Dilemma: I fell back in love with 35mm

[Klainmeister]

I adore Acros. Unfortunately I find myself using faster film much if the year. Ive found medium format to be a great way to shoot 400 speed film but still have the detail i want which can be lost in the grain in 35mm. I still love 35mm for the fast glass and small size though.

I think that's why Neopan 400 was the best for me: it was fast, retained enough detail, and acted like Across in so many ways. Try Acros in 35mm with a nice lens and I think you'll enjoy the results.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Whatever you do, don't sell off your 35mm gear! That will surely strike you as regrettable later down the track. What you have discovered is what many people do: "fixing my mistakes with 35mm by using a larger format, but now that my technique is better, 35mm does exactly what I want." Yep, why can't legions of others think and see that way? No, they're often too blindsided by the need to keep up with others. Way too many people discard 35mm and jump to MF, LF or ULF in search of nirvana — as a result, 35mm is never mastered. I've recently acquired MF gear (it's not my first), but I have not disenfranchised myself from 30+ years of using 35mm exclusively, and will continue to use that go-to format, particularly for bushwalking. ACROS 100 is beautiful in 35mm, but looks even more bewitching in 6x7!

 

[Wade D]

I sold most of my MF & LF gear several years ago during some hard times and regretted it. Most of it has been replaced but not used as much now. It did give me a chance, however, to use my long neglected 35mm gear and I love it. The larger formats still have their place and are used when I deem it necessary. For everyday use I carry one of the 35mm bodies and a few lenses.

 

[bwfans]

A great thread and it is a pleasure to read.

 

[baachitraka]

It brings great confidence in me, after reading this thread.

 

[Aristophanes]

For me MF (645) is for fussing over what I may want to get printed, with bigger is better. I get all fussy with MF, all "photographic".

My 35mm is for shooting in volume, getting the lab to send me 4x6's, unloading the envelope on the table, spreading them out, grabbing a beer, and having a look, usually of something involving family shots, or just the scenery from an outing, social event, whatever.

Format and content can meet on different levels through different processes. If you start with the mindset that printing big is the end, then you'll veer towards bigger negs and the detail those create. Sometimes it's just about dozens of photos spread across the kitchen table for a fun look-see.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Agree completely with E. von Hoegh about how large format teach you not only to take better photos but also how to process the film.
I started shooting 35mm back in the early 70's and did not get a MF camera until around 2002, it then went LF first 4x5 and then 8x10
Now i like to shoot anything between 35mm and 8x10.
35mm is so refreshing when all you have used for a while is 8x10

Something else I learned from using LF is what a great job 35mm does. I have some 8x10 prints from Panatomic X negatives that are razor sharp and nearly grain free, which is quite an accomplishment for the film and lenses. Printing from LF negatives made me appreciate just how good good 35mm equipment is.

 

[Klainmeister]

As it should! If I had spent the time and the money (turns out a Mamiya 7II and 4 lenses is expensive), I could probably have had thousands of prints down and my technique perfected, but alas, whilst young, patience is not a skill yet perfected.

I'm now ordering hundreds of smaller papers to practice my 35mm technique, assuming then, that any "serious" images taken with the M7II will sing. I think though, that I will be carrying my 35mm with me as well as the M7II on trips. I love it, love it!

 

[Klainmeister]

Something else I learned from using LF is what a great job 35mm does. I have some 8x10 prints from Panatomic X negatives that are razor sharp and nearly grain free, which is quite an accomplishment for the film and lenses. Printing from LF negatives made me appreciate just how good good 35mm equipment is.

I've done some contact prints in the past with 4x5 and yeah, they look great. But once again--and I think a lot of people might feel this way as well--in a world where everything is becoming post processing sharp, smoothed digitally, and printed with inkjets, it's refreshing to see some grain, some blur, maybe even a couple of dust spots! Embrace imprerfection! After finally reaching the top of the mountain with grainless, tack sharp, beautiful images, I have now turned my eye back on my 'bad' prints with reverence and appreciation I hadn't considered before.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I've done some contact prints in the past with 4x5 and yeah, they look great. But once again--and I think a lot of people might feel this way as well--in a world where everything is becoming post processing sharp, smoothed digitally, and printed with inkjets, it's refreshing to see some grain, some blur, maybe even a couple of dust spots! Embrace imprerfection! After finally reaching the top of the mountain with grainless, tack sharp, beautiful images, I have now turned my eye back on my 'bad' prints with reverence and appreciation I hadn't considered before.

One thing I'm glad I learned, is what a really good print looks like. It doesn't look like something from a printer, not in B&W anyway. None of my prints are perfect, or anywhere near it. But if you compare a good contact print from an 8x10 B&W negative with anything from an inkjet, you'll see what I'm talking about.

I do try to eliminate any defects I can, there is no good reason to leave dust on a negative, or allow any other casual faults to creep in. Grain can sometimes "make" an image, but not very often.

 

[NB23]

I love the square format and I REFUSE to crop my 35mm negatives. Therefore I am doomed to use a Blad next to my Leicas.

Each reason is a valid reason

 

[Klainmeister]

Different strokes for different folks. I prefer the look of grain and aim for it. I've seen quite a lot of 8x10 contacts here in SFe, and have to say they are mighty beautiful sometimes. Other times, I think the sharpness and detials can almost detract from the overall image, so the subject matters quite a bit.

I get the same feeling regarding lith prints, they are so beautiful in their roughness sometimes.

 

[Klainmeister]

I love the square format and I REFUSE to crop my 35mm negatives. Therefore I am doomed to use a Blad next to my Leicas.

Each reason is a valid reason

Well if that's the case, I could help dispose of those Leicas!

 

[semi-ambivalent]

...I have also stopped worrying about the technical side as much because the technical side of the image does not matter if the pictures sucks in the first place, and a great picture that technically sucks in still a great image.

This year I'm determined to learn how to pull out of 35mm Tri-X the sort of quality and tonal scale I have seen others do. There is a great deal to be said for mastering the tools of your desire, but I think your remark above trumps that. Otherwise, why care about Frank or Winogrand? Does Rembrandt, by definition, beat the Impressionists?

s-a

 

[rakeshmravi]

Never sell something you loved once. It is such a waste and believe me... you will come back to this.

Years ago, I went through the same decision. The thing is that I love 35mm for what it can do best (better than what MF can). And I also love MF in what MF can do better then the 35mm.

Once, I was going to sell of my 35mm to go full on MF (reverse of what you are trying to do). Then I thought... "how much of my work am I printing in large size? And how much of my comfort and freedom am I willing to give up to move completly to MF?" After thinking a lot, I understood that I needed both, just for different purpose. I do almost all of my street photography and macro on my 35mm. The only time I use RZ67 is when I really need the resolution for landscape/village side work. I almost did when I sold my F5 and couple of lenses. It took me almost an year to get back the full 35mm set I once had. I am glad that I didn't sell of all my 35mm.

Perhaps you are in a different scenario. Just slowly build your new inventory. You can always find some manual focus lenses cheap.

 

[Klainmeister]

I know, I know. I won't sell the MF system. I think I'll just use both together more often. I was making idle threats (and I think my camera will never love me the same again). But hot damn, how come nobody told me how sweet the Nikon FE is. I mean seriously!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I would add that new experiences are wonderful things.

The big, thick, stiff and chunky focus of my Pentax 55mm lens is an experience far removed from the snap-and-go lightning focus of my EOS1N. That only requires the shutter to be pressed, an Av to be checked and it's "GO!".
Sing to another aria: I get all touchy-feely and involved with the big 67 format (and it commands attention wherever it goes), but the oft-derided by digimons 1N has a defining "stand there and gawk" presence, "The One" that has produced almost countless images printed to Ilfochrome and framed. So it has great sentimental, if zero cash value. My behemoth 67 is "unproven" in this regard because nothing from it has yet been printed and framed (ah, but it's going to catch up pretty darned soon). Even the Zero Image pinhole, taking anything from 6x4.5, 6x7 to 6x9, is again, far removed from any of the other "big guns" in operation and produces beautiful images,many of which have been printed and framed. Experiment with, and get to know many formats and their qualities, but don't ever, ever ditch one in preference for another. Others here no doubt echo this, and it can't be repeated often enough.

This thread is going to have a Biblical quality about it, I can see that. It is a "must read" for those considering jumping from one lily to the next.

