portraits in 35mm vs 120

PhilnDebra

unread,

Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96

to

I have been taking B&W portraits with a twin lens camera and Ilford film
(outdoors, using a reflector for fill) and getting good, reproduceable
results. I expected to get comparable results from 35mm camera using Tmax
100 film, but found the grain intolerable when compared to even Ilford 400
delta in 120 format. Both format negs were enlarged to about 11x14. Is
this a common phenom?? Obviously, you get more increase in grain when
enlarging a 35mm neg when compared to 120, but shouldn't the above
comparison (35mm Tmax100 and 120 Ilford 400 Delta) be similar at the same
level of enlargement??? Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Deb, Cleveland

SpaceMan Spiff

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

to

In article <4urdmi$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, philn...@aol.com (PhilnDebra) wrote:

=> I have been taking B&W portraits with a twin lens camera and Ilford film
=> (outdoors, using a reflector for fill) and getting good, reproduceable
=> results. I expected to get comparable results from 35mm camera using Tmax
=> 100 film, but found the grain intolerable when compared to even Ilford 400
=> delta in 120 format. Both format negs were enlarged to about 11x14. Is
=> this a common phenom?? Obviously, you get more increase in grain when
=> enlarging a 35mm neg when compared to 120, but shouldn't the above
=> comparison (35mm Tmax100 and 120 Ilford 400 Delta) be similar at the same
=> level of enlargement??? Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
=> Deb, Cleveland

I don't think you can make such comparisons between formats and speeds in such a way. The only way you can really tell how one film stacks up against another, especially if it's in a different format is to try them out in similar conditions and then process them the same way, using the same type of developer, same temps, etc. Developer at higher temps will produce grainier negs than at a lower temp. I use TriX and PlusX and when I want fine grain, I make sure to use my developer at 65 degrees. Going up to 70 makes a noticeable difference in the grain. It gets coarser noticeably with just that five degree diff in temp.

I would avoid Tmax. It's a picky film to develop, it's times are fairly short compared to TriX and it's very intolerant of over or underdevelopment. Try using PlusX 125 if you want fine grain and develop it at 65 or 68 degrees and you'll get really nice sharp grain. If you use TriX, do the same and you'll still get good grain.

Also, experiment with different developers, as these will influence the amount of grain you get, as will how often and how long you agitate your tanks. A higher energy/concentrated developer such as HC110 will give more grain than something like D76. I use D76 diluted 1:1 with distilled water when I want fine grain as well. The combination of TriX or PlusX with D76 1:1 and using it at 65 degrees will give you nice results in 35mm. I've seen TriX negs done in this way printed at 16x20 with excellent results.

One last thing. Both TriX and PlusX are very tolerant of over or under developing, much more so than TMax. The X films can be pushed or pulled with little extra work, and in fact, Kodak says you can use normal processing for TriX or PlusX pushed one full stop. What this allows me to do is mix my ISO ratings. I normally run at 400 with TriX, but when I need to, I can push the extra stop to 800 on the same roll to get the pic, and still develop it all together. This can be done with PlusX too.

Hope this helps.

Spiff.

GCurtis165

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

to

Do you develop your own B&W? If you do you should be using the TMAX
developer. A developer designed to work with T-grain films is the only
way to preserve the quality your looking for. If you use others (D76 for
example- which is what most labs will use) you have just wasted the
T-grain technology. Also experiment with your exposure/development times
& temp. Personally I use TMAX 100 in 120 format with excellent results,
but if 11X14 is the largest size you plan on printing with it, 35mm would
be fine. After experimenting, I expose TMAX 100 at ASA 80 and pull
development 10% from recommendations. Also time/temperature plays a big
part in grain (or rather grain clump) size. Longer development times and
higher temperatures lead to larger grain clumps. Good luck.

Greg

Thomas Fattaleh

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

to

philn...@aol.com (PhilnDebra) wrote:
>I have been taking B&W portraits with a twin lens camera and Ilford film

>(outdoors, using a reflector for fill) and getting good, reproduceable

>results. I expected to get comparable results from 35mm camera using Tmax

>100 film, but found the grain intolerable when compared to even Ilford 400

>delta in 120 format. Both format negs were enlarged to about 11x14. Is

>this a common phenom?? Obviously, you get more increase in grain when

>enlarging a 35mm neg when compared to 120, but shouldn't the above

>comparison (35mm Tmax100 and 120 Ilford 400 Delta) be similar at the same

>level of enlargement??? Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

>Deb, Cleveland

Deb,
the problem is you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Its like
saying a VW drives the same as a cadalac at 40mph.

