I recently got into film, medium format 120 specifically, and would like to know who else shoots this and what brand/make film you like and why? I've only tried Ilford to date.

(original post asked about B+W specifically.. but I'd like to know what colour film people like as well)

1) Ilford XP2+ - Nice tonality, choice of developer doesn't matter. Basically it's a lot like a C-41 version of HP5+.

2) Ilford HP5+ - Beautiful tonality, a bit grainy, but MF takes care of that somewhat.

3) Ilford FP4+ - Even better tonality (I think), less grain.

4) Ilford Pan-F - Very fine grain, very nice tonality. However, as MF generally requires a lot of stopping down for DOF purposes, be ready for some LONG exposures when indoors. Your friends may be curious why you're pulling a 30 second exposure when they're able to take pictures handheld.

5) Macophot IR820c. There aren't many MF infrared films and I've liked stuff that I shot with Maco more than the stuff I shot with Konica.

ilford is still my fav.

The problem I have with Ilford is that the printed number on the back is damn near impossible to see through the red window on the back of my Lubitel-1!

I don't really get the appeal of the Lubitel. I guess it's probably a good camera to start off with, but if you really want to take advantage of the format, you might want to look into getting something a bit better, that is unless you like having toy-camera'ish images that are soft and distorted.

As for b&w.. unless you have access to a darkroom, I'd suggest keep shooting in colour and converting to b&w in PS later if you need to. Nobody will know the difference and it's nice to have both options to work with if ever you decide that a colour version works better than one that's b&w. Just an idea..

The appeal of the lubitel was $20 on ebay. Not bad when you've never shot film before.

Good idea about shooting colour. Not sure why I didn't think of that option.

Aside: brand-x folding cameras are often no more than $40 on Ebay and many produce images far better (well, technically better) than toy cameras. I have some no-name circa-1950 cam from Germany that actually produces some decent, if a little soft, images. Beware red window / color film issues.

Back on topic... Jam or Krenta may want to punch me but I still like shooting Velvia in 120. Provia is a nice alternative though, if you don't want quite so much color. For B&W, I second the Macophot stuff as being cool, as well as Fortepan/Berger 400 for a cheap alternative to Tri-X (and with better tonality and larger latitude as well).

Is this considered to be a soft image? (untouched image from my lubitel) What would a better mf camera have improved?

Yes. That is soft. A better MF camera would have improved it by having better sharpness among other things. It's a little hard to tell with that particular picture since there isn't a whole lot of fine detail anyway. Also, that's shrunk down and resized presumably. I'll post a 100% crop from one of my scans when I get home later.

Thanks. That'd be helpful.

Posted by Servo Back on topic... Jam or Krenta may want to punch me but I still like shooting Velvia in 120. Provia is a nice alternative though, if you don't want quite so much color.

I started using Provia recently instead of Velvia and definitely like it a lot more. Less contrast too which means it'll probably scan a bit better.

Thanks for the tips.

micro: Where do you buy your film? I don't know many places that have a variety of 120 in stock. And what should I expect to pay for a roll of it?

Posted by Servo Back on topic... Jam or Krenta may want to punch me but I still like shooting Velvia in 120. Provia is a nice alternative though, if you don't want quite so much color. For B&W, I second the Macophot stuff as being cool, as well as Fortepan/Berger 400 for a cheap alternative to Tri-X (and with better tonality and larger latitude as well).

Oh yeah. I almost forgot this before. Velvia is fine for what it is - a horribly contrasty film with insanely vibrant colors. If you're shooting something with fairly even lighting, it can produce wonderful results. For transparency film I prefer Astia.

And related to another topic that came up... I don't know where anybody got the idea that desaturated color was any substitute for black and white. Black and white film has a different look than color film. It has a different tonal response curve. Shooting color film with a contrast filter will just give you weird-looking color and won't necessarily have the desired effect. If it were the same thing do you think they'd still sell much/any black and white film except to film students? Do you think photographers overall are retarded?


Finally, where to buy film?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

Usually either Downtown camera or Henry's. Usually whatever's most convenient at the time. Expect to pay around $6-8 (+ tax) a roll. B&W will be a bit cheaper but you might have to pay more to get it developed in TO, unless you want to try and do it yourself.

Just a suggestion though.. because you're just starting out with film and because MF can get expensive, you might want to consider playing around with an older 35mm camera for a bit too-- something like an Olympus OM1, which is a fantastic little camera. Unless you're planning on making fairly large prints out of what you're shooting (20 x 20 or more) then it's hard to say if it's worth it for you to go that route right now. It does slow you down and it does force you to be more contemplative in terms of what you're shooting but you'll find that you get that with 35mm as well and you'll still end up getting some nice looking prints out of it too.

A 35mm with a good sharp lens may allow for better enlargement than a MF camera with a coke bottle.

I use Kodak T-MAX quite often and recently I tried Acros 100 from fujifilm. Both are pretty good.

No doubt that is true. But I enjoy the process of shooting MF itself and the resulting square photo.

Posted by EatsTooMuchJam A 35mm with a good sharp lens may allow for better enlargement than a MF camera with a coke bottle.

Posted by yokes No doubt that is true. But I enjoy the process of shooting MF itself and the resulting square photo.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Medium format does not make square photos!

6x6cm medium format cameras make square photos! 4.5x4.5cm (*cough* Diana) make square photos. Other medium format cameras make rectangular photos.

*looks at negatives*

They look square to me.

Posted by yokes *looks at negatives* They look square to me.

Besides, while some MF cameras do shoot rectangular, I'm pretty sure that not too many 35mm cameras shoot square.