Landscapers using 35mm

[mporter012]

Back in the good old film days, were there any landscapers that used 35mm? I can't imagine all those guys wanted to drag around the kinds of cameras that Ansel Adams used. Apparently he once said something to the effect of, I use the largest camera I can find.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Galen Rowell of Outdoor Photography https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/521925044296755508/ Loved his work and columns. He traveled light with his 35mm running to capture the morning light. There were many others as well.

 

[mporter012]

Galen Rowell of Outdoor Photography https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/521925044296755508/ Loved his work and columns. He traveled light with his 35mm running to capture the morning light. There were many others as well.

Apparently he was climber, as well. He died way too young.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Apparently he was climber, as well. He died way too young.

To avoid confusion, while he was a climber, he and his wife and two others were killed in a private plane accident while returning from a photo expedition in Alaska.

 

[voceumana]

I believe many of the National Geographic photographers used 35mm transparency films (Kodachrome, Ektachrome). Some of that work would qualify for landscapes. Remember that AA was doing most of his famous photography in the 1st half of the 20th century, using older films. In his later years he often used a Hasselblad.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Larger than 35 mm for what? To brag about it on forums? I have seen enough LF landscapes here and else which I rate as of "for garbage bin". And I also have seen digi FF landscapes for years in magazines. Not bad at all.
At the end it could be taken as HDR on iPhone. The only time I have seen it crapping out for real is on one meter plus sized prints. But proud author still wants hundreds $$$ for this crap. He labeled it as something "safe the Planet", "I'm so green".
And for oldies good days, I rate Garry Winogrand 35mm landscapes above Ansel Adams whatever he used... But I'm not so sure if many on forums are into GW's landscapes... They are not so easy to digest.

 

[Ste_S]

Larger than 35 mm for what? To brag about it on forums? I have seen enough LF landscapes here and else which I rate as of "for garbage bin". And I also have seen digi FF landscapes for years in magazines. Not bad at all.
At the end it could be taken as HDR on iPhone. The only time I have seen it crapping out for real is on one meter plus sized prints. But proud author still wants hundreds $$$ for this crap. He labeled it as something "safe the Planet", "I'm so green".
And for oldies good days, I rate Garry Winogrand 35mm landscapes above Ansel Adams whatever he used... But I'm not so sure if many on forums are into GW's landscapes... They are not so easy to digest.

Good common sense points 7/10. Obvious trolling 0/10.

 

[jim10219]

I tried shooting landscapes on 35mm film. I gave up after about 6 months. 35mm would be okay for posting landscape photos to Instagram or printing postcards (if people still do that), but it's generally not a good format for serious landscape work. The thing with a landscape is there's usually tons of detail all over the photo that you'll want to draw the viewer's eye to. Landscape photography isn't usually about just one object, but rather a collection of many shapes, textures, tones, colors, and atmosphere. It's a place for the viewer to become immersed in and encourages discovery and inspires a sense of wonder. Small prints of landscapes don't really impress most people. They need something bigger that they feel they can enter. It needs to feel real to them. I couldn't blow up a landscape photograph large enough (at least 8x10) without exposing the grain. And seeing the grain in a landscape photo destroys the illusion.

35mm is great for street photography where the grain of the film can add to the grittiness of the modern world. It can work for portraits because you don't need to see the detail of every pore to have a good portrait. They can work for abstract photography and many other genres as well. But landscape photography (and often architecture photography) is where the limitations of 35mm film get in the way. For landscape photography, I only really consider large format or digital, and sometimes medium format. Others will disagree, I'm sure. But you really need the right tool for the job, and 35mm isn't the right tool for landscapes. Just like 8x10 isn't really the right tool for street photography.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Back in the good old film days, were there any landscapers that used 35mm? I can't imagine all those guys wanted to drag around the kinds of cameras that Ansel Adams used. Apparently he once said something to the effect of, I use the largest camera I can find.

"I use the largest camera I can carry", IIRC.

I've used 35 for landscapes, so have many others. Even though a nearly grainless 8x12" print is possible with the right film and development, tonality suffers and detail isn't quite there, even compared to 6x7cm. Larger formats have definite advantages, but sometimes 35 is the only option for any number of reasons. I prefer larger formats though, I consider 4x5" a minimum for really good tonality and detail.

 

[adelorenzo]

Eddie Ephraums. I just picked up his Creative Elements book, both his work and the book are excellent. His style is pretty unique, lots of burning, dodging and bleaching. He accentuates the grain of the film and sometimes even diffuses the image.

It really threw me for a loop and makes me want to go back and revisit some of my 35mm negatives.

 

[guangong]

It all depends. This sounds like an academic question on the same order as “every photograph must have tonal range from total black to pure white and everything in between”. I have used every format from Minox 8x11, Minolta 16, to 4x5. Depends on what you want photograph to look like. For some, a banquet camera is just right.
The term “landscape” covers a very wide scope. Not to detract from AA’s talent, but his kind of landscape photography is much easier in the mountains and deserts of the west than the topography found east of the Mississippi.

 

[Alan Johnson]

There were two UK photographers who wrote on the subject, "Lens ,light and landscape" by Leica photographer Brian Bower and "Edge of Darkness" by Barry Thornton.
They were both prime lens users.

 

[wy2l]

I used a Nikon FM3A for landscape photography when backpacking in Kings Canyon National Park (California).
A 17 day back pack trip limits what can be carried.

I carried and used a tripod (absolutely essential), and prime lenses.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... Landscape photography isn't usually about just one object, but rather a collection of many shapes, textures, tones, colors, and atmosphere. It's a place for the viewer to become immersed in and encourages discovery and inspires a sense of wonder. ...

For the most part I agree with the many points you've mentioned in your posting. Most of my serious landscape work has been in medium format.

Related to the quote above I will offer one exception to the high-detail approach, which surprised me when I saw the results. In 2006, I was making photos in Yosemite and made a few also with my SX-70 of El Capitan and Half Dome. Those photos had a pastel watercolor-like appearance which I had scanned and enlarged to 8x10. They are on my wall now and look almost like paintings. They are probably among my favorites of all the photos I made.

 

[BMbikerider]

Yes I have nearly always used 35mm. Both colour C41 and B&W. I have used medium format but the weight of the equipment has always held me back. The work for a good landscape photographer is improved in the darkroom and that cannot be changed. Grain has never worried me, nor has size of a finished print. 35mm can easily enlarge up to 12x16 and even 20x16, although I have never actually enlarged above 12x16 only because of the cost and lack of facilities. The use of a tripod is always to be recommended. That may sound a bit as of nuisanc,e but the large format photographers used one.

Dodging, burning in is only part of the story. I sometimes use a brushed on water rinse to slow down development in certain areas, and brush on neat developer to help force a tiny bit of extra depth of tone. Then there is sepia and selenium toning plus a few others that can be used localised use of 'Farmers Reducer' to lighten shadows, plus a hell of lot of skill and intuition. Of the last two, I sometimes find myself lacking but have no desire to go larger.

 

[Craig75]

There were two UK photographers who wrote on the subject, "Lens ,light and landscape" by Leica photographer Brian Bower and "Edge of Darkness" by Barry Thornton.
They were both prime lens users.

and on that recommendation i purchased lens, light and landscape for the princely sum of £3.24.

 

[Ste_S]

I have used medium format but the weight of the equipment has always held me back

Weight shouldn't be a limiting factor for medium format, there's plenty of small and light cameras out there. I take a 6x6 folder, compact tripod, cable release and phone (for metering amongst many other things) all very light and can walk for miles with it.

 

[Alan Johnson]

There is no such thing as a 6x6 folder with a wide angle lens for landscapes.

 

[macfred]

^
Relatively wide and light with a folding option - Plaubel Makina W67 : http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Makina_67
Not a folder but wide and light - Brooks Plaubel Veriwide 100 : http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Brooks-Plaubel_Veriwide_100
There are several FUJI medium format cameras with wide angle lenses -even folders- in the market (6x4.5, 6x7 format).

 

[Alan Johnson]

Back in the good old film days, were there any landscapers that used 35mm? I can't imagine all those guys wanted to drag around the kinds of cameras that Ansel Adams used. Apparently he once said something to the effect of, I use the largest camera I can find.

Some of Sebastiao Salgado's work was landscape on 35mm:
https://leicarumors.com/2009/04/13/sebastiao-salgado-a-conversation.aspx/

 

[jim10219]

For the most part I agree with the many points you've mentioned in your posting. Most of my serious landscape work has been in medium format.

Related to the quote above I will offer one exception to the high-detail approach, which surprised me when I saw the results. In 2006, I was making photos in Yosemite and made a few also with my SX-70 of El Capitan and Half Dome. Those photos had a pastel watercolor-like appearance which I had scanned and enlarged to 8x10. They are on my wall now and look almost like paintings. They are probably among my favorites of all the photos I made.

I bet those are interesting indeed! And you bring up a good point. Not every photo benefits from sharpness and detail. Sometimes there are other aesthetics the photographer wants to go for.

In any event, I'm definitely not saying that you can't use a 35mm camera for landscape work. But I am saying that for me, it was never going to produce the images that I had in mind. That's not to say that I don't have a few enlarged prints made from my days experimenting with 35mm film and landscapes. I do. And some are not too bad. But most of the good ones come from desert scenes where the grain of the sand masks the grain of the film, so grain isn't really an issue. If nothing else, the grain added to the sky gives the clouds a nice texture that better connects them to the foreground. But that's a rare exception to a long list of pictures that really wish I could go back in time and take again with a larger format camera.

 

[ic-racer]

Lewis Baltz: "Everything I shot until about 1980 was 35mm."

 

[ic-racer]

Lee Friedlander:

 

[MattKing]

Every time I see the title to this thread I think it is going to be about people wearing waterproof pants and boots and carrying a shovel and a rake and a 35mm camera!

 

[Ste_S]

There is no such thing as a 6x6 folder with a wide angle lens for landscapes.

Eh ? Who says you only need to use a wide angle lens for landscapes ?