Can't give up 35mm....

[Palantiri7]

Wayne: is everything okay? Your view about things sounded pretty grim. No need to have your family, or the state, dump your pictures! What you think we're here for? We'd be happy to take those pics off their hands to admire them for ourselves!

Anyway, I have suddenly abandoned medium format (my original intention being to replace 35mm with MF) for my renewed enthusiasm for 35mm. Specifically, I'm using my Dad's old Zuiko lenses on a Canon EOS 3 (new focusing screen too). There's something about the look of pictures from those Zuikos that's kinda nice when compared to super-sharp, super-contrasty Canon lenses.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I still have 35mm and MF both, but in the last two years I have gone from 20:1 in favor of 35mm, I would say that is no reversed as I am shooting primarily 120 in my M645j. I keep 35 for the sr-T101 but I don't use it all that much. I don't rule it out, I just prefer the M645j.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Like most people I started with a 35mm camera because it has been the vernacular format of photography for decades, but I was eventually surprised to find that I actually liked it.

35mm has a look, and is a particular way of relating to the world. I find it sad in a way that MF and LF have become more important because DSLR sweeped away the 35mm user base.

The reasoning goes like this: a DSLR has 12 MP, which is supposed to be as close as 35mm, so I'll move to MF or LF to have more "megapixels".

Some people are engaging in the megapixels race by using film instead of expensive sensors, which I think misses the point of using film: to achieve a particular look.

 

[Shawn Rahman]

The reasoning goes like this: a DSLR has 12 MP, which is supposed to be as close as 35mm, so I'll move to MF or LF to have more "megapixels".

Some people are engaging in the megapixels race by using film instead of expensive sensors, which I think misses the point of using film: to achieve a particular look.

Hey - dems fightin' words! This is actually the first time I've heard anyone say that people are switching from 35mm to MF or LF just because they want finer resolution, or want to print larger, or have MPs than the latest DSLR technology or 35mm will allow.

Surely you jest?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Hey - dems fightin' words! This is actually the first time I've heard anyone say that people are switching from 35mm to MF or LF just because they want finer resolution, or want to print larger, or have MPs than the latest DSLR technology or 35mm will allow.

Surely you jest?

Well, I've seen quite a few people in forums boasting that their LF sheets were packing ten gazillions megapixels.

It's a recurring trope of film v. digital arguments that at some point someone will inevitably point to the eight jajajillions of terapixels contained in ULF film in order to win the argument that film can be superior to digital.

I've also seen many people compare the resolution of DSLR as equivalent or superior to that of 35mm, and arguing that full-frame cameras were "threatening" medium format.

And you'll also find people who discredit film altogether against digital in terms of resolution &c, "except where the larger formats are involved." In other words, they discredit 35mm as being useless in comparison to a DSLR because it does not pack more "megapixels."

And finally, yes, there are scores of people moving up from 35mm to MF or LF simply because they want to print bigger. Have you not noticed that contemporary art photography is full of people using view cameras and printing at ginormous sizes?

Edward Burtynsky does not use a view camera only because it allows him to "slow down and contemplate," but also because the larger negative allows him to print at 40x60 and beyond.

It's all there if you look hard enough. In this very thread there are people who simply do not like the small negative.

As for myself, I don't care who's right: I like 35mm.

 

[Stephen Frizza]

I use 35mm film for the simple fact that if i want grain as a compliment to an image I can enlarge this smaller format to get a larger grain size than say shooting on 4x5 and wishing to get large grain from that.... get what im mean?

I also think for simple fast paced shooting 35mm is a speedy medium. when doing the digital vs 35mm battle all im going to say is film gives a different look! and Archive ability ...well films going to win on that!

An observation ive made in my lab that has surprised me is that for every roll of 35mm i get i seem to get 10 rolls of medium format.

Steve Frizza
The Lighthouse Lab

 

[Paul Howell]

I still shoot 10 rolls for every roll of 120 and every 10 4X5. In my way thinking MF and LF supplement 35mm, I imagain that for others 35 supplements MF or LF. I think 35mm provides better selection of films, lens, better speed, 5 FPS with my Sigma SA 9, and overall much is more lugable, not to mention cost. I seldom print larger than 11X14. MF and LF will delver higher quality negatives but for the most part I prefer 35mm.

 

[Russ - SVP]

I could never give up 35mm but I also would not want to limit myself to it either! 35mm is the only format for shooting sports, I shoot a lot of cycling and rock climbing and the 35mm is the best choice. Speed, rapid shooting, auto-focus, and lens selection, hands down 35mm is the best there. QUOTE]


Where do you climb? I spent much of my youth, climbing in J-Tree, Yosemite, the Needles, etc.

