Thoughts on 120 vs. 135 prints

[jbielikowski]

Yesterday I made some prints from my Rolleiflex (Adox 50, Rodinal 1+50 and Ilford RC De Luxe paper 18x24cm) and damn, I prefer them much to 35mm prints. It's not about the sharpness cause 35mm were made with Contax Zeiss Distagon 28mm @f/8 and good enlarging lens. I really cant name the difference, but I see it! I know that without prints its hard to tell, but is it my imagination or you ever had same feelings? (And please dont tell me "Salgado makes wonders with his 35mm prints, you need to practice" I know it 😉 )

 

[furcafe]

Medium format has more tonality.

Yesterday I made some prints from my Rolleiflex (Adox 50, Rodinal 1+50 and Ilford RC De Luxe paper 18x24cm) and damn, I prefer them much to 35mm prints. It's not about the sharpness cause 35mm were made with Contax Zeiss Distagon 28mm @f/8 and good enlarging lens. I really cant name the difference, but I see it! I know that without prints its hard to tell, but is it my imagination or you ever had same feelings? (And please dont tell me "Salgado makes wonders with his 35mm prints, you need to practice" I know it 😉 )

 

[nikon_sam]

Medium format has more tonality.

And then there's 4x5...so far I can only contact print from 4x5 but they look great...😎😱😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, it is about sharpness, unless your MF lens is pure rubbish. And tonality. And taking more time per pic.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Freakscene]

And please dont tell me "Salgado makes wonders with his 35mm prints, you need to practice" I know it 😉

Salgado's prints are made by Nathalie Loparelli
www.laboratoire-tirages-argentiques.com and you can your prints made by her too, for a remarkably reasonable cost.

Marty

 

[damien.murphy]

Salgado's prints are made by Nathalie Loparelli
www.laboratoire-tirages-argentiques.com and you can your prints made by her too, for a remarkably reasonable cost.

Marty

Surprisingly reasonable!

 

[ChrisN]

Yes, tonality is much better with medium format. We had an excellent discussion of this a few years ago - http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49857 .

 

[gavinlg]

Yep I see it as well. not even my FF digital kit with zeiss lenses can match my MF film gear for tonality and spacial qualities.

 

[clayne]

Medium format allows more tonality to come through due to better detail in the gradations. The scene defines the tonality and the actual tonality is still implied in formats that can't resolve the micro-details as well.

 

[jbielikowski]

Yes, tonality is much better with medium format. We had an excellent discussion of this a few years ago - http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49857 .

thank you for this link, indeed excellent.

 

[Turtle]

This is all true, but every once in a while a shot looks so much better because of the grain from a large 35mm enlargement, the roughness of it. Sometimes the reduced clarity brings a reduced literal immediacy and this can be used to evoke a different response altogether.

 

[charjohncarter]

You are right, but it is complicated (Roger touched on it). If you read the 'Edge of Darkness' by Barry Thornton you might get a feeling for the difference. I read it and all it did is make me feel like I was back in College cramming for a test (you know that point when the information entering brain is leaving your brain faster). But Barry did put into a book.

 

[MatthewThompson]

the first tmax contact sheet from my 80 T* 500C blew my mind.

 

[Turtle]

the first tmax contact sheet from my 80 T* 500C blew my mind.

You should try LF then....

 

[bwcolor]

Of course, all the above are true, but you can improve the tonality of your 35mm and degrade the medium format simply by changing film/developer. My 35mm on Acros at EI 50-100 might approach my 645 shot with Delta 3200 pulled to EI 1200. I can shoot with a 50mm f/1.2 lens where my RF545 is f/4.0.

 

[kevin m]

All factors being equal medium format kicks 135 in tonality.

 

[Ezzie]

Agree with the tonal smoothness arguments, I see it myself - hard not to. Secondly, with fewer exposures on each roll, and more expensive at that, you are forced to weigh each exposure more, keeping the no. of exposures down. I find this an advantage. More selectiveness when taking the picture as opposed to after.

 

[MatthewThompson]

You should try LF then....

Been there, done it. All the way to 8x10. Still have a soft spot for the 617. This thread is about 120 and 35mm.

 

[Steve M.]

I remember looking at prints from my Leica and prints from my Heliar lensed 6x9 folder once. Same subject, both taken w/ Tri-X and at the same time. The 120 shots were so smooth you wouldn't even think it was the same film. Both looked great though. But you need a really good lens in 35mm to get what's available from that tiny negative, whereas w/ 120 even the lower end lenses (which the Heliar is decidedly not) look really good. And of course the more you enlarger the greater the differences.

As for LF. I never liked the shots that much because medium format lenses are generally sharper. You only see an advantage w/ LF if you go really big in your prints.

 

[mathomas]

I've found the sweet spot for me (without much experimentation, honestly) to be a 6x9 cm camera. I've been really loving my Fuji GW690III. It's very easy to carry and handle, pretty lightweight, etc. With both Delta 100 and Ektar, I've been really, really pleased with my results. 50% more surface than a square 120 neg (though I'd still love a Hasselblad), and I like the 2:3 ratio -- compatible with 135.

Admittedly, I'm printing from scans, but I'm a believer in the hybrid process (and in the pure silver process, and in the pure digital process, etc 🙂).