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

[Thomas Bertilsson]

In the end, however, the MF is the winner in terms of keepers, may be because I use it more ?

Yes. I would agree with this notion.

Take this argument, turn it upside down, sideways, hold it at different angles and think about it for a while.

Then ponder: Isn't the camera the least important part of your work flow?

If you are very used to your camera equipment, you will not wonder about the results. It will be an intuitive process, because you know what to expect at all apertures and shutter speeds; you know limitations and advantages like the back of your hand. The camera disappears as an obstacle in your work flow and you are FREE TO SEE what's in front of you.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't think I could have used my Hasselblad to make the attached shot.

Then I'm so happy with the print quality that I wonder if I need better.

This is ISO 400 film enlarged to about 6x8" size. I'm going to try 9x12" on larger paper when I get my darkroom up and running again, because I feel the negative would hold up very nicely since the tonality is there and the grain is sharp and beautiful.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

(Zero) 0. A photograph that is never taken, for whatever reason, will never be a photograph.

 

[BrianShaw]

Then ponder: Isn't the camera the least important part of your work flow?

I agree, but only up to a point. The word "least" is where I beg to differ... just a bit.

My most successful portraits have been taken with MF or LF. Yes, they could have been taken with 35mm and probably would ahve been just as successful.

The greatest NUMBER of successful portraits that I have taken has been with 35mm. No, most of them couldn't have been taken with MF or LF.

The camera, and the format, is an important part of the workflow IF it ceases to be an 'enabler' given the circumstances it is being used in. I've, personally, been hindered more by the slower pace of MF/LF than by 35mm... one is not better than the other; one is sometimes more usable than another in differing situations. Selection of camera can enable or disable the ability (likelihood) of a successful photograph.

 

[stradibarrius]

Photography for me is about enjoying the process and trying to produce something that is enjoyable to look at. I shoot 35mm, 6x6, 645, 6x7. I really enjoy working with my big old RB67 but to be totally honest the photos that I think are my best work have been taken with my 35mm Nikon gear. 35mm is better at certain things and MF is better at certain things. I am guilty of trying to make one camera be the best at everything but I don't think that there is such a beast. Often times, IMHO, we humans try to justify the decisions we make about all sorts of issues. We build a case to support the decision we have made at that point in time. This format is better than that format. My Dad can beat up your Dad...I think the truth is that the method that gives YOU the most pleasure is the BEST format, method, Brand of equipment of whatever. Again in my opinion that includes shooting digital, point and shoot 35mm, MF or LF, processing your own film or making your own enlargements.

Some people find the pleasure in the process, some in the results. Neither is right or better, just different. Some people like blondes some brunettes. For me learning about and experiencing the different formats is part of the pleasure of photography. If it wasn't interesting and enjoyable I would find some other hobby.

"What is the point of this kind of question???" for some discussing the hobby is also part of the fun. Never underestimate the affect you have on another person by your encounter with them. No matter how brief, the venue or the subject matter. A single question may unlock a entire world for someone who hears it. Some of you people have helped me have a few eureka moments and didn't even know it. I am a fair to average photographer but I enjoy the process of trying to improve. The quest is part of the enjoyment.

I also enjoy participating in this forum. I choose the subjects that interest me and pass on the ones that do not.
The number of responses to a thread is always a good indicator of the interest in the subject. Obviously this thread has generated A LOT of interest!

 

[goamules]

For me, shooting some 35mm in a 'new to me" 50 year old Canon rangefinder the past few weeks has been a total paradigm shift. I usually shoot halfplate wetplate in 8x10 field cameras. With that, you prepare for many minutes, cross your fingers, and see the results. But you also see the 'pre-results' on the ground glass, DOF and everything. I don't get that with a 35mm RF, I have to visualize or guess what the output will be, upon development.

The other day I returned to a favorite place in the desert where I couldn't take the wetplate. There is a natural, rare spring with running water, surrounded by cottonwoods and then miles of brown desert. I could take LF film, but it would be a pain getting the cam and tripod in there. I took the 50s rangefinder, and a HUGE amount of potential shots, with 12 exposures on the roll! I felt like a hunter moving quietly in twilight. I saw deer, I saw javalina, I saw the tops of yellow cottonwoods that had the last rays of sun as the lower parts were in developing darkness. I don't like the aspect ratio or having to visualize what the lens settings are doing, but I love the portability and speed. Could I do all this with a DSLR? Nah...I'm a luddite.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

This is a very good discussion and I'm really enjoying hearing what everybody has to say. It's threads like these, that talk about the essence of making pictures that really pull me in too...

 

[FilmOnly]

The comments are very revealing--thank you.

