Advantages of 35mm over MF/LF

[removed account4]

They never made a 3 1/2" Verito in any 35mm mount, or a Cooke Portrait with the knuckle-duster soft-focus adjustment. And you're forced to develop all 36 frames with the exact same time and temperature and developer chemistry - so inevitably there will be some frames that would have benefitted from altered processing that won't get it, or you sacrifice every other frame on the roll to the needs of the one frame.

not really true ...


lensbaby makes something exactly like an imageon, and the original imageon is made ... for 35mm ...
it is EZ to get similar effects with a regular 35mm lens and a technique to soften the image &c

forced to process 36 frames in the exact same chemistry .. ?

plenty of people who shoot 35mm roll their own and do small rolls
DBI or clip parts of the rolls and process it in a different time/temp/dilution/chemical

pretty much everything that can be done with LF can be done with 35mm.
the only real limitation is the person using the camera ...

 

[Ric Trexell]

I'm surprised no one seem to mention slides.

I read all the posts but not 100% of each, but I didn't see anyone mention slides. I took two rolls of a family wedding a few weeks ago on slides and one roll of prints. Last week I went to my sisters house (she wasn't at the wedding) and set up the projector and screen and we looked at slides. Yes, you can take slides with a MF but the projectors are rare and expensive. (Actually 35mm projectors if you can find them are expensive too.) I like looking at a 3 foot by 4 foot picture and that fact that you can show it to several people at the same time. I sent scanned copies on a CD to the bride, but nothing compares to the color and the wow factor of seeing that picture blown up to the size of a table. Ric.

P.S. I have never seen a LF slide projector.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Ric- there was a projector made years ago for projecting 4x5 slides. At least I recall seeing one in a catalog somewhere. But it was rather ridiculous. And MF projectors aren't quite as rare as you think, but they are silly expensive. And the only ones that could handle 6x7 transparencies had a manual, one-at-a-time loading system. Only the 6x6/6x4.5 projectors had some kind of tray or carousel.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

My opinion is that one camera format isn't better than the other. Only that the best camera is the one that:
A. Allows us to get the shot we want and need.
B. The one we are familiar with and isn't an impediment to our work flow.

I still can't understand why people are so opposed to big enlargements from 35mm. Is the little bit of grain that's there really that detrimental to the picture? My own opinion is that it's just silly to get hooked up on something like grain. A print that is deliciously well crafted will look amazing regardless of film format, and I feel that those who say they can't get a good print from 35mm because of the small negative simply isn't a good enough printer.

Just go make some more freaking prints. Become better printers. Look at masterpieces by those who DO know what they're doing, by visiting museums, galleries, auctions, art shows, etc. Learn. If 35mm was good enough for some true masters such as Ralph Gibson, Sebastiao Salgado, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Elliot Erwitt, William Eggleston, Harry Guyaert, Alex Webb, how about Charles Harbutt, and Max mentioned Vivian Cherry. The list goes on and on and on.

The question should instead be - how can I make the best print that I possibly can, regardless of what camera I love to use?

 

[mopar_guy]

P.S. I have never seen a LF slide projector.

These come pretty cheap and I believe they were made for "Lantern Slides" AKA glass plates.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Bes...US_Movie_Slide_Projectors&hash=item1e643864bf

 

[baachitraka]

My opinion is that one camera format isn't better than the other. Only that the best camera is the one that:
A. Allows us to get the shot we want and need.
B. The one we are familiar with and isn't an impediment to our work flow.

I still can't understand why people are so opposed to big enlargements from 35mm. Is the little bit of grain that's there really that detrimental to the picture? My own opinion is that it's just silly to get hooked up on something like grain. A print that is deliciously well crafted will look amazing regardless of film format, and I feel that those who say they can't get a good print from 35mm because of the small negative simply isn't a good enough printer.

Just go make some more freaking prints. Become better printers. Look at masterpieces by those who DO know what they're doing, by visiting museums, galleries, auctions, art shows, etc. Learn. If 35mm was good enough for some true masters such as Ralph Gibson, Sebastiao Salgado, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Elliot Erwitt, William Eggleston, Harry Guyaert, Alex Webb, how about Charles Harbutt, and Max mentioned Vivian Cherry. The list goes on and on and on.

The question should instead be - how can I make the best print that I possibly can, regardless of what camera I love to use?

My learning came with experimenting different print/paper sizes without changing the film format.

Higher the size of the print/paper demands more control, yielding better printing skills if not better prints.

Upto to my experience printing 35mm neg on 8x10 and 16x20 is not the same, ignoring the grain.

 

[Yashinoff]

And you're forced to develop all 36 frames with the exact same time and temperature and developer chemistry - so inevitably there will be some frames that would have benefitted from altered processing that won't get it, or you sacrifice every other frame on the roll to the needs of the one frame.

Not if you have an Exakta with internal film splitter! (Or a Contaflex with interchangeable backs...)

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

And how many people are still shooting those? (Not that they're invalid cameras, but they're not your garden variety Nikon/Canon/Minolta/Pentax/Konica/Yashica/Contax/Olympus/Petri/Leica/etceteraflex).

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The relationship between depth of field and format size becomes way more interesting when one starts doing close-up/macro work.

True. One learns quickly to use the smallest format possible.