Kiron Kid

 

[ntenny]

I'm pleased to say that this thread inspired me to pull out one of my old Soviet rangefinders and take it for a walk on Sunday evening. Haven't developed the film yet (I'll wait until I have another roll to gang with it), but even if I didn't get a single worthwhile image, it's worth it to be reminded of how dang much fun that thing is to shoot with.

Thanks for calling my attention back to it, y'all.

-NT

 

[Richard Mendales]

I do most of my shooting on 35mm, but when I have time I switch to MF. It's more than just negative size, although I think MF does give better tonal gradations in B & W than any except the slowest 35mm. films. It's also that MF slows me down, and forces me to visualize the image in advance. That's probably a bad sign--if I ever have the time I'll probably go all the way to LF...

 

[Snapshot]

I'm almost exclusively 35mm due to the fact it permits me great flexibility. I don't yearn for larger formats.

 

[mabman]

There are a few things that keep me in 35mm, although I own a few MF cameras as well:

- size - this fall/winter I've been carrying a 35mm P&S in my jacket pocket - although I've shot less with it than I'd like (it's starting to warm up, but it's been a cold winter here), it's still nice to have around. I don't know of any MF camera I can do that with - although I've been looking into the Fuji GA645ZI, which looks like it might fit, although they're going for US$500-600, which is a little more than I'd like to spend on another camera. I do have a couple of folders - they're still somewhat too big for that.

- lens cost - in 35mm I use primarily K-mount and M42 screwmount lenses, with a few Soviet-era LTM lenses thrown in - a lot of them are going very cheaply now ($100 or less) - even with "firesale" pricing MF lenses tend to be more expensive than that

- features - in SLRs I've found I particularly like aperture-priority mode on my Pentax ME Super(s) and the metered modes in the couple of fixed-lens rangefinders that I have. Equivalent (semi-)automation in MF means moving up cameras/systems, which will get more expensive. I do have several meterless cameras, so I'm trying to get "down and dirty" with them more often - it's good practice

That said, I like the negative size and the "feel" of several of my MF cameras (older and refurbed, primarily) - I've picked up a few more this fall/winter, so I intend to shoot more MF this year.

 

[rembrant]

My life is recorded on 4x6 machine-made color prints, shot with 35mm cameras. There are few enlargements made from those negatives, although they are certainly capable of being enlarged. There are a few negatives I would like to jumbo size, but for the most part, there's plenty enough "memory" in the 4x6 print.

A good point. For any of us just recording memories,friends and family,tourist mementos is a legit part of it. A 4x6 print may be all you really need. At another point I might go to Point Lobos or Yosemite or Big Sur and I'm thinking about the shot that turns into an 11x16 print that's on the wall. The OTHER 100 frames I shot on the trip may never be more than 4x6 prints I consider and pretty much discard.

Recently I saw a friend's photos of a trip to SE Asia. There were shots of folks he met and or traveled with,personal memento value. There were shots that showed people or places but without that something extra,and there were a few shots that were beautiful and inspired and would blow up well. It covered the spectrum.

I tend to look for that hang on the wall 11x 16 and am nt one to do many snapshots. For a lot of folks,those "everyday" snaps really do matter and they don't too often look for that one real artistic print.

Take what you need from it.

 

[rembrant]

I still shoot 10 rolls for every roll of 120 and every 10 4X5. In my way thinking MF and LF supplement 35mm, I imagain that for others 35 supplements MF or LF. I think 35mm provides better selection of films, lens, better speed, 5 FPS with my Sigma SA 9, and overall much is more lugable, not to mention cost. I seldom print larger than 11X14. MF and LF will delver higher quality negatives but for the most part I prefer 35mm.

Exactly.

If,at some point I'm making shots National Geographic wants-desperately....it's time to quit my day job and get a med format rig and hike the Sierra Nevada,visit the Amazon,the country villages of France etc. I'm GOOD at photography...not excellent. If I could make photography a lucrative career and not just a hobby...I'd have a 645 Pentax,with ALL the lenses and a View Camera that would make Weston jealous. I'd STILL often shoot with my 35.
The ability to be very mobile or subtle and discreet can more than offset scale and resolution.

 

[David Brown]

As for myself, I don't care who's right: I like 35mm.

Well, that's basically the "argument", isn't it?

There are different tools for different jobs. Photographers that consider cameras as tools will choose accordingly. I think comparing formats is often a bit like comparing cars to trucks to motorcycles. They are all vehicles and will all get from point A to B, but then any direct comparisons start to break down.

And (IMHO) comparing film sizes to the megapixel standard (which is questionable as a "standard" in its own right - but for another forum) is just pointless. To me, it's just being a gearhead. ("filmhead"?)

Having said all that: The last few years have seen me shoot 95% medium format at the expense of 35mm. This is mostly attributable to my participation in a project with other photographers (all of them shooting sheet film), where we are doing what I call "tripod" photography. In this case, the larger cameras and negatives have a reason (see above: right tool for the job).

But after a few years of this, I feel a real strong need to return to my own, solo (as it were) photography, and two immediate projects I have in mind lend themselves to 35mm. One is macro oriented. This project, if it evolves, may morph to medium format later, but the experimental stage will all be done in 35mm. It's just easier.

The other project requires portability and a lot of telephoto usage, and 35mm wins hands down for this. It's also going to be (mostly) in color.

I may even start bulk loading, just so I can have shorter rolls. I do admit to disliking 36 exposure rolls!

So, it's all in what one needs, and wants. And, gear is so cheap, have both!

 

[André E.C.]

As far as I'm concerned, 35mm is almost "dead", still love those cameras (an F2 and a Contax IIA) but can't stand the negative size anymore.

Got even worse when recently I bought my Rolleiflex for handheld work, I´m still thinking what to do with that cool 35mm gear, maybe one of these days I wake up kinda twisted and all go to auction. It´s a crime to have them neglected like that, at least someone loving the format would give them a good use.


Cheers


André

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Shameless self-promotion: Dead Link Removed

André, I'd love to have your opinion on it.

 

[sbelyaev]

I shoot mostly 35mm now after forays into MF and LF. My photography has become more of a hobby and record for my older years (but Alzheimer's or dementia will take care of that) then an important statement or a sale which I'm it interested in doing. The whole bigger is better thing only lasts till your bed ridden or dead and in the ground, then it's just something else to be gotten rid of by your relatives or the State if you die childless like me. The rest is shoe boxed or put into an albumn where it's seen once a year if lucky. The thing that's more important is serving God, family and friends. Camera format is not one of them, so bigger and better is meaningless except for people who sell camera stuff. May as well travel small and light.

Completely agree with above.

 

[André E.C.]

Shameless self-promotion: Dead Link Removed

André, I'd love to have your opinion on it.

Well, fair enough to the author and for those who work and love the format, I don't have nothing against 35mm, but again, my post above, was just a personnal statement, one should use what whatever work for himself.

I don't feel any nostalgia for 35mm, for the kind of photography I make, MF is what works for me, nothing else. Certainly I'm not going to lose my time or the time of others, trying to explain the advantages of MF over 35mm, MF is my thing, if 35mm suits others, great, go out and have fun with it.




Cheers


André

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Well, fair enough to the author and for those who work and love the format, I don't have nothing against 35mm, but again, my post above, was just a personnal statement, one should use what whatever work for himself.

Oh, I wasn't sure when you said "dead" whether you meant only for your own work, or in general. Didn't mean to imply you had to justify your own choice, I am just curious about opinions on 35mm in general.

 

[André E.C.]

Yes, the satement above was strictly personnal, nothing else.

35mm was, it is and always going to be, a valid platform to operate, if thats the format of choice for the photographer for a specific end.

Format wars, pixel comparisons and whatsoever, are just a bunch of crap, if you like, use it, that's it!


Cheers


André

 

[DanielOB]

The grain from 35 mm film is chalange it is beutiful. Photog need really to master photography to the very end to be able to answer respectfully on that chalange. Misuse of 35 and its grain leads to disappointment and thinking it is not good, lets try larger format with lower grain. Larger format is for shift and tilt, but do not forget grain and with larger format. Grain is drama, one of the most important quality of photography.
Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com

 

[mikez]

The grain from 35 mm film is chalange it is beutiful. Photog need really to master photography to the very end to be able to answer respectfully on that chalange. Misuse of 35 and its grain leads to disappointment and thinking it is not good, lets try larger format with lower grain. Larger format is for shift and tilt, but do not forget grain and with larger format. Grain is drama, one of the most important quality of photography.
Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com

That's all subjective, but I don't completely disagree. Still there are many more reasons to shoot large format than lower visible grain. And there is a lot more to large format than shift and tilt.