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

[Rolleiflexible]

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

...

The problem with his argument is that 35mm just happens to produce damn fine images!

...

IMO, this whole thread is somewhat of an exercise in blowing hot air.

Since you didn't read the thread, it's hard to
take your conclusion about it seriously. FWIW,
I find that the step up from 35mm to 6x6 or 6x9
makes a big difference in the textures and detail
in a negative, even printed in sizes below 8x10.
Eyes are more liquid, skin is more nuanced, and
the greyscale transitions are less abrupt.

Going up from roll film to sheets, my experience
is that the gain comes not so much from resolution
as from tonality, at least in smaller enlargements.
Again, the bigger negative renders more subtle
tones and transitions, in my experience. Yours
of course might differ.

 

[nolanr66]

The 35mm is certainly worth it's weight. Not everyone is striving for medium format, digital or large format detail. As everyone knows many very famous photographers used a 35mm camera such as Wesson, Salgado and of course many of the National Geographic Photographers such as McCurry.. In todays digital world it has fallen out of grace along with the medium format. However if a person wants a versatile, high quality camera then the 35mm is certainly an option. My hobby is general photography and I find the 35mm to be ideal. I can take it with me anywhere I go and it is very little bother. It is especially good for vacations and family shots. My E-6 film produces excellent quality pictures. I do not think that 35mm vs medium format needs to be an either/or type thing. You can use both if you have a mind to. As we all know the 35mm has been vastly successful until recent years. It was so successful because it was ideal for most people. Of course digital has put the 35 and medium format on the endangered species list and who knows what will happen. I think even the current digital camera's are on the endagered species list as I am guessing that the digital world is going large image capture camcorders. You then select out a single frame for a print. A new world out there and there is no place for old men.

 

[JBrunner]

The disconnect is when persons equate resolution withe picture quality, as if negative size and resolution were the only factor in a workflow or intention or printing method. 35mm shines in its strong places, as does medium format, and large format, and the variety of emulsions, processing, printing methods and equipment are the Herculean strength of the analog approach. What I see here is some people assuming that the way they photograph, what they photograph, and their printing intention is the definition of photography, and it isn't. The postulation that bigger is better, faster is better, lighter is better, etc. are inherently flawed because the postulations either lack a context, or assume a context. Better is what gets you to your intention, and sometimes that can be 8x10, and sometimes that's a Minox.

Knowing what and when rather than clinging to or dismissing one or the other helps make a "real" photographer. My wooby is better than your wooby is what I expect out of a camera club of people who couldn't photograph their way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[cbphoto]

Because 35mm is awesome. Because Hasselblads take way too long to focus. Because 12 exposures go by way too fast. Because not all photography is of still subjects or even posed animated subjects. Because 2.8 isn't very fast. Because pocketable cameras are awesome. Because 36 exposures of Tri-X is $2.19.

Because Leicas don't come in 6x6.

 

[Perry Way]

here's an objective plug..

I just got back from a vacation in a winter resort location in California, Big Bear Lake up on the Rim of the World motorway. I purposefully brought only my Zero Image 4x5 system and my RB67, or so I thought (More on that in a minute.) So the whole week I'm shooting pinholes, zone plates, changing film holders nightly I've got 10 or 11 film holders so do the math.. about 20 sheets a day. And I fed the RB with I think 7 or 8 rolls. I did some scenes 4 different ways, different times of day, different weather. But the whole time I am there, there are a few places that I drive by and wish I could get out to photograph, but these are special areas like do not stop and no parking and fenced off land with some sign Eagle Habitat closed and I'm seeing there's some footprints in the snow but no sign of how they got there and I'm thinking maybe I could hike it in about half a mile. That part's not so bad, but while I thought about it, it occurred to me that it would be best if I got some advice by the Ranger, so off to the center they have up there to ask a few questions but they are closed or were closed from Wednesday on to when I left which was yesterday. So I never braved stopping the truck along those places, but wished I could rig my tripod with strapping inside my truck and use a really long cable to snap off a few as I drove by kind of thing. As I am packing my things to go home, this is when I discover my Voigtlander point and shooter 35mm. And ah ha, I have at least 10 frames left on that roll of what is it?? FP4? wow! Just the right film for these scenes of shadowed snow and huge specimen pines and cedars I wanted to get. Then it hits me.. The whole trip, I could have used it to take those photos I wanted in that Eagle Habitat area. This is when I wished I could roll back time... maybe stocked up on some film to shoot with..

You know... a person could be really inventive and make a whole series on moving still photography.. mounting a point and shooter on their car or bike, and take pictures you can only get while you are in motion. A lot of those "do not stop" areas come to my mind first... Anyway, the point I'm also making is that in the 35mm category you have seeming countless options to get equipped for the style of photography you enjoy the most. And in a jam, if you're a naturist or landscaper, a 35mm might come in handy for those moments that are inevitably going to come to pass.

 

[ic-racer]

It took me 30 years to figure out the obvious.