 

[cliveh]

I haven't figured out yet why a 35mm rangefinder raised to your eye is less conspicuous than a 35mm SLR - they're both in front of your face, and pointed directly at the subject. Once the exposure is taken, there's an obvious difference in the noise level with the mirror slap and the (probable) film advance motors kicking in.

It probably isn't and just a myth put about by 35mm RF users.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

It probably isn't and just a myth put about by 35mm RF users.

You didn't know that Leica RF models come with a cloaking device built in?

 

[Alan Gales]

Ric- there was a projector made years ago for projecting 4x5 slides. At least I recall seeing one in a catalog somewhere. But it was rather ridiculous. And MF projectors aren't quite as rare as you think, but they are silly expensive. And the only ones that could handle 6x7 transparencies had a manual, one-at-a-time loading system. Only the 6x6/6x4.5 projectors had some kind of tray or carousel.

Hasselblad and Rollie 6x6 projectors are not cheap like you said and the Mamiya Pro Cabin 6x7 projectors cost a small fortune!

I picked up a used Kindermann 6x6 medium format projector for about $100.00 off Ebay. They are quite common, inexpensive and use a tray system for 6x6 or 6x4.5 slides.

 

[narsuitus]

The lower cost of 35mm accessories allowed me to accumulate a large inventory of view screens, film cassettes, extension rings, filters, viewfinders, bellows, motor drives, and lenses that enabled me to configure my cameras to just about any assignment. The medium format or large format equivalent would have been cost prohibitive.

 

[Chris Lange]

Swiftness of operation, size, flexibility, the list goes on and on...for me though it's the continuity one gets with a 36 exposure roll. I shoot 35mm and 120 (occasionally 220) with people exclusively because generally changing film holders in my 4x5 takes too long (anything longer than the 10 seconds it takes me to grab my alternate body or film back off the work table is too long).

Also the overall mechanical layout of 35mm cameras is something I enjoy. It's rare for me to find a medium format camera other than my Hasselblad or Rolleiflex that just "sits" in my hand. My Pentax 6x7 is alright, but not as comfortable as the others, and doesn't come close to holding a candle to my Nikons (F4s and F3s) or my Leica M2.

And needless to say, fast lenses, fast focusing, and fast shutters. Time between photographs is negligible, on a MF or LF camera there is a delay.

 

[cliveh]

You didn't know that Leica RF models come with a cloaking device built in?

Yes, I have heard that Leica are now offering a service of painting the front of the camera together with a multicolour lens bloom that is a perfect camouflage match of your head and facial features. But they haven’t told me what it will cost yet.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes, I have heard that Leica are now offering a service of painting the front of the camera together with a multicolour lens bloom that is a perfect camouflage match of your head and facial features. But they haven’t told me what it will cost yet.

Actually the Klingons supply it. They're hard to deal with. Here - https://sites.google.com/a/klingonword.org/klv/klingon-translator-and-dictionary

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It probably isn't and just a myth put about by 35mm RF users.

I've experienced this phenomenon myself - I took shots with my Contax G2 that I would never have been able to take with an SLR. Maybe it's the immediacy and speed of operation, or maybe there's something about a rangefinder configuration that says "non-threatening" to the non-cognoscenti of cameras that enables this function.

 

[cliveh]

I've experienced this phenomenon myself - I took shots with my Contax G2 that I would never have been able to take with an SLR. Maybe it's the immediacy and speed of operation, or maybe there's something about a rangefinder configuration that says "non-threatening" to the non-cognoscenti of cameras that enables this function.

Or maybe it's just in your mind.

 

[Alan Gales]

I've experienced this phenomenon myself - I took shots with my Contax G2 that I would never have been able to take with an SLR. Maybe it's the immediacy and speed of operation, or maybe there's something about a rangefinder configuration that says "non-threatening" to the non-cognoscenti of cameras that enables this function.

I have noticed the same thing and have come to believe it's the size of the lens.

Holidays at my wife's family's homes everyone pulls out their point and shoots and fire away. When I used to pull out my Contax 139 with a 35 or 50mm lens and now my Nikon DSLR, all the women have a fit and don't want their photo taken.

 

[Dismayed]

The flip side: medium and large format images have vastly superior tonality. They just look better!

 

[Yashinoff]

Use a WLF on an SLR and you'll be even less noticeable than with rangefinder held to your eye.

 

[Dismayed]

What's next? A thread proclaiming the superiority of 110 film? Or maybe we declare McDonald's the world's greatest restaraunt. Fast, cheap, and good enough (for the non-iscriminating).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What's next? A thread proclaiming the superiority of 110 film? Or maybe we declare McDonald's the world's greatest restaraunt. Fast, cheap, and good enough (for the non-iscriminating).

35mm is a fine format, capable of prints much finer than most people can guess at. But you have to use imagination a little bit and avoid popular convention first.

 

[Yashinoff]

Well you can fit a 110 camera in your pocket... and if you're too much of a butterfingers to load film then 110 has that going for it to. It all depends on your priorities.

Just don't say anything about disc film which had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

 

[Alan Gales]

Well you can fit a 110 camera in your pocket... and if you're too much of a butterfingers to load film then 110 has that going for it to. It all depends on your priorities.

Just don't say anything about disc film which had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

They used to make 110 SLR's. If I remember right Minolta made one.

Disc cameras were great because they fit in your shirt pocket. The images they made were crap though!