auction block. I do have a lot of macro gear - lenses and ring flashes. That's the only area where I may hesitate in getting rid of all the 35mm SLR gear. That is a forte of the SLR.

Otherwise, I feel that the simple Bessa R and some LTM lenses will take care of my 35mm travel needs. I also have a Canon Sure Shot P&S for travelling.

If I didn't have rolls of 35mm film stocked up, I would probably have sold all this stuff off sooner. I have done some film sales here, and I may do a few more in the future. Waiting to finish 36 frames can sometimes be an eternity.

The Rolleiflex 3.5F and Kodak Medalist II 6x9 provide image quality in large quantities. I really like the Medalist - only 8 frames before I finish the roll. Just enough for family occasions.

 

[f16sunshine]

I gave up 35mm for all of 2010 and 2011 shooting mostly digital or with a Rollei or 6x9 fuji and 6x9 Bessa folder. 4x5 doing a bit of the work as well
Then came back to 35mm for B+W. It's that look of a grittier image with "thinner" tones and higher grain that are possible at same enlargement sizes (as compared to medium/large format) .
Not sure exactly how to describe it. It's sort of a special effect/character thing.

 

[35mmdelux]

I went from 120 to 35mm long time ago. I wanted gear I could take anywhere without encumbrance. Having said this, wouldn't mind getting another Makina to round out my gear.

 

[dof]

I've found that the choice of formats is related to my choices in subjects.

I switched completely to 120 (the Hasselblad) fifteen years ago and after eight years came back to the 135 fold (via Leica). As of this year I am using both.

The increase in tonality that 120 offers relative to 135 is astonishing and well worth the trade-off in handling and ease of carrying the gear - for some subjects.

When I shot 120 exclusively, I was particularly interested in landscapes and loved using the camera mounted on a tripod, shooting AgfaPan 25 rated at ISO 12 to get the most detail possible.

After several years of refining those methods, I began to find it all a bit stifling and started searching for a less formal approach. One aspect of that search was that my attention was drawn to different subject matter. In my case it was the quiet side of what we might call street photography and the louder side of what goes on in urban nightclubs. The smaller camera/hand-held approach was, and is, more immediate and thus effective as a means to capture those moments. The image tonality is more than adequate and in some respects the "lack thereof" enhances the subjects.

I am drawn again to the tripod-mounted Hasselblad for some new work - and for these ideas, it is the better choice.

As with so much in photography, the answer is "it depends".

 

[Vickko]

I definitely prefer 120 in the darkroom, at 6x6 or 6x9. And this year, I bought a 6x12 cm roll film back, that I haven't tried yet. 35mm seems like such a toy.

 

[lrochfort]

I shoot 120 on a Hasselblad 500cm for everything except when I know I'll be photographing my son running around.

I was really very surprised with how well I can capture him at speed with the 500cm and 80mm, but 35mm wins simply for increased depth of field and faster film advance. Sometimes capturing moments means getting as many exposures as possible.

As I say for all other situations, including photographing my son when he's only doing warp 5, not warp 10, I love 120.

Lots of people mention resolution and quality in terms of sharpness and clarity, but for me it's the unique rendering, smooth tonal range transition, milder grain, and shallow depth of field that makes 120 special.

My wife tells me I may be getting a 120 folder for Christmas, about which I'm deliriously excited because the idea of 120 in my pocket is fantastic. I would love a Rolleiflex and a Mamiya 6 (non folder) to compare and contrast and see which suits me best, but alas my budget does not stretch and there's no away I'd risk selling the Hasselblad!

 

[Ansel]

I've found that the choice of formats is related to my choices in subjects.

I switched completely to 120 (the Hasselblad) fifteen years ago and after eight years came back to the 135 fold (via Leica). As of this year I am using both.

The increase in tonality that 120 offers relative to 135 is astonishing and well worth the trade-off in handling and ease of carrying the gear - for some subjects.

When I shot 120 exclusively, I was particularly interested in landscapes and loved using the camera mounted on a tripod, shooting AgfaPan 25 rated at ISO 12 to get the most detail possible.

After several years of refining those methods, I began to find it all a bit stifling and started searching for a less formal approach. One aspect of that search was that my attention was drawn to different subject matter. In my case it was the quiet side of what we might call street photography and the louder side of what goes on in urban nightclubs. The smaller camera/hand-held approach was, and is, more immediate and thus effective as a means to capture those moments. The image tonality is more than adequate and in some respects the "lack thereof" enhances the subjects.

I am drawn again to the tripod-mounted Hasselblad for some new work - and for these ideas, it is the better choice.

As with so much in photography, the answer is "it depends".

This very much echos my own experience.

 

[burancap]

I went from 120 to 35mm long time ago. I wanted gear I could take anywhere without encumbrance. Having said this, wouldn't mind getting another Makina 67 to round out my gear.

Though shooting 135 my whole life, my interest and primary shooting was in 120. So, I would say the same thing or rather that I came back to 135. I have sold all of my Hasselblad gear, but for one CM and one lens. I sold all of Rolleiflex gear as well, except for my favorite. I am down to my last folder, a Franka. Of the three, only the Rolleiflex has been used in the last year. Today, I am considering moving off all of them. Why? I guess I just love the freedom the smaller format offers. The mobility, the spontaneity, and the convenience are more important than outright perceived image quality at this time in my life.

 

[MCTuomey]

One aspect of that search was that my attention was drawn to different subject matter. In my case it was the quiet side of what we might call street photography and the louder side of what goes on in urban nightclubs. The smaller camera/hand-held approach was, and is, more immediate and thus effective as a means to capture those moments. The image tonality is more than adequate and in some respects the "lack thereof" enhances the subjects.

Then came back to 35mm for B+W. It's that look of a grittier image with "thinner" tones and higher grain that are possible at same enlargement sizes (as compared to medium/large format) .
Not sure exactly how to describe it. It's sort of a special effect/character thing.

+1 Coming back to 35mm B+W film for that *imperfect* look myself, complements certain club and urban shooting in my locale

 

[shadowfox]

One of the strength of film photography is the different formats available (with different matching cameras).

What would be the benefit for limiting ourselves to using one exclusively?

 

[hamradio]

I had sworn off 35mm for a while. After buying a full frame digital body that accepted all of my Nikon F mount lenses, it was hard to mess around with developing and scanning 35mm. The only film I shot for the last year or so was 120 and 220 in a Mamiya RZ67 and Mamiya Super 23.

However, in the past few months, I've started mess with 35mm again. Mainly with a Olympus MJU-II and Minolta XG7. The MJU is great for quick snaps, and I decided to pick up the Minolta again when I realized I had a pretty well rounded kit–28/3.5, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 135/2.8, 300/4.5–collecting dust, which I had a very minimal amount of money into.

I remembered I had a bunch of tri x, foma 100, and cheap c41 in the freezer, and figured I'd start shooting it again. I see it as more of something to play with; if I am concerned about quality with a landscape, the medium format gear comes out.

 

[Frank Petronio]

If you approach this from a results - prints on the wall perspective and the attitude of using the best tool for the job... once digital cameras became affordable/practical and increased their high ISO performance, I saw that photographers continued to use 35mm film (or Holgas or Wet Plate or...) for its "organic-imperfect" qualities in reaction to the prevalence of smooth, perfect digital images.

So watching the development of Instagram filters and VSCO-type effects that simulate the random flaws of using film is quite ironic to me.

With that in mind, to me the best remaining use of film is to make very high quality large format images that even a high-rez Phase or Hasselblad can't match.

Otherwise the remaining reason to use roll film in little cameras or struggling with alt processes is simply personal choice. Most of us don't care how hard you worked to get a picture, only that it's an interesting picture.