You are correct concerning the grain increase between the formats. The
120 is smoother simply because there is less magnification. As far as
the grain 100iso vrs 400iso, remember that the faster film contains more
silver and therefore more "grain"....

good luck..
tom...

Erik Jonker

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

to

philn...@aol.com (PhilnDebra) wrote:

>I have been taking B&W portraits with a twin lens camera and Ilford film
>(outdoors, using a reflector for fill) and getting good, reproduceable
>results. I expected to get comparable results from 35mm camera using Tmax
>100 film, but found the grain intolerable when compared to even Ilford 400
>delta in 120 format. Both format negs were enlarged to about 11x14. Is
>this a common phenom?? Obviously, you get more increase in grain when
>enlarging a 35mm neg when compared to 120, but shouldn't the above
>comparison (35mm Tmax100 and 120 Ilford 400 Delta) be similar at the same
>level of enlargement??? Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
>Deb, Cleveland

First of all, I'm glad you like the results you've made with the TLR.
I'm planning to buy one soon (Mamiya C330), so it's good to hear
enthusiastic sounds. . .

To come to your point, I have the same experience with the T-Max 100.
It seems to me that you'll have to experiment and learn how to handle
this film. I did some studio portraits on it and developed in T-Max
developer as recommended. The results were grainy on a 5x7 already.
I hear from people who rate the T-Max 100 at EI 50 and get perfect
results with almost no grain.

For 35mm, I shoot with the Ilford Delta 100, which is developed in
Ilfosol-S 1+14 and I see no grain up to 12x16. Larger prints come out
less brilliant.

Regards,

Erik Jonker.

--------
Erik Jonker
e-mail prive: erik....@a1.nl
e-mail werk: ejo...@hgl.signaal.nl

Lee J193

unread,

Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96

to

Another technique for 120 film is to shoot Tri-X the old fashioned way --
rating it at 250. Tonal effects are great for people pictures -- even
better I think than what you get with Ilford 100 Delta, which tends to be
all mid tones and no snap, at least in 120. Tri-X was reated at 250
when it first came out. Another portrait photo I know swears by the old
Verichrome Pan in 120.

> => I have been taking B&W portraits with a twin lens camera and Ilford
film
> => (outdoors, using a reflector for fill) and getting good,
reproduceable
> => results. I expected to get comparable results from 35mm camera using
Tmax
> => 100 film, but found the grain intolerable when compared to even
Ilford 400

Dan L. Minnix

unread,

Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96

to

SpaceMan Spiff wrote:
>
> In article <4urdmi$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, philn...@aol.com (PhilnDebra) wrote:
>

> => I have been taking B&W portraits with a twin lens camera and Ilford film
> => (outdoors, using a reflector for fill) and getting good, reproduceable
> => results. I expected to get comparable results from 35mm camera using Tmax
> => 100 film, but found the grain intolerable when compared to even Ilford 400

> => delta in 120 format. Both format negs were enlarged to about 11x14. Is
> => this a common phenom?? Obviously, you get more increase in grain when
> => enlarging a 35mm neg when compared to 120, but shouldn't the above
> => comparison (35mm Tmax100 and 120 Ilford 400 Delta) be similar at the same
> => level of enlargement??? Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
> => Deb, Cleveland
> I agree with Space Man Spiff. I have also tried Tmax 100 with similar results. I hand
process my film and the temperature must be just right or the grain really shows. I use
Plus-X-Pan with excellent results. I also have a Mamiya C220 TLR and love it. It's great
for portraits. When I do animal portrait photography then 35mm is a must. Therefore I
have used Plus-X-Pan in both 35mm and 120 formats. 11x14 is about as big as I will go
using 35mm. 120 looks best but with a little care you should get good results.

Good Luck
Dan

Gordon Root

unread,

Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96

to

Dan L. Minnix (dmi...@erinet.com) wrote:

: Good Luck
: Dan

I feel that the film/developer combination may be causing part of your
grain problems. I would suggest Ilford FP-4 or Delta 100 developed in D-76
1-1 or another recommended developer.
IF you shoot with your 35 as you would as if shooting slides, with careful
framing and doing in camera cropping and use most of your negative area
you should be able to get very good prints. ( At least up to 11x14). I've
shot a lot of 35 mm portraits and although 11 x 14 prints show a "tinch"
more grain they are sharp and very acceptable.
Good Luck
Gordon

Tony Flores

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

to

philn...@aol.com (PhilnDebra) wrote:

>I have been taking B&W portraits with a twin lens camera and Ilford film