Quality of today's 35mm film vs older MF film?

[wiltw]

Dear Wiltw,

35mm film is not the same as 120 film...

It is true some manufacturers finish one film to the two formats, but not KODAK, FUJI & ILFORD the emulsions are obviously designed to look and behave in exactly the same way, but the coating regime, and especially the bases are NOT the same. Thats why some films are available in 35mm only, as it may not be viable to produce a 120 film as volumes are significantly lower. To finish up, sheet film is also different from
120 film and 35mm film in the same product family.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology limited :

thank you for the correction. But do you mean to say that the emulsion itself is different too? O r is the formulation of the emulsion the same for both, but coated onto different base media and with different antihalation coatings? I know about Ektar Thick base for Kodak sheet film, for example, vs. less fancy base for rollfilm. And one would assume that a different ISO valuation for 135 vs. 4x5 sheetfilm is an indication of possible emulsion formulation difference, but this thread was about 135 vs. 120 'difference', is there a documented example of this emulsion difference occuring?

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Wiltw,

The 'core' of the emulsions are the same, but you have differences in the way they are prepared for coating between the front coat and the back coats for each of the formats, also the the final 'mixes' are different due to different coating speeds etc, etc,

Kind Regards

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

To the OP: drag your old 35mm out with some sharp prime lenses. Shoot some Adox CMS 20. Develop in the special soup. Enlarge. Compare your prints to your 20 yr. old 120 roll film prints.
See if you can honestly say the 120 film prints are better.
Jed

 

[thegman]

By better I assume you are trying to say higher resolution on a given size print, if so yes on an 8X10 print by a 35mm negative you might notice a bit more grain. I love 120/220 format cameras and film, but I will also admit that unless you are shooting to make quite large enlargements (billboards) or you plan to get really close to the print it probably won't make a difference to the average person looking at an 8X10 at arms length.

That said, the film I miss the most in 120 format is Kodak BW400CN, I have tried it in 35mm, but there is just something lacking, teh prints look as clear, but something intangible is missing, probably just an emotional attachment.

Try Ilford XP2 in 120, I've only used BW400CN and XP2 in 135, but can't really tell the difference.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=11

Cheers

Garry

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Thegman,

Your absolutely correct in that the films are basically similar in being C41 processed and 'monochrome' colour process films, and they are also both excellent films, the only difference, as aluded to in previous posts, is in the masking, in that CN is designed to print mono onto colour paper and XP2 Super is designed for printing onto true monochrome paper, it can be printed onto colour paper in a minilab but really only as a proof print ( due to colour cast ) unless they are A) and excellent lab with knowledge of printing monochrome from XP2 Super or B) using a FUJI Minilab that has been converted to our ILFORD monochrome D*****L paper.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[tlitody]

The grain size of modern films is smaller if you are using the likes of delta 100 with the right developer so enlarging from 35mm today can give you bigger prints without grain becoming evident compared to older MF film. But regardless of which format you use, the size of the circle of confusion on film has not altered. And it is the magnification of the circle of confusion that causes the break down of the image quality at a fixed viewing distance so there is no difference there. So there is an improvement due to smaller grain but no improvement due to circle of confusion.

The only thing you can do is to try some films in 35mm format and see how you like the look. It will be different. It might look better or it might look worse. But with excellent technique and tripod mounted camera and using the right developer, there is no reason why you can't produce stunning looking 20x16s. They will look different from 120 format but that doesn't make them bad. Looking bad means they don't match your viewing criteria. You may have to change your viewing criteria.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Mark,

HI,

I've been shooting B&W MF film for a while, but haven't shot 35mm in a long time - probably 20 years.

I know that B&W film technology has changed quite a bit over the last 20 years. Would you say that the 35mm film of today is equal to the medium format films of 10-20 years ago?

it depends, but under some circumstances, yes. At least you can come quite close to former MF quality (or MF quality of films with classic cubic emulsions) with the more modern Delta, T-Grain and Sigma-Chrystal films.

For example, if I look at the pictures from the eighties of my old "trusty workhorse" Ilford FP4, and compare them with my new trusty workhorse Delta 100 (new is relative, because I am enjoying this film since its introduction in 1992 ), then they are quite close.

In some cases I can even get finer detail with 35mm Delta 100 compared to 120 FP4+.
I have made very detailed tests:
Test chart with relative low object contrast of 1:3 to 1:4 (an object contrast which you can find in nearly all scenes, therefore relevant for daily photography).
Delta 100 in 35mm in combination with a Zeiss ZF 2/50 at f4 (outstanding lens):
Resolution of 135 - 150 Lp/mm (135 clearly separated lines, at 150 you can still see a contrast difference).
Yashica Mat 124 G (at f8, sweet spot of the lens) with FP4+:
Resolution of 70 - 80 Lp/mm.

To make these values a bit more clear you can transfer them into "information units" (= megapixels):
Delta 100 35mm with the Zeiss lens: 63 MP
FP4+ 120 with Yashinon lens: 61,4 MP

The significantly higher resolution and finer grain of Delta 100 compared to FP4+ and the significantly higher resolution of the Zeiss lens compared to the Yashinon (which is a very good lens nevertheless) are compensating the format advantage of 120 medium format film.
If I look at the prints in comparison, the Delta 100 / Zeiss pictures look a bit sharper, the FP4+ / Yashica pictures have a little advantage concerning grain.

That there are even some 35mm films on the market, with which I can even outperform 6x9 in combination with the Zeiss 2/50, is a complete other story.....

Best regards,
Henning

 

[clayne]

It is also good if you need an incredibly large dynamic range from your film to get what you want to get onto the film. However, the same thing that gives it such a large dynamic range also makes it look very much different from a "true" b/w film in terms of tonal relationships. it can look incredibly muddy when shot in flat light.

I highly doubt any c-41 film is truly giving higher dynamic range compared to a standard non-dye coupled emulsion. They're both SILVER based.