okay, i know this is off topic. sorry. but i just picked up a used minolta tlr today, and it's so great.(not as fun as my m, but the larger negative size should compensate somewhat). does anybody have any recommendations for 120 film?

1.) color negative 2.) b&w

thanks so much. i value your advice

-- ken kwok (kk353@yahoo.com), March 08, 2002

Answers

I think you have to be more specific about your applications.

-- Phil Stiles (stiles@metrocast.net), March 08, 2002.

I use many different 120 color neg films depending on what I am shooting. Fuji Reala, NPH 400, NHGII 800, and Agfa Optima 100 & 400 for color neg. I also have had good results with Kodak Porta films. The 400 speed films in 120 produce nearly grainless 16 X 20's, and they are handy in hand held,fast shooting situations. For on-the- tripod landscape shots, I stick with the 100 speed color neg films. I am really impressed with the current Agfa Pro color neg films and have been finding myself using them more than Fuji films.

Velvia rated at 32 to 40 ISO is always fun for landscapes. Like having a built in polarizer in the film base.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 08, 2002.

TLR madness follows RF madness closely.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), March 09, 2002.

Don't you are about what your photos look like? If you do, then you should test films that have characteristics that make your photos look like what you want. Having random input on what other people use doesn't serve much purpose.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 09, 2002.

sorry. more specific. travel and portrait usage. i'm a big fan of tri- x or tmax 3200 in the 35mm form (using rodinal 1:25). my fav slide film is sensia 100, if that helps.

ken

-- ken kwok (kk353@yahoo.com), March 09, 2002.

You can get Tri-X in 120, you just have to make sure you get Tri-X 400, since Kodak has a different emulsion for 120, Tri-X 320. I don't know about T-Max 3200, but you can get Delta 3200 in 120 also (just shot some this week.)

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 09, 2002.

Arista 400 or 100 asa from freestyle in CA. B+W film that is inexpensive and kicks ass. I use it from 120 to 5x7. It's Ilford.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), March 09, 2002.

Delta 3200 in 120 is great. So is Kodak Portra 800. I have to agree with the earlier post "TLR madness follows RF madness". I had gotten out of MF for a couple of years. Last month I came across a deal on a Rollie 2.8 D Planar and I fell in love with it. Big snappy detail rich negatives. With the fast films and low light situations it is almost as stealthy as a Leica.

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), March 09, 2002.

Maybe I'm not fully understanding the question, but why not shoot the same film that you like to shoot in 35? Almost everything available in pro film for the 35 is available in 120...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 09, 2002.

I prefer Tri-X in 35mm because I'm loose about exposure and development (meter, what meter; thermometer, what thermometer?), but T-Max 400 is pretty cool stuff if you're compulsive enough to develop it carefully.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 09, 2002.

I'd agree that you need to be more specific. Nonetheless, my favorite is Ilford Delta 100 for nearly grainless enlargements. Though the older emulsions (Tri-X & HP4) are beautiful for the right subjects, if I'm going to the trouble to shoot MF, I'm going to be shooting subjects which I want as sharp as possible (after all, isn't that the main benefit of the larger neg.)

As to the newer emulsions greater sensitivity to development variations, either I'm more consistent than I would guess, or the greater sensitivity isn't as great as it is presented.

-- Ron Buchanan (re_buchanan@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.