 

[Rogier]

There is no substitute for square inches of film :angel:

 

[Pioneer]

I love the tonality of 120 and use a lot of it.

But I also love the ease of handling that I get with 135.

Besides, I can't figure out how to get 120 film inside my Leica II. 🙂

 

[Mark T]

If you approach this from a results - prints on the wall perspective and the attitude of using the best tool for the job... once digital cameras became affordable/practical and increased their high ISO performance, I saw that photographers continued to use 35mm film (or Holgas or Wet Plate or...) for its "organic-imperfect" qualities in reaction to the prevalence of smooth, perfect digital images.

So watching the development of Instagram filters and VSCO-type effects that simulate the random flaws of using film is quite ironic to me.

With that in mind, to me the best remaining use of film is to make very high quality large format images that even a high-rez Phase or Hasselblad can't match.

Otherwise the remaining reason to use roll film in little cameras or struggling with alt processes is simply personal choice. Most of us don't care how hard you worked to get a picture, only that it's an interesting picture.

Especially if the stated purpose of the photography is reportage. 35mm will be more convenient and will work in more circumstances than 120.

 

[KenR]

I still use 35mm for the compact size of the cameras and the speed of the lenses. But whenever possible I use 120. My Mamiya 6 is my hiking camera and my Fuji GSW690 goes on shorter hikes and special walks. There is no comparison between the quality of 120 and 35mm. The negs seem to print effortlessly - is it because I take my time more with the larger format and actually think about the exposure? Whatever it is, it's worth the extra effort to lug the big boys around!

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I've gone back and forth a few times between 35mm and 120.

Back when I bought my first Bronica S2a, it took the place of my Leica M4 about 50%. I sold the S2a then shot more 35mm for a few years, mostly during school, then went to digital.

Once I got an M8 then an M9, I completely stopped shooting 35mm film.
I DID keep shooting 120 though with a Fuji G690BL. That got sold, i got a Rolleiflex and loved it but only for a summer.

Now I'm a digital shooter using a Nikon D3 for all of the work stuff but I shoot a lot with my Mamiya 6 system. If I had my druthers, I'd do all my work with the Mamiya but I'm not that established yet so I've got to work harder and work more. One day.

So, I still have a Leica M4 and 50mm DR Summicron but I don't shoot with it anymore. I keep it for sentimental reasons as it's one camera I took with me through the second seige of Fallujah, Iraq and it performed quite well. I'll never get rid of it even though I may not use it anymore.

I'm *trying* to get to using exclusively 120 but work dictates that I use a digital camera for its speed.

Phil Forrest

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It is personal decision.

One of the most impressive real life portraits I have seen was from OP.
"Refugees from Iraq in Armenia". Feels close and personal for me too.

If OP will choose to do it MF it will be no film wasted for sure.

 

[35mmdelux]

Though shooting 135 my whole life, my interest and primary shooting was in 120. So, I would say the same thing or rather that I came back to 135. I have sold all of my Hasselblad gear, but for one CM and one lens. I sold all of Rolleiflex gear as well, except for my favorite. I am down to my last folder, a Franka. Of the three, only the Rolleiflex has been used in the last year. Today, I am considering moving off all of them. Why? I guess I just love the freedom the smaller format offers. The mobility, the spontaneity, and the convenience are more important than outright perceived image quality at this time in my life.

Jeff,
I let go of the perfection orientation of 120 and 4x5 for the ability to snap quickly. In this sense, it is as HCB said, a sketch.

Regards - Paul

 

[35mmdelux]

...Otherwise the remaining reason to use roll film in little cameras or struggling with alt processes is simply personal choice. Most of us don't care how hard you worked to get a picture, only that it's an interesting picture.

I don't know about your hypothesis, Frank. Those little cameras with b&w film properly developed can achieve amazing results. I'm keeping my M7 and running HP or Tri 400 for the foreseeable future- Best Regards - Paul