I use bigger film when I intend on making bigger prints.

Minox and 16mm usually 4x5 and 5x7

35mm usually 5x7 to 7x10

4x5 up to 16 x 20

8x10 16 x 20 and beyond...

I certainly will do Minox to 16x20, but what I have found is that if I print my small negatives with the same low mag. ratios that I use with 8x10 (1.4x or 2x) then I get the same fine grain and sharpness as 8x10...only the prints are smaller! So, I have not sold off any of my rollfilm or mini cameras.

 

[Ian Grant]

If you look at original pre-WWII contemporary images made with 35mm, MF and up to 9x12 cameras you find none are enlarged greatly, usually less than 10x8, which mirrors ic-racers comments, and for good reasons, that seems to give optimum results.

That still hold true today and is a major reason many of us use MF and large format, 35mm get's nowhere close in quality, but in some cases may be far more practical which is why it's was and to a small extent still is by professionals, but outside of Journalism MF or LF would always be used in preference except in certain applications.

There's no reason why that can't apply with personal work to, particularly when the images are shot for exhibiting, publications etc.

Ian

 

[Pumal]

I use what I need, when I need it; and all, with a purpose. Each format has its place.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't feel my 11x14 prints (the largest I print) lack enough in quality from well processed 35mm (Pentax, TMY-2, Xtol) compared to medium format (Hasselblad, TMY-2, Xtol) that it's much worth mentioning. It took me a while to learn how to process the film to get those types of results. A long time. But I'm there. So now it's mainly about how practical it is to shoot with either camera that decides which one I pick. Seriously.

It does depend slightly on the subject matter, of course. I don't shoot landscape with 35mm, I reserve pinhole for that exercise, so my opinion might be skewed. I shoot mainly portraits and city scenes with the 35.

There is no good, better, best. Only what the user deems good enough. If those criteria are met, who's to say they're wrong?

 

[beautgrainger147]

I'm a hobbist and tend to use only vintage cameras (though I've a modern slr incase), 35mm contax II 6x9 bessa II and 4x5 a crown graphic.. hardly use 4x5 but am looking to. I've found for general daylight photography and some available light I prefer the 35mm and indoor nightime (mainly flash) the 6x9. I use the contax about as much as the medium format because the image quality is actually not bad with the size of prints I usually go for and if I use colour (though not often) it tends to be a bit cheaper

 

[mojoe]

i think that if more people know more about photography and its manual capabilities ,
they would use 120 format for more artistic and creative photography + getting it developed can be hard
i only know a handfull of labs that develop and print 120.
its good to see the unis are still teaching the art of analog 120 photography with holga cameras and other 120
format cameras.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I take the 120 C-41 color to a photo store.

While finding a photo finisher that will process black & white at a decent price can be hard I have found that processing and printing the black & white film takes some learning and can be satisfying, much the same as self-flagellation. :rolleyes:

Steve

 

[Chuck_P]

It's new years resolution of mine-------shoot more 35mm b&w, I'll never disregard the small format, I just think of it and use it differently now, but I will always use it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's new years resolution of mine-------shoot more 35mm b&w, I'll never disregard the small format, I just think of it and use it differently now, but I will always use it.

I will always use 35mm, but I will not always use 35mm.

Steve

 

[Chuck_P]

I will always use 35mm, but I will not always use 35mm.

Steve

Good point.

 

[Moose38]

I've owned & done it all when it comes to formats. But i keep comming back to 35mm. Every time you pull the triger on a 4x5. Your looking at a 3.00 for every shot tooken. Ansel adams was the man. But many feel that Henry Cartier-Bresson was the best photographer of the 20the centry. Main reason i think. Is because the 35mm camera allowed access to images you could pull off with any other camera. Many of his images were fast & random. You could'nt getaway with street photography like that using an LF. Then there is cost. 35mm film is the cheapest way to go. Even though it's a small negative. Image quality will still get better with a good quality Optic.

 

[AmsterdamMartin]

Today I own and use various: 35mm, MF, 6x9, 4x5", DX digital.
Before that I just used a 35mm manual rangefinder for twenty years.
Looking back I have come to the conclusion that in the past I used my 35mm most of the time as a MF camera ! And occasionally as a P&S or even "LF". But in the eigthies and nineties I never had a choice, because of age and financial situation.
I knew how to work around the disadvantages of 35mm and my particular camera in any type of shooting situation. Rarely I just had to let go an opportunity.
There were hardly ever any total losses, the only thing is that I wasn't always strong in choosing the best exposure. I didn't experiment that much as I do now.

By the year 2001 I bought my first digital SLR. Because of the instant feedback and the advanced matrix metering, the camera taught me to make better exposed pictures all the time. It gave me the opportunity to make a big step forwards in learning best exposure, while experimenting and deleting all the time.
Because of the experimenting with a DSLR, I got interested in film again.

