There are several excellent full frame DSLR's now with the super nice 2:3 ratio and lots of those little pixels. They can be set to shoot precisely the same (effectively speaking) as any manual film SLR or as automated as you want. Nothing to fear but fear itself.
If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?
-
A
- Thread starter FilmOnly
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale PENTAX SPOTMATIC SPII
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Trade For Trade, Nikon D750 DSLR for Leica lllf
- Started by dankapsner
Forum statistics
Except that many people shoot film because they enjoy the process. And many also like cameras that are fine pieces of machinery rather than a plastic box full of circuit boards and built-in obsolescence.
Back on topic... I think 35mm film will survive just as readily as the larger formats. Too many people still love it.
Ian
Interesting comments, Ian...
With regard to "process," do you refer to the process of taking photographs with a 35mm SLR (film speed, shutter speed, aperture, DOF, angle-of-view, etc.), or do you mean the process of developing and/or printing?
With regard to "process," do you refer to the process of taking photographs with a 35mm SLR (film speed, shutter speed, aperture, DOF, angle-of-view, etc.), or do you mean the process of developing and/or printing?
If Medium Format and Large Format are Better
The premise of the whole argument is false. One cannot make a logically correct conclusion, based on this assumption.
Is a [driving] Ferrari better than walking?
The premise of the whole argument is false. One cannot make a logically correct conclusion, based on this assumption.
Is a [driving] Ferrari better than walking?
I mean the entire process of handling, loading, winding, processing and printing film. Holding a negative up to the light and seeing your image...
Not everyone on APUG is simply waiting here until DSLRs get a few more MPs.
But this thread should not be about digital v film. It is about format size.
Photographs aren't 'taken', and they certainly are not snapped. They are made (conceptual visualisation, committal to film, process, printing, framing, etc.). Irrespective of the machinery being used, photographers in professional practice can and will make the best with what they have, often over a very long period of time. I have absolutely no intention of moving away from 35mm given how successful it has been for me over 20+ years.
Pity DSLRs don't have anywhere near the gamut of film, and resolution isn't everything (seems to always be the "my pixels are bigger than your pixels" stuff that is driving Canon and Nikon et al...).
Pity DSLRs don't have anywhere near the gamut of film, and resolution isn't everything (seems to always be the "my pixels are bigger than your pixels" stuff that is driving Canon and Nikon et al...).
I agree: I gather that few here (on APUG) are merely waiting for the "right" pixel count to come along.
I also agree that the issue of digital does not directly pertain to the matter at hand. It may be indirectly pertinent or somewhat interesting, but the issue here regards format size.
I also agree that the issue of digital does not directly pertain to the matter at hand. It may be indirectly pertinent or somewhat interesting, but the issue here regards format size.
You might want to take a gambit at color gamut and then you will see a big part of what you are really missing.
Steve
Every medium is different.
The flaw to format thinking (bigger is better) transfers directly to digital thinking (more is better, etc.)
Obsession with specs, looking for that silver bullet, is the thing that ensures one will never master the craft, regardless of film, digital, 35mm, or 8x10.
The point of any craft is self-transformation. It doesn't matter whether it is learning how to express yourself through a violin, digital camera, or block plane.
A wonderfully disorienting and humbling experience that I barely survived was the Ansel Adams show at the Kennedy Gallery in Cambridge Mass., back in the '80s. It was an exhibition of his SX-70 happy snaps.
Brilliant, joyful, serious, profound, each one exquisitely and cheerfully beautiful. Down on hands and knees, making a snap of a grandchild: gloriously daft and grandaddyish. But a splendid photograph.
Ansel, Walker Evans, Alvarez Bravo; the list of great artists who made great images with an SX-70 is endless. And yet we mortals whinge and obsess over every last little thing that has to be perfect before we can make a good picture. Silly. Just S I L L Y.
Below, self portrait by AA & SX-70
Attachments
Well stated, df cardwell...
We of lesser capability and talent, though, could use all the help we can get. I think this point is implicit in what you have indicated.
We of lesser capability and talent, though, could use all the help we can get. I think this point is implicit in what you have indicated.
Well... like I said, I took a big risk here on APUG mentioning the DSLR option vs. 135 format. While I deeply respect the analog community (that's why I'm a member here after all), I do also embrace the latest technologies... to hell with caution. And NO I'm not a bi-sensual!! That said, the digital realm can't even approach the quality of ULF. Once it does though (and affordably so) I'll give it a big warm hug.
And when it comes to "capabilities and talents": If one can overcome the limitaions of digital vs. analog's ability to forgive exposure errors... doesn't that beg for a little respect?
And when it comes to "capabilities and talents": If one can overcome the limitaions of digital vs. analog's ability to forgive exposure errors... doesn't that beg for a little respect?
Wow. I had no idea that photos are not taken or snapped, but made. Good to know. I will be sure add it to my list of useless "knowledge", and soon forget it. The arrogance in this place is absurd and laughable sometimes.
not much i can say that hasn't been said already. basically it comes down to portability and convenience. wouldi rather take my 4x5 than my 35..hell yeah...can i? probably...lol but when time is short on and it comes down to a 35 or mf or lf camera...9 out of 10 times i will chose the 35. i prefer to use lf myself, but 35 tends to be more practical though.
Whenever I see a post asking, "What's the point of this thread", I get a chuckle because it has a sense of arrogance or simply a copying of others who ask, "What's the point of this thread", to appear more in-the-know. 
In a nutshell, yes. I shoot multiple formats and prefer MF and LF, but continue to shoot lots of 35mm for just this reason... and the ability to have 36 frames without changing film.
I really enjoyed reading that. I stopped obsessing over equipment a long time ago, having the perfect 'lens signature' or finding the perfect film and developer for each occasion turned into something that I thought was more of an obstacle than anything; it stopped me from taking in the subject matter, and caused me to think about what equipment to use instead. Not good.
The perfection lies in expression, and if Cartier Bresson could do it with 35mm, then so can I. And that's final.
The trick lies in removing the consideration of the camera, and de-cluttering your way to realizing your vision.
You want to be at one with your equipment, to know what to expect; or the work flow will not be intuitive.
Good luck choosing. When I can afford it, I'm buying a Leica 35mm. I can't wait.
The perfection lies in expression, and if Cartier Bresson could do it with 35mm, then so can I. And that's final.
The trick lies in removing the consideration of the camera, and de-cluttering your way to realizing your vision.
You want to be at one with your equipment, to know what to expect; or the work flow will not be intuitive.
Good luck choosing. When I can afford it, I'm buying a Leica 35mm. I can't wait.
I have everything from half frame to 8x10. They all have the ability to make wonderful images.
For me, the option of changing formats helps to keep my work from getting stale. I work differently with different cameras- quicker in 35mm, slower in 4x5, etc. Changing my "usual" film size can take me out of my comfort zone, which is good for creativity. Often, the choice of a specific format has led to a project, rather than a project leading to the choice of camera.
For me, the option of changing formats helps to keep my work from getting stale. I work differently with different cameras- quicker in 35mm, slower in 4x5, etc. Changing my "usual" film size can take me out of my comfort zone, which is good for creativity. Often, the choice of a specific format has led to a project, rather than a project leading to the choice of camera.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Messages
- 283
- Format
- 35mm
I suppose each format has it's strength and weakness. The 35mm is versatile, portable and very capable. Larger formats also have very good things about them and in particular the ability to enlarge for printing. Most of us really have no use for very large photographs in great quantity and might just find that we are shooting a very large negative for a web picture or a small or medium size print. I think for film shooters the 35mm is probably the best fit for most of us.
I'd like to look at this seriously, and if I can, with a measure of innocence.
Here is the question-
If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?
So, test the premise before digging into the logic.
I met up with Bill Schwab on a quiet Dearborn day, and we went over to the Ford Estate, a short distance from our homes. Now, Bill and I both shoot afterglow and it was an easy choice to do his picture in the light that inspires us.
This is the picture I like, made at 1/15 @ f/1.4 from a tripod on ISO 400 film, with a 35mm lens.
I might have made the same image on 6x7 with a 58mm lens, at f5.6 at 1 second, although the depth of field would have been different. I might have made the image on 8x10 with a 210, at f/8, and the look would have been very much the same, and quite acceptable, save for the 2 second exposure. I'd have made the shot on the same film and developed in the same developer, so it would have been no struggle there.
But I think portraiture is really the document of the time the photographer spends with the subject,
and breaking Bill away from his picture taking would have made the whole vibe different,
and in this case, not as good. For he was making pictures, not posing, and I was watching him work (usually wondering "What IS he looking at ?"
In that instant the sun sunk the horizon and that sky behind him lit up, and he looked up from the camera, we made half a dozen pictures.
Another time, maybe we'll do it again, and I'll pack the Deardorff. But Bill would still need to be STILL for 2 seconds. And he NEVER holds still for 2 seconds.... unless a fellow collodionist doses him with ether. Seriously, following action with a 35 rfdr is one thing but keeping up with an 8x10 is quite another. At dusk. But I know a spot on a beach in northern Michigan where I COULD shoot Bill with an 8x10, especially if somebody really tall would help me do it.
But it was better to shoot this in 35, and I did, and the image is sufficiently good that it lacks nothing compared to an 8x10 neg.
Photography is all about NOW. It is URGENT. We take the picture right now, not tomorrow, not theoretically sometime in the future. There are two reasons for this:
1. All photographs exist forever in the instant they are made.
2. I might be dead tomorrow, when the light is better, so I'll shoot tonight.
For me, a portraitist who is inspired by liminal conditions, Medium Format and Large Format are technically and aesthetically inferior to 35.
The premise of the question is incorrect, and the question falls. For another photographer,
the premise MIGHT be true, and the question be answered differently. It is up to each of us to test the premise, but it is always going to be the picture that provides the answer, not some assumption about film size.
Here is the question-
If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?
So, test the premise before digging into the logic.
I met up with Bill Schwab on a quiet Dearborn day, and we went over to the Ford Estate, a short distance from our homes. Now, Bill and I both shoot afterglow and it was an easy choice to do his picture in the light that inspires us.
This is the picture I like, made at 1/15 @ f/1.4 from a tripod on ISO 400 film, with a 35mm lens.
I might have made the same image on 6x7 with a 58mm lens, at f5.6 at 1 second, although the depth of field would have been different. I might have made the image on 8x10 with a 210, at f/8, and the look would have been very much the same, and quite acceptable, save for the 2 second exposure. I'd have made the shot on the same film and developed in the same developer, so it would have been no struggle there.
But I think portraiture is really the document of the time the photographer spends with the subject,
and breaking Bill away from his picture taking would have made the whole vibe different,
and in this case, not as good. For he was making pictures, not posing, and I was watching him work (usually wondering "What IS he looking at ?"
In that instant the sun sunk the horizon and that sky behind him lit up, and he looked up from the camera, we made half a dozen pictures.
Another time, maybe we'll do it again, and I'll pack the Deardorff. But Bill would still need to be STILL for 2 seconds. And he NEVER holds still for 2 seconds.... unless a fellow collodionist doses him with ether. Seriously, following action with a 35 rfdr is one thing but keeping up with an 8x10 is quite another. At dusk. But I know a spot on a beach in northern Michigan where I COULD shoot Bill with an 8x10, especially if somebody really tall would help me do it.
But it was better to shoot this in 35, and I did, and the image is sufficiently good that it lacks nothing compared to an 8x10 neg.
Photography is all about NOW. It is URGENT. We take the picture right now, not tomorrow, not theoretically sometime in the future. There are two reasons for this:
1. All photographs exist forever in the instant they are made.
2. I might be dead tomorrow, when the light is better, so I'll shoot tonight.
For me, a portraitist who is inspired by liminal conditions, Medium Format and Large Format are technically and aesthetically inferior to 35.
The premise of the question is incorrect, and the question falls. For another photographer,
the premise MIGHT be true, and the question be answered differently. It is up to each of us to test the premise, but it is always going to be the picture that provides the answer, not some assumption about film size.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pumalite sure hit the nail on the head. Reminds me of last month when I took my FM3a out to shoot some Fall scenery. I had a great time shooting. When got home I discovered the camera was never loaded with film.
So you had a great time and saved money ;-)
It happens to me once in a while. Usually when I want to be clever and select the film based on the conditions/suject I find...
More seriously, I enjoy all formats (35mm, MF and 4/5) depending on the suject and the time I have.
For close-ups the 35mm (EOS3+EF85) wins easily, for it's convenience and DOF.
Landscape can be shot with either formats, but I prefer LF by a huge amount.
In the end, however, the MF is the winner in terms of keepers, may be because I use it more ?
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |