35mm (135 Format) For Landscape

[KidA]

I've read way too many times that 35mm just doesn't cut it for landscape photography. We all know the technical/visual differences of the different formats and yeah, the classical take on landscape photography: bigger negatives, better 'results'. Now, of course I understand that there are many situations where the amount of detail is crucial to a photograph, but I don't find that to be the case of only landscape photography anyways...

Just wondered how many of you shoot or know of photographers that shoot landscape in 35mm. Furthermore, I'm also very curious of how many of you using 35mm gear for landscape also shoot in larger formats... Basically, is it a question of 'I only shoot 35mm and I happen to shoot landscapes' or more like 'I'm familiar with larger, 'more appropriate' cameras for landscape, but I choose to shoot in 35mm for a certain visual effect at times'?

I only know of a couple phptographers who shoot landscape, but they seem to be in the 'I only shoot 35mm' category.

Thoughts on this?

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot landscapes with 35mm, MF and 4X5, shooting with Konica prime lens on a tripod, Foma and Tmax 100 and print up to 11X14. In general MF and LF is capable of larger prints, smaller grain, and for the most part I like the tones. On the other hand 35mm is more portable.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I shoot landscape with 135 format, and find it wholly satisfying. Others may think there isn't enough real estate of film area to make nice prints, but I disagree. You have to play to the strengths of the format, accept that there will be more grain. With films like Acros and TMax 100 you run into out resolving the lens in many medium format cameras, so the 135 format disadvantage in pure detail is less than if you shoot Tri-X.
I see the main differences to be how smoothly tones are rendered, and how large of a print can be made until the limitations of the format are exceeded.

But I think 135 makes for nice 20 inch prints. In fact I love the texture of the added grain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've read way too many times that 35mm just doesn't cut it for landscape photography. We all know the technical/visual differences of the different formats and yeah, the classical take on landscape photography: bigger negatives, better 'results'. Now, of course I understand that there are many situations where the amount of detail is crucial to a photograph, but I don't find that to be the case of only landscape photography anyways...

Just wondered how many of you shoot or know of photographers that shoot landscape in 35mm. Furthermore, I'm also very curious of how many of you using 35mm gear for landscape also shoot in larger formats... Basically, is it a question of 'I only shoot 35mm and I happen to shoot landscapes' or more like 'I'm familiar with larger, 'more appropriate' cameras for landscape, but I choose to shoot in 35mm for a certain visual effect at times'?

I only know of a couple phptographers who shoot landscape, but they seem to be in the 'I only shoot 35mm' category.

Thoughts on this?

Yes, and why not?35mm is good and very flexible for all kinds of photography.35mm works well for landscape and even panoramas(remember Hasselblad span?)take a 35mm camera ,put a 35mm or 24mm lens on it and off you go Anselmini

 

[ic-racer]

The angle of view of the lens on a 35mm camera is no secret. 35mm gear is so inexpensive, just about anyone can obtain a 35mm lens to check it out. Or, for almost free, one can make a viewing card.

 

[frank]

Different film formats result in a different aesthetic/look. Which is "better" depends on the look the photographer wants. If you want to maximize smooth tone and rendition of fine detail, larger formats make that easier. But not everyone puts a premium on this technical quality.

 

[AlanC]

I agree with the OP that 35mm is often regarded by some people as the poor relation. In his book "Elements" the late Barry Thornton wrote that a 35mm camera was ok for photographing details of things, but to fit the whole landscape in you needed a bigger format. He mostly used 6x6. I've never believed this to be true. If anything you could argue that the opposite applies. If you look at a bush close up, you see all the leaves. To make a photograph which approximates to what you see it is useful to have a medium or large format camera to resolve the details. But look at the same bush from a distance of a hundred yards, and far less detailis visible. And this can easily be captured with a 35mm camera.
Having said that, I use 5x4 and 5x7 cameras to photograph the landscape. And I also use medium format and 35mm. Different formats, and different films, all contribute their own "look" to a photograph. We shouldn't feel restrained by the general perceived consensus of opinion. We should all make the kind of prints that give us a bit of joy.

