If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?

Chris Nielsen · Nov 25, 2009

Ditching my light meter helped me learn to shoot my Rolleicord faster, just focus and shoot. Sunny 16 to set it up and if the light changes a little just leave the thing set and the six stops of overexposure latitude in fp4 takes care of any slight overexposure

removed account4 · Nov 25, 2009

Rolleiflexible said:
Speed is a function of transparency. If you have
internalized the workings of your instrument, you
will work quickly and effortlessly with it. I shot
only a view camera for years, and I work quickly
with it now. I wince every time I hear someone
say they've moved to large format because it
forced them to slow down. That tells me they
don't know their tool yet.

EXACTLY!!

lxdude · Nov 25, 2009

Funny, it's not that long ago the original question would have been moot, because all most folks could afford was 35mm.

After using 645 for a while now, I have to say there are times when I find myself craving my 35mm stuff. My ETRSi with 105mm macro lens gives wonderful results, but when I'm out in the field on my belly framing something tiny, the much less bulk and weight and tighter framing of my Pentax MX with a macro just works better, and still gives really nice results.
For just walking around photography as well, I've gained a new appreciation for the smaller format. It's less of a production and sometimes I like that better. I enjoy working with a tripod, MLU and cable release sometimes and working quickly handheld sometimes. After using the larger format I find it refreshing to use 35mm for a while.
It's nice to have the choice.

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 25, 2009

I like how you think. And I like your results from 35mm Leica, Box Brownie, Rolleiflex, and 5x7 equally.

Rolleiflexible said:
Speed is a function of transparency. If you have
internalized the workings of your instrument, you
will work quickly and effortlessly with it. I shot
only a view camera for years, and I work quickly
with it now. I wince every time I hear someone
say they've moved to large format because it
forced them to slow down. That tells me they
don't know their tool yet.

WolfTales · Nov 25, 2009

Different formats have different aspect ratios that translate on different mediums for better or worse.

perkeleellinen · Nov 25, 2009

Horses for courses, different strokes for different folks.

JBrunner · Nov 25, 2009

Really this whole thing boils down to the misuse of a word, that word being "better". Better for whom? Better at what? Utterly subjective decisions can only be intelligently arrived at within a context, and saying MF and LF are better than 135 as a foregone conclusion of the question forgos the context. I own all three. All three are better than the other two, in context.

Perry Way · Nov 25, 2009

Rolleiflexible said:
Speed is a function of transparency. If you have
internalized the workings of your instrument, you
will work quickly and effortlessly with it. I shot
only a view camera for years, and I work quickly
with it now. I wince every time I hear someone
say they've moved to large format because it
forced them to slow down. That tells me they
don't know their tool yet.

I'll take it that I made you wince then

Say, could there be any other possible reason to slow down? I mean it would be kind of fun eh.. to prop up your LF camera on your car's window sill and snap a few off while riding down the highway eh? I mean.. after all if you've been using it for years and have gotten to know it well.

Alright, snide humor bit over.. What about the cost of the film? And how many exposures you can make, and the time involved in loading the film holders and all that stuff? Wouldn't someone naturally want to slow down, smell the roses and make sure every last bit is exactly the way they want? I'm just askin'....

Lee L · Nov 25, 2009

Perry Way said:
Wouldn't someone naturally want to slow down, smell the roses and make sure every last bit is exactly the way they want? I'm just askin'....

Mechanical/logistic issues aside, you can be sloppy or careful, fast or slow, efficient or bumbling with any format or gear. The subject and goal will determine the appropriate working speed of a good photographer.

I know plenty of folks who are fast and very good with large format. I know plenty who are slow and poor at using both small format and large format gear. I also know a number of folks who are intentionally slow, meditative, and careful with 35mm.

Just like saying a format is better based solely on size, it's also not necessarily true to claim that slowing down is tied to a particular format, or that going at a given pace is better or worse.

These are all false dichotomies.

Lee

WetMogwai · Dec 2, 2009

Rolleiflexible said:
Speed is a function of transparency. If you have
internalized the workings of your instrument, you
will work quickly and effortlessly with it. I shot
only a view camera for years, and I work quickly
with it now. I wince every time I hear someone
say they've moved to large format because it
forced them to slow down. That tells me they
don't know their tool yet.

