Anyone try MF and go back to 35mm?

[David Brown]

I've been using both formats for so long I can switch between them without thinking.

Same here. They're two completely different tools. I don't get confused.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I went from 35mm to MF to LF. I mostly shoot MF [for serious work], then 35mm, the LF.

 

[swanlake1]

Whenever I shoot 35mm, I miss Medium Format. Whenever I shoot Medium Format, I miss Large Format, etc... Convenience is the determinant.

Marc!

Samuel Beckett said the same...when I'm in the mountains, I miss the plains, when I'm by the sea, I miss the mountains.

 

[Black Dog]

It's hip to be square

I went from 35mm to MF to LF. I mostly shoot MF [for serious work], then 35mm, the LF.

Likewise!

 

[narsuitus]

"Anyone try MF and go back to 35mm?

No, I shoot small, medium, and large format.

 

[Vaughn]

From the past 40 years I have perhaps 6 rolls of 35mm B&W film and a few rolls of 35mm color negative snapshots of my boys, and a few boxes of 35mm slides from trips.

So I was thinking I never used a 35mm much. But along the way there were weddings for friends/relatives -- I photographed and had the lab process the film then turn everything over to the bride/groom. There were countless rolls of 35mm chromes -- I would set up for an evening for the painting students, for example, and each student just had to bring a roll of film and their work, and I would shoot the roll for them. They would take the roll in for processing and use the slides for resumes, scholorship applications, etc. Then there was the grant a professor got -- she paid me to photograph images of native NW art out of books...ten rolls of 36exp...each a different image. Composing so that no taping would be needed. For a teaching collection.

I un-rolled and re-rolled countless rolls of 35mm film on to SS reels, after students tried and failed...or just wanting reassurance that "It was on right." Up to 75 new students a semester...lots of rolls of film! I checked out 35mm cameras to them, going over the use and care carefully many many times a semester. And what an interesting set of cameras!

So actually I have been around and immersed in 35mm, but it has always been the student and/or workhorse format for me. I started with MF and have 'naturally' worked my way up to LF (up to 11x14). MF is for when mobility and speed (all relative, of course) is desired...but also just for fun.

Almost all of my work is contact printed (alt processes), and I have been enjoying making 6cm x 6cm platinum prints. I like small and I have printed the 4cm x 4cm Diana camera negatives, but I would have to get a larger magnifying glass for 35mm contacts! I just was in Hawaii (Maui) for 12 days - took the Rolleicord, sm. pod, and a dozen or so rolls of Tri-X, with platinum printing in mind...singles and some printed in groups. But I have to develop the film first...and to do so I need to order some chemistry, which is what I was going to do before I was sucked onto the forum! LOL!

 

[blockend]

I always had a love hate relationship with medium format until I started using folding cameras. Now I put one in a pocket and don't worry if I don't find a subject all day. With my Mamiya Press and TLR I'd take shots to justify carrying them.

 

[nwilkins]

for a long while I kept 35mm cameras around because my only MF camera was an RB67, so convenience was sometimes a determining factor. But then I got a Fuji GW670ii so haven't picked up a 35mm camera since! I find it handles just as well (for me) as a 35mm camera. As a caveat, however, I do not have the ability to make wet prints so part of my affinity for larger negatives might be due to the limitations of using a flatbed scanner on 35mm, which definitely shortchanges the negatives.

 

[xya]

for 40 years I shot medium format, tlr mainly, but always had an olympus XA in my pocket (since 1979). and yes, polaroid from time to time until they went bust. about 15 years ago I also went bigger, 4x5, 5x7 and finally 8x10.

and then, 5 years ago, I switched to folders, maybe tired from the weight to carry around. I tried quite some of them, have a look at my comparison page at http://www.120folder.com/ if you are interested. the XA was replaced by a digital in 2009, a canon S90 (it's a S120 now).

and now, just at the moment, I'm preparing to leave mid format a well, for digital, but with old lenses, a sony A7. I did some research again, you can have a look at a new page http://www.a7camera.com/

I have a professional scanner, so I can compare a good mid format negative to a "full format" (24x36mm) sensor. there is not much difference in my opinion.

of course I will keep some mid format equipment and my dark room, I still do instant with fuji and I hope for new 8x10 instant film. but most of it will go for the A7.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Three times I've convinced myself I need a medium format camera, three times I've been proved wrong.