Alan

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have two 35mm C-41 photographs enlarged to 24"x36" mounted and framed in my living room. Yes 35mm can be used for landscape photographs, but both photographs were custom printed by a photo finisher. I am unable to achieve what they did myself. That is why now I use 6x6 and 4"x5" formats for serious landscape work.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I've done a lot of 35mm landscape work in both color and black & white.

Rainbow in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Winter storm over La Bajada Mesa in New Mexico.

Sandia Mountains in New Mexico.

Soybean field outside Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Farmer's backyard, New Haven, Indiana.

 

[AlanC]

A lot of people seem hooked on the idea that a film/format/ technique etc. is only valid if it allows you to make prints that are at least 20 inches across.
What is wrong with small prints? If you print small, then you certainly won't have to apologise for the quality of 35mm. Prints made from 35mm pan f negatives, for example, with an image size of 6"x9" can look grain-free, and very crisp.

Alan

 

[pentaxuser]

I've read way too many times that 35mm just doesn't cut it for landscape photography.
Thoughts on this?

I wonder who these writers are and what qualifications they added to their opinion? Was it unqualified opinion but made clear that was what it was or opinion disguised as fact as in one of life's "givens"

Eventually as prints get bigger then the good big negative beats the good little one but it depends on print size. How big are your prints going to be?

I was told many times as opposed to read many times that if I pulled a face and the wind changed direction I'd be stuck with it It might have been many times by many people but I suspect, looking back on things, it was many times by a few people such as mother and other close relatives

One day( last week as a matter of fact) I plucked up the courage to pull a face and waited for the wind to change direction and thank goodness my face didn't stay contorted.They were wrong or at least mother was wrong. With hindsight her motivation, however well intentioned, definitely needed to be taken into account.

The moral of my fable is that if you like 35mm for landscape have a go with it and see what you think.

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have two 35mm C-41 photographs enlarged to 24"x36" mounted and framed in my living room. Yes 35mm can be used for landscape photographs, but both photographs were custom printed by a photo finisher. I am unable to achieve what they did myself. That is why now I use 6x6 and 4"x5" formats for serious landscape work.

A lot of people seem hooked on the idea that a film/format/ technique etc. is only valid if it allows you to make prints that are at least 20 inches across.
What is wrong with small prints? If you print small, then you certainly won't have to apologise for the quality of 35mm. Prints made from 35mm pan f negatives, for example, with an image size of 6"x9" can look grain-free, and very crisp.

Alan

Nothing is wrong with smaller prints. In fact I like 4"x5" contact prints. However if I shoot with a larger format than 35mm I am not as limited in what I can do. I still use use 35mm for times such as when I am traveling or do not have a lot of time for photography, however I also will travel using a Hasselblad.

Generally 11"x14" or 11"x11" is the largest size that I print. For something larger, it must really be special.

 

[destroya]

i shoot 35mm for landscapes often. like yesterday. I went for a 8 mile hike along the bay area ridge trail. not the easiest hike, so I like t take smaller, lighter cameras. this is perfect for a 35mm set up. I carry either an F3 or FM3 and three lenses. nice and portable. yesterday I shot 5 rolls of film for a total of about 180 shots. that would require me to take about 15 or more rolls of 120 film as well as a lot of film changing. I have no problems getting grain free, sharp and nicely grey scaled photos at 11x14 and in some cases 16x20 using rollei retro 80s, acros or tmax 100. If there are some nice shots, then I could if wanted hike back up with a med format set up, either a mamiya 6 or pentax 67. the results from that will give me a little better end results, the print.

when I'm heading out for shooting a lot depends on where Im going. for long day hikes, 35mm is perfect. If i'm in yosemite, tahoe or the likes, then I'll bring the full on med format backpack set up because many of those could be one time shots.

there is nothing wrong with 35mm landscapes. after all nobody but you can make the decision. don't let others biases or views make the decision for you. only you can decide what works for you and what doesn't. get out there and try it, you might like it

john

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nicely stated John

 

[Bill Burk]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

"A Minox negative and an 8x10 negative produce the same amount of detail in a 20x24 silver gelatin enlargement."

In this thread, I explored the above hypothesis and provided 11x14 enlargements from example negatives from film sizes Minox through 4x5. It was a fun project for me, and out of the experiment, one print I keep on display is from a Minox negative I hadn't printed before.


View attachment 108298
River Scene

High Resolution Close-Up

Les Sarile provided examples from 35mm and 120. His demonstration was of full frame photographs of a map of the world. In a close crop from his demonstration, on 35mm you could clearly read "Germany" but on 120 you can read "Germany" and "Danube"

 

[Sirius Glass]

120 and 4"x5" negative are easier for me to handle in the darkroom.

 

[jimjm]

Two words: Galen Rowell

http://vault.sierraclub.org/books/photos/rowell/

Used the advantage of size and speed of 35mm to get many of his shots in changing light and under difficult situations. If you ever have a chance to visit his gallery in Bishop, CA, many of these images are printed very large.

 

[RobC]

It all comes down to equipment and technique. If you've got both of those then you can quite happily use 35mm for landscape for 30x20 prints no problem. If any small thing is not right in your equipment and/or technique then it all starts to break down.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, larger formats cover(hide) a multitude of sins in the smaller formats. And that means they make up for poor equipment, poor technique, bad choice of materials etc etc.
Result is that people getting it right will tell you 35mm is fine and people getting it wrong will tell you that you need larger formats.

 

[Oren Grad]

Have a look at "Cottonwoods", a lovely (and inexpensive!) little book by Robert Adams. The pictures are a seamless mix of 35mm, medium format and 4x5.

 

[Alan9940]

What is wrong with small prints? If you print small, then you certainly won't have to apologise for the quality of 35mm. Prints made from 35mm pan f negatives, for example, with an image size of 6"x9" can look grain-free, and very crisp.

Alan

My feelings exactly! Unless the subject matter demands a larger print--and then, I'm talking 8x12--I typically print my 35mm stuff at about 5x7. With the right development technique and film--I use EFKE 25 and Rodinal--one can produce quite lovely fine prints from 35mm. Just use it and have fun!

 

[alanrockwood]

The folks at National Geographic seemed to do OK shooting landscapes with a 35mm camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The folks at National Geographic seemed to do OK shooting landscapes with a 35mm camera.

But then I do not have their budget.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

It is also a matter of how skilled the photographer is at "fitting" the scene to 35mm and leveraging the format for impact. I have worked in 35mm from 1977 (when I started photography) to 2008 when I shifted to mostly 6x7 MF (also in pinhole). The difference is that with 35mm my maximum (Ilfochrome Classic) print at the time was 61x51cm. With MF, it is almost a metre across (hybridised RA-4) — to the printer's max printing dimensions. The very best of lenses and technique has always been employed as a matter of course to get the very best results, but the fact remains that the smaller format will suffer the higher the enlargement goes, so standard prints of 11x14 (28x36cm) were the most common produced with the aforementioned larger ones a special order. Tilt/.shift lenses are a major component of my 35mm kit and still have the edge over the fundamental restrictions of MF when I need to jiggle a scene about. I remain a sometime user of 35mm, but having 10 exposures on a 120 roll in MF is far better than wondering what to do with 36 exposures (at my current rate it would take about 5 years to expose a roll of 36 frames!). One thing I would point out is that how effective ultra-wide angle lenses are in 35mm, particularly 17 to 20mm. I often use a mix of these ultrawides for expansive cloudscapes, but only if there is a strong ground level 'anchor' to balance the composition.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Two words: Galen Rowell

http://vault.sierraclub.org/books/photos/rowell/

Used the advantage of size and speed of 35mm to get many of his shots in changing light and under difficult situations. If you ever have a chance to visit his gallery in Bishop, CA, many of these images are printed very large.

+1 for Galen and the capabilities of 35mm landscapes!

I personally went from 35mm to MF to LF to MF and now back to 35mm. The reason? When out on the trail I like to move fast and light. The qualities of larger formats are completely lost on me if I'm not likely to carry the camera with me. And how big do you really need/want to print? Here are a couple of my favorites I've shot with 35mm:

Olympus mjuII
The Descent by Aaron Lehoux, on Flickr

Nikon F3HP w/50mm f/1.2 AiS
. by Aaron Lehoux, on Flickr

 

[mrred]

Anyone focusing on one 'anything' will aspire to greatness. Perfection is about isolating the weaknesses and building on the strengths.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk