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

[olwick]

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? Specifically around tonality, grain, etc. I haven't shot t-grain films at all, for example. Now that my favorite Fuji 120 Neopan is no longer available in 120 I was looking at all alternatives.

Thanks,

mark

 

[PhotoJim]

You're right, sort of. Microgradation is impossible to reproduce with higher-quality films; the only way to get it is to shoot a larger format.

So in short, while modern 35mm film is similar in quality to 120 film of a couple or three decades ago in many ways, 120 still looks better.

There are lots of good 120 films. Not sure if Fuji has stopped making Acros in 120, but if it has, Delta 100 and T-Max 100 are still hard to beat. And the old stand-bys (Pan-F Plus, FP-4 Plus, Plus-X) are still very good.

 

[jpberger]

If you are looking to experiment with t-grain films also consider tmax 400-- now a much better film than it was in its previous incarnation, and quite amazing for the speed. The only films no longer in 120 are neopan 400, bw400cn and txp everything else is business as usual so no need to compromise, unless you just want to see if you are able to get what you need with a smaller camera.

 

[fschifano]

Acros is still available in 120, but you might be forced to buy a 5 roll pack. Fuji stopped marketing individual rolls, but that doesn't stop a retailer from selling individual rolls from 5 roll pro packs.

 

[2F/2F]

So in short, while modern 35mm film is similar in quality to 120 film of a couple or three decades ago in many ways, 120 still looks better.

They look different, not better. Nothing is ever just "better." It is better for achieving something, or better in a certain way. Criteria must be named before the word "better" has any actual objective meaning.

I could just as easily say that 35mm film is "better" than larger film, just as you said that it is not...and we'd both be wrong in our use of the word better without established criteria to which to link it. I certainly think that 35mm is better than medium format in terms of tonality when certain things are desired (and when I desire these things, I use it over 120/220). I also think that medium format film is better than 35mm film in terms of tonality when certain other things are desired (and when I desire these things, I use it over 35mm).

In response to the OP, black and white films are amazing today, and incredible prints are possible from it when it is used with care. However, 35 and medium format simply have a different look, due to a large number of factors. Due to certain physical facts (magnification and lens differences being perhaps the most important), neither will ever be able to exactly duplicate to look of the other.

 

[2F/2F]

Acros is still available in 120, but you might be forced to buy a 5 roll pack. Fuji stopped marketing individual rolls, but that doesn't stop a retailer from selling individual rolls from 5 roll pro packs.

Freestyle has the new five packs in the store, BTW. They were out for a while as the transition occurred, but not any more.

 

[ntenny]

What's the limiting factor in achieving microgradation? Naively, I'd expect it to be grain size---that is, if you cut the grain size in half, you should be able to cut the film area in half while achieving the same tonal gradations (unless the resolution limits of the lens interfere, I guess). Is it in fact that simple?

-NT

 

[wiltw]

Guys, 35mm film IS the same as MF film!...the only difference is the frame size, and the area of film dedicated to the same amount of subject. Yes, there are some emulsions available in 35mm which are not available in 120 roll, but Tri-X is Tri-X and Tmax 400 is Tmax 400, regardless of size.

 

[2F/2F]

What's the limiting factor in achieving microgradation? Naively, I'd expect it to be grain size---that is, if you cut the grain size in half, you should be able to cut the film area in half while achieving the same tonal gradations (unless the resolution limits of the lens interfere, I guess). Is it in fact that simple?

-NT

I think the limiting factor in achieving micro gradation is that something is a visible thing.

I think what you are asking about is how its characteristics change as various image parameters change, not whether or not it is achieved. It is not a certain level that can be reached. It is simply a characteristic of an image that can be described.

 

[ntenny]

I think the limiting factor in achieving micro gradation is that something is a visible thing.

I think what you are asking about is how its characteristics change as various image parameters change, not whether or not it is achieved. It is not a certain level that can be reached. It is simply a characteristic of an image that can be described.

I'm not sure what you mean, which probably means I didn't think my question through quite carefully enough. Let me try again.

When we look at a photo, we're not seeing a "bitmap" of grains-on and grains-off; our visual systems are doing something akin to averaging the black and white values over a very small area. The result is that we say "that point on the image is 38% grey", or whatever the value is---even though what we really mean by "point" is "small area", and what we mean by "38% grey" is "38% of the silver grains in that area have been reduced to metallic silver".

That's oversimplified, of course---we do all kinds of additional visual processing, our brains emphasise certain features and tend to ignore others, and so on---but basically the "gradation" of an image is the map of perceived grey values at different points in the image.

In that light, it makes sense to take one image---say, a 6x9 negative on Super XX---and ask "can I 'achieve' the same gradation that this image has in 35mm?"

If the 35mm comparison is to the same film, of course the answer is likely to be "no"; there aren't as many grains to play with, so I can't achieve as many different values in a smaller area. But if the 35mm film is much finer-grained---so much so that I have the same number of distinct grains in the area of a 35mm frame as in the original 6x9 frame---isn't the answer almost automatically "yes"?

-NT

 

[Q.G.]

If the 35mm comparison is to the same film, of course the answer is likely to be "no"; there aren't as many grains to play with, so I can't achieve as many different values in a smaller area. But if the 35mm film is much finer-grained---so much so that I have the same number of distinct grains in the area of a 35mm frame as in the original 6x9 frame---isn't the answer almost automatically "yes"?

Yes.
If the premise is that a really good 35 mm film is better than a poor MF film, and you are asking if a really good 35 mm film is better than a poor MF film, the conclusion cannot be anything but that a really good 35 mm film is better than a poor MF film.

The question that lurks behind that is whether there are really good films that produce better results on 35 mm format than other, less good films on MF format.

The big question to be answered, once you have found the answer to that, and only when that answer is affirmative, is why you wouldn't use that really good film in a MF camera.

I'm trying to understand what you are asking: is it if the passing of time, better emulsions available today, would make it possible to make do with miniature format?
Assuming that that same passing of time, better emulsions and all, has done nothing to what you can achieve using larger formats?

 

[Ian Grant]

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?

mark

Definitely not, the last major improvements in B&W films began more than 20 years ago with the introduction of Tmax and Delta films (18 years ago). Yes there have been minor tweaks since but not of great significance.

Even if you pushed that time frame back to 40 years ago I'd have to say that the films then like FP4 were quite close in quality to current equivalent films.

Ian

 

[fotch]

Dust, nicks, scratches have stayed the same. The larger the negative the better in this regard so no, not much improvement. Larger formats are still better or size does matter.

 

[Simon R Galley]

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 :

 

[darkosaric]

Adox CMS 20 you can get in 35mm format, not in 120 role. I would say that results from this film are closest you can get to MF in 135 format.

 

[Wade D]

I agree that bigger is better. For general shooting in 35mm I use Arista Premium 100 from Freestyle. It's rebranded Plus-X and I've been very happy with it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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 :

That was my thinking when I saw Wiltw's posting, but I could not quickly put my hands on documentation stating such. Thank you Simon.

Steve

 

[MattKing]

It is important to remember that film is just one important part of an entire chain. You need to include the camera (film flatness and focusing accuracy), camera lens, enlarger and enlarger lens (or slide projector or scanner) when you consider the entire chain, and the potential qualities of the result.

Film can be the limiting factor in some circumstances, but not all.

If, however, your interest is in results that favour smaller formats (e.g. close focus work where wide depth of field is necessary) then the improvement in film is really important.

 

[Q.G.]

If, however, your interest is in results that favour smaller formats (e.g. close focus work where wide depth of field is necessary) then the improvement in film is really important.

In close focus work where wide depth of field is necessary, there is no advantage to be had using 35 mm format
Not in film choice. Nor in DoF.

 

[MattKing]

In close focus work where wide depth of field is necessary, there is no advantage to be had using 35 mm format
Not in film choice. Nor in DoF.

Depends on your need for convenience and relative ease of use, and whether you can afford to acquire special purpose equipment.

With the right budget ($, time and storage space) I'll agree with you.

 

[bblhed]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If, however, your interest is in results that favour smaller formats (e.g. close focus work where wide depth of field is necessary) then the improvement in film is really important.

In close focus work where wide depth of field is necessary, there is no advantage to be had using 35 mm format
Not in film choice. Nor in DoF.

As QC correctly points out. If the magnification of a close object is the same the focal length drops out of the depth of field equations. Thus for the same magnification and image size the theoretical DOF is the same. But some lenses are better than others at this.

Steve

 

[cfclark]

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.

If you want BW400CN in 120, I know where some can be had--Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto had three 5-packs when I went in a couple of days ago, and I bought one (so I'll have a total of 10 rolls to my name). Unless someone's snapped it up, there should be two left, and I think they will ship.

 

[Q.G.]

As QC correctly points out. If the magnification of a close object is the same the focal length drops out of the depth of field equations. Thus for the same magnification and image size the theoretical DOF is the same. But some lenses are better than others at this.

Steve

Off topic, but this is where a lot of misunderstanding arises.
The focal length does not drop out of the equation. The focal length combined with any of the other things measured in mm produces the thing you mention: magnification and image size. It's still there.
(The ubiquitous, and wrong, DoF formulae ignore that, and incorporate both scale and focal length, for some inexplicable reason allowing the focal length to have an effect twice.)


I tried BW400CN, and think that if you want B&W film, you'd do far, far better using a real B&W film.
The thing you find lacking in 35 mm format, bblhed, you will also miss in 120 format.

 

[2F/2F]

BW 400 CN is the film for you if you want to print black and white pix on color paper, and/or only want quick mini lab prints. Otherwise, I'd try Ilford's XP-2 if you for some reason need a black and white film that can be processed at a drugstore, but that will be printed optically on black and white paper. 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.