135 vs 120 Developing Question

KidA · Feb 17, 2016

Recently, I did a shoot of a friend using flash with my OM2sp and Hasselblad 2000fcm. The film was HP5 in both bodies/backs, and developed in the same tank using HC-110 'A' pushed N+2. Most of the 120 roll's exposures were taken right after the 135 exposure (same light intensity, lighting angle, subject matter...basically a very similar image). I made sure to set the aperture the same on both exposures to get the same amount of light. The 135 roll came out quite dense and made sense, (I metered for 1000) and the 120 roll came out quite thin in comparison.

Am I missing something in the cameras, lenses? Are emulsions for these two formats not the same?

JW PHOTO · Feb 17, 2016

Same subject distance from flash? Did you use an incident flash meter for both setups?

KidA · Feb 17, 2016

Same, same, same... I actually used my digital camera to meter which I always do with flash.

Sirius Glass · Feb 17, 2016

135 and 120 film of the same emulsion have different development times. When possible stick with the film manufacture's information.

The film bases are also different thicknesses.

MattKing · Feb 17, 2016

Different cameras = different shutters.

Was the illumination from continuous light or flash?

Was the development done in the same tank at the same time?

MattKing · Feb 17, 2016

N + 2 development makes it unlikely that thin negatives arose from a development difference. Contrast differences maybe, but not shadow detail. I note as well that Ilford does not have different development recommendations for different formats: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2015416153431192.pdf

Synchronization problems might be a source of problems. Have you noticed any similar problems with existing light exposures?

Are there any filters on your lenses?

pbromaghin · Feb 17, 2016

Does a Hasselblad shutter have an x/m selector?

MattKing · Feb 17, 2016

pbromaghin said:
Does a Hasselblad shutter have an x/m selector?

If he is using the focal plane shutter in that camera, probably not.

ic-racer · Feb 17, 2016

KidA said:
The 135 roll came out quite dense

I'd guess something wrong with your 35mm camera. HP5 exposed at ISO 1000 would not be dense.

KidA · Feb 18, 2016

Shutter speeds didn't affect the neg as I was using flash with little ambient light and I always use the fastest shutter speed I can (unless I want ambient light control) which is 1/60 on the OM and 1/90 for the Hassy. It was indoors, at night in very dim light at f5.6-f11. Inside my house I'm usually metering f/2 1/60-1/30 at 1600 and this light was even dimmer than usual. My in camera meter was buried when I looked thru to compose. I can assure you, ambient light had insignificant effect on the negs.

Sirius Glass said:
135 and 120 film of the same emulsion have different development times. When possible stick with the film manufacture's information.

The film bases are also different thicknesses.

Development times are the same for the two formats.

MattKing said:
N + 2 development makes it unlikely that thin negatives arose from a development difference. Contrast differences maybe, but not shadow detail. I note as well that Ilford does not have different development recommendations for different formats: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2015416153431192.pdf

Synchronization problems might be a source of problems. Have you noticed any similar problems with existing light exposures?

Are there any filters on your lenses?

When you say 'existing light' do you mean available light in which the shutter matters as well?
No Filters were used at all during the shoot.

ic-racer said:
I'd guess something wrong with your 35mm camera. HP5 exposed at ISO 1000 would not be dense.

Exposed at 1000 and pushed two stops should yield dense negatives.

MattKing · Feb 18, 2016

KidA said:
Exposed at 1000 and pushed two stops should yield dense negatives.

If you exposed the film based on a meter reading using an EI of 1000, you will have thin shadows. Increasing development (pushing) won't affect that.

Highlight densities will be affected by the increase in development.

I asked about existing light, because both of the cameras offer open aperture metering. That could be a source of malfunction.

And I raised issues of synchronization because it could be relevant if you were using a leaf shutter lens on your focal plane shutter Hasselblad body.

paul ron · Feb 18, 2016

Two different shutters! One of them is off.

Hatchetman · Feb 18, 2016

paul ron said:
Two different shutters! One of them is off.

Or both!

darkosaric · Feb 18, 2016

Try to do this test if you have Holga/Diana or similar 120 camera: shoot 120 and 135 film in the same camera, develop in the same tank together. Compare the results.

KidA · Feb 18, 2016

MattKing said:
If you exposed the film based on a meter reading using an EI of 1000, you will have thin shadows. Increasing development (pushing) won't affect that.

Highlight densities will be affected by the increase in development.

I asked about existing light, because both of the cameras offer open aperture metering. That could be a source of malfunction.

And I raised issues of synchronization because it could be relevant if you were using a leaf shutter lens on your focal plane shutter Hasselblad body.

I made sure to expose enough for shadows to have enough detail taking into consideration the development I would be putting the rolls thru. I didn't meter using the cameras. I used the SAME aperture on both lenses for the same shots anyways, which begs the question: why the difference between rolls?

Hatchetman said:
Or both!

paul ron said:
Two different shutters! One of them is off.

I was using flash with no ambient light. Shutters made little difference if any at all. Also, regarding shutters, I have experience with both cameras, and shutters are working properly when using available light.

KidA · Feb 18, 2016

darkosaric said:
Try to do this test if you have Holga/Diana or similar 120 camera: shoot 120 and 135 film in the same camera, develop in the same tank together. Compare the results.

I might just try this.

JW PHOTO · Feb 18, 2016

Maybe it's not your shutter in the OM? Are you sure your lens is stopping down properly? I'm sure if some of us saw your exact setup and procedure we might have a "light bulb" moment, but I just can't tell from this distance. Sorry! John W

Ricardo Miranda · Feb 18, 2016

A couple of questions for KidA:
What mode did you use on the OM-2SP? Program, Auto or Manual/Spot?
Why did you push the film?

KidA · Feb 18, 2016

Ricardo Miranda said:
A couple of questions for KidA:
What mode did you use on the OM-2SP? Program, Auto or Manual/Spot?
Why did you push the film?

Manual
Pushed film to get (mostly) more grain and also I could use the jump in contrast.

JW PHOTO said:
Maybe it's not your shutter in the OM? Are you sure your lens is stopping down properly? I'm sure if some of us saw your exact setup and procedure we might have a "light bulb" moment, but I just can't tell from this distance. Sorry! John W

The lenses used have always seemed to work... Never had issues with any of them. Also, I used different lenses on each of the bodies (and had the same exposure readings). So unless I made the same mistake for EVERY frame, I can't seem to understand this issue...
Yeah, I know.... would be nice to have someone look over our set-ups when things go wrong.

Gerald C Koch · Feb 26, 2016

KidA said:
Manual
Pushed film to get (mostly) more grain and also I could use the jump in contrast.

The lenses used have always seemed to work... Never had issues with any of them. Also, I used different lenses on each of the bodies (and had the same exposure readings). So unless I made the same mistake for EVERY frame, I can't seem to understand this issue...
Yeah, I know.... would be nice to have someone look over our set-ups when things go wrong.

Exposure does not determine contrast. Development does. Exposure determines density. Unless you fully understand this you will continue to have problems.

Invest in a copy of Ansel Adams The Negative and read it thoroughly. It will answer a number of your problems. Well worth the money. Every serious photographer should have it and the companion book The Print on their book shelf.

xtolsniffer · Mar 1, 2016

I've found the same thing, HP5+ in the same tank, 120 and 35 mm, same subjects, same exposure, the 35mm comes out dense, the 120 thinner, and when you do contacts, the 120 takes about a half to one stop less exposure for the same density contact. It's not a shutter speed or aperture problem as it's a range of lenses on the RB67 and different Nikon camera bodies and lenses. It always happens. When you come to print from the negs, both print easily, so it's not a 'problem to be solved' but it is peculiar. I sometimes come back to it and wonder what's going on, then I realise I have more important things to do.

Rudeofus · Mar 1, 2016

Is this more overall density you see in the 35mm format negs (sort of like fog), or do the 35mm format negs look like they have more contrast than the 120 format negs?

KidA · Mar 1, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
Exposure does not determine contrast. Development does. Exposure determines density. Unless you fully understand this you will continue to have problems.

Invest in a copy of Ansel Adams The Negative and read it thoroughly. It will answer a number of your problems. Well worth the money. Every serious photographer should have it and the companion book The Print on their book shelf.

I never said I used my exposure to control contrast. I pushed to gain more contrast and grain. I learned all about negatives from the book you mentioned. Fantastic book, but it doesn't address my 'issue'

KidA · Mar 1, 2016

Rudeofus said:
Is this more overall density you see in the 35mm format negs (sort of like fog), or do the 35mm format negs look like they have more contrast than the 120 format negs?

The contrast seems to be similar, as I'm printing about the same VC grades on either 135 or 120 negs. It seems to be a density change.

MattKing · Mar 1, 2016

If it is merely overall density, it may be just the difference between the film substrates.

In other words, no difference in the actual images - just the visual appearance of the negatives.

Do you print optically, and have you compared printing from the two?

135 vs 120 Developing Question

KidA

JW PHOTO

KidA

Sirius Glass

MattKing

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

pbromaghin

MattKing

Moderator

ic-racer

KidA

MattKing

Moderator

paul ron

Hatchetman

darkosaric

KidA

KidA

JW PHOTO

Ricardo Miranda

KidA

Gerald C Koch

xtolsniffer

Rudeofus

KidA

KidA

MattKing

Moderator

135 vs 120 Developing Question

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency