Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Film for my analog medium format camera

Reply
Thread Tools

Film for my analog medium format camera

 
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2012
So, I'm expecting my Mamiya 645 Pro TL to arrive soon, and I'm curious
about what film to get for it.

Keep in mind that I have never shot medium format, and it's been
almost 15 years since I shot with analog film, so I'm seriously out of
the loop, but I'm eager to get back into it.

So I'm looking at 120mm film. There seems to be some differences
though, and I'm curious which film I should choose and why.

Kodak has P160WW and P400WW color film. The number seems to be the
ISO, but is this a good film?

I've also found some 120mm ISO 100 "lomography" film, which I have a
hard time understanding what it does. the LOMO was a 35mm camera, so
is this 120mm film trying to recreate the effect of the LOMO camera in
some way? Sounds intresting.

All I'm looking for here is some form of general commentary about
120mm film, the Mamiya and Things to Think About.

Thanks in advance!

--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joe Kotroczo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2012
On 07/05/2012 11:43, Sandman wrote:
> So, I'm expecting my Mamiya 645 Pro TL to arrive soon, and I'm curious
> about what film to get for it.
>
> Keep in mind that I have never shot medium format, and it's been
> almost 15 years since I shot with analog film, so I'm seriously out of
> the loop, but I'm eager to get back into it.
>
> So I'm looking at 120mm film. There seems to be some differences
> though, and I'm curious which film I should choose and why.


No, you're looking for 120 film, which is 60mm wide. Or 220 film, which
is also 60mm wide. Depends on which back you're getting with the camera?
AFAIK there's also 135 and polaroid backs.

> Kodak has P160WW and P400WW color film. The number seems to be the
> ISO, but is this a good film?


Never heard them referred by these numbers, but are you talking about
Portra 160 and Portra 400? Google should come up with loads of reviews.

> I've also found some 120mm ISO 100 "lomography" film, which I have a
> hard time understanding what it does. the LOMO was a 35mm camera, so
> is this 120mm film trying to recreate the effect of the LOMO camera in
> some way? Sounds intresting.


No, that's just a batch of discontinued Agfa APX 400 B&W film sold with
a Lomography label. But given that it's at least 7 years old film, you
might still get interesting "effects".

Lomo has a nice list of available 120 film here:

<http://microsites.lomography.com/filmshop/120>

--
Illegitimi non carborundum
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Joe Kotroczo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > So I'm looking at 120mm film. There seems to be some differences
> > though, and I'm curious which film I should choose and why.

>
> No, you're looking for 120 film, which is 60mm wide. Or 220 film, which
> is also 60mm wide. Depends on which back you're getting with the camera?
> AFAIK there's also 135 and polaroid backs.


The camera hasn't arrived yet, so I can't double check, but it was my
impression that it was to be delivered with a 120mm back.

> > Kodak has P160WW and P400WW color film. The number seems to be the
> > ISO, but is this a good film?

>
> Never heard them referred by these numbers, but are you talking about
> Portra 160 and Portra 400? Google should come up with loads of reviews.


Yes, sorry, the full listing is:

Negativ färgfilm P160WW 120-film 5-pack Potra

So regardless of the spelling, it seems to be Portra 160/400

> > I've also found some 120mm ISO 100 "lomography" film, which I have a
> > hard time understanding what it does. the LOMO was a 35mm camera, so
> > is this 120mm film trying to recreate the effect of the LOMO camera in
> > some way? Sounds intresting.

>
> No, that's just a batch of discontinued Agfa APX 400 B&W film sold with
> a Lomography label. But given that it's at least 7 years old film, you
> might still get interesting "effects".


Hmm? These are 120mm ISO 100 color "lomography" film...

Here is a pic of the box:
http://www.kaffebrus.com/files/100frontr.jpg

Doesn't strike me as refurbished 7 year old film to me

> Lomo has a nice list of available 120 film here:
>
> <http://microsites.lomography.com/filmshop/120>


Right, it appears that the branding is the same as the "official"
lomography film from that site, but the official site doesn't seem to
carry this ISO 100 color film (anymore?), which probably means it's
not in production any longer.

Any comment on this film? Why would I get lomo 120mm film for my
camera? Does it differ from 35mm in a LOMO camera? I'm note sure how
these two worlds combine



--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe Kotroczo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2012
On 07/05/2012 15:18, Sandman wrote:
(...)
>>> I've also found some 120mm ISO 100 "lomography" film, which I have a
>>> hard time understanding what it does. the LOMO was a 35mm camera, so
>>> is this 120mm film trying to recreate the effect of the LOMO camera in
>>> some way? Sounds intresting.

>>
>> No, that's just a batch of discontinued Agfa APX 400 B&W film sold with
>> a Lomography label. But given that it's at least 7 years old film, you
>> might still get interesting "effects".

>
> Hmm? These are 120mm ISO 100 color "lomography" film...
>
> Here is a pic of the box:
> http://www.kaffebrus.com/files/100frontr.jpg
>
> Doesn't strike me as refurbished 7 year old film to me


How do you know? I still think it's re-branded old stock.

>> Lomo has a nice list of available 120 film here:
>>
>> <http://microsites.lomography.com/filmshop/120>

>
> Right, it appears that the branding is the same as the "official"
> lomography film from that site, but the official site doesn't seem to
> carry this ISO 100 color film (anymore?), which probably means it's
> not in production any longer.


Well, if it is old stock, they can only sell it as long as the stock lasts.

> Any comment on this film? Why would I get lomo 120mm film for my
> camera? Does it differ from 35mm in a LOMO camera? I'm note sure how
> these two worlds combine


It's "surprise" film, you never know what you'll get.


--
Illegitimi non carborundum
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter Irwin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2012
Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> So I'm looking at 120mm film. There seems to be some differences
> though, and I'm curious which film I should choose and why.


The number 120 for the film has nothing to do with the
dimensions, it was just a sequential number assigned by
Kodak. In the early days, Kodak introduced a new rollfilm
format for nearly every camera. Around 1912 they numbered
the existing sizes from 101 to 129, and then finished the
series off with 130.

120 film was the film for the no.2 Brownie, which was the
best selling camera from 1901 to 1932. The film for the
most popular camera was widely available, and so a lot of
camera manufacturers made cameras that took that size film.

> All I'm looking for here is some form of general commentary about
> 120mm film, the Mamiya and Things to Think About.


All the films from Kodak, Fuji and Ilford are good.
400 speed film is easier to shoot hand-held than
100 speed film. An 8x10 made from a 645 400 speed
negative will show some grain, but generally less than
a 100 speed 35mm negative making the same size print.

Peter.
--
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Sandman writes:
>
> > So regardless of the spelling, it seems to be Portra 160/400

>
> Portra is nice for people pictures. And the 400 is okay to use for MF because
> the larger format offsets any increase in grain, although Portra has never
> been a grainy film.
>
> Examples of this and other films, in both MF and 35 mm:
>
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan1.jpg
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan2.jpg
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan3.jpg
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan4.jpg
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan5.jpg
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan6.jpg
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan7.jpg
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/testimages/scan8.jpg


Amazing shots and amazing grain, thanks!


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Joe Kotroczo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>> I've also found some 120mm ISO 100 "lomography" film, which I have a
> >>> hard time understanding what it does. the LOMO was a 35mm camera, so
> >>> is this 120mm film trying to recreate the effect of the LOMO camera in
> >>> some way? Sounds intresting.
> >>
> >> No, that's just a batch of discontinued Agfa APX 400 B&W film sold with
> >> a Lomography label. But given that it's at least 7 years old film, you
> >> might still get interesting "effects".

> >
> > Hmm? These are 120mm ISO 100 color "lomography" film...
> >
> > Here is a pic of the box:
> > http://www.kaffebrus.com/files/100frontr.jpg
> >
> > Doesn't strike me as refurbished 7 year old film to me

>
> How do you know? I still think it's re-branded old stock.


I have no idea, really, just got the impression that it wasn't

> >> Lomo has a nice list of available 120 film here:
> >>
> >> <http://microsites.lomography.com/filmshop/120>

> >
> > Right, it appears that the branding is the same as the "official"
> > lomography film from that site, but the official site doesn't seem to
> > carry this ISO 100 color film (anymore?), which probably means it's
> > not in production any longer.

>
> Well, if it is old stock, they can only sell it as long as the stock lasts.


Indeed.

> > Any comment on this film? Why would I get lomo 120mm film for my
> > camera? Does it differ from 35mm in a LOMO camera? I'm note sure how
> > these two worlds combine

>
> It's "surprise" film, you never know what you'll get.


Haha, well, that kind of explains it then I should probbaly get
some, just to try it out


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2012
In article <jo8soq$942$(E-Mail Removed)>, Peter Irwin <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> > So I'm looking at 120mm film. There seems to be some differences
> > though, and I'm curious which film I should choose and why.

>
> The number 120 for the film has nothing to do with the
> dimensions, it was just a sequential number assigned by
> Kodak. In the early days, Kodak introduced a new rollfilm
> format for nearly every camera. Around 1912 they numbered
> the existing sizes from 101 to 129, and then finished the
> series off with 130.


Wow, I had no idea. Thanks!

> 120 film was the film for the no.2 Brownie, which was the
> best selling camera from 1901 to 1932. The film for the
> most popular camera was widely available, and so a lot of
> camera manufacturers made cameras that took that size film.


Wait, so 120 still pertains to a specific size, then? Because when I
look online, I see listings for "polaroid", "35mm" and "120" (I think
I may have added "mm" to the end of 120 myself at some point). And as
far as I'm aware, the Mamiya would only accept film of a specific
X-dimension in the back piece that it is coming with, and as far as
I'm aware, that's "120 film". Maybe I should look this up on wikipedia
before assuming anything more?

> > All I'm looking for here is some form of general commentary about
> > 120mm film, the Mamiya and Things to Think About.

>
> All the films from Kodak, Fuji and Ilford are good.
> 400 speed film is easier to shoot hand-held than
> 100 speed film.


I am predicting to do most of my MF shooting in my (amateur) studio
though, which will have sufficient lighting and needn't require the
camera to be handheld. Would you recommend the ISO 100 for studio work?

> An 8x10 made from a 645 400 speed
> negative will show some grain, but generally less than
> a 100 speed 35mm negative making the same size print.


Yes, someone sent some sample pics as a reply, and the grain was
beautiful whatever little could be seen. I don't mind grain, really.




--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Sandman writes:
>
> > So, I'm expecting my Mamiya 645 Pro TL to arrive soon, and I'm curious
> > about what film to get for it.
> >
> > Keep in mind that I have never shot medium format, and it's been
> > almost 15 years since I shot with analog film, so I'm seriously out of
> > the loop, but I'm eager to get back into it.
> >
> > So I'm looking at 120mm film. There seems to be some differences
> > though, and I'm curious which film I should choose and why.
> >
> > Kodak has P160WW and P400WW color film. The number seems to be the
> > ISO, but is this a good film?

>
> Portra was a good film for portraits and people, as the name implies. Is this
> the follow-up to Portra? I haven't been keeping track.


It seems as the model numbers above is for the Portra film, and I
can't explain why the online listing for it had that model number.

> I also liked to shoot Fuji Provia 100F, sometimes Velvia, sometimes Portra
> chromogenic black and white which had extremely fine grain (which, when used
> in MF, gives fabulous results).


Yes, I saw some samples from "Mxsmanic" which were awesome! I found
the Provia film. It's out of stock for the moment, but I'll look into
it.

But that begs the question, and I know I'm showing my ignorance not
only about MF, but analog shooting in general - the Provia I see is
"135"-film. And as far as I know, the back piece of my incoming Mamiya
is a 120 film backpiece. Is this interchangeable? Irwin said that
"120" isn't the number of the dimension, just a sequence naming
number. So would 120-film and 135-film both fit in the same backpiece?



--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe Kotroczo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2012
On 08/05/2012 07:41, Sandman wrote:
> In article<(E-Mail Removed) >,


(...)
> But that begs the question, and I know I'm showing my ignorance not
> only about MF, but analog shooting in general - the Provia I see is
> "135"-film. And as far as I know, the back piece of my incoming Mamiya
> is a 120 film backpiece. Is this interchangeable? Irwin said that
> "120" isn't the number of the dimension, just a sequence naming
> number. So would 120-film and 135-film both fit in the same backpiece?


No, 135-film is 35mm film.




--
Illegitimi non carborundum
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there a decent film scanner for 6x4.5 medium format film $500 or less? Rick Baker Digital Photography 6 03-17-2006 02:22 PM
Epson Perfection 2400 - scanning medium format film? spassig Digital Photography 1 10-13-2004 10:44 AM
11MP digital or medium format film? Beowulf Digital Photography 56 09-05-2004 04:19 PM
Help..Digital vs film for small (35mm) and medium (2 1/4) format? Digital Photography 0 05-23-2004 08:14 PM
Help..Digital vs film for small (35mm) and medium (2 1/4) format? Digital Photography 4 05-23-2004 05:43 AM



Advertisments