I must admit that Mike1234's comment about DSLRs for smaller format work got me thinking about digital again. When I first posted this thread, I did not expect this much discussion (though I did think that there would be a good response with many opinions), nor did I expect any reference to digital. I truly had film formats on my mind--not digital.

Since yesterday, I have been exploring various options, and have even considered parting with some of my 35mm gear in order to try either MF (a Mamiya C330) or digital (one of the better Nikons, perhaps a D700, as I could use all of my AI lenses with it...at full-frame, too). This thread has certainly helped me to narrow any type of decision-making process I may attempt, as I think the C330 would be my choice for work with a larger negative.

I have yet to make a firm decision in regard to purchasing digital equipment. The comments in regard to the importance of "getting the shot" have served to supplement, and even strengthen, Mike1234's comment in regard to digital. These comments do convey the essence of photography: the shot. In this sense, I gather that digital might even go further than 35mm in helping me to capture those fleeting moments, especially those of my children.

 

[johnnywalker]

I have yet to make a firm decision in regard to purchasing digital equipment. The comments in regard to the importance of "getting the shot" have served to supplement, and even strengthen, Mike1234's comment in regard to digital. These comments do convey the essence of photography: the shot. In this sense, I gather that digital might even go further than 35mm in helping me to capture those fleeting moments, especially those of my children.

I have a little digisnap I use for work and for some grandkid pics, but I have no expectations that my grandkids will be showing these pics to their grandchildren. The black and whites I take of them however I will make sure they show to their grandkids - or I'll be back to haunt them. My kids at least will hang on to my film and pictures and hopefully impress upon the grandkids the importance of hanging on to the black and whites and negatives, but the digitals will just disappear into the ether. The reason, I think, is that with "real" photographs you don't have to do much to preserve them - keep them dry basically. The digisnaps will require someone's effort every X number of years to transfer them to the latest easily-lost storage device.

 

[keithwms]

The comments are very revealing--thank you.

I must admit that Mike1234's comment about DSLRs for smaller format work got me thinking about digital again. When I first posted this thread, I did not expect this much discussion (though I did think that there would be a good response with many opinions), nor did I expect any reference to digital. I truly had film formats on my mind--not digital.

Since yesterday, I have been exploring various options, and have even considered parting with some of my 35mm gear in order to try either MF (a Mamiya C330) or digital (one of the better Nikons, perhaps a D700, as I could use all of my AI lenses with it...at full-frame, too). This thread has certainly helped me to narrow any type of decision-making process I may attempt, as I think the C330 would be my choice for work with a larger negative.

I have yet to make a firm decision in regard to purchasing digital equipment. The comments in regard to the importance of "getting the shot" have served to supplement, and even strengthen, Mike1234's comment in regard to digital. These comments do convey the essence of photography: the shot. In this sense, I gather that digital might even go further than 35mm in helping me to capture those fleeting moments, especially those of my children.

I have a D700, it does its thing well but I still find that I do 99% of my stuff on film, MF and LF mostly, though the digital fills one very particular niche extraordinarily well and I won't apologize to anybody for that. No single piece of gear is a cure all, you just have to try and see for yourself. Some who may recoil from the notion of even trying digital and I understand that; as for me, I had to find out for myself what it can do... and what it cannot. If it's something you want to discuss then maybe this isn't the place but I'm just saying: been there, done that, yeah it might work for you and it might not... you just have to experiment and be honest with yourself about what makes you feel productive.

 

[GraemeMitchell]

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.

I was skimming this thread and came upon the above post. It is, I think, perfectly stated, not to mention backed up by a exquisite portrait as example. Thanks for it, Mr Cardwell.

 

[Clockwerk]

If I can add my two penn'orth... different cameras do different things; yes, I know that's stating the bleeding obvious, but I think it's an appropriate response to the implied assumptions of the thread's question. You find a way of working that suits you. I use both 35mm and MF fairly equally, but I do also like travelling (relatively) light, so I've got my Olympus Pen, with which I can just snap, snap, snap to my heart's content; if I see anything that I think needs a bit more consideration, I'll whip out my Agfa 6x9 folder - which just fits in the back pocket of my jeans. And then not worrying about what shots you did/didn't get on whichever format you thought was/wasn't appropriate for the subject: the beauty of using film is the excitement of seeing what comes out, days, weeks, months later.

 

[Leighgion]

2. I might be dead tomorrow, when the light is better, so I'll shoot tonight.

This could be a T-shirt with a little editing for succinctness.

 

[nsouto]

If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?
I do not have an answer to these questions, and so I thought I would pose them to fellow 35mm enthusiasts.

As soon as someone defines "better" and "bother", I'll know the answers.
Until then, I just care about the camera I have with me: that's the best one.

 

[Steve Smith]

Until then, I just care about the camera I have with me: that's the best one.

Whilst that is true, I'm often out with one camera and wish I had brought a different one instead!


Steve.

 

[Laurent]

Take this argument, turn it upside down, sideways, hold it at different angles and think about it for a while.

Then ponder: Isn't the camera the least important part of your work flow?

If you are very used to your camera equipment, you will not wonder about the results. It will be an intuitive process, because you know what to expect at all apertures and shutter speeds; you know limitations and advantages like the back of your hand. The camera disappears as an obstacle in your work flow and you are FREE TO SEE what's in front of you.

I spent more time than I'd have expected thinking about this...

I'm still not sure about which part of my equipment is the least important in the workflow. I'm sure that the MOST important is my brain.

I came to Large Format partly because I was looking for "absolute sharpness" and it took me some time to realize that it was another Silver Bullet... I still love Large Format, but I had an epiphany when I realized that one of my favourite photographs (from my own work) was not that sharp.

I think the camera can be the MOST important part of the equipment when it's becoming obstructive. That may be the reason why I use about 10% of my EOS3's features : it's almost always used in spot metring and manual, so that I know I am the one in control of the whole thing.

I think I'm now able to decide which format suits what photograph I'm about to make, and this works fine. I don't think I could do with only one (but I'm still wondering whether I should keep LF ;-) )

 

[Pumal]

Remember that Cartier-Bresson used 1 35mm camera with a normal lens for most of his life

 

[Besk]

I have a little digisnap I use for work and for some grandkid pics, but I have no expectations that my grandkids will be showing these pics to their grandchildren. The black and whites I take of them however I will make sure they show to their grandkids - or I'll be back to haunt them. My kids at least will hang on to my film and pictures and hopefully impress upon the grandkids the importance of hanging on to the black and whites and negatives, but the digitals will just disappear into the ether. The reason, I think, is that with "real" photographs you don't have to do much to preserve them - keep them dry basically. The digisnaps will require someone's effort every X number of years to transfer them to the latest easily-lost storage device.

I have been through this thought process myself recently and in fact recently purchased my first Auto Focus 35mm film SLR to "catch" grandchildren that I couldn't with my other non-metered , manual cameras.

And recently realized that if you are willing to take the time, it is posible to print enlarged B&W negatives of a few selected exposures from your digital camera and make contact prints from these negatives.

In my opinion a smaller number of the best photos are more likely to be saved by those grandchildren than boxes and boxes of snapshots.

 

[FilmOnly]

Pumalite makes an excellent point in regard to Cartier-Bresson. A similar circumstance may be observed with regard to poetry: some may find metrical formats "limiting," while for others these same formats fostered and defined their verse.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

So it's easy to conclude via this thread that every person have to decide for themselves what is good enough for them.

For me, it is still humbling to think about the 35mm masters. The picture matters to me. The process matter to others. To me the process is just the means to an end, which is why I keep things utterly simple.

 

[Dave Pritchard]

One Size Does Not Fit All

I will leave here in a few minutes to pick up a Kiev 6C MF SLR from the post office. I will have with me a Kodak Retina 35mm folding RF from 1949 or so, loaded with ASA 400 color print film. Art can happen anywhere, anytime. Be prepared.

A few months ago, I had decided to only use MF or LF. Since then, I have purchased several 35mm cameras, including a Nikon N90s and AF lenses. There are different modes of photography, and one camera does not do them all well. There is definitely a place for 35mm film.

I agree with the posters who say that the worst photo is the one not taken.

 

[removed account4]

while photography is "gear-oriented"
the more i do it, the more i realize photography has less and less to
do with gear and more and more to do with the magical
thing that happens to the film or paper or ???

35mm and mf cameras are great for what they are.
large format and larger formats are great for what they are ..
but in the end they all do the exact same thing, they steal images from the ether.
photography has absolutely nothing to do
with what gear you may be lugging.
the gear is just a distraction.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

the gear is just a distraction.

Very true for me too.

 

[Mike1234]

Gear is indeed a distraction. But so is the lovely half-dressed lady across the pool. There are individual methodologies to everything. Do I walk to the other side for a closer look? Or do I swim and, if I swim, what method... backstroke, frog-leg or doggy-style? Or is that dog-paddle? I always get those mixed up.

Mmm... I've forgotten how I intended to tie this to original post.

 

[Q.G.]

I have been mulling over the original question for some time, and the only answer i can come up with is "why indeed?"