The maximum print size in my darkroom is 10x8 - even 645 is overkill for that. I like wide angles & fisheyes, bright viewfinders, light weight bodies, 1/1000 shutter speeds. MF cameras I've owned have produced great negs with boring images on them.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

35mm is great, lenses probably the sharpest. MF is sublime, I can even see the subtle difference in small prints and especially scans, and get results and tonality I could never achieve in 35mm. Of course my completely subjective opinion.

But they both have their use and purpose, and film cameras so cheap there's no sense in limiting yourself to one or their other in some strict manner.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Hello
Many people go from 135 film to 120 and I read many good words about it - about tonally, quality etc.
Is there are people who are disappointed by medium format and prefer 135?

All of that is true, and a lot more. How about the size? A 400% increase from 35mm to 6x7.
And no, I would never go back to 35mm full-time.

 

[ambaker]

I have and shoot both formats. For quicker action I like the 35. But for anything else, medium format blows me away. If I could afford large format, I would go there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[alanrockwood]

...If I could afford large format, I would go there.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The "Great Ken Rockwell" advocates large format as being cheaper to shoot than 35mm, mainly because the number of shots he would take with large format is typically only a fraction of the number he would take with 35mm.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I just spend a week offroading in Utah so I used a 35mm SLR Nikon with color film and a 35mm SLR Nikon with black & white film plus a WideLux 7 with color film, since I did not want to spend time carefully composing with MF or LF. Just shoot and run. Besides wasting a shot in 35mm does not feel as painful in 120 or 4"x5".

 

[Dr Croubie]

The "Great Ken Rockwell" advocates large format as being cheaper to shoot than 35mm, mainly because the number of shots he would take with large format is typically only a fraction of the number he would take with 35mm.

Which, when you think about it, is almost like saying, "A Model T Ford is safer than a Volvo because the Volvo can go faster"

 

[Peter Rockstroh01]

I'm not much of a hardware fan. To me it is all about the print. I quit using 35 mm after my first good MF print. It is so much easier producing a crisp 11" x 14" from a MF negative, than from a 35 mm strip, that - to me - it compensates for the weight of the gear.
And while with LF I have the opportunity of ruining one negative at a time, MF is not far from that. With ca. 10 negatives per roll, I try to take one roll per subject/light conditions, and I am able to develop (+ or -) each roll for its conditions. Can't do that with 36 exposure rolls.

 

[Fr. Mark]

Until recently I would've said "I'm done with 35mm." I never seemed to get a negative that made me happy bigger than 5x7. But, I have a few negatives from a gifted bulk loader of tech pan that amaze me and print well at 8x10, maybe bigger.

Plus, I miss have a film camera with me in my back pack I take pretty much everywhere and I don't notice the Olympus XA in there. I used all the tech pan so now I need to find a replacement for it. The things the OM-1 can do impress me more than I expected, too.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to get consistent results with LF and contact prints.

All that said, I am finding that a lot of what I used to use 35mm for, I do with an iPhone or DSLR and for "art" I print digi negs for alt process or use LF.

 

[john_s]

Until recently I would've said "I'm done with 35mm." I never seemed to get a negative that made me happy bigger than 5x7. But, I have a few negatives from a gifted bulk loader of tech pan that amaze me and print well at 8x10, maybe bigger.

Plus, I miss have a film camera with me in my back pack I take pretty much everywhere and I don't notice the Olympus XA in there. I used all the tech pan so now I need to find a replacement for it. The things the OM-1 can do impress me more than I expected, too.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to get consistent results with LF and contact prints.

All that said, I am finding that a lot of what I used to use 35mm for, I do with an iPhone or DSLR and for "art" I print digi negs for alt process or use LF.

I would think that with a 400 film in the XA with its meter set to 200, carefully processed, you'd gain more by using a smaller aperture/faster shutter speed than you'd lose by not having TechPan anymore.

