New to 120

[Chris Blackwell]

As i'm new here I thought I'd say Hello first, My name is Chris and i'm from Northern Ireland :)

Basically I want to find out some information on 120 film.

I've started using this format to basically try something other than 35mm. I've since taken 2 rolls in to get processed only to find out that it is completely different in that it isn't a negative and i've to pay more money to print them.

Just wondering what the normal routine is with 120? Are there any scanners that could work to print them myself? Kind of like Negative scanners?

Any help would be much appreciated :)

Thanks, Chris

[canonman]

I'm a little confused by your statement about 120 film being different! The only difference between 35mm or 120 is the format size.

As with 35mm, there are numerous film types available (possibly more with 120). The process generally will be more expensive due to the size, after all there is little point in shooting 120 then printing 4" x 6". Perhaps the film you have is colour slide film, slide processing is more expensive than reversal. The only other thing I can think of is that the film is a "chromogenic". This is a black and white film which is processed in colour chemicals, in theory however this should be less expensive to process.

[Lee Ash]

I have theoretically gone down this route but after some consideration on what I was trying to achieve, I opted to stick with Digital.
Basically, as Canonman says, the film is no different to 35mm, apart from the size. 120 is an essentially professional medium though, so you wouldn't expect to get a little paper wallet back from boots with your holiday snaps in it. You would have the film developed and pick a few you want to print.
I have researched the process and evaluated the best way to use it and its advantages over digital. I concluded that using colour slide film would be best, and then getting the good ones scanned at a very high resolution and put on disk. An individual high res file from a 6x6cm slide is in the region of 200mb in size, so clearly has advantages over digital when it comes to printing large pictures. You also have the means then to PP the image in PS.... BUT... how often do you need this level of quality when it is obviously a lot more hassle than using your DSLR and achieving very good quality straight onto the computer. There are scanners available to mortals that you could buy... the Nikon 9000 something or other being the best but its expensive... and you come back to the question of how much do I need this size file when the scanner budget would buy you a good DSLR camera.
Lastly, you could opt for mono neg film, a canister and a bunch of chemicals and process your films at home... then get the good ones printed. Anyway, as Tony, on here sayed, the shear quality and loveliness of the film cameras available on ebay for a fraction of their original cost, make it very tempting... let us know how you get on.
Lee

[canonman]

I have theoretically gone down this route but after some consideration on what I was trying to achieve, I opted to stick with Digital.
Basically, as Canonman says, the film is no different to 35mm, apart from the size. 120 is an essentially professional medium though, so you wouldn't expect to get a little paper wallet back from boots with your holiday snaps in it. You would have the film developed and pick a few you want to print.
I have researched the process and evaluated the best way to use it and its advantages over digital. I concluded that using colour slide film would be best, and then getting the good ones scanned at a very high resolution and put on disk. An individual high res file from a 6x6cm slide is in the region of 200mb in size, so clearly has advantages over digital when it comes to printing large pictures. You also have the means then to PP the image in PS.... BUT... how often do you need this level of quality when it is obviously a lot more hassle than using your DSLR and achieving very good quality straight onto the computer. There are scanners available to mortals that you could buy... the Nikon 9000 something or other being the best but its expensive... and you come back to the question of how much do I need this size file when the scanner budget would buy you a good DSLR camera.
Lastly, you could opt for mono neg film, a canister and a bunch of chemicals and process your films at home... then get the good ones printed. Anyway, as Tony, on here sayed, the shear quality and loveliness of the film cameras available on ebay for a fraction of their original cost, make it very tempting... let us know how you get on.
Lee
I agree entirely with everything said here, the workflow described is one that many photographers seeking ultimate quality take. The cameras are also things of great beauty and have a tactile quality that is sadly missing today. But like you, ultimately if picture taking is the order of the day then I reach for my DSLR !

[tonymidd]

You can have the best of both worlds, at a price. For some personal projects I use film, usually 120 in a 'blad or Ikoflex and develop it myself. I then get it professionally scanned on to a dvd at 300ppi, that's the expensive bit.
I can then play in CS3 to my hearts content.

Incidentally there are big differences between the construction of 35mm films and 120 /220 mainly concerning the base material and the way the film is coated on to the base. I suspect that in some case even the emulsions are different.

Having said that 100% of commissions and 95% of my personal work is done with the D200 or D2.