# 120mm & 35mm Resolution



## mrsifuentes

Seriously getting back into photography. Considering buying a Pentax 6&7 SLR/Rolleiflex for my 120 camera and Nikon/Pextax for my 35mm. Does 120mm film contain more resolution info than 35mm? Is there a huge difference when it comes to printing? What kind of scanner would I need for 120 film?


----------



## Battou

120 will have less noticable grain, this works well for printing over 35mm. The grain is the same size so to speak but the larger format makes it seem smaller by scale. As for rezolution differences I dunno, I've yet to get my 120 cameras out and shoot them, Never been able to compare for my self. with 120 processing is at a premium though, many places process little more than 35mm, but you can find places to get the 120 done. and for scanning options, also don't know, I've been using a dedicated 35mm scanner for the past year or so.


----------



## mrsifuentes

Battou said:


> 120 will have less noticable grain, this works well for printing over 35mm. The grain is the same size so to speak but the larger format makes it seem smaller by scale. As for rezolution differences I dunno, I've yet to get my 120 cameras out and shoot them, Never been able to compare for my self. with 120 processing is at a premium though, many places process little more than 35mm, but you can find places to get the 120 done. and for scanning options, also don't know, I've been using a dedicated 35mm scanner for the past year or so.



Thank you for the info Battou. The question came to mind after watching The Dark Knight which was shot on 70mm which holds more information than 35mm. 

Did some quick research. I believe this scanner does medium format Epson Perfection V500 Photo Flatbed Scanner with 35mm & Medium Format Film Holders | Freestyle Photographic Supplies


----------



## blash

Point about 120 film is that it's the analogue equivalent of having more megapixels than 35mm film. This means either that, if you were to print 35mm and 120 at the same size, that the 120 print would have less noticeable grain (i.e. noise) because the image is being squashed to a smaller percentage of its relative size than the 35mm is (as Battou said) or that you can simply make larger prints without the grain getting too bad.

Personally I print at 8x10 so I don't need Medium Format really (except maybe for ISO 400 but who cares). Since the film stock is the same between sizes and the only difference between 120 and 35mm is the size of the frame, so long as you have the proper-sized equipment (i.e. a spindle that can take 120 film), it's not going to cost you anything extra to process 120 film on your own (although some people will disagree, saying that the cost per negative goes up because you can't load as many 120 frames in at once as you could 35mm, but again, meh). For printing just scan - the V500 does have a good reputation, you should be good with that.


----------



## Steph

There is no doubt that 120 film will record more data than 35mm as the negative is larger. But there is more to it: image quality. If you make two 8x10 prints from a 35mm and a 6x7 negative you may not see a difference in perceived sharpness but the prints will look different. The transition between tones will be much smoother with the larger neg. It is hard to explain; you have to see prints side by side to appreciate that larger negatives are not just about more resolution.

Another thing to consider is what you want to shoot. You did not say in your original post. MF is not suited to all types of photography. Sport is an example.


----------



## Jeff Canes

What will you be doing with the negatives? Want type of work flow will you be using? With 35mm film you will have more & cheaper options in all the steps of processing than with 120. Have you priced and checked availability of film scanner?


----------



## ully

Why on earth would it, its the same film.


----------



## conan.

^
haha. ully, you are a "TPF Noob!" indeed.


----------



## djacobox372

This page clearly illustrates just how much more information is contained in various 120 formats compared to 35mm.

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?filmformats.html~mainFrame





It's significant; like comparing 10 mega-pixels to 43

That said, you may consider a 645 camera instead of a 6x7, you'll get more shots per roll, and it's still significantly better then 35mm.


----------



## blash

djacobox372 said:


> This page clearly illustrates just how much more information is contained in various 120 formats compared to 35mm.
> 
> http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?filmformats.html~mainFrame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's significant; like comparing 10 mega-pixels to 43
> 
> That said, you may consider a 645 camera instead of a 6x7, you'll get more shots per roll, and it's still significantly better then 35mm.



link is broken


----------



## christopher walrath

Here ya go. A 35mm black and white negative has nearly 40 billion silver halide (silver salt) crystals. When a silver halide crystal is exposed to light it converts to black metallic silver which, when developed, stays in the negative as the unexposed silver halides are washed away in the fix.

A 35mm neg is 24mm x 36mm in size. That's 46.3 million crystals per square millimeter. A medium format negative, lets just use 645 format for example would contain at 46 million crystals per square millimeter a grand total of just over 124 billion crystals.

Now, the 6x4.5 neg has three times the halides as the 35mm neg. However, when both are enlarged to the same size, say 8x10, you are focusing your negative image in the enlarger onto the paper. By doing so the grain in a properly focused 645 neg will be a third the size as that of a properly focused 35mm neg.

And don't even get started on large format.  By the numbers a 4x5 neg would have just under 600 billion crystals.  5x7 over a trilion.  16x20 . . .  I boggles the mind.


----------



## mrsifuentes

Jeff Canes said:


> What will you be doing with the negatives? Want type of work flow will you be using? With 35mm film you will have more & cheaper options in all the steps of processing than with 120. Have you priced and checked availability of film scanner?



Hey Jeff. I did find a medium format scanner for about $200.00 . For the most part I want to print 8*12, 16*24 & 24*36 . I am still researching local print shops.


----------



## blash

christopher walrath said:


> And don't even get started on large format.  By the numbers a 4x5 neg would have just under 600 billion crystals.  5x7 over a trilion.  16x20 . . .  I boggles the mind.



Why do you think large format is so expensive then? :lmao:


----------



## djacobox372

blash said:


> link is broken



sorry, here ya go:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=custom&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.photoethnography.com%2FClassicCameras%2Ffilmformats.html&ei=2GDySeWBNJncMf6ErLUP&usg=AFQjCNFxI0GyikIuCf_hnX0smFXsVbtPlA


----------



## epatsellis

christopher walrath said:


> ...And don't even get started on large format.  By the numbers a 4x5 neg would have just under 600 billion crystals.  5x7 over a trilion.  16x20 . . .  I boggles the mind.



Exactly why I shoot as large as practical, I'd rather have more to work with than less, and yes Chris, the 20x24 is coming along nicely, a few final details and I'll likely be shooting with in a month or so.


----------



## christopher walrath

Wow, man.  That's, like, frickin' huge.  I could sleep in that.  (all-folded-up-like maybe)


----------

