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

 
 
Joe Kotroczo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2012
On 08/05/2012 07:33, Sandman wrote:
> In article<jo8soq$942$(E-Mail Removed)>, Peter Irwin<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:


(...)
> Wait, so 120 still pertains to a specific size, then?


Yes.

> 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?


Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format_%28film%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format




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

> 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.


Yeah, I just learned that. Thanks!

120 is 6cm wide holds about 15-16 exposures
220 is also 6cm wide and holds twice the amount of exposures
135 is 3.6cm wide

Just typing to remember myself. See, I'm learning!


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joe Kotroczo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2012
On 08/05/2012 08:37, Sandman wrote:
> In article<(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Joe Kotroczo<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
> Yeah, I just learned that. Thanks!
>
> 120 is 6cm wide holds about 15-16 exposures
> 220 is also 6cm wide and holds twice the amount of exposures


Yes, but 220 is also thinner than 120 and needs a different pressure
plate. Which is why you get different backs for 120 and 220.


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

> > 120 is 6cm wide holds about 15-16 exposures
> > 220 is also 6cm wide and holds twice the amount of exposures

>
> Yes, but 220 is also thinner than 120 and needs a different pressure
> plate. Which is why you get different backs for 120 and 220.


Yes, I looked at the manual, and indeed, there are two different backs
for my camera. Now I don't know which is included... So I shouldn't
order any film until I know


--
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:
>
> > 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.

>
> One of the advantages of medium format is that you can show higher speeds for
> film without worrying as much about grain. If you shoot ISO 400 film on your
> MF camera, you'll still get extremely smooth, sharp photos, whereas on 35mm
> the grain would be much more intrusive. Of course, if you decide to shoot ISO
> 100 film on your MF camera, the results will be extraordinarily smooth and
> silky.


Nice, thanks for the info. I will try both speeds and compare


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> 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?


Mamiya made four backs for the 645 Pro TL. One was for 120, one was for
220, one was for 135, and one was for polaroid.

120 and 220 are the same width, but 220 has twice the length and no
backing paper--since it's thinner it needs a different pressure plate
and since it doesn't have an opaque paper backing, any transport for 120
that has a window through which the frame numbers are visible will
result in exposed streaks on 220. The Mamiya 120 and 220 backs are the
same but with different inserts--the inserts are removable and
interchangeable.

135 is ordinary 35mm film, the back can be set to shoot a panorama on
135 with a single shot, other than that or using special films that are
not available in 120 it doesn't seem to have much utility.

The Polaroid back uses Polaroid film packs and is a useful accessory--in
studio use you shoot a polaroid to double-check lighting and whatnot
before going with negative film, pretty much the same concept as
chimping with digital.

All of the backs result in a 56x41.5 image except the 135 back that is
24x36 or 13x36 with the panorama adapter.

You can find details on all of them at
<http://www.mamiya.co.jp/home/camera/eng/products/645protl/access.html>


 
Reply With Quote
 
otter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2012
On May 8, 3:14*am, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> *Joe Kotroczo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > > 120 is 6cm wide holds about 15-16 exposures
> > > 220 is also 6cm wide and holds twice the amount of exposures

>
> > Yes, but 220 is also thinner than 120 and needs a different pressure
> > plate. Which is why you get different backs for 120 and 220.

>
> Yes, I looked at the manual, and indeed, there are two different backs
> for my camera. Now I don't know which is included... So I shouldn't
> order any film until I know
>
> --
> Sandman[.net]


Assuming you are shooting 120, how much will it cost per shot?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Nice, thanks for the info. I will try both speeds and compare

>
> If this is your first venture into medium format, you'll be amazed by the
> quality of the results.


I'm sure. I currently shoot with a Nikon D3s, which has amazing
quality, but gathering from the shots I've seen with this camera and
lens (80mm/1.9), it has some real potential

> Do you plan to scan the film, or project it, or optically print it, or what?


I've found a lab that can develop the film for me, and enlarge it.
Seeing as this is my first attempt in this world, I'll go about it
slowly, but I have thought about setting up a dark room in the shower
next to my studio for developing and enlarging shots myself, but
that's a later question.

> I used to scan everything with a LS-8000 (which is probably obsolete these
> days), yielding excellent scans of about 8160x8160, as I recall, that were 450
> MB in size uncompressed (60 MB as highest-quality JPEGs). They were always a
> great pleasure to look at. Had to sell all the equipment, but I still have the
> scans to remind me of the good old days.


To be truthful, I had no idea there existed medium format scanners.
This is definitely something I should look into! Thanks!

Developing the film costs about $6 per roll, which is a bargain, so
with a scanner, I would save a lot of money in the end, plus get them
digitally. SO, the question is what current medium format scanners
there might be? I'll google it!

This seems to be a contender:
<http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/j...1B178011&utm_s
ource=google&utm_medium=shopping&utm_campaign=base &ref=googlebase>

And only $600!



--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2012
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
otter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On May 8, 3:14¬*am, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > ¬*Joe Kotroczo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > > > 120 is 6cm wide holds about 15-16 exposures
> > > > 220 is also 6cm wide and holds twice the amount of exposures

> >
> > > Yes, but 220 is also thinner than 120 and needs a different pressure
> > > plate. Which is why you get different backs for 120 and 220.

> >
> > Yes, I looked at the manual, and indeed, there are two different backs
> > for my camera. Now I don't know which is included... So I shouldn't
> > order any film until I know
> >
> > --
> > Sandman[.net]

>
> Assuming you are shooting 120, how much will it cost per shot?


The camera has now arrived, and the included back is a 120 film back.

A five pack of 120 film here is about 300 SEK ($43), which thus
contains 15 * 5 = 75 shots, which means that it costs 57 cents per
shot. Then add developing, which is $9 for one roll, which adds 60
cents per roll, so $1.20 seems to be the result, per shot.

So, if I buy a medium format scanner (like the Epson V700) which
retails at $600, that adds $8 per shot to the first 5-pack of film I
buy. The more film I buy, the cheaper it gets of course.

Just a mathematical exercise, I already make about $120 per studio
shoot (I'm an amateur, remember? so it's not like I'll loose money
by trying out medium format. I paid $437 for the camera, which is
$6800 less than what I paid for my Nikon


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > So, if I buy a medium format scanner (like the Epson V700) which
> > retails at $600, that adds $8 per shot to the first 5-pack of film I
> > buy. The more film I buy, the cheaper it gets of course.

>
> Remember that you need an excellent film scanner in order to profit from large
> negatives and transparencies (if you want them digitized), otherwise you're
> just paying a lot more money for something that will produce final results
> worse than 35mm. That generally means a dedicated film scanner, if you can
> find one, not a flatbed scanner.


Hmmm, ok, I should look around for some film scanners that can take
medium format then, and compare prices... I'll create a new thread
here to ask for advice


--
Sandman[.net]
 
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