Does LF format film behave the same?

[Worker 11811]

I'm getting ready to order my first batch of film for 4x5. Just a quick question.

Does a given brand of sheet film behave the same as the equivalent brand of roll film or 35mm?

For instance, if I am comfortable shooting Fuji Neopan in 35mm and 120, will Neopan in 4x5 produce identical results given the differences in the way 4x5 is processed vs. 35mm?

Yes, sheet film is exposed and developed one at a time instead of a whole roll at a time.
Of course, 4x5 is developed in trays or drums, etc., versus processing 120/35 on reels.
Developing times and amounts of chemistry will also be different.

But, if I am used to shooting Neopan in my Rolleiflex and developing it in XTOL or D-76, but for these differences, can I expect similar results to what I already know?

I'm looking at ordering some Neopan (100) and some Tri-X (400) because I know the results they give and I am comfortable working with them but I am also thinking about Delta Pro (100) and a couple of others.

I think I'll get what I know just starting out then branch out to other films later.
What do you think?

T.I.A.

[Lachlan 717]

Randy,

Have you seen http://www.digitaltruth.com/?

Lots of comparisons between formats are logged here.

[Corran]

I have been told 120 and 4x5 are about the same but 35mm is very different. But even then, with completely different processing techniques, it's likely to be off from what you consider normal. But you'll be in the ballpark.

[IanG]

In general most films behave the same across formats these days. Years ago (1970's, 80's and earlier) they didn't but then Tri-X in particular differed depending on where it was made & coated and Kodak gave development recommendations for US, Canadian and British coated Tri-X and they were different .

You may find slight differences between formats but that could easily be variations in shutters, meters etc.

Ian

[Leigh]

I've been developing 35mm, 120, 4x5, 8x10, and various old roll film sizes since 1955.

In my experience, the emulsions behave about the same across different formats.

Tri-X is probably the worst offender when it comes to variation.

When you compare films across different formats you bring in issues like shutter speed accuracy, aperture calibration,
processing equipment, and other factors that are not the result of nor the fault of the film emulsion itself.

You have to calibrate every process, and periodically check to make sure your results haven't changed.

Photography is a very complex subject, and every person will achieve different results even with identical processes.

- Leigh

[Harrison Braughman]

I have found Neopan 100 (one of my favourite films) behaves differently in the roll version (120) vs. sheet film (4x5, 8x10.) My testing,(calibrated meters, thermometers, and factory calibrated lens) and processed in D76 1:1 has shown roll film's has a longer straight line vs. sheet film. The roll film did not shoulder until approximately 60 minutes of development whereas sheet film produce a soft roll off around 45 minutes.

Additionally, I found the reciprocity characteristics were different. Using the upper parameters of zone II as a benchmark, no reciprocity correction is required for roll film during the first 120 seconds, however sheet film required minor correction (5 sec) around the 50 second time frame. When the test was conducted using Xtol 1:2; the reciprocity results were similar. No reciprocity correction required for roll film for the initial 150-165 seconds and the sheet film required minor corrections around the 80 second time frame.

Your developer and film combinations combined with your camera (shutter, lens) and water may provide a completely different set of numbers. What is most important, as stated by others, is to do your own testing to determine what is best.

[Leigh]

60 minutes in D76 1:1???

Could that perhaps be considered a bit non-standard?

Fuji says 10.5 minutes @ 20°C.

How are we to attach any validity whatsoever to your observations (factory calibrated or not)
when you're so far out in left field with your development times?

And what constitutes an "upper parameter of zone II"? Not exactly a quantitative measurement.

- Leigh

[Harrison Braughman]

Leigh:

A careful read of our response highlights the fact we did not write about development times, processing techniques, etc. The purpose of our response was not intended to be a white paper on reciprocity, film development, zone system techniques, etc. (We only included a tad bit of information to alert the reader as to some of the procedures/methodology we employed, and some test results.) If the casual reader did not understand some of the language or zone system parlance, we would hope they would seek qualified answers instead of sophomoric responses.

What an individual establishes as his/her normal processing time is only important to the image maker. If their processing time is in "left-field", does not conform to "the-norm", is different than the mfg. recommendations or what you or others may perceive to be proper is irrelevant, immaterial and nonsensical. What is important is the maker has established a system (processing time, technique, film speed, etc.) which will allow them to know, with some assurance, what to expect when the shutter is released and the film processed.

[Worker 11811]

As to the processing time that seemed out of whack, I assumed that that poster was doing some kind of stand development or something else like that. I have read about stand development and have experimented with it once or twice but I do not use it regularly. As Harrison says, if I need to know more about things like that, I'll ask or look it up.

From reading over your responses, I gather that there are occasional differences in contrast and/or dynamic range but, for the most part, the main source of variation is due to differences between the formats, 4x5 vs 120 or 35mm, and not much because of differences in the film itself.

Do you think it's safe to say that 90% of what I know about how my favorite films behave will hold true and that I'll learn the rest as I go?

I first learned about photography using one type of camera, many years ago. I remember the first time I got my own camera. It was great but the first few rolls were a bit of a disappointment. I just had to get used to new equipment. A similar thing happened when I moved up to a Yashica Mat and a Rolleiflex using 120 format. A couple of times when I tried a new film, I wasn't 100% pleased with the results. After I shot a few rolls of film, I started to get the hang of things. Now, I can shoot pictures that I like.

By asking this question, I'm sort of mentally preparing myself to go through the same thing all over again. It's going to take me some time just to get used to using the camera. It'll take time to become proficient at processing the film.
The bump in the learning curve is bound to be a lot steeper than changing to a different 35mm camera or learning to use a TLR. I am expecting to make some F-ed up shots and to have a lot of shots that are "okay" but don't satisfy me.

I've got just about everything I need except for the film. I will have to go cheap on the processing, making due with what I've got but once I get into the groove of things, I hope to get more of the things I really need to do the job right instead of just making due.

I'm the kind of guy who likes to study up and get his ducks in a row before trying something new. That's why I'm asking this question.

Thanks for all your help so far!
It does make a difference.

[Leigh]

What is important is the maker has established a system (processing time, technique, film speed, etc.) which will allow them to know, with some assurance, what to expect when the shutter is released and the film processed.

The fact is that the film manufacturer has established norms for the product based on specific developing guidelines.

The fact that you choose to ascribe different characteristics to the product based on grossly deviant processing indicates that you have some kind of personality problem.

- Leigh