Thoughts on 120 vs. 135 prints

The film base thickness for the same film is less for the 120 version compared to the 135 version. See Tri-X - the 120 base film thickness is 3.9mm vas. 5 mm for the 135 version. There is probably some minor refraction effect that causes a difference in negative and print quality.
 
In terms of working with these various formats, I think of 135 as a sketch, 120 as a painting, Large Format as a fresco. Sketches can be quick and easy with limited detail, but they can have energy and raw ideas. A painting can require more thought in composition and detail. This is, of course, grossly generalized since the complete opposite can occur in reality, but I keep this frame of mind when I switch between formats. Certainly I have been impressed with 120 enlargements in the darkroom, but with 135 I have moments that wouldn't have waited for me while I focused my TLR.
 
120 film will give your print a luminescent quality that's impossible to achieve 35mm. I shoot both, and 120 is always superior in every way. As for those fleeting moments, well, that's the big trade-off. But there's something else here, too: 120 is a lot more fun to work with in the darkroom.
 
Has anyone tried to compare a 35mm print to an equivalent one made from a 35mm-sized section of a 120 negative? This should reveal any differences between the film structures and show (I believe) the issue is one of enlargement. I have seen this effect also and have wondered what the basis for the difference is.
With 120, the tone scale seems smooth but with 35mm they seem stepped. It’s like with 120 you can get half and quarter stop changes but with 35mm they almost seem like full stops between tones.
I don’t know if this is the reason but with 120 I can use a little higher contrast in printing. With 35mm, if I go too far with higher contrast, the images get too gritty and I pull back. I guess it just that with a larger negative you have more freedom while printing.
 
The above is caused by the half-tone effect. In reality, tronal transitions are as subtle with 35mm. You just have to view them for farther away to get away from the emerging salt and pepper of the grain.

well printed 35mm prints can be extremely luminous. This is a function of paper and printing, not neg size. 120 will always have greater 'photo-reality' and thus the image can appear to have more depth because the things in it have more 'reality' where structures can be broken apart by grain in 35mm and we know that in the real world things are not so affected.
 
What I really want to try is some MF digital gear - namely the Mamiya ZD or the Pentax 645d... I wonder how they would compare to 120 film and FF digital...
 
Bigger is better.

It may not be about sharpness at your print size but keep going bigger and the 120 will hold up longer.

That's why I like large format, I never even think about loss of quality. I do however think about the pain in the butt it is to lug a tripod around Brooklyn. :)
 
Bigger is different! Been to 10x8 and bigger and also wetplate positive and negatives. I am coming back to 35mm having started with a Contax G2 for my 40th - hints for an M9 for my 50th :)

I theink you are trying to compare two different things in that most folk using rangefinders will make different images than those with most types of MF gear. You are looking at 'different qualities' in the resulting print. Bigger negs will have greater tonal graduation all things considered but could the same image have been made on 35mm and MF.
 
mwoenv said:
The film base thickness for the same film is less for the 120 version compared to the 135 version. See Tri-X - the 120 base film thickness is 3.9mm vas. 5 mm for the 135 version. There is probably some minor refraction effect that causes a difference in negative and print quality.
Click to expand...

This is the key, its the base density (as in densitometer). The film base for 120 is <50% that of 135. In other words, how transparent an unexposed piece of film is.

Take 2 pieces of unexposed film, one 120, one 135. Run a densitometer check on each (or you could scan them). The 135 will be at least 50% 'denser" = darker than the 120. This means you have to push that much more light through the 135 to achieve the same print exposure as 120. In short, the 120 is much easier to print.

You can compensate for the denser negatives by overexposing your 135. One of the best and most reliable method for getting good negatives and prints was given by Fred Picker's book 'The Fine Print.' Essentially, you need to determine your effective film speed using the film and developer combination you plan to use.

I learned and used this system in the early 90s when I was in college and ran the darkroom for a professional portrait photographer. I'm not bagging, but when I finally took a photo elective for fun late in my college career I ended up teaching a couple of the instructors how to print fine B&W. This system works and, most importantly, is reproducible.

A cheap and easy substitute for doing the test is to overexpose your negatives by 1/2-1 stop. Its very tough to really blow the highlights in B&W negative film, so you should be ok. Since the entire negative will be more dense your print exposures will be longer, but you should retain all of the tonality of 120, albeit with a little more work.

Good luck.
 
I spent years working with 120 and Rolleis and, yes, 120 has a creaminess that is difficult to recreate on 35mm. No doubt about it, skin tones on 120 are the biz. Giving up the darkroom and moving to a digital output made me look at 35mm - or was it a lifelong hanker after Leica?! Anyway, I am quite amazed at the quality of Leica and CV lenses and I think the flexibility offered by a wider range of lenses goes a long way to making up for some loss of sharpness. Anyone disagree with that?

Ray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom