Landscapes on 35mm film?

logan2z · Mar 20, 2021

When I first started photographing I used to shoot a lot of landscapes on 35mm film. That's the only camera I had at the time, I hadn't even heard of MF or LF back then. I ultimately bought a MF camera and started using that for most landscapes I shoot, but I still look back on the earlier 35mm landscape photographs and don't feel that they've been obsoleted by the larger format photos - some of them still move me, regardless of their relatively low resolution/tonal range.

Due to the pandemic, I haven't been venturing out with the MF/tripod kit but have been shooting nearly exclusively again with 35mm. And since I haven't been able to do the candid street photography I was doing with that camera before Covid, I've been shooting a lot of landscapes again, and enjoying the results. Proving once again that the content of the photo is much more important than things like "sharpness" or "resolution".

This point was driven home to me recently when I was looking through some photo books that contain landscapes shot on 35mm film. One of the books was Lee Friedlander's 'Cherry Blossom Time in Japan". Friedlander isn't really known as a landscape photographer, although he has made several beautiful landscape books, including "Western Landscapes', "The Desert Seen", "Apples and Olives", and "Flowers and Trees". Many of those photos were shot on a Hasselblad SWC, but "Cherry Blossom Time in Japan" and "Flowers and Trees" were shot entirely on 35mm film. The photos in these books are really beautiful and are not, IMHO, diminished one bit by the fact that they are shot on small format film. Robert Adams has also moved to 35mm film as he has aged and no longer finds it possible to lug his 4x5 camera around. I don't think his photos/books have been diminished by the smaller format either.

Just a bit of rambling to say that one does not always need to shoot on a MF or LF camera is order to make a beautiful landscape photo. Friedlander, Adams, and others have proven that through their own landscape work.

And since this is a photo forum, a few of my own recent 35mm landscapes (which may or may not help prove my point ):

radiant · Mar 20, 2021

Reminds of this video:

logan2z · Mar 20, 2021

vedostuu said:
Reminds of this video:

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Andrew O'Neill · Mar 20, 2021

Logan2z, those are lovely images. I think many of us get our start with 35mm. I like you, had no idea about larger formats until I became more serious about photography. Recently, I've really started liking 120 Pan F. What got me interested in that film was a couple rolls of 35mm I shot in the woods. Landscapes on small formats? I say go for it!

gone · Mar 20, 2021

The smaller size of the 35mm film format shouldn't be giving you low resolution and tonal range. If that's what you're experiencing, it's time to change films and look at your exposure and developing protocols. You're getting smoother shots from MF because you're enlarging it much less than 35mm, and the grain is becoming more apparent as you go large w/ the smaller film size. Maybe you just need Leica lenses and slow film to improve your 35mm enlargements, but you aren't going to get the same size enlargements from the smaller film format.

Film choice, a good lens, how you expose the image and what you develop the film and paper with will make big differences in your prints. I have 12x18 prints from 35mm Tri-X that look better than my 4x5 Tri-X prints, but that's because I like the grain of the smaller format a lot more. The 35mm shots appear sharper. A lot of this is just personal taste you know.

Sirius Glass · Mar 20, 2021

Landscapes can be shot with any format. If the quality of the 35mm prints are not to your liking, first switch to a fine grain developer like XTOL or replenished XTOL.

If that still does not give you the tonal smoothness you want, than change to a tabular grain film.

Finally if necessary use a slower tabular film with an ISO of 100 or less.

Pieter12 · Mar 20, 2021

Lewis Balz shot most of his early work on 35mm Kodak Technical Pan using a tripod and careful set-up. You'd swear it was done on 4x5.

baachitraka · Mar 20, 2021

Tonal gradation is one the parameter that make me to prefer MF over small format. But I don't underestimate small format either.

Adox CMS 20 II in small format with the suitable developer could bring the requirements close to MF.

logan2z · Mar 20, 2021

Andrew O'Neill said:
Logan2z, those are lovely images. I think many of us get out start with 35mm. I like you, had no idea about larger formats until I became more serious about photography. Recently, I've really started liking 120 Pan F. What got me interested in that film was a couple rolls of 35mm I shot in the woods. Landscapes on small formats? I say go for it!

Thanks! I just shot a roll of FP4+ for the first time but haven't developed it yet. Maybe I should give Pan F a try too.

logan2z · Mar 20, 2021

Pieter12 said:
Lewis Balz shot most of his early work on 35mm Kodak Technical Pan using a tripod and careful set-up. You'd swear it was done on 4x5.

I know, his prints are incredible!

logan2z · Mar 20, 2021

momus said:
The smaller size of the 35mm film format shouldn't be giving you low resolution and tonal range. If that's what you're experiencing, it's time to change films and look at your exposure and developing protocols. You're getting smoother shots from MF because you're enlarging it much less than 35mm, and the grain is becoming more apparent as you go large w/ the smaller film size. Maybe you just need Leica lenses and slow film to improve your 35mm enlargements, but you aren't going to get the same size enlargements from the smaller film format./QUOTE]
I've been primarily using Tri-X in both 120 and 35mm, but recently picked up some FP4+ in both formats to see how that looked. I haven't developed anything I've shot with it yet so the results are still TBD.

I wouldn't say I'm experiencing low resolution/poor tonal range, but it seems to be improved when using MF. But I tend to print 8x10 max from 35mm and move up to 11x14 for MF. As I stated in another thread, I'm not a 'big print' guy and never go bigger than 11x14. Oh, and I do use Leica lenses on my 35mm camera.

jimjm · Mar 20, 2021

Take a look at any of the late Galen Rowell's work. He shot color slide film almost exclusively on Nikon 35mm cameras. His gallery in Bishop, CA had many of his photos printed to poster-size and larger. His skill was knowing his environment and the lighting conditions very well. He liked lightweight gear because he needed to be able to run and climb with it. I learned a lot from his books about using grad filters for outdoor photography, especially critical when shooting slide film for landscapes.

Vaughn · Mar 20, 2021

Old Gregg said:
Tonal gradation and resolution (magnification, to be more specific) are the same thing. A 35mm negative enlarged 5x will give you the same tonality as a 120 negative enlarged 5x, except the latter will obviously produce a larger print.

Cool image!

Both you and Mr. Baach are correct...just depends if one's definition is centered on the negative or the print. My different formats all give me the same resolution and tonal separation (assuming everything else being equal -- not true with my Diana!), but then I only contact print.

wiltw · Mar 20, 2021

Old Gregg said:
Tonal gradation and resolution (magnification, to be more specific) are the same thing. A 35mm negative enlarged 5x will give you the same tonality as a 120 negative enlarged 5x, except the latter will obviously produce a larger print.

I have to disagree. Assuming you have fit 2 miles of coastline into both frames,
in the 135 format you have 293' of coast per millimeter of film
on 645 format, youo have 188' of coast per millimeter of film

So when the grain size and density is identcal on both rolls, have 1.56x as many grains representing the same linear subject distance on film, so gradtions of tonality is proportionatlely better with even 645 format, compared to 135 format...even at 1x magnification! If you have 10 points of tonal difference to represent 16 tones, vs 16 points of tonal different to represent the same 16 tones in the subject, which has 'better graduation' of tones?!
Medium format has long been recognized for both better tonality, but also (when the lens performs at the right level) the film can capture better detail resolution for the same amount of subject.

Saying both images are enlarge 5x is a bit presumtuous. A 5x print from 135 is going to produce a 125mm tall print, while 5x from 645 will produce a 215mm tall print. Two different sizes sre very different purposes. You need to make the SAME SIZE print from both, perhaps 16" tall to fit the same wall space, and that takes 16.9x magnification of the smaller neg vs. 9.45x enlargement from 645. And then the better tonallity is very much better appreciated from the larger format. Not to mention, the objectionable grain seen in the 135 print vs. in the 645 print....almost 17x magnification of grain size vs. 9.5x magnification of the same starting grain size.

wiltw · Mar 20, 2021

Old Gregg,
I absolutely agree that the identical emulsion cannot represent more tonal values per se. But the commonly used discussion is how more film area (for the same subject) is better able to represent the gradations in tone...ergo my statement about 10 locations of tone to represent 16 different tonal areas, vs. 16 locations of tone to represent the same 16 different tonal areas.

Camera-man · Mar 20, 2021

I think that 35mm landscapes are fine as long as you don't blown them up too much, you use the entire frame and good camera technique such as using the right film, tripod, decent lenses and have a good image to
begin with. Medium format and large format are great at this too but will the general public be aware that you shoot it on 35mm image really care. They'll looking at your image.

The image below was shot with a Nikon F4s using a Nikon 28-105 D lens on a tripod, the mirror locked up with Kodak Ektar 100 film and scanned to show the entire frame.

Sirius Glass · Mar 20, 2021

Camera-man said:
I think that 35mm landscapes are fine as long as you don't blown them up too much, you use the entire frame and good camera technique such as using the right film, tripod, decent lenses and have a good image to
begin with. Medium format and large format are great at this too but will the general public be aware that you shoot it on 35mm image really care. They'll looking at your image.

The image below was shot with a Nikon F4s using a Nikon 28-105 D lens on a tripod, the mirror locked up with Kodak Ektar 100 film and scanned to show the entire frame.

View attachment 270060

Some of my 35mm color photographs have the composition, exposure, film, ... to be good enough to print 24" x 36" prints, but I have to send them off to fully optical photo finishers to get the print made properly. Therefore I shoot 6x6 now. Hasselblad Zeiss optics and a larger negative and larger prints are easier to make. Also a 6x6 negative is easier to handle than 35mm film. I also use 4" x 5" film.

grain elevator · Mar 20, 2021

It bears repeating that resolution isn't everything. Of course highly resolved pictures can look great. But so can rough ones. They have the same validity. Somehow that's not something that needs to be mentioned about graphic arts other than photography.

Alan Edward Klein · Mar 20, 2021

Here's some 35mm Tmax 400 shot recently and scanned with a V850 Epson. Use fine resolution film like Tmax. Tmax 100 is better than 400. Even less grain.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157716777378896

MattKing · Mar 20, 2021

The ability to resolve fine detail of many 35mm films is really high. Dealt with properly, it is quite possible to make wonderful large prints from 35mm that will satisfy viewers at any reasonable viewing distances.
Many 120 films have as much or more ability to resolve fine detail. Whether or not the result obtained finally when one prints from them is any better depends a lot on the printer, plus every other component in the photographic chain.
I find it slightly easier to make satisfying prints from 120 film than 135 film, but I've got satisfying prints made from both.
And of course, it is tough to fit a lot of 120 cameras in the same pocket that my Retina IIIc fits in - the one used for this image:

(scanned from a postcard print, and then re-sized way down for posting here. The 9"x14" enlargement allows you to see individual details in the trees and grasses, as well as the individual power lines between the towers)

Alan Edward Klein · Mar 20, 2021

Alan Edward Klein said:
Here's some 35mm Tmax 400 shot recently and scanned with a V850 Epson. Use fine resolution film like Tmax. Tmax 100 is better than 400. Even less grain.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157716777378896

If you'd like to try a print from a V850, I could email you one of these 35mm scanned at full 2400 bit. Pick one out that has lettering from the back of the trucks so so can check the resolution on the print better. You could uprez the 2400 much larger for a larger print sample.

Brendan Quirk · Mar 20, 2021

Quote "And since this is a photo forum, a few of my own recent 35mm landscapes (which may or may not help prove my point ):"

I like #2. If you can, this would be a nice one to print!

logan2z · Mar 20, 2021

Brendan Quirk said:
Quote "And since this is a photo forum, a few of my own recent 35mm landscapes (which may or may not help prove my point ):"

I like #2. If you can, this would be a nice one to print!

Thanks, #2 is my favorite as well. I do plan on printing it the next time I'm in the darkroom.

craigclu · Mar 20, 2021

I use formats from half frame to 4X5 so am certainly not in the corner of any specific format. They all have their advantages and concessions. I've been on a bit of a personal "challenge" over the last 2 years to extract good work from 35mm. Decent tonal gradation can be achieved but not as easily as one can in medium format and larger. Lens resolution tends to be better in 35mm and more difficult to attain as format sizes and required coverage increases. Film flatness is easier to achieve in the smaller formats. Support systems can be more compact and equipment vibrations/motion/wind movements are more easily dealt with on smaller gear. I guess what I'm getting at is that the quality gain isn't linear as formats increase in size (but it's there).

I love the medium and large format results I get and the ease that nice results are gotten in the darkroom. There's a different gratification when you get a "wow" moment from a 35mm negative. Just turned 70 this week and I am less enthusiastic about toting bulky gear and serious pods on my ever shorter adventures!

awty · Mar 20, 2021

The size of film, type of film and developer is unimportant.
Composition is everything, far easier to compose and shoot 35mm than LF. If it works in 35mm you can make it work even better in LF.....thats if you feel the need.

35 mm

4x5

Cant see the forest for the tree. by Paul Fitz, on Flickr
Trees by Paul Fitz, on Flickr

35mm

Open Gate by Paul Fitz, on Flickr

4x5

Call Me the Breeze by Paul Fitz, on Flickr

Landscapes on 35mm film?

logan2z

radiant

logan2z

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

gone

Sirius Glass

Pieter12

baachitraka

logan2z

logan2z

logan2z

jimjm

Vaughn

wiltw

wiltw

Camera-man

Sirius Glass

grain elevator

Alan Edward Klein

MattKing

Moderator

Alan Edward Klein

Brendan Quirk

logan2z

craigclu

awty

Landscapes on 35mm film?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency