Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/04/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: 120 film vs. 36mm film
From: Eric Welch <ewelch@gp.magick.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 09:25:17 -0700
Organization: Grants Pass Daily Courier
References: <960412093335_374032070@mail04>

FortunkoC@aol.com wrote:
 
> The film base of the120 films is probably much different from that of the
> 35mm films. This makes a difference as far as fog level is concerned. 

That's true, I'm sure, if the film base is different. I don't know, the 
times I've tried to load MF film on reels, it seems about as flimsy as 
35mm film and drove me crazy! I swore off ever getting serious about MF. 
<G> You are right, I'm sure.

> the 120 has paper backing. I don't know what this does. My guess is that the
> 120 film may have higher contrast and resolution than the 35mm film.

Paper backing allowes little windows on the film backs to show the 
writing on the back of the film without fogging the film. And there is 
less reason to have high-resolution and contast than 35mm film. That's a 
function of emulsion, and I don't think that's different. Lack of flare 
will make a difference, but I don't think base density would influece 
those two factors.
-- 
Eric Welch
Grants Pass, OR



Replies: Reply from Gary J Toop <gtoop@uoguelph.ca> (Re: 120 film vs. 36mm film)
In reply to: Message from FortunkoC@aol.com (120 film vs. 36mm film)