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

Just remember how much news footage and reportage in the first two-thirds of the 20th century was shot on Speed Graphics and Graflexes, using 6, 8 or 12 shot bag mags and grafmatics. Speed of operation is entirely in the skills of the photographer.

just show me a picture, just one. I know this is a talking forum but I need visual and spiritual input.
Yesterday I had a very interesting conversation with some guy. When I asked about his pictures he answered he was "too busy to actually perform photography". I would like to get rid of those people on a photography forum.
Indeed it depends on the quality of a photographer to see the light and work with any camera.
Show me something that YOU made on MF or LF that YOU couldn't have made on 35.
Convince us !

When graflexes where used, film was very very bad compared to now.
I love my speed graphic on 4x5 ADOX ART iso 25 in rodinal btw.

I am beginning to honestly rethink this question. I haven't shot 35 for a while now.

AmsterdamMartin said:

just show me a picture, just one. I know this is a talking forum but I need visual and spiritual input.
Yesterday I had a very interesting conversation with some guy. When I asked about his pictures he answered he was "too busy to actually perform photography". I would like to get rid of those people on a photography forum.
Indeed it depends on the quality of a photographer to see the light and work with any camera.
Show me something that YOU made on MF or LF that YOU couldn't have made on 35.
Convince us !

Click to expand...

A huge billboard.

how close do you look at huge billboards ? Especially those ones on high buildings ?
Please give me the exact location of your huge billboard and I will investigate.

Smaller formats definitely have their places but they're just not for me. That's not the type of shooting I want to do.

I want to be able to print up to 7x10 feet, display the prints on a wall, and have people walk up to within a couple of feet and gasp at the immense detail and utter lack of granulary. A 20x30 or larger would do a much better job of reaching my goals but I can't carry anything larger than an 8x10 anymore nor could I afford a ULF nor the lenses to cover the film. But for MY goals... a 135 is not an option.

35mm feels more natural to me. when i carry around my 35mm camera it is an extension of me, it flows naturally. i see something, i pull the camera out of my pocket and shoot. autofocus and metering helps a lot
i would never, ever shoot with a 35mm without a meter.
35mm is instinctive... once i lose that [i.e needing a meter, tripod, etc] i always step it up to medium format

AmsterdamMartin said:

just show me a picture, just one. I know this is a talking forum but I need visual and spiritual input.
Yesterday I had a very interesting conversation with some guy. When I asked about his pictures he answered he was "too busy to actually perform photography". I would like to get rid of those people on a photography forum.
Indeed it depends on the quality of a photographer to see the light and work with any camera.
Show me something that YOU made on MF or LF that YOU couldn't have made on 35.
Convince us !

When graflexes where used, film was very very bad compared to now.
I love my speed graphic on 4x5 ADOX ART iso 25 in rodinal btw.

Click to expand...

Well, for starters: (there was a url link here which no longer exists). Although the scans don't do it justice, there's no way I could have made that same shot with 35mm... I have no perspective control in 35mm for starters, and you can't make platinum prints from 35mm. The richness of detail and tonality wouldn't be there, even in an enlargement only to 6.5" x 8.5", because it's not a contact print.

Photographers appreciate print quality.

Mike1234 said:

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

Click to expand...

Well, then I'm going to ULF and make 4X5'' prints. I guess I'll have to print through a reversed enlarging lens.

i dont use 35mm much at all now, i love cameras that i can contact print from.

i use a crown graphic + 6x9 folder as my go anywhere cameras
calumet 4x5 for studio macro etc
4x5 pinhole + 8x10 homemade pinholes for big wide angle outdoor shots
and a 10x8 home made lens based cam as in and out camera

i have no enlarger so contact printing using a split grade light bulb setup

if i were to enlarge then a 35mm camera would be my choice, once enlarged all formats look much the same + i dont like big prints so i would print past 6x4.

but i just cant enlarge any more, i love my 6x9 contacts (wouldnt want to go smaller though)

i consider that

small = 6x9cm
medium = 5x4 "
large = 10x8"
x large = 11x14"
xx large 20x24"

+ contact printing opens up alt process, which is so much fun. i think that contact printing allows us as photographers to become print makers which after all is what photography is all about

im finding that im a lot more honest now in my photography , i cant bring myself to scan and shows pics online because its just not real and its too easy to minipulate to make them better than in real life.i can allways tell a photoshop pushed picture and i dont like it one bit.

so i use larger cameras to produce smaller pictures , but boy there is no way i would go back to enlarging and certainly not scanning

contact prints rule and is liberating

lxdude said:

Well, then I'm going to ULF and make 4X5'' prints. I guess I'll have to print through a reversed enlarging lens.

Click to expand...

FINALLY... someone who thinks like I do.

Ektagraphic said:

A huge billboard.

Click to expand...

