I'm getting drawn to b&w film

rjbell

rjbell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,421
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
I started like many nowadays with a DSLR. I've recently been drawn more and more at film in particular b&w film. I shoot mostly mono anyway and like the idea of developing myself. I'm considering a Minolta TLR. Is 120mm b&w trickier to develop yourself than 35mm?
Is developing and scannning better done at a lab?
 
No 120 film is no more difficult to develop than 35mm the only bit sometime catches people out is loading the film on to the developing reels, where as 35mm has sprocket holes, 120 does not. So have a swear box handy :D

As for scanning, a fair few people on here do get them scanned at the labs but from reading around it seems a little hit and miss as to how good they are, but other will no doubt give better advise then me.

Film scanners can be picked up for a reasonable cost, the flat bed scanners do a better job on the large negatives, just depends on how much you want to do.

Minolta TLR? One od the Autocords? nice bit of kit again a few of them have turned up on the forums and been used I use a Yashica 124 which I like.
 
Last edited:
Yeah i was thinking a Autocords. I'll check out Yashica 124.

I'll also have a look at flatbed scanners. Thank you guys.
 
Last edited:
Hi Robert,

most of the Yashica TLR's are excellent, I like the early Yashica Mat (not the 124 version although that is also very good) and the Minoltas also have a good rep. You might want to also consider a Rolleicord V, these can be picked up reasonably cheaply and are close to the top of the tree in the TLR league table. All of them are getting on a bit though so you might want to factor in a few quid for a CLA.
As to devving and scanning, have a go, it's fantastic. I started doing my own b&w this year and I still get a thrill out of removing a developed roll of film from the tank, wonderful. I also scan my own and an Epson V500 at about £100 will soon save you money on commercial scanning, plus if you want to sell it you won't lose much if anything as they hold their value pretty well.

Andy
 
I too started out with a DSLR but was drawn into film. I've been using a Mamiya TLR for a few months (although I've only put 17 rolls through it so far) and I love it. I keep meaning to shoot more B&W so that I can develop it myself at home to save money, but I've spent too much money on the camera and scanner lately so I can't bring myself to buy all the equipment to do it!

I bought myself an Epson V-somethingorother scanner so that I could scan my film myself. It cost about £180 but I think it's probably almost paid for itself aleady with the amount I've saved by doing it myself. I found store scans to be a bit hit or miss, and can be very costly (£5-£12 on top of dev depending on output size at my local store).

Good luck! I will keep a keen eye out on here to see how you get on :)
 
Last edited:
Great thank you. I can imagine the excitement of developing the film, which is a big factor in why i want to shoot some film.
 
rjbell said:
I shoot mostly mono anyway and like the idea of developing myself. I'm considering a Minolta TLR. Is 120mm b&w trickier to develop yourself than 35mm? Is developing and scannning better done at a lab?
Click to expand...

There's not really much of a difference in developing between 135 or 120 formats, neither is particularly difficult. I would ordinarily develop my own B&W film, but I occasionally send out some rolls to the lab for processing and scanning, especially if I have whole lot to develop—it doesn't necessarily need to be one or the other.

I think that the Autocord is easily one of the best values in photography in cost/performance terms, although there are a number of other TLRs that can produce great results, as others have already mentioned. The Mamiyas (e.g., C220, C330, etc.), Yashica Mats, Rolleicords, and Rolleiflexes are just a few of the other TLR options available. I own an Autocord and a pre-war Rolleiflex myself.

rjbell said:
Is 120mm b&w trickier to develop yourself than 35mm?
Click to expand...

Just so you know, 120 is just the designation of the format, not a measurement (120mm would be a pretty big negative and require quite a sizeable camera!). For 35mm film, the classification is 135.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format
 
skysh4rk said:
There's not really much of a difference in developing between 135 or 120 formats, neither is particularly difficult. I would ordinarily develop my own B&W film, but I occasionally send out some rolls to the lab for processing and scanning, especially if I have whole lot to develop—it doesn't necessarily need to be one or the other.

I think that the Autocord is easily one of the best values in photography in cost/performance terms, although there are a number of other TLRs that can produce great results, as others have already mentioned. The Mamiyas (e.g., C220, C330, etc.), Yashica Mats, Rolleicords, and Rolleiflexes are just a few of the other TLR options available. I own an Autocord and a pre-war Rolleiflex myself.



Just so you know, 120 is just the designation of the format, not a measurement (120mm would be a pretty big negative and require quite a sizeable camera!). For 35mm film, the classification is 135.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format
Click to expand...
Thank you. Lots to learn!
 
So what does the average tlr lens mm equiv in 135 camera terms?
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
So what does the average tlr lens mm equiv in 135 caera terms?
Click to expand...

Well, there's no exact equivalence given that the frames are different ratios (i.e., 3:2 vs 1:1), but if you measure across the diagonal, a 75mm is about a 42mm and an 80mm is approximately 45mm (75mm and 80mm are the two most common TLR focal lengths).

Check out the first chart on this page for more information:

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWequifoc.aspx
 
Last edited:
If the format is 6x6, then 80mm is the standard lens. TLRs in other sizes have been made (from 35mm up to 10x8" to my knowledge, and doubtless other sizes as well).

The rule of thumb is that the standard lens focal length is about the same as the film diagonal.
 
The Mamiya C series (3, 33, 330, 220 etc) have the advantage of interchangeable lenses (55, 65, 80, 135, 180 & 250mm) but the downside is they are noticieably bigger and heavier than other non-interchangeable TLR's. The upside is that all the lenses for them are stuningly good, very sharp with lovely colour rendition. I have a C330f with 4 of the lenses (55, 80, 135 & 180) and if it was a bit lighter I would take it everywhere, a great studio and still life camera as well.

Andy
 
Here;s a Rolleicord Va taken with a Mamiya C330f and 80 mm lens

14794734229_8e16fa8aeb_b_d.jpg
 
I spent most of last week carrying my Mamiya C220 around Barcelona and I can definitely confirm that it's a little on the heavy side after a while! However, I don't really find it any heavier to carry around than a decent sized DSLR and mid ranged lens combo, so it's definitely not too restrictive. I actually found it surprisingly liberating carrying just the TLR with 80mm f2.8 lens, and a few rolls of film in my pocket, rather than a big camera bag with numerous lenses and filters in.

One thing that does take some getting used to is all the funy looks you get using it! People just stare at you as you walk past and then whisper to their friends. One bloke even asked if I was taking 3D photos as it had two lenses!

Edit: woop 150 posts! :banana:
 
Last edited:
I've always liked the square format too.
 
Carl Hall said:
I spent most of last week carrying my Mamiya C220 around Barcelona and I can definitely confirm that it's a little on the heavy side after a while! However, I don't really find it any heavier to carry around than a decent sized DSLR and mid ranged lens combo, so it's definitely not too restrictive. I actually found it surprisingly liberating carrying just the TLR with 80mm f2.8 lens, and a few rolls of film in my pocket, rather than a big camera bag with numerous lenses and filters in.

One thing that does take some getting used to is all the funy looks you get using it! People just stare at you as you walk past and then whisper to their friends. One bloke even asked if I was taking 3D photos as it had two lenses!

Edit: woop 150 posts! :banana:
Click to expand...

It's not too bad when you're a youngster but when you get to my age it does start to get a bit more of a struggle.:D

It is quite amusing seeing peoples reactions to a TLR though, I get stopped and asked about mine quite a lot.

Andy
 
While I'm here any b+w film recommendation?
 
Fuji Acros 100 is my current fave, it is a very smooth film, almost creamy smoothness.
 
rjbell said:
I started like many nowadays with a DSLR. I've recently been drawn more and more at film in particular b&w film. I shoot mostly mono anyway and like the idea of developing myself. I'm considering a Minolta TLR. Is 120mm b&w trickier to develop yourself than 35mm?
Is developing and scannning better done at a lab?
Click to expand...
You're in trouble then ;-) Shooting b/w film in medium format, and home processing - even to scan, is very rewarding and enjoyable. You'll enjoy the challenge of using a film camera, you'll enjoy the process of making the images, and if you like b/w, you'll enjoy the quality of the results.

I home develop both 120 and 35mm b/w for hybrid digital scanning. I don't use a darkroom, just a film changing bag and Paterson tank. I've probably processed around one hundred films over the past few years, but before that, I was very much a DSLR user as well.

Personally, the first few films that I developed were 120. I practiced with a ruined film first. Transferring in a bag is fiddly and can be tricky, however, personally I find 120 easier than 135 36 exposure. I guess it is partly the 135 film I use a lot - cheap Agfa Gevaert, really does not like any fingertip contamination or it sticks going onto the spool. With 120, in the bag, I roll it free of the paper first, then onto the Paterson spool - but that might just be my preference. Medium format is lovely, but it goes without saying that you only get 12 of those 6 x 6 exposures per 120 film, so works out more expensive than 35mm.
 
You'll not go far wrong with any of the major brands film. Even the second teir stuff can be made to work well.
 
rjbell said:
While I'm here any b+w film recommendation?
Click to expand...

To start out, I would strongly recommend that you buy something fresh (i.e., in date) from one of the major manufacturers (i.e., Fuji, Kodak, or Ilford).

To be honest, your exposure, developing, and scanning/printing will have a bigger impact on the look of your photographs than your choice of film.
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
To be honest, your exposure, developing, and scanning/printing will have a bigger impact on the look of your photographs than your choice of film.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree more.
 
robhooley167 said:
I can't disagree more.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that film choice has no impact, but it's what you're doing with it that matters more.

If you don't know anything about exposure, developing, or scanning, I can't really see how film choice will have a bigger impact on the photograph? Once you have a tighter control on those variables, then your choice of film becomes more important.

I've yet to see an amazing photograph that was defined purely by film choice and not by the decisions made during the composition, exposure, development, and/or scanning/printing processes.
 
Last edited:
If you're middle of the road on developing (i.e. don't mess it up too much and don't use a universal or paper developer for the film), then exposure isn't too difficult. If you can get a half decent exposure on digital, film is a doddle. Scanning - well, you can always rescan. What will never change will be the effect of the film choice. Try using PanF to record sports on a dull day and if you aren't looking for motion blur - well, you'll get it anyway.

Or try to make a large print using a high speed film and then compare it with the same on a slow film. Caveat - I haven't used a fast film since HP3 was current, so modern films may have improved. And I detest grain, so that's another bias.

This all depends on what print size you want of course; I start at 12x16"/A3 and go up from there. Smaller prints are proofs only.
 
rjbell said:
While I'm here any b+w film recommendation?
Click to expand...

I agree that you should start with a few rolls of Ilford HP5+ (or similar) to start with so you know where you are. But if you then want to take a lot of rolls without spending a fortune, to get the hang of your camera, then you can get 10 rolls of Shanghai GP3 120 film from eBay for £18. It's perfectly adequate and at least it won't cost you a lot to learn (for example) how not to take multiple exposures, how not to blank a roll of film by not screwing on the top of the tank properly, and how not to drop the wet negs on a dusty floor (not that I've done ANY of those, of course)
 
abdoujaparov said:
I agree that you should start with a few rolls of Ilford HP5+ (or similar) to start with so you know where you are. But if you then want to take a lot of rolls without spending a fortune, to get the hang of your camera, then you can get 10 rolls of Shanghai GP3 120 film from eBay for £18. It's perfectly adequate and at least it won't cost you a lot to learn (for example) how not to take multiple exposures, how not to blank a roll of film by not screwing on the top of the tank properly, and how not to drop the wet negs on a dusty floor (not that I've done ANY of those, of course)
Click to expand...
How does the Shanghai perform? I'm tempted.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
How does the Shanghai perform? I'm tempted.
Click to expand...
It's perfectly fine, and for £18 for 10, it's hard to go wrong. They have had quality control issues in the past, apparently, but my rolls have been fine. I've been giving it a couple of minutes of pre-soak which people have said prevents the frame-number-leeching that Steven mentioned.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/shanghai_film/ for examples. A couple of mine as less impressive ones -

View attachment 23235
View attachment 23237
 
Bit of grumpy advice: don't start with HP5! I find it the harshest, most horribly grainy film around. It's main advantage is that it's available at Boots on a buy-one-get-one-half-price deal, but then so is XP2 which is much nicer and can be processed using a normal lab, as it's C41!

You could try Tri-X, or maybe Tri-x, or... no, Tmax 400 is really nice, and Acros really does seem to be the favourite of many for 100 ISO films. Delta 100 is REALLY nice, even out-dated.

Of course, everyone's entitled to their opinion, YMMV etc
 
ChrisR said:
Bit of grumpy advice: don't start with HP5! I find it the harshest, most horribly grainy film around. It's main advantage is that it's available at Boots on a buy-one-get-one-half-price deal, but then so is XP2 which is much nicer and can be processed using a normal lab, as it's C41!
Click to expand...

The OP was asking for advice on 120 film, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top