I guess now I use every format for what it is intented to, with great joy.
Digital is for birthdays etc.
35mm: When I suddenly see a great scene and have to apply full breaks, jumping out of the car to get the picture, I use my Nikon F90x with agfa apx (catching 12 zones !). I can not get a great picture like that using a LF, like Ansel Adams with his moonrise.
The MF's and LF's I use to "paint" a photo. I especially like them for getting very different types of lighting in various parts of the big negatives, in difficult lighting situations.

Resolution has never ever been an issue for me, printing at 8x10" max, digital and analog. I am not a cropper also.
Even the quality of my 35mm negatives is far greater than the abilities of my scanner and printer anyway.
Only grain is sometimes bothering me, so I use iso 100 in 35mm and digital, iso 400 in MF and iso 25 in LF. All B&W except digital and MF (provia).

Maybe the biggest advantage of LF is that I started reading more books about composition and lighting, and taking my photography even more seriously.
It's the psychological effect of having a "perfect" camera.

 

[jp498]

I like 35mm for existing light (indoor) candids and lens selection. Not much else has affordable f1.4-f2 lenses. Autofocus is good for some candids too. Not necessary, but I like it with AF-L focus lock. 35mm B&W has as aesthetic edge over color digital for some existing light situations where the light color quality is bad (mixed incandescent and flourescent for example, or CFL lighting, or daylight and incandescent mixed...), or if you want to focus on the subject, not the color of the subject or background....

Grain won't be a problem if you use Tmax film and don't print bigger than 5x7 or the occasional 8x10.

I also use large format which makes really nice digital-beating quality. I haven't shot at wider than f8 yet with that since my lens starts at 5.6. Very nice but not super practical, even with a speed graphic.

I've also got a 6x6 TLR which needs a servicing. I like the format, shape, small size, quietness, etc... Using Old-school B&W 400 film with it was far grainier than TMY2 in 35mm though. I'll have to shoot slower film or get some TMY2 for that camera if I intend to use it again.

 

[kadath]

Recently I bought a new 35mm camera (leicaflex sl). I could have gone to medium format, the price for a used yashica mat is less. But all my other stuff is for 35mm which I've shot for the last couple of years, on a canon 3000v (the cheap plastic one). Developing tank, plustek scanner, so there would be additional costs there. Plus, medium format slide projectors, enlargers etc. are all way more expensive, when if ever I could afford them. It's not just the camera cost. Plus I don't take many photos, I'm not a pro, so I don't see the point. I like to keep things simple, one camera, one 50mm lens, tri-x. Only the subject changes. 35mm is more versatile in that regard.

 

[Russ - SVP]

Many of us do not make huge prints. With good glass, good film and proper technique, I get very nice large prints from the 35mm format.

Kiron Kid

 

[applesanity]

I do a lot of street shooting and I went from a Nikon FM2N with a 28mm lens to a Bronica SQ-Ai with a 50mm lens (supposedly 28mm equivalent for 35mm). Before the Nikon FM2N, I was using a Canon DSLR. DSLRs just lack that visceral joy that film gives you.

I realized that the transition between going from my Canon DSLR to the Nikon FM2N was very difficult. I lost auto-wind and rewind, zone/matrix metering, aperture and shutter priority, AUTOFOCUS, and TTL flash. But it was like going from automatic to stick shift driving. You wonder why you ever did auto at all. Now I can't stand stand those autofocus viewfinders - it is so difficult to identify proper focus unless the red circle blinks. Today's ground glass just plain sucks - on purpose.

It took me a dozen rolls through the Nikon FM2N to get anywhere comfortable with using it, Center-weighted metering is rarely that accurate if you think about it. You have to meter the grass, the sidewalk in shadow, then recompose. After about another dozen rolls, I realized I was faster in operation with a 1980's era manual focus camera than any DSLR with the exception of those $3,000+ pro rigs.

When I graduated to MF with my Bronica, I realized I now had a new set of difficulties. No meter, slower focus, slower lenses, being backwards, being bigger etc. I've put dozens of rolls through the thing and I'm still not as fast with it as I can be with the Nikon. But I am a lot faster than when I started out. Now it's the camera of choice. I still do the same kind of shooting as I have always done; now I have big big negatives with which to play.

So there's the different angle after 7 pages. If you force yourself to learn how to operate MF quickly, eventually you can.

 

[clayne]

Please, let's not even discount the amount of literally world-changing photographs that were able to even be made as a result of 35mm's small size and "be there" ability. Not everything is about huge prints and gallery shows.

 

[removed account4]

there are plenty of photographers who only shoot 35mm and have gallery shows
i believe duane michaels is one of them ...
i never knew camera and print size made that much of a difference.

 

[Mike1234]

I've decide to switch exclusively to Minox and print 60x70 inches or larger.

 

[Ian Grant]

So there's the different angle after 7 pages. If you force yourself to learn how to operate MF quickly, eventually you can.

Add to that it's easy to learn to shoot LF quickly too, as many of us can. Often hand held and, some even shoot street scenes, sports, Olympics, Politics

Ian