35 vs.120 processing costs

[Minoxit]

i've been processing my own 35mm negs for a couple of yrs now...i've

just started doing my own dev&fix for 120 format

 

just for curiosity purposes,is there comparison in terms of quantity

and costs of chemicals used for 1 session(1 x 120 neg)?

 

simple calculations: of course it is costy(quantity of solutions

used is larger than the one for a 35mm),but i am curious to find out

if anyone noticed a major difference ...inasmuch as to feel it in

his or hers wallet:-))

 

i guess it may depend on the tank used(in both cases)too...

 

any answer would be greatly appreciated

 

regards

[jeff bishop]

The costs are about the exact same. While the 120 is a lot wider, it's also a lot shorter. It would be safe to consider them the same as far as chemical exhaustion and costs are concerned.

[kaiyen]

I agree with Jeff. The only possible difference would be amount of developer, and that is dependent on the tank. for instance, since I do 35mm in a dual plastic tank and 120 in a single 120 SS tank, I actually use _less_ liquid for 120 than I do for 35mm (but, of course, I can fit 2 rolls in a dual 35mm tank).

 

allan

[pvp]

A roll of 120 film is equivalent to one 8x10, the same as a 36 exposure roll of 35mm.

[tom_holum]

My Paterson "Super System 4" Tank holds three reels of 35mm and two reels of 120 (the same reels could be used for 220 film, containing 24 exposures as against the 12 images for 6X6 120). This tank requires 30 ounces of developer, etc. for 3-35mm rolls, and 35 ounces of developer for 2-120/220 rolls. If your interested, it works out to .277 ounces of developer per 35mm image, and 1.416 ounces per 120 image. I'd still choose the bigger negative.

[conrad_hoffman]

Most people report a higher percentage of "keepers" with 120, so again, the cost ends up being the same.

[tom_holum]

I've just reread your question: is there a difference between processing costs of 35mm and those of 120 that really makes a major difference, i.e., would the difference in costs affect our choice of format? ...and I see that none of us directly answered it.

 

But the answer has to be No, because for me the real cost of this craft, what really makes it expensive, is the reams of enlarging paper that I expend in trying to produce one good print. In a typical four-hour darkroom session I will go through a dozen sheets of 8X10 fibre-based paper just to produce two acceptable prints (and that's on a good day!). I buy my paper in 250-sheet packs, and I think it costs about $0.40 per sheet, which means that my costs in paper alone is over $5 per darkroom session. The costs of film and chemistry (135 vs. 120) pales in comparison to the costs of paper, which would be the same whether you used 135 or 120.

 

The 120 negative indisputively gives greater definition & tonal gradation (the 120 negative just contains so much more information than the 135 negative), so the choice is clear. It is not a matter of economics, it's really a question of whether you believe American advertising: that 35mm is the ONLY choice.... well, it isn't. And 35mm is really the inferior choice IMHO. (I guess the real question is: should we all be using 4X5?)

 

Best of luck, Tom

[mtk]

Tom Holum...THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one that had more prints on the floor of the darkroom than on the wall! As far as the cost goes, I also think it is virtually identical in my experience. But like a previous poster mentioned, I know I have more "keepers" with my 120 stuff than with the 35..........

[silent1]

Given that I use high dilution, I do find 35 mm a little cheaper than 120 to process -- to the tune of less than a nickel a roll difference in cost for HC-110 concentrate. I have to use 12 ounces of working solution at Dilution G for 35 mm, which means a two reel tank with an empty reel spacer, while 120 requires 16 ounces (or 500 ml in plastic) to cover the film -- about 1/3 more developer. However, since that's the difference between 3 ml vs. 4 ml of concentrate, from a 28 ounce original bottle that I got, discounted, for about $13, the 120 is still only costing me about seven cents for developer. Much more significant is the larger water consumption, with distilled water at 99 cents a gallon -- overall, including amortization of fixer capacity and the water (I used the distilled for both mixing chemicals and Ilford style washing), it costs me about 70 cents to process 120, compared to about 45 cents for 35 mm.

 

For a quarter extra, the large negatives are very much worth it (even though I get from 8 to 16 instead of 36).

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

The cost of processing is small compared to what I've tied up in cameras and lenses. And I, too, go through a lot of paper. And 16x20 fiber paper costs me about $2.00 per sheet. So who cares about developer? And I don't put any value on my time because this is fun!

 

Robert