The decline and fall of 35mm?

roteague · Feb 10, 2006

Satinsnow said:
Well I try to do my part for the continued availability of color, I shoot on average about 100 rolls a month, albeit 98% of that is slide film, but its still color, I just don't talk about it much around here.

Dave

And when do you get time to grind glass?

Dave Parker · Feb 10, 2006

roteague said:
And when do you get time to grind glass?

Most of that gets ground in the middle of the night, I am blessed(or cursed) with only requiring a couple of hours a sleep a day!

...I have already shipped 55 orders this month, so can get back out and ruin some film!

Dave

roteague · Feb 10, 2006

Satinsnow said:
Most of that gets ground in the middle of the night, I am blessed(or cursed) with only requiring a couple of hours a sleep a day!

...I have already shipped 55 orders this month, so can get back out and ruin some film!

Dave

I wish I had your stamina; if I don't get at least 6 hours a night, I am totally wasted.

Dave Parker · Feb 10, 2006

roteague said:
I wish I had your stamina; if I don't get at least 6 hours a night, I am totally wasted.

Believe me, it takes its toll at times, I actually slept till 6 this morning, then felt guilty all day cause I slept in! Actually, once a week, I try to sleep in until about 8 AM, then spend the day running around with a camera...

Dave

Soeren · Feb 10, 2006

More time in field, shooting = less time in front of computer typing ?

I think most of the issues concerning 35mm has been covered in the past decades.
35mm is not that complicated so there isn't that many issues.
When moving from 35mm to MF ++ people run into metering problems, film loading problems, finder problems, movements and I could go on.
It' more funny to talk MF and LF
BTW I use color slides in 35mm most of the time,Kodak Elite Chrome 100 EC and Fuji Astia, Provia 400 and Velvia 100
Cheers Søren

Mick Fagan · Feb 10, 2006

Doing colour, if you work at, is almost as quick as B&W to set up.

I run a Durst Printo which takes about 6 minutes to assemble, fill up and switch on. Setting up my B&W, takes about the same time as this.

I then set out which negs I wish to print, this usually takes about 10 minutes or so. B&W the same.

Then one fanatically cleans the first negative, composes and more or less gets all the settings required to start. This takes about 5 minutes. B&W the same.

I then run a test print through the two bath Printo followed by an absolute maximum 45 second of hand washing, before slipping the print through the paper dryer. B&W marginally quicker.

I usually have my first print of the session inside 20 minutes from stepping into the darkroom. B&W the same, give or take.

Colour isn't hard, it just takes a bit of thinking.

From then on, it's all systems go!

I do admit, the way I do it, there is a considerable amount of moolah involved. I did though, develop colour in trays, then a Unicolour drum, followed by a Jobo system before I got to the stage I'm at.

Mick.

kunihiko · Feb 10, 2006

I'm quite new to color home processing(nega films and papers). I'm developing both of films and papers at 24C. I'm not sure I'm doing right or wrong, but I've had some decent prints with only Y10 or M10 off from suggested filter set so far.
My enlarger doesn't have a color head, I develop films in small stainless tank, papers in trays. They are same in my B&W work. I think it's not much convenient for color processing, but I'm feeling like, color processing is as easy as B&W, B&W is as difficult as color.

For 35mm format, I found that some cheap color nega films are cheaper than the cheapest B&W film!! I haven't paid any attention to color materials for years, so I didn't know that. Color 120 films are much more expensive than B&W, though.

Christopher Walrath · Feb 10, 2006

I think your real answer does not lie in the people posting here, but instead in the people. Let me explain. Yeah there are a lot of MF and LF users here because we don't see those formats in digital. But these are guya and gals that prob use 35mm as well and they're just on a big kick lately.

srs5694 · Feb 10, 2006

Daniel Lawton said:
One of the huge headaches I feared was maintaining high temps for several hours in the darkroom which would pretty much require an expensive JOBO machine unless you're a sadist I'd imagine. I assume you just extend the times to compensate, but are the results pretty much the same?

I can't speak to all chemistries, but I can comment on a few them. With Photocolor, room-temperature processing requires less dilution of the developer and no starter, whereas the higher-temperature processing requires starter and a higher dilution of the developer. Times are similar, but the instructions include a range of times and temperatures at both ends. I recently got a Tetenal kit but haven't used it yet. Its instructions specify a range of times for various temperatures, but IIRC they're all in what I'd consider "room temperature" range.
I've also used the mix-it-yourself RA-4 formula at http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/photo/c41_ra4_chemicals.htm. (PE is probably cringing as he reads this.) It specifies the addition of potassium hydroxide for room-temperature development, but the description also implies that extended development will do the job, too.

FWIW, I've only bought the Photocolor and Tetenal kits because both times I wanted to buy commercial RA-4 chemistry, I wanted to buy other things from B&H, and these are the only two brands of RA-4 chemistry that they'll ship. One of these days it may be convenient to order from Adorama, which will ship the Kodak chemistry, so I may try it.

joel dallenbach · Oct 12, 2007

I was an avid thirtyfive mm user but some how started verging in the direction of medium format. Probably because I just lack patience, I'd rather say, great, I shot two rolls today and now I'll develop them. That being said, two rolls of 35mm = 72 images or 20 xpan negs, where as I can get 24 or less images out of 6x6 film on the same day. It may be thirty-five shooters are verging into the less is more aesthetic. Funny, with digital the tendency is the opposite, maybe this is a psycological backlash against digital technic. Another thing, it's a bit disconcerting to post images on line let's say that you toiled to process, and see that a lot more people post digital with less hassel. So in order to justify doing the analog bit, people are aiming at the more serious gear, The stuff used traditionally for magazine work, 35mm tends toward journalism. Black and white probably predominates since it is easier to do yourself. In my area, a lot of the labs that produce color services have dissapeared. Didn't Lee Freidlander or somebody equate cameras by calibre of munitions, Maybe Raulf Gibson? " A leica is like a nine mm luger of p38, hasselblad is like a shotgun, an 8x10 is like a howitzer? I suppose digital cameras are more like lazers.

copake_ham · Oct 12, 2007

The last post before yours was over a year and a half ago!

Kind of like a Rip Van Winkle situation.

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 12, 2007

On a general issue like this (as opposed to someone asking for specific advice in the short term like "which lens should I buy?"), I think it's better to open an old thread and continue the discussion than to start a new one and rehash the same points.

copake_ham · Oct 12, 2007

David,

Okay, I can agree with that.

For all who think that 35mm film is dead - please send me your gear at your shipping cost so I can recycle it properly.

walter23 · Oct 13, 2007

Andy K said:
Or it could be that those of us who shoot 35mm don't spend much time in only the 35mm forum...

Us large format photographers can't afford the film to be out shooting all the time, so most of our photography time is spent discussing photography online. The 35mm crowd on the other hand is out in the streets capturing images.

ricksplace · Oct 13, 2007

I shoot 35, med format and 4X5. Lately I've been shooting more 35. I have noticed a curious thing happening. Shooting med format and 4X5 tends to make us all slower and more careful shooters. This seems to have effected my 35 shooting as well. I don't shoot as many frames when I shoot 35 as I used to. I seem to have more partial rolls living in my 35 cameras than I used to have.
Why have I been shooting more 35? Dunno. Could be that I just like to get those mechanical marvels in my hands every so often. A colleague at work bought a new Pentax K10D and is buying up old pentax lenses on ebay like he just won the lottery. He gave me a KX and a Spotmatic that came with lenses he won on ebay. Both are in excellent shape with working meters, so I have been gleefully shooting them both. As an aside, that KX is pretty cool, MLU, DOF, and smooth as silk. Nice additions to my stable that includes WAY too many 35s.

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 13, 2007

ricksplace said:
A colleague at work bought a new Pentax K10D and is buying up old pentax lenses on ebay like he just won the lottery.

I think this is becoming something of a phenomenon. The camera has vibration reduction in the body, so for small-camera guys who don't like tripods, all of a sudden those cheap old lenses are brilliantly sharp. Here's a good example on the RFF--

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48180

w35773 · Oct 13, 2007

copake_ham said:
The last post before yours was over a year and a half ago!

Kind of like a Rip Van Winkle situation.

I guess that means 35mm is still alive!!

Long Live 35mm!! (even though I don't currently shoot it)

Nick Zentena · Oct 13, 2007

I like the idea of hauling a 35mm with it's zoom lens with the LF kit. The way I see it. The 35mm is a backup light meter. It's all auto everything if I want for quick snapshots. I could even use it for framing I guess.

Use what works.

Woolliscroft · Oct 17, 2007

I use 35mm and medium format. I use more 35mm film, but probably talk more about MF. Basically, I've been using 35mm for over 30 years. I still use OM series cameras I got in the 1970s and Leicas from the 1980s and there is little more to say. I just get on with using them. I have come to MF much later and still have questions to ask, so I tend to join the MF threads more often.

David.

osprey48 · Oct 17, 2007

I think that people start off with 35mm, but once they gain experience and skills would naturally want to experiment with other formats and cameras, so maybe use the MF and LF forums for specialist info. But for street and ground level travel photography, you can't beat the convenience and rawness of 35mm.I 've got a MF rangefinder, but am seriously considering buying a Bessa R4M to replace my 20 year old Minolta SLR.So 35mm is definitely not on the way out as far as I am concerned.

Sirius Glass · Oct 17, 2007

I tend to use the 35mm more when I am in a hurry or travelling. I rarely post about 35mm because after 50 years of photography experience, I don't have 35mm questions.

Steve

spiralcity · Oct 31, 2007

Use it or lose it people. If you don't use color it will be gone as well, and once gone will be harder to restart. I suggest that you use color from time-to-time to keep your fingers in the pot so to speak.

80% of my 35mm shots are color print film, about 10% chromes and 10% B&W.

My 120 and 220 are basically all color.

bjorke · Oct 31, 2007

It's #2

plus the fact that probably the true hardcore 35mm users these days are rangefinder shooters who have their own sort of religious gatherings.

kb
honorary german

dferrie · Oct 31, 2007

David A. Goldfarb said:
There are also a lot of other forums for 35mm, some brand specific (Leica, Canon, Nikon, Retina, whatever), and there is the very lively rangefinderforum.com. I'd also bet that most of the LF and MF shooters around here have one or more 35mm cameras that they use, but they probably have more questions about LF and MF, because they've been using 35mm for a long time and are experimenting with other formats.

David,

I would certainly fall into the "have more than one 35mm and have questions about 35mm" group. I've been using 35mm on and off for 25 years. I got a MF in July (loosely called summer ) and I've been doing a lot of reading and experimenting with that format, so I've only spent a small amount of time in the 35mm forums.

David

JBrunner · Oct 31, 2007

I think there is less information out in the world about LF gear and processes in the general sense than 35mm. LF'rs who work with B&W are almost certainly going to be doing there own processing and printing as well.
APUG and LF forum are probably the single largest readily accessible repositories of information concerning LF in the world, and most LFr's are operating in a vacuum in a local sense, so these things are our coffee shop, so to speak.

I can go down to a camera shop and ask a question, and get "I have no idea, hey, have you seen the new Matuashishi Auto Hoser DSLR?" or I can come here and get a question answered by passionate people with a common interest and experience.

The decline and fall of 35mm?

roteague

Dave Parker

roteague

Dave Parker

Soeren

Mick Fagan

kunihiko

Christopher Walrath

srs5694

joel dallenbach

copake_ham

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

copake_ham

walter23

ricksplace

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

w35773

Nick Zentena

Woolliscroft

osprey48

Sirius Glass

spiralcity

bjorke

dferrie

JBrunner

Moderator

The decline and fall of 35mm?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency