Different grain in 135 & 120?

[jvanoort]

Last night I developed my first ever 120 Film, shot with my new Yashica D.

I used Ilford HP5+, souped in D-76 1:1, same recipe as my 135 film I developed later last night.

Al went well, untill after almost 4 minutes I realized I didn't use the proper amount of developer for 120 film: 300ml instead of 500ml! What can I say...first 120 film...
I quickly added 200ml more and decided to develop for two minutes longer (13m instead of my usual 11.5 min).

The negatives came out alright, although you can see that the top of the film hasn't developed as well as the bottom half.

Anyway, I am very content with the amount of grain, contrast and detail, really beautiful negatives!

So, 15 minutes later I developed another roll I shot the same afternoon (so the same subjects with the same light conditions) with my Agfa Silette.

135 film, Ilford HP5+, D-76 1:1, 11.5 minutes.
This is business as usual, but one thing I don't understand:

the 120 film has far less grain as the 135 film! Not only visually because obviously you have to enlarge a 135 more, but also physically, say when you take a square cm.

How is that possible? Does any of you share this experience?
Same film (apart from the format), same developer, practically the same developing time, different grain.
If anything, I would think that the 120 should have more grain, because of the slightly longer developing time, no?

120 film:

135 film:

 

[Athiril]

All I can say is youre a lucky ducky....

as per grain: you've used a the incorrect amount of chemical and had diff times, to remove variables, you'd want to use the same dilution strength in the right amount, and same agitation and dev time and temp and examine with a really good loupe, or a microscope or dedicated scanner. etc.

Otherwise I dont know any differences in HP5+ between 35mm and 120.

 

[jvanoort]

So I'm not the only one who makes that mistake
I'm a lucky ducky for the outcome alright, although BW is a little more forgiving in that respect...

Anyway, I still can't get my head around the grain difference in 120 and 135 film.

Point is: I prefer the looks of the 120 (apart for the obious development mistake), but I'm not sure I can do that again
Both correctly and incorrectly developed sides of the 120 film look better and less grainy than the 135...

 

[df cardwell]

How is that possible?

A trick of perception ? A nice trick, though.

 

[jvanoort]

You might be right to a certain degree though: because of the better contrast and sharpness of the 120 it just might be perception...
And one other variable: different camera's: the Silette (Agfa Apotar glass) is nice, but optically not up to par with the Yashica, even with it's Yashikor glass (+ lens hood!).

 

[2F/2F]

Grain is the same between the two. The emulsions are the same. At the same enlargement factor, the grain will appear the same. If there are differences, they are caused by differences in the images themselves or in the chemical processes. Exposure, development, density, and also printing manipulations (printing an underexposed image up, or significantly raising contrast, for instance) can affect how grain appears grain quite noticeably.

Are you sure that you enlarged each print by the same factor? Not to the same image size, but by the same factor. For instance, an 8x enlargement of a 35mm negative makes a 20 cm wide print. However, an 8x enlargement of a 6x6 cm negative makes a 50 cm wide print. Therefore, you would need to compare the 20 cm print from 35mm to the 50 cm print from 6x6 to compare the grain.

Of course, this means that a 20 cm print is an 8x enlargement for the 35mm neg, but only a 3-1/3x enlargement for the 6x6 neg...so of course the grain will be less visible in the print from the 6x6 neg. This is just one of the reasons why film real estate matters so much: At a given print size, a larger neg will require less enlargement than a smaller neg....or at the same enlargement factor (hence the same "image quality", in theory), the larger neg will produce a larger print.

 

[jvanoort]

I guess so...thanks!

But still: nice to see how much more beautiful a 6x6 negative looks compared to a 35mm, perception or not

 

[jvanoort]

Are you sure that you enlarged each print by the same factor? Not to the same image size, but by the same factor. For instance, an 8x enlargement of a 35mm negative makes a 20 cm wide print. However, an 8x enlargement of a 6x6 cm negative makes a 50 cm wide print. Therefore, you would need to compare the 20 cm print from 35mm to the 50 cm print from 6x6 to compare the grain.

I didn't print at all! I judged the grain by looking at the negative itself through a strong magnifying glass...

 

[ic-racer]

So many things influence grain. Your films likely DO have different grain because of all the uncontrolled variables involved in your tests.

As in many things with photography, Murphy would predict that if you like these effects, you will be unlikely to duplicate them, and if you don't like the different grain, it will persist, no matter what you do

 

[jvo]

increased agitation? or maybe decreased agitation on the 120 because of the solution shortage and resultant addition with an interval variance?

 

[jvanoort]

Maybe...anyway: I'm looking forward to processing my next 120 film. I'll post the results here when I'm done.