 

[CGW]

I know, I know. I won't sell the MF system. I think I'll just use both together more often. I was making idle threats (and I think my camera will never love me the same again). But hot damn, how come nobody told me how sweet the Nikon FE is. I mean seriously!

Don't fret. I've got<<gulp>>3 FEs. Don't ask. But then I've also got 2 F3s...

Frankly, I'm not shooting much 35mm these days. As my kid got older and el cheapo Costco dev/print service died, I ended 10-12 years of binge shooting C-41. Stuck now with too many 35mm Nikon bodies. Glass is forever.

Love medium format and am inching toward home development/scanning for b&w. Will shoot 120 E6 and C-41 till it gets too spendy or tiresome to access.

The FE is sweet, as is the teensy but capable FG.

 

[rakeshmravi]

I know, I know. I won't sell the MF system. I think I'll just use both together more often. I was making idle threats (and I think my camera will never love me the same again). But hot damn, how come nobody told me how sweet the Nikon FE is. I mean seriously!

If it makes you feel better.... Nikon FE is a good one. In fact, I am an nikonion I owned FE, F100, F5 and currently F6. I sold an old Rollei 6008 and bought the F6. F6 is my fav camera. Uses it almost everyday. Mamiya rz67 just sitting there waiting for Weekends to arrive

 

[Klainmeister]

Well, for color I am definitely sticking with the M7II and some Velvia or Provia. The scans from a drum or Imacon are astounding and I have access to printers that can do them justice.

As for the FE, here's something interesting: I was raised a Canon guy. My first camera was an Eos that my dad let me shoot sometimes on family vacations, and I always found their digital offerings superior to the rest. When I was old enough to being purchasing my own equipment, I had a Canon AE-1 and some FD glass. Thought it couldn't get better. But my prints always sucked, so I blamed the equipment and not the user...then began the MF migration.

But, now because of circumstances I find myself using both the Canon and Nikon at the same time, I wonder what the ?!@I% I was thinking! Although, glass wise, some of the FD lenses have a quality about them that's hard to put my finger on....

Nevertheless, now both systems are providing excellent images. I love em both for different reasons.

To anyone unconvinced of the 35mm potential, buy a $20 Minolta Hi-Matic rangefinder, throw in some 100 speed film, set it to A, and go shoot a roll today. Go home and print. Tell me that ain't beautiful.

 

[Klainmeister]

Oh and an addendum: when I first was shooting 35mm, I felt the need to scan, which emphasized the grain, was never sharp, and totally unfun. I think that helped drive me away. Man, was I missing out! Darkroom is totally different beast. So to anyone who reads this in the future, don't look at scans to make your judgement calls. But we all know that here anyhow...right

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]don't look at scans to make your judgement calls. But we all know that here anyhow...right

Also people musn't pass judgement on images based on scanned representations on the web. Remember RGB colour and rendering is an entirely different beast to celluloid. View the original, then make judgement.

 

[Pumalite]

The Chinese say: " Happiness is to begin again"
I'm all for multi-format.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Don't you all think that the charm and fascination with 35mm is that in spite of its compact size, and the small negative it produces, it is still capable of absolutely amazing results?

I actually relish the challenge of making a great 9x12" print from 35mm TMY-2/Tri-X. I love trying to eke every little bit of performance out of that 24x36mm piece of film. That in combination with just how incredibly easy and relaxing a 35mm system is to use; it gives me so much time to think about the shot while I'm taking the picture, to frame the shot well, to include interesting elements that might be moving, etc. It fascinates me that I can expose the film with such ease, and still get all the quality I need in the darkroom (and then some), to show what I would like to show.

While I love using my Hasselblad camera too, it's a different animal entirely, and nowhere near the same level of spontaneity while taking pictures. With the Hasselblad it's tougher to actually get the shot, but in return the printing in the darkroom is a little bit easier.

All in all, I think both systems require the same effort in total. 35mm demands a little bit more in the darkroom, while the 120 demands a bit more while shooting. In my mind, I end up with the same quality print, so I'm happy to use both, but for different reasons.

 

[charlief64]

As to talking you out of selling your MF gear DON'T DO IT!. I went through a "down to the bare minimum" phase when I was moving a couple of years ago. Now I find myself re purchasing equipment. It doesn't take up that much real estate. Hang on to it. You will end up using it sooner or later.