Does film appear differently in varying formats?

Hi and thanks, in advance, for indulging my curiosity. I recently shot a couple rolls of what seems like an awesome black and white film- Ilford Pan F Plus in ISO 50.I had 2 rolls and these were the very first rolls of film I shot with my new-to-me 35mm Voigtlander R3m rangefinder camera. I loved the results, but was doing some reading somewhere on the internet (gasp) about the film and I think I saw someone mention they liked the film in 35mm but not so much in medium format?

 

Hence my question.

 

I think I can see where a larger format would provide more detail, so the grain would perhaps be finer in greater detail? Am I on track here? I want to shoot this film again, and was thinking I'd get some 120 this time instead of 35mm. I cannot believe that, if I liked the film in 35mm, I wouldn't like it in medium format.

I think you're overthinking it (or being swayed by internet crap). The film is the film, just a larger format. If you're shooting in MF, your image on the film will be larger. Grain size is the same, but generally prints are larger, so grain may then be larger as well. It all depends on how you use it. Personally I like the film, but have finally exhausted my supply.

The grains are the same size for a given type of film. However, with larger format you don't need to enlarge as much for a given print size so the grain on the print is finer.

There can be subtle differences, e.g. the thickness of the base material might be slightly different, but by and large it’s the same stuff. Other than that, there’s performance of the whole camera/lens/film package. Lower ISO film might go better with 35mm because you can use faster glass, and is less important with large frames able to capture more detail because of frame size, unless you want huge prints.

 

I’d recommend just trying it for yourself and seeing how you like it.

The film itself might be pretty identical but it might mean something very different to you, depending what camera / format you are shooting hand held. Agfapan 25 was the go to film for a Minox C (with 15mm standard lens, f3.5 fixed aperture, hyperfocal DOF from 2m to infinity) in broad daylight. To gain the same DOF behind a 50 or even 105mm I'd need to stop down extremely far or insanely and would require a tripod and patience for the same shot that I hand held with the sub miniature camera.

While I do agree with @SCL above, I can't stress enough that various formats might feel best with different films, depending on how you (intent to) use them. For comparable results (camera shake & DOF wise) you need 4X film speed with 6x9cm.

IDK what your online author's opinion might be based on. Do they use the same light path with comparable enlarging lenses? Are the cameras & taking lenses equal? What (subjects) are they shooting?

My 35mm wide is 2.5 stops faster than my MF one and I'd dare to shoot it wide open, while I'd doubt to nail focus with the TLR...

I thought about that one some time ago.

 

If you are light limited, between handhold shutter speed and DoF limiting aperture,

then you need fast enough film not to stretch those too far.

 

(I was remembering in another thread handheld shots at 1/15 or 1/8 in

museums that don't allow flash. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.)

 

It seems to me that the reason that 35mm works at all, is that when shutter and

aperture limited, you get more light on the film. (Partly faster lenses.)

With more light, slower, finer grain, film. Fine enough that, with the extra

enlargement needed, it still comes out about right.

 

My most recent use of PanF+ was with Diafine at EI 80, but close enough.

 

I have put Panatomic-X 120 in folding cameras, but I think I did that with

Diafine at EI 160 or so. (Some Diafine boxes say 250.)

If you shoot in larger format you will have less noticeable grain per size print which will make the photos appear sharper.

I would shoot on 8x10 inch negative and only make 8x10 inch contract prints.

 

The top photo is an 8x10 inch photo made from an 8x10 inch Plus-X negative. The bottom photo is a section of the same negative.

You can easily see the far side of the East River and even some seagulls in the water. If the top photo had been made from a

35mm frame the seagulls on the far wide would have been about the size of the grain on the negative.

If most of your prints are going to be around 8x10 inch then medium or larger format will look sharper.

While I have probably shot a few films in 35mm, 120, and 4x5, my go to film was Velvia 50 so that is the one I specifically remember. Beyond the increase in detail as the film gets larger, I found the depth of colour to be so much better again as the film got larger. As I got into the larger formats I often photographed at similar fields of view for each format to draw comparisons. So for me, the bigger the better!

 

 

I recently bought 4 rolls of Velvia 50 in 120 format to experiment with. First rolls that I have bought in over 10 years! I have had very good success digitizing my transparencies and negatives using my digital camera, and looking forward to doing more. I will stay away from negative from now on, simply because it is so difficult to digitize.

 

 

If you continue your research I believe you will find that the films themselves get thicker as you get larger and I think this may have resulted in my experience of the deeper/richer colours.

Using a film like Pan F plus in 120 format gets you no more real detail. The limiting factor is the lens and any camera movement during exposure. If you don't use a tripod, then a slower speed film may actually make definition worse.

 

In addition, T-max 100 will give you just as fine grain as Pan F plus, but with twice the speed.

 

I recently did this comparison (for another thread) between scanning a 10" x 12" print, and making a digital copy direct from a 6x6cm negative shot on120 rollfilm. The film used was FP4 plus.

First the full frame:

Now the tiny crops from roughly the centre of the frame:

As you can see, the grain in this 125 ISO film is pretty-near invisible, certainly in the print. And there would be no more fine detail visible in the tracery of the window, or whatever, had I used a film with even finer grain.

 

So yes, moving up to a larger format gives you much better image quality than the pathetically small 35mm frame, but simultaneously using an ultra fine grain film doesn't get you a corresponding gain in quality.

 

The tiny crops above would be like pressing your nose to a four or five foot square print BTW. Or examining a large print through a 6x loupe.

If you continue your research I believe you will find that the films themselves get thicker as you get larger and I think this may have resulted in my experience of the deeper/richer colours.

The plastic base is thicker on large format sheet film, but the emulsion is exactly the same. Otherwise you would get a denser (darker) image using the same exposure and developing process.

To answer the actual question, there are base differences. 35mm films normally have a gray base

to reduce light piping where the tongue comes out of the cartridge. Roll films don't need that,

and most often have a clear base.

 

Some seem to be different, as they have different development times recommended on the data sheet.

 

Because of the base difference, you know that they don't just chop up a master (really long and wide) roll into different sizes,

so there is the ability to change things. But the differences should be small for most uses.

35mm films normally have a gray base

to reduce light piping where the tongue comes out of the cartridge.

That might have been the case with some older films, but the base of T-max is crystal clear - if you can get rid of the purple AH dye.

Not sure that light-piping would ever have been an issue anyway, since colour reversal films can't have a coloured base and yet show no sign of fogging through light-piping.

Hmm. TMax-100 doesn't mention base at all:

 

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/f4016_TMax_100.pdf

 

The characteristic curves go down to about 0.2, but it doesn't say that

is base or fog. But it does mention not to use TMax developer on sheet film,

without saying why not do that. That is, at least, different.

 

Tri-X reversal (movie) film does say gray base:

 

https://www.kodak.com/uploadedFiles/Motion/Products/Camera_Films/7266/Resources/7266_ti2617.pdf

Film is made in batches. Each batch will be slightly different. Manufacturers maintain tight quality control. There are control limits. Each batch must be within these tolerances or it will be scrapped. 35mm film generally has a film base that is intentionally made light gray. This is because 35mm film does not use a paper backing. When you load and unload 35mm film, even in subdued light, their is danger of "light piping". This is light creeping about within the transparent film base. The gray coloration mitigates. Other differences between film made for one format or another is the color and density of the rear coat called an anti-halation coat. This coat is to prevent film exposure from light coming from the rear and / or reduce internal reflections from bright highlights that otherwise might traverse the film and reflect off the pressure plate only to re-enter the film from the rear.

You didn't say if you scanned your film or printed chemically. I scan mine and found that medium format film scans better that 35mm. The results are sharper and clearer. Apparently the larger size of medium format causes that. Of course, shooting the two films are different, something that you'll have to decide on yourself.

You could scan (or optically print) a 35mm sized rectangle out of a larger negative.

 

It is well known that condenser enlarger vs. diffusion enlarger gives a different look to

the result, and presumably scanning is also different. Many scanners illuminate with a

light source more similar to diffusion enlargers.

You could scan (or optically print) a 35mm sized rectangle out of a larger negative.

 

It is well known that condenser enlarger vs. diffusion enlarger gives a different look to

the result, and presumably scanning is also different. Many scanners illuminate with a

light source more similar to diffusion enlargers.

That's true. But you lose resolution from the scan the same way when you crop a digital image. Aslo, you have greater enlargement of grain with 35mm which adds to the messiness. I can't swear to this. But I believe the tonal relationships are better and more spread out with MF. On the other hand, if you're shooting street shots, I think 35mm is just fine. Maybe better due to its more natural and earthy look. Also easier to shoot streets.

If you shoot street shots with a TLR, or SLR with waist-level finder, you people might not

figure out what you are doing so fast as an eye-level camera.

 

I don't do street shots often, but there have been times when I wanted a shot without

people, possibly ones in frame, noticing, and use a wide angle lens and point in the

general direction, hoping the framing will be close enough. That might work in MF, too.

There have been variations over time in the thicknesses of film, and 220 film was thinner than 120 film, so.....

 

I suppose the variation in a substrate (Film base - Wikipedia) could make some difference in light scatter. etc.; but I doubt it would amount to much practically.

 

I can't think of any cases where the actual emulsion was different for different formats, but somebody here probably can.

As I noted above, Kodak says not to use TMax developer for (presumably since it is in

the TMax data sheet) TMax sheet film. That suggests that it is emulsion differences, though I

suppose it could be other differences. There is no suggestion of what might go wrong.

 

Some films suggest retouching on base and/or emulsion side, and some don't.

I think mostly they don't suggest retouching on 35mm film, but that might be more due

to image size and the possibilities of doing it right. There might be differences in the

surface coatings.

 

Presumably the differences are smaller than differences between differently

named films, but they might still be there.