vytasn
Established
My engineer nephew has access to a 3D printer and was able to download some Internet code and make two ends that attach to a 35mm cartridge in order to hack it into a medium format camera. With these in hand, I loaded a 35mm cartridge of Delta 400 into my Rolleicord and at the same time some 120 Delta 400 into another Rolleiflex. Took photos of the same scene with the same settings in either camera (3.5 Xenar vs 3.5 Planar lens the only real difference) and developed both films in the same tank of Xtol. I was not trying to see a difference in grain, I assumed it would be the same since it is the same film, I was more interested in seeing how well the 35mm film did in the Rolleicord. The image was identical on both negatives, it is just that the 35mm negative is cropped to 25 x 60mm vs the full 60 x 60 on the 120 film. However, the amount of grain visible in the 120 negative was substantially greater than the 35, it was considerably contrastier. It was almost like the difference between Tmax 100 and TriX in 35mm. Not something that I was expecting, anyone know what the explanation is for this rather dramatic difference?
Crop from 120 negative:
Crop from 135 negative:
120 Scan
135 Scan
Crop from 120 negative:
Crop from 135 negative:
120 Scan
135 Scan
vytasn
Established
I guess the grain is not that visible in these posts, you will have to trust me.
13Promet
Well-known
I can't see the grain, indeed, but - despiting the same settings - the 120 frame seems to be less exposed than the 35 one.
mfogiel
Veteran
As said above, it could be the difference in exposure, but also it could be that the 120 film is considerably older or was stored in a hot environment before shooting.