Dumb guy question 120 vs 35, negative vs positive

Back in the days I used 35 mm and 120, 6X6. when I printed the shots,
when I used negative film with Kodak paper the 120 shots just looked
better, I never was able to identify why, they just looked smoother.
When I printed transparencies onto Cibachrome I could not see any
difference.

being better from the negatives makes sense, that's why people used
it. My question is why the performance improvement didn't show us
when using transparencies.

Thanks

"Charles" wrote:
Back in the days I used 35 mm and 120, 6X6. when I printed the shots,
when I used negative film with Kodak paper the 120 shots just looked
better, I never was able to identify why, they just looked smoother.
When I printed transparencies onto Cibachrome I could not see any
difference.

being better from the negatives makes sense, that's why people used
it. My question is why the performance improvement didn't show us
when using transparencies.

You may not have been printing large enough to see the difference. If you
were using a good transparency film, it's only at 11x14 (or even larger)
that you'll notice the difference.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 13:54:05 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"Charles" wrote:
Back in the days I used 35 mm and 120, 6X6. when I printed the shots,
when I used negative film with Kodak paper the 120 shots just looked
better, I never was able to identify why, they just looked smoother.
When I printed transparencies onto Cibachrome I could not see any
difference.

being better from the negatives makes sense, that's why people used
it. My question is why the performance improvement didn't show us
when using transparencies.

You may not have been printing large enough to see the difference. If you
were using a good transparency film, it's only at 11x14 (or even larger)
that you'll notice the difference.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



That must have been it, I generally used K64 and printed mostly at
8X10.

Thanks.