 

[Alan Gales]

I have and shoot both formats. For quicker action I like the 35. But for anything else, medium format blows me away. If I could afford large format, I would go there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I don't know what your budget is but you can buy a nice 4x5 monorail for $200 or less. A 210mm lens for another $200 or less. Maybe buy both together for $300. You may need a heavier tripod. An oversized black sweatshirt will work for a dark cloth. You can buy readers from the dollar store for a dollar to use instead of a loupe. Used 4x5 film holders are dirt cheap. You can use your 35mm camera for a light meter. Pick up an old Omega 4x5 enlarger for real cheap off Craigslist. I've even seen some given away. If you end up not liking large format and sell your gear you should get close to what you paid for it.

Film will cost more but you shoot less of it. It takes time setting up the camera but you slow down and think more about what you are shooting. Most (including me) find they get more keepers that way.

You ought to try large format. It's a lot of fun!

 

[destroya]

I shoot both 35mm and MF and enjoy using both. I was always skeptical about doing larger size prints with 35mm but I have proven myself wrong in that aspect. I have many that i have printed to 11x14 and even a few cropped to a 16x20 size from good 35mm negs, the best being enlarged from rollei retro 80s. even 2 that I did from the generic classic pairing of 35mm tri-x and D76 (from my first ever roll of 35mm B&W) printed to 11x14 looked great with nice sharpness and grain that while visible was not over bearing at all, in fact it looked nice.

I agree that a larger size neg is ideal in a perfect world, but if I'm hiking nothing is easier that 3 ai-s lenses and a F3 or FE2 that fits nicely in some cargo shorts or pants and a few rolls of film. small compact and presents a very printable film neg for me. so for me it is much more a matter of WHY I have the camera I have. for convenience its hard to beat a good quality 35mm set up

 

[sagai]

I shoot both 35mm and MF and enjoy using both. I was always skeptical about doing larger size prints with 35mm but I have proven myself wrong in that aspect. I have many that i have printed to 11x14 and even a few cropped to a 16x20 size from good 35mm negs, the best being enlarged from rollei retro 80s. even 2 that I did from the generic classic pairing of 35mm tri-x and D76 (from my first ever roll of 35mm B&W) printed to 11x14 looked great with nice sharpness and grain that while visible was not over bearing at all, in fact it looked nice.

I agree that a larger size neg is ideal in a perfect world, but if I'm hiking nothing is easier that 3 ai-s lenses and a F3 or FE2 that fits nicely in some cargo shorts or pants and a few rolls of film. small compact and presents a very printable film neg for me. so for me it is much more a matter of WHY I have the camera I have. for convenience its hard to beat a good quality 35mm set up

+1 [emoji106]

MF has a sentiment of time traveling and gives a hint of artisan work though .

 

[Kerosene Hat]

I got back into film a few months ago and have shot a Mamiya 6 and Bronica ETR system since then. For me personally, if I want (or need) to shoot small format (need for autofocus, ability to really run & gun, spray and pray or otherwise be less deliberate / more spontaneous), I think I'd go DX/FX digital (hope I don't anger mods or others here - but I use multiple media types to capture images). I personally don't see the differentiation in the types of photography that I do that would indicate 35mm over 120.

At the end of the day, you have to go with what works for you and your work. I find that my frustration factor has increased with 120 (ever load film backwards in a removable back? Oh, yeah. Razor thin DOF? Gotta have it. Manual everything? Of course), but so has my satisfaction level (Oh...My...God...Those tones...that detail...). I find myself mainly shooting 120, but could see either a Fuji Xsomething or other digi in the bag, or maybe an M6 and Summicron if I have a good day in sales and/or at the Lotto...and that doesn't even get me into 4x5, like I've been jonesing for recently.

Horses for courses. Shoot film. Fill memory cards. Enjoy it all. There are so many worse things we could do with our time, passion and money. :^)

 

[Sirius Glass]

I got back into film a few months ago ...

Welcome to APUG

 

[Kerosene Hat]

Welcome to APUG

Thanks! It's great to be here - and back into film.