Just tried shooting 110 film. Think I would like 120 film?

[nascarfann]

I want to really shoot more film and I am trying to decide between 35mm and 120. I really liked shooting 110 film because of the pocket size, and was wondering if I should try 120. I don't have much money so it's really one or the other. Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[AgX]

There are cheap, basic type 120 cameras as the Agfa Isola (not Isola I). Thus no need to spend much money to try. Instead spend that money on processing equipment.

 

[pentaxuser]

How big do you intend to make your prints? If they will be no more than 8x10 then there are a lot of advantages to 35mm

pentaxuser

 

[nascarfann]

ras as the Agfa Isola (not Isola I).

I am more concerned about processing costs.

Instead spend that money on processing equipment.

I am terrified of chemicals so that will probably not be an option. Developing black and white by hand does sound appealing though. I have worked with many polaroid transfers though, so maybe I am freaking out over nothing.

How big do you intend to make your prints? If they will be no more than 8x10 then there are a lot of advantages to 35mm

I am planning to mostly share my photos online. If I make prints they will be at most 11X14 and mostly 8x10 or smaller. I would only make an 11X14 if the film was a PanF like film or fine grain slide film.

 

[saman13]

Since I started printing and shooting 120 film, I almost never shoot 35mm now. It's just way more enjoyable to work with 120 in the darkroom.

But, before I started shooting 120, I was perfectly happy shooting and printing 35mm. So, you'll be happy either way.

 

[removed account4]

I am more concerned about processing costs.

I am terrified of chemicals so that will probably not be an option. Developing black and white by hand does sound appealing though. I have worked with many polaroid transfers though, so maybe I am freaking out over nothing.

I am planning to mostly share my photos online. If I make prints they will be at most 11X14 and mostly 8x10 or smaller. I would only make an 11X14 if the film was a PanF like film or fine grain slide film.

no need to be freaking out over photochemicals
they are not benign but they are not crazy dangerous
especially if you are doing regular black and white processing.
and if need be you only really need 3 chemicals, developer and fixer and fix remover
you don't need stop bath and can use water instead. fix remover is like a 2 minute or 1 minute operation
and saves your water bill. and there are some folks who use kitchen cupboard
stuff like instant coffee to process film so it has the potential to be pretty tame ...
you can easily enlarge 35mm past 8x10. some people don't like to do it for pesonal reasons ...
but there really is no reason why you can't ... i've got 16x20s printed from non fine grained 35mm htey look nice.
i'd go with 35mm instead of 120. more frames / roll,
( frames=fun )... besides,
35mm cameras are pretty compact and depending on what you get can easily fit in your coat or shirt pocket

good luck !

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I want to really shoot more film and I am trying to decide between 35mm and 120. I really liked shooting 110 film because of the pocket size, and was wondering if I should try 120. I don't have much money so it's really one or the other. Any advice would be appreciated.

used 120 or 6x6 folders cost around $20 and give you large negatives with plenty of detail;It doesn't always have to be a Rollei or Hasselblad.110 oil is very small and hard to make large prints with 35mm is not a ad compromise.

 

[Paul Manuell]

I shoot exclusively on 120 these days, but would say to you that either 35mm or 120 are going to be a big improvement on 110. 120 is obviously the best quality due to larger negative size, but 35mm is more readily available and gives you more shots per roll. There are cheap or expensive cameras available in either format, so there's bound to be something available to you, no matter what your budget. Loading 120 can be a bit fiddlier than loading 35mm, but easy once you're used to it.

 

[Cholentpot]

used 120 or 6x6 folders cost around $20 and give you large negatives with plenty of detail;It doesn't always have to be a Rollei or Hasselblad.110 oil is very small and hard to make large prints with 35mm is not a ad compromise.

Can you point me to one of these? I'm looking for a pocket-able 6x6 for the summer.

To Mr. Poster fellow.

I would suggest making the jump to 35mm then to 120. 35mm crams down into a nice small package. 120 tends to be bulkier. You also get many more shots from 135 film than 120.

 

[RattyMouse]

I am more concerned about processing costs.

I am terrified of chemicals so that will probably not be an option. Developing black and white by hand does sound appealing though. I have worked with many polaroid transfers though, so maybe I am freaking out over nothing.

Process your own film and costs become nothing. There is no reason at all to be afraid of photographic chemicals. All you have to do is wear gloves and glasses. Even if you get some incidental contact, just washing it off is more than enough effort to maintain safety. Your only real risks are eye contact (again, not too big a deal if quickly washed off) and ingestion. Don't eat the chemicals and you are OK. Some of the C41 chemicals may have some odor to it so that could be an issue, but black and white chemicals are pretty much odor free. Stop bathes can smell like vinegar but unless you are allergic to that smell, it's bearable for the entire 60 seconds you use that chemical.

Seriously, more than half the fun of film photography is developing your own film. Don't miss out on that. Once I developed my first black and white roll, I never went back. Never.

 

[nascarfann]

you can easily enlarge 35mm past 8x10. some people don't like to do it for pesonal reasons ...
but there really is no reason why you can't ... i've got 16x20s printed from non fine grained 35mm htey look nice.
i'd go with 35mm instead of 120. more frames / roll,

I am a big grain person so 35mm might be better just because of that.

Seriously, more than half the fun of film photography is developing your own film. Don't miss out on that. Once I developed my first black and white roll, I never went back. Never.

I think I am going to try it because I am terrified of my film getting lost or damaged in the mail system!

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Can you point me to one of these? I'm looking for a pocket-able 6x6 for the summer.

To Mr. Poster fellow.

I would suggest making the jump to 35mm then to 120. 35mm crams down into a nice small package. 120 tends to be bulkier. You also get many more shots from 135 film than 120.

Isolette are pretty cheap and not that bad, although they are scale focus thought (meaning you need to calculate the distance, since lens has no rangefinder coupled).

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=Isolette&_sacat=0

Regards

Marcelo

 

[Ian Grant]

110 is a larger format than 120, I wish I could get some film, my camera would need a rather large pocket but that's what they were made for. Joking apart my Alliance Roll Film Camera co camera takes 5"x4" negatives on 110 roll film

Personally I don't like grain so would suggest a 120 folding camera, I have a couple of post WWII Agfa's that cost me around £5 ($6.5) each and are in excellent condition.

35mm I recently bought a couple of Praktina FX2 cameras one with the legendary CZJ 58mm f2. Biotar lens the other with a Tessar, one with the Biotar was £35 body was engraved dropping it's value, the other with a Tessar was £30 but near mint and with a cas. These are 1950's professional cameras funky, fun, and remarkably good.

Or get a cheap Russian rangefinder camera with an f2 50mm Jupiter 8, a Fed 3, Zorki 4, or a Kiev 4.

Ian

 

[Saganich]

Sounds like you want an in the pocket walking around 35mm. Look for a compact 35mm, like LOMO or Olympus Pen, or others in that vein.

 

[RattyMouse]

I am a big grain person so 35mm might be better just because of that.
I think I am going to try it because I am terrified of my film getting lost or damaged in the mail system!

You will not regret it. There's a whole new world of enjoyment waiting for you with this hobby. After a few practice runs you'll be able to develop a few rolls of film in just about 30 minutes time, clean up included! It will take far longer for your film to dry than to process it!

 

[Cholentpot]

Isolette are pretty cheap and not that bad, although they are scale focus thought (meaning you need to calculate the distance, since lens has no rangefinder coupled).

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=Isolette&_sacat=0

Regards

Marcelo

Thanks,

I ain't 'fraid of no scale focus. No sir!

 

[MattKing]

If your only film experience is with 110, you might find 35mm to be a more appropriate next step. Film handling with 35mm is a bit simpler(In most ways) than 120.
I love printing from 120, but I have completely satisfying 11x14 prints from 35mm in frames.
As you are planning to restrict yourself to a scanning workflow, you may find that the availability of scanning choices for the two formats should probably be taken into account when you make your decision.

 

[Paul Manuell]

110 is a larger format than 120, I wish I could get some film, my camera would need a rather large pocket but that's what they were made for. Joking apart my Alliance Roll Film Camera co camera takes 5"x4" negatives on 110 roll film

Personally I don't like grain so would suggest a 120 folding camera, I have a couple of post WWII Agfa's that cost me around £5 ($6.5) each and are in excellent condition.

35mm I recently bought a couple of Praktina FX2 cameras one with the legendary CZJ 58mm f2. Biotar lens the other with a Tessar, one with the Biotar was £35 body was engraved dropping it's value, the other with a Tessar was £30 but near mint and with a cas. These are 1950's professional cameras funky, fun, and remarkably good.

Or get a cheap Russian rangefinder camera with an f2 50mm Jupiter 8, a Fed 3, Zorki 4, or a Kiev 4.

Ian

Umm...

 

[AgX]

Yes, it took me a moment to understand Ian's joke. Seemingly he is even more (deeper) living in the past than me ...

 

[Ian Grant]

Umm...

Check out film sizes you'll find 110 roll film was approx 4" wide, was introduced around the mid to late 1890's, I can't access Wikipedia it's banned here in Turkey or I'd post a link. I think the last rolls were produced in the 1930's. Some cameras also took a plate back but not mine unfortunately.

Kodak later re-used the number for their first sub 35mm film format.

Ian

 

[AgX]

No. 110 rollfilm was cancelled in 1929.

 

[David T T]

If you like grain go with 35mm. Get an Olympus XA, those are a blast, nice lens, cheap, and fit in your jeans pocket. Off you go!

Aaaaand then you'll be wanting a 120 format camera.

 

[removed account4]

I am a big grain person so 35mm might be better just because of that.
I think I am going to try it because I am terrified of my film getting lost or damaged in the mail system!

35mm you have options for grain or not much grain. you have options of being pocketable or if you want one
that can interchange lenses, carried in a pouch with other "stuff" you regular 35mm or half frame or even
square aspect ratios and vintage lenses. i can see why you would be worried about the mail
but us mail is pretty safe ... be leary of pharmacies and wally's they might not return your negatives ...

 

[Ces1um]

given that you want a small camera, and minimal processing costs, then I'd say 35mm is for you. 35mm gives you more photos per development cost (my lab charges the same for 35mm or 120, but I get 36 photos with 35mm vs 12 or so for 120). Cameras are typically smaller and more abundant. Most labs provide free scans when you develop your 35mm but charge big coin for scans of 120. Obviously both formats have their strengths and weaknesses but from what I've read here I'm thinking 35mm might be a better call for your situation.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

If economy is your thing and you like grain, try an Agat 18K! It's 35mm half frame, so you'll get twice as many photos,and the images will have more grain due to the smaller size. It is scale focus (in meters) and the manual exposure tools built in to the camera work quite well. I believe this camera has a capable triplet.

The main hiccup with this camera to me is that scaled "program" type exposure employed. You select aperture and shutter in a direct relationship to each other with no ability to change them separately - so no ability to do f/3.5 at 1/500 or f/16 at 1/30.