logan2z
Subscriber
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
):
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



