120mm film - which one?

[Overread]

Ok so my understanding of film is mostly none-existent aside from the fact that you put film in the camera and pictures appear at some point later

So with that in mind I enter the sea of film on the market and I've no idea what kind of film I really want to be aiming for. At the moment I'm certain that I want to work with colour and not black and white (might do black and white one day but for now sticking to colour). Chances are that I'll also be scanning the negatives rather than working the negatives to print directly (if that makes any difference in preferable film selection).

So now there are two sides to this - first the ASA/ISO of the film and then the actual type of film itself (for which there seem to be many types and brands). With regard to type is there any site/reference I can read which would give me some grounding as to the different effects and qualities out there as I really have no basis to say what I want from a film as such save for clean clear colour and details.

On the ASA/ISO front I know a big part of that will be determined by what and how I shoot and that experience is going to be a big part in that, however for macro with supported flash lighting what would suitable ASA/ISO powers be - should I follow the "lowest is the best" maxim or should I aim for something a little faster for grainy effect?

Lastly reliability (and I know this is going to be a tricky point) not so much just in the film itself, but in its viability on the market. I'll certainly hear about rarer/limited stock films, but something that is more mainstream would be better suited (esp in the early days as I know I'll make 1001 mistakes getting there so I don't want to really be shifting between film types whilst learning my way with the camera).

 

[Derrel]

First off, it is not 120 millimeter film, but rather just one-twenty. It's a size name, like Kodak's old 620. Or 126 or 127 or 828.

Color transparency film, also called color reversal film, or "color slide film" is probably the easiest thing to buy, get processed, and to scan/re-shoot with d-slr. The usual suspects Kodak and FujiFilm make some fine color transparency stocks. Kodak's Ektachrome line is a popular film, which is processed in E-6 chemistry. I would suggest stopping by a well-stocked camera shop, which these days can be hard to find; while there, ask the sales staff what kind of info they have on film. Brochures and pamphlets used to be available. The web sites for Kodak and Fuji are other resources.

Slower-speed films, like ISO 100, invariably have finer grain than faster speed films. For use with flash,m yuo will definitely want to buy "Daylight Type" film, which is usually not specified; instead, the opposite type, Tungsten, is normally specifically labeled as T- or Tung. or Tungsten.

There is not a "lot" of ISO flexibility to chose from in transparency film.

 

[tirediron]

Color transparency film, also called color reversal film, or "color slide film" is probably the easiest thing to buy, get processed, and to scan/re-shoot with d-slr. ...

Really? I find print film readily available and cheap to process. I'm using Fuji Reala 100 for most of my colour work (out doors) and getting very good results. For B&W, there is only one answer: Ilford! I love Ilford Delta 100. I use my MF gear almost exclusively for personal work, usually landscapes and other out-door type work where long exposures are not a problem. The lower the ASA I can find, the happier I am. If I could find a source of 32 ASA B&W print film in 120, I'd be in heaven! Given the size of negative you're working with, you will have no issues shooting 400 ASA.

 

[Derrel]

Getting good, high-quality slide film processing is pretty easy; getting good,high-quality color negative printing from 120 roll film is another matter. Slides are pretty easy to work in almost all respects.

I would suggest a visit to this Kodak page, for information on their professional films. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Films

Keep in mind--"traditional" silver-based B&W films do not scan as well as dye-based films like Kodak's chromogenic B&W film. Old-school films like Tri-X, which look lovely when printed in a wet darkroom, are not as scanner-friendly. Chromogenic B&W film can be processed VERY affordably, using standard C-41 color negative film chemistry, which is another difference between it and traditional B&W films. Again, if you want B&W images for modern scanner-based work, I'd opt out of old-school silver-based emulsions and go with something that will produce better results, faster, and easier.

 

[Helen B]

Good luck finding Kodak 120 chromogenic B&W film (BW400CN). Ilford XP2 is still available in 120. Fortunately the idea that it is difficult to scan silver-image B&W is something of a myth. Any road, you've asked for colour, haven't you?

120 and 220 C-41 (colour neg) can be often be processed by minilabs - they just won't have the ability to print it. Fuji and Kodak both make very forgiving, high quality ISO 400 colour neg. I use Portra 400 quite a lot. Nowadays I only use reversal film in the studio.

 

[thereyougo!]

in the UK BW400CN 120 is fairly easy, but I avoid it because it lacks contrast when compared with something like Kodak T max400 and ilford. You could always process the negatives yourself which will be easier on non C41 process. In the UK, C41 cab be done by nearly all outlets on site quickly. E6 is another matter. Where I go it has to be sent out and takes 4 days. Try a few out and see what results you get. I find the Ilford HP4 and 5 excellent with good contrast and fine grain
These are HP4 400ASA Ilford:

A bowler looks forlornly at the weather by singingsnapper, on Flickr


Cardiff castle chandelier by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

Helen, What consumer level scanners would you suggest that can scan old-style films like Tri-X as well as chromogenic films? Most of us do not have access to the $14,000 to $35,000 higher-end scanners that your luxurious studio has at its disposal there in New Yawk City...I'd love to hear you explode the myth for those of us who get far better scans from chromogenic B&W than we do from silver-based B&W films using scannera that mere mortals can afford.

 

[Helen B]

That's a good, reasonable question, Derrel. It's a slightly different story for MF than for 35 mm. First, we're talking about consumer-level scanners that can do justice to MF. We have a V-700 that will achieve a genuine 2200 spi resolution with MF, especially with the Betterscanning holders. To get more than that with MF you need to step up a level or three in cost. At 2200 spi you won't have much of a problem with grain aliasing. You'll see better results with silver-image film in terms of the film's inherent signature granularity (which chromogenic lacks, so it isn't there) at much higher sampling rates, but do you need it and can you afford it for MF?

Personally I don't see the point in using B&W chromogenic if you are going to scan. Use colour, and benefit from the extra possibilities during B&W conversion.

As far as I know, BW400CN has been discontinued in 120 for over a year, so grab what you can now if you want it.

Best,
Helen

 

[Helen B]

I find the Ilford HP4 and 5 excellent with good contrast and fine grain
These are HP4 400ASA Ilford:
...

Don't you mean FP4 and HP5? HP4 is long gone. (as is ASA rating...)

 

[Overread]

Thanks for the info all
Interesting that the colour reversal film is standing up a bit more here as in other spots the colour negative is getting a bit more support for apparently being a little easier on slight over/under exposure. It does however show that there is a fair amount of user preference in the market so chances are a little bit of this and that is going to be needed to work down toward what works best for me.

Also thanks for the early start on the scanner suggestions, granted that its going to be a while before I can even think of a scanner for home scanning, but something in the price range of the V-700 would not be out of the question and its good to read that it can perform to a good level of quality with the MF film, at least for a home day to day level type scanning.


On the black and white front interesting to read of the thoughts on being similar to digital - that of shooting in colour and then converting. Chances are in that case that I'd probably be only doing back and white film to get some darkroom experience (I hear its good for the photographic soul ).

 

[thereyougo!]

Thanks for the info all
Interesting that the colour reversal film is standing up a bit more here as in other spots the colour negative is getting a bit more support for apparently being a little easier on slight over/under exposure. It does however show that there is a fair amount of user preference in the market so chances are a little bit of this and that is going to be needed to work down toward what works best for me.

Also thanks for the early start on the scanner suggestions, granted that its going to be a while before I can even think of a scanner for home scanning, but something in the price range of the V-700 would not be out of the question and its good to read that it can perform to a good level of quality with the MF film, at least for a home day to day level type scanning.


On the black and white front interesting to read of the thoughts on being similar to digital - that of shooting in colour and then converting. Chances are in that case that I'd probably be only doing back and white film to get some darkroom experience (I hear its good for the photographic soul ).

If you're going to convert from colour to black and white, is there much point in shooting film at all? Contrast is different, and although the contrast in Reala 100 is impressive it is built for colour tones, not black and white. On the scanner front, I am using the V600 which is pretty good, the holder is a bit fiddly but otherwise fine.

 

[Helen B]

Interesting that the colour reversal film is standing up a bit more here as in other spots the colour negative is getting a bit more support for apparently being a little easier on slight over/under exposure.

Colour neg has much greater dynamic range than colour reversal, particularly for 'overexposure' because of the way the ISO speed or recommended EI is usually determined. Colour reversal film is intended to produce a slide that looks good in itself, and that requires that the film should have a deliberately narrow dynamic range. Colour neg is not intended as a final image, only as an intermediate, so it is not subject to the same limitation.

If you're going to convert from colour to black and white, is there much point in shooting film at all? Contrast is different, and although the contrast in Reala 100 is impressive it is built for colour tones, not black and white.

I think that the important point is that both overall and local contrast, and colour rendering are not fixed if digital post-processing is used. Shooting with colour neg film gives you an original that is capable of recording an enormous scene brightness range while permitting custom colour to B&W conversions (in terms of colour contrast) that is not possible with B&W film. Those are good reasons to shoot colour neg film when you want a B&W final image. It's all personal choice, of course.

Best,
Helen

 

[Slomoo]

It's as told, a matter of personal taste. However, I'd say. If you want to shoot film and colour. There is only slide film to consider. Fuji or Kodak. Fuji had always been my choise. The only tricky thing with slide is that you need to expose perfectly. Print film is much more forgiving....

BUT

To me print film is not worth shooting film. I'd rather go digital or perhaps shoot large format.

For BW I use only, kodak Tri-x and Fuji acros. Lovely films. Specially tri-x 320 for large format.

You will love shooting analogue.