How about murals - from half-frame?

http://weiser.net/Murals/murals.html

Matt

Mike1234 said:

Smaller formats definitely have their places but they're just not for me. That's not the type of shooting I want to do.

I want to be able to print up to 7x10 feet, display the prints on a wall, and have people walk up to within a couple of feet and gasp at the immense detail and utter lack of granulary. A 20x30 or larger would do a much better job of reaching my goals but I can't carry anything larger than an 8x10 anymore nor could I afford a ULF nor the lenses to cover the film. But for MY goals... a 135 is not an option.

Click to expand...

mike,

you really have things printed 7x10 feet ?

jnanian said:

mike,

you really have things printed 7x10 feet ?

Click to expand...

I'm just now getting back into "serious" photography but yes, I at least want to leave that option open.

Waste?

Its a matter of perception.....resolution and fine grain, I believe, are not the final arbiters of a good image. I have all the mentioned formats and use all regularly. I find 35mm free's me to be as spontaneous as possible. To be sure not all of my 35mm images are keepers but in very rapidly changing light conditions I can often get an image otherwise lost by setting up my tripod and 4X5.
To me, a good image is one that provides that moment of arrest of thought and senses. That WOW! No definition or critical analyisis or trying to find the true meaning or message. That is what I strive for.......have I achieved it.....in some images yes most no. I look for this quality regardless of format.

this seems like such a non-issue to me but I"m rather bored so I'll allow myself some rumination.

I know I lusted after a 4x5 for as long as I knew they existed. Now that I have one I am as pleased as can be. I love the 4x5 for reasons that are very difficult to explain but I probably enjoy the smug feeling I get when strangers ask me "Wow how old is that thing!?" I enjoy taking my time in a scene; what's the big hurry anyways? I greatly appreciate grainlessness and sharpness in medium-large prints.

I also understand that there are photographs I simply don't take because my camera is folded up in a pack instead of hanging from my neck. This doesn't bother me, maybe it should. My camera is not much (if at all) heavier than my 35mm SLR but the necessity of a sturdy tripod is a huge weight. It is a sacrifice that I am willing to make. My lens choice is much less limited with the 4x5. With 35mm I can go from 17-400 and add in the digital crop dealy and it's 640mm. With my 4x5 it's only 90 or 210. I just did a project from a kayak. How in god's name am I supposed to use a 4x5 from a kayak?

So clearly there are drawbacks to the 4x5. Perhaps the question should be "If 35mm is so much better why do we bother with large format?"

Anyways, I haven't used the 35mm film since September probably. I don't know why, it's nothing personal. Besides, if you're a True Artist you'll use a Mamiya 7ii. Obviously.

I'm extremely choosy when shooting LF. This is how it should be no matter what format, IMO. The strongest points of 135 are speed/readiness, long telephoto shots, wildlfife, sports, extreme macro, etc. LF is simply a different animal and medium format falls between these two extremes.

I'd like to throw my thoughts out there. I have shot with 4x5, a Mamiya RB67, 6x9 folding range finders, and 35mm Canon autofocus cameras.

I am going to buy a Canon 1V HS and 135mm f/2.0L lens soon. I find it easier to catch portraits and wild life with the format. One might shoot 35mm if you need to focus track something moving at 50km/h towards the camera up to 8m away (the 1V's limit), or shoot at 10 frames a second. Sports, street photography, candid portraiture, etc. are perfect places to carry 35mm.

I also just bought a 134mm f/4.5 Schneider Xenar lens from 1929-1931 and am building a cherry and bronze 4x5 field camera to do landcapes and studio work with. I shot my Canon in the studio, and then shot a 4x5 in the studio and instantly saw that under controlled conditions (light, space, models), 4x5 wins hands down. For more candid studio shots, 4x5 would be way too slow.

However, I also printed some 20x24 shots of 4x5 negatives and was blown away by the sharpness I was able to get across them. I've blown 35mm up to 11x14 in the darkroom and been pleased (I'm very much a pixel-peeper, and I inspect everything up close and scrutinize) with slow films like Ilford Pan F Plus or Rollei Pan 25. I would say that for very high print quality, you can't really push 35mm past 11x14 and expect the resolution to hold up. However, one of my colleagues blew up an old 35mm color negative to 20x24, or slightly larger, and even though it wasn't tack sharp and grainless, the image was still very strong because of its content and composition.

So I guess to answer the question of the thread, I bother with 35mm because of convenience of both 36 exposure film rolls, having a smaller pack to carry, being able to capture certain moments and having advanced automated functions available. It's really up to what the photographer needs or wants.

EDIT: I also wanted to add, I bother with 35mm because I can shoot with the camera in all kinds of weather and not have to worry about weather the camera will function. I'm not going to risk any of my 50-80 year old mechanical shutters to rusting because they get wet. Simple weather sealing could be a deal breaker for certain applications, even if final print quality suffers, you'd still be able to reliably get the shot.