Cost is what forces me to slow down. With 35mm, I have 24-36 chances to make the shot I want come out right for about the same price as with a single sheet of 4x5. Since I can develop that single sheet on its own but I have to fill up the roll of film to make it cost effective to develop, I will shoot more with the 35mm. With the 4x5, I slow down and make sure everything is exactly the way I want it. With the 35mm, I just shoot away.

Some of the slow deliberateness of LF has been creeping into my 35mm style. I find it is taking me much longer to finish a roll of film now. I'm much more careful about each shot than I was before.

Mike1234 · Dec 2, 2009

I learned fairly young to be very choosy regarding my subjects and meticulous in handling of same. Often I would come home empty-handed or with just one shot. But I was always happy with the one shot. That said, I've also burned several rolls of 135 film to get those one or two difficult-to-catch shots but those were while trying to record very transient moments such as the abstract colorations of soap bubbles, moving insects, sports subjects with long telephoto, etc. In my later years... maybe 18-22 I only used 135 for macro, long telephoto, and quickly moving subjects. Now, nearly 27 years later and getting back into "real" photography (that which "I" enjoy) I'm concentrating on assembling LF only. Cost is of little concern to me regarding film/processing/printing because of the way I shoot sheet film... VERY SPARINGLY. If I can't see a stellar final image in my mind I just won't shoot anything.

jphendren · Dec 2, 2009

Cost, portability and flexibility. Those are the main reasons for me. It is MUCH easier to carry a Nikon F6 on a hike than a 4X5" camera. Also, you can switch from shooting tripod mounted scenics to wildlife/action shots simply by changing the lens. While I'm not sure if it can be done, I've never heard of anyone shooting wildlife with a LF camera.

Jared

moouers · Dec 2, 2009

JBrunner said:
Really this whole thing boils down to the misuse of a word, that word being "better". Better for whom? Better at what? Utterly subjective decisions can only be intelligently arrived at within a context, and saying MF and LF are better than 135 as a foregone conclusion of the question forgos the context. I own all three. All three are better than the other two, in context.

Absolutely! There's no need for me to add anything, really.

Rolleiflexible · Dec 2, 2009

Perry Way said:
I'll take it that I made you wince then

Say, could there be any other possible reason to slow down? I mean it would be kind of fun eh.. to prop up your LF camera on your car's window sill and snap a few off while riding down the highway eh? I mean.. after all if you've been using it for years and have gotten to know it well.

Alright, snide humor bit over.. What about the cost of the film? And how many exposures you can make, and the time involved in loading the film holders and all that stuff? Wouldn't someone naturally want to slow down, smell the roses and make sure every last bit is exactly the way they want? I'm just askin'....

I know you wrote to be snide, but did it
ever occur to you that, until the 1950s,
photographers used press cameras just as
you suggest? Contemporaneous accounts
of the Hindenburg crash say the ground was
littered with film holders as the assembled
press photographers shot through their
film -- it was over in less than a minute
but dozens of negatives were shot in that
moment. They knew their tools and they
worked quickly, hand-held, impromptu.

Ask Weegee.

If expense is what is slowing you down,
then you're slowing up out of economics,
not artistic merit. And if you find artistic
merit in slowing down, you don't have to
use a camera that feels clumsy to you to
slow down. Just ... slow down.

Perry Way · Dec 2, 2009

Rolleiflexible said:
If expense is what is slowing you down, then you're slowing up out of economics, not artistic merit. And if you find artistic
merit in slowing down, you don't have to use a camera that feels clumsy to you to slow down. Just ... slow down.

Yes Sir! Shall I walk with a goose step too? Are you now going to follow my every step and correct me as I go with the hopes being for me to say things the way they make sense to you as opposed to others? If you read this whole thread you will find other people pretty well described the same concept in much the same manner than I did. Furthermore, it bothers me to be labeled as incorrect when this was a discussion about a very subjective matter. It is not up to you to decide how I should say things.

Sirius Glass · Dec 2, 2009

Well we have two touchy people here with us. Are there any more around?

Steve

keithwms · Dec 2, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
Are there any more around?

Steve

Any more what Steve? Are you looking at me? I always thought that you were prejudiced....

Sirius Glass · Dec 2, 2009

keithwms said:
Any more what Steve? Are you looking at me? I always thought that you were prejudiced....

You are right! I can't stand bigots!

removed account4 · Dec 2, 2009

Perry Way said:
I'll take it that I made you wince then

Say, could there be any other possible reason to slow down? I mean it would be kind of fun eh.. to prop up your LF camera on your car's window sill and snap a few off while riding down the highway eh? I mean.. after all if you've been using it for years and have gotten to know it well.

Alright, snide humor bit over.. What about the cost of the film? And how many exposures you can make, and the time involved in loading the film holders and all that stuff? Wouldn't someone naturally want to slow down, smell the roses and make sure every last bit is exactly the way they want? I'm just askin'....

perry

i shoot my lf camera just like that. someone drives and i ride shotgun.
i don't worry about film costs because the film is paid for and the whole purpose
is to expose the film anyways.
really see no point in slowing down.

and getting back to the point of the thread,
as i said before, i shoot my LF like a 35mm,
and i wish i could get 24 shots out of it before i have to reload.
i have a magazine camera that has 8 shots within the body of the camera
but it is a PITA because i have to stop after 8 shots ...

Perry Way · Dec 3, 2009

jnanian said:
perry

i shoot my lf camera just like that. someone drives and i ride shotgun.
i don't worry about film costs because the film is paid for and the whole purpose
is to expose the film anyways.
really see no point in slowing down.

and getting back to the point of the thread,
as i said before, i shoot my LF like a 35mm,
and i wish i could get 24 shots out of it before i have to reload.
i have a magazine camera that has 8 shots within the body of the camera
but it is a PITA because i have to stop after 8 shots ...

Well John, you're right man. And so am I too because this is all about opinion. That said, I'm sure if I had the same circumstances as you that I would likely feel similarly, or close to what you feel. As for me, I'm such a tight wad and because this is still an unpaid hobby for me, the cost of film, chemicals and time to develop is still of major concern to me. Add to that that I don't like waste and I don't like weeding through endless seas of negatives to find the one I like, so I tend to shoot slow no matter what camera I am using. I tend to risk less these days and yield more usable subject matter as a result. Perhaps when I'm tired of that angle I might take my Cambo and hand hold it riding shotgun, but right now that just seems very absurd to me! There is a difference between a Cambo and a Speed Graphic. Nobody can convince me that a Cambo can be shot with the same speed as a 35mm SLR Camera at a sporting event! In fact, I would challenge anyone wielding a Cambo against me with a SLR 35mm. We will see who can shoot more shots after 15 or 30 seconds.

Mike1234 · Dec 3, 2009

jnanian said:
... i shoot my LF like a 35mm,
and i wish i could get 24 shots out of it before i have to reload.

Acquire four Grafmatics.

removed account4 · Dec 3, 2009

Mike1234 said:
Acquire four Grafmatics.

lol

i have 4 r 5 bag mags
but even they are a nuisance ... you have to operate them ...

as helpful as the bagmags / grafmatics are it is much easier to jiggle the handle

Stephen Prunier · Jan 1, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
That is why APUG is so successful. Everyone of us can learn from anyone of us.

Edit: In reference to "how many ... make large prints [above 8"x10"], I regularly print 35mm color at 24"x36" and 120 film at 30"x30".

Steve

Are you having a drum scan done first or are you scanning yourself when you print at 24"x36"?

If I can make prints that large I would like to stay with 35mm.

Robert Budding · Jan 1, 2010

I haven't read all of the posts - way too many! But I use 35mm for low light photography. Fast lenses and better DOF than larger formats means that I can use slower film.

Greg Campbell · Jan 1, 2010

(I must admit to having skipped 80% of this thread. Forgive me if this is redundant.)

The OP presents somewhat of a 'loaded' straw-man argument: That 35mm is inherently useless because 'more must be better.' This is essentially the same argument favored by the mindless pixeldweebs who consider pixel count and endless menu options to be the very definition of 'photography.'

The problem with his argument is that 35mm just happens to produce damn fine images! The cameras and equipment are small, light, cheap to buy and feed, and often more robust than the typical MF system. The range of 'respectable' cameras stretches smoothly from a 110 (good enough for a 4x6 print!) all the way up to some crazy, half-ton, 4x5 (foot!) monstrosity. There's nothing magic about MF; it's not like making the modest jump from 35mm to 6x4.5 produces a disproportionate increase in image resolution. The laws of physics continue to operate in the same manner, no matter what size the film.

The bigger the camera, the greater the weight, cost of equipment, cost of operation, etc. In the end, it's pretty simple! How much resolution you are willing to 'pay' for? IMO, this whole thread is somewhat of an exercise in blowing hot air.

If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency