The decline and fall of 35mm?

[dcelfving]

I noticed something surprising as I glanced at the forums this afternoon. By far, the greatest number of posts are in the large and medium format discussions.

This struck me as somewhat counterintuitive. I'd have guessed that most analog photographers (and I use that term in the broadest possible sense - from disposable cameras to massive large format negatives) work with 35mm. Here at APUG, however, the numbers tell a very different story. As of 02/09/2005 the total posts are as follows:

Large: 21,845
Medium: 8,869
35mm: 6,928

It's astonishing to me that there are three times as many posts to the large format forum than to 35mm! Why do you suppose that is? I've two hypotheses, and would love to hear what others think.

1: APUG tends to attract fairly advanced photographers. As a result the forums are skewed toward more professional tools.

2: The rise of digital photography has eaten away at users of 35mm, but *not* those who shoot larger format films.

I suspect the real reason is some combination of the two. But the second hypothesis, raises some interesting questions. For example: Like most members of this community, I'm of the mind that analog photography will never disappear. It may become relegated to a small group of enthusiasts but there will always be a market for analog equipment and prints (I think of it much like vinyl records). But perhaps 35mm analog photography *will* fade away over time. The total number of posts to the forums certainly suggest that the format garners the least interest in this community. Is 35mm film on the way out? If not, how can we account for the disparity of posts in the forums?

 

[Andy K]

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

 

[dcelfving]

Very true Andy. I tend to shoot 35mm but have just posted a flurry of stuff to the large format group as I'd like to learn a bit more about it.

Still, I don't think that can account for the huge difference in the forums. Large format accounts for the greatest number of posts with the exception of the catch-all "lounge" forum and the "paper and chemistry" forum (which most everyone can participate in).

 

[mark]

Maybe those folks are all out taking pictures while the rest of us just talk a good game

It is an interesting observation.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

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.

 

[roteague]

As of 02/09/2005 the total posts are as follows:

Large: 21,845
Medium: 8,869
35mm: 6,928

It's astonishing to me that there are three times as many posts to the large format forum than to 35mm! Why do you suppose that is? I've two hypotheses, and would love to hear what others think.

Do the numbers and you will find that the vast majority of posts are about Black & White photography as well.

 

[bobfowler]

There are also a lot of other forums for 35mm, some brand specific (Leica, Canon, Nikon, Retina, whatever), <snip>

A Retina forum? Where might THAT be?

 

[Ole]

LF users have more fun?

Part of it could be one of the things I really like about LF: Near total compatibility spanning all makes over a period of over 150 years. There is no functional difference between my 1900's plate camera and my 50's Gandolfi - or even a brand new camera (pick your brand). My lenses span well over a century, and all are functional.

And that makes for lots of interesting gear discussions

 

[avandesande]

If you are going to go through the trouble to use film (and a tripod for that matter) you might as well go big!

That being said, top quality 35mm photography is not easy and those who do it have my utmost respect.

 

[Lee L]

As Robert points out, the B&W film, paper, and chemistry has by far the largest participation, followed by the Lounge.

One of the things I like about APUG is that it's a materials and technique oriented place and not anywhere near as much of a hardware worship place as many clubs and fora become. People here understand that it's not what you own that counts, but what you make with it. And that kind of information and discussion often cuts across formats or can be applied to them all with some obvious allowances made.

After that the second priority is a place (the Lounge) mostly filled with interesting chat and good humor.

My kind of place.

Lee

 

[Claire Senft]

Go and redo your statistics based upon square inch of film used. Then you will see the true nature of things.

 

[Dave Parker]

I hope 35mm is not in decline, that is what I use far more than any other format, I think though based on the format, you will find far more people comfortable and hence asking less questions with this format, and to many the LF stuff is very intimidating, hence far more questions, I shoot virtually every format, but am far less inclined to post a question about 35mm than any other format.

Dave

 

[Ole]

Go and redo your statistics based upon square inch of film used. Then you will see the true nature of things.

Since the surface area of one 35mm film (36 exposures), one 120 roll, and one 8x10" film are very close to the same, that won't change anything. Unless you mean 4x5" which is one quarter the size?

 

[David Brown]

I noticed the same thing s a while back (although I didn't run the numbers). I also seem to perceive, though, (I could be wrong ) that a larger percentage of the posts to the galleries are done with 35mm.

Hmmmm...

Maybe it's that those of us that have been shooting 35mm for decades have fewer questions.

David

 

[Mick Fagan]

For each frame of 35mm film on my Nikon F3, I use 37.5 x 35mm of film. Multiply that by 40 frames (leader) and you end up with 525 square centimetres of film used, for 36 useable exposures.

Taking the size of 4x5" film at 129.032 square centimetres, you get 4 exposures with 516.128 square centimetres used.

Ole's post also confirms the relative amount of film being exposed with the two other popular formats.

All things being equal, I think most of us, more or less, expose the same amount of material in the end.

Mick.

Mick.

 

[df cardwell]

I noticed the same thing s a while back (although I didn't run the numbers). I also seem to perceive, though, (I could be wrong ) that a larger percentage of the posts to the galleries are done with 35mm.

Hmmmm...

May it's that those of us that have been shooting 35mm for decades have fewer questions.

David

There is a different nature to the questions and responses about 35 v LF.

35 often devolves into confrontations over what is good and what isn't.

LF postings usually touches on the terror over messing up a big sheet of film, possibly encouraging a collegial atmosphere.

Just a posssibility.

.

 

[BruceN]

Is it because LF shooters are both chattier and more likely to be found in front of their computers?

Bruce

 

[kunihiko]

more automation, fewer questions ?

I've been doing B&W in 35mm, 120 and 4x5. I just started shooting more 35mm format in color (and started buying Kodak papers!).
I have a lots of questions about color films, chems, papers and prcessing, but not about my 35mm cameras or how to use them.
I don't know what to ask, because I know enough(just push a button).

 

[Photo Engineer]

Interesting here. All of the B&W being used. I use 35, 120, 220, and 4x5 in B&W and color. I too note the lack of color use.

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.

Or, do you just find it too hard?

PE

 

[roteague]

Interesting here. All of the B&W being used. I use 35, 120, 220, and 4x5 in B&W and color. I too note the lack of color use.

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.

Or, do you just find it too hard?

PE

I think there is a lot more people here shooting color than it seems. I posted a thread a month or so ago, about which was harder B&W or color, and was surprised by the numbers of people who said they also shoot color. I'm not sure why color doesn't get talked about more.

 

[srs5694]

I haven't shot much color film since the lab where I worked shut down. I like to make my own prints, but don't use enough color film to make that process economical in my darkroom, and I don't really have the space available to stock color paper and the processing chemicals in addition to my B/W supplies.

If the concern is chemistry going bad, you could mix it yourself from scratch just before you use it. Of course, that means you'll need to stock the dry chemicals. It also does nothing to ease the storage requirements for the paper.

 

[Dave Parker]

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

 

[Nige]

My small foray into colour printing (room temp RA4) was interesting but time consuming, and that's the problem. I need to commit to colour printing the night before to remove the paper from the fridge, then manage enough hours to actually achieve (learn) something. Several times I've had the paper out but not actually managed to get to do any printing. For B&W, it takes me 2mins (5 if I have to mix some chems) and I'm printing... I can, and do, short printing sessions, say a couple of proof sheets, or a single print for a specific reason. I still have the majority of the box of colour paper, but since my chems have been opened for some time, they'll probably be off and I'll need to buy more. That will get expensive!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Just two quick comments.

Jay, you have to commandeer more of the house! That presents other practical problems but with the right attitude you can manage to live alone. ~grin~.

As for keeping color paper, I store mine on the open shelf for up to a year. The worst keeping in the last 10 years was the Supra family which moved by 10R - 20R over nearly 5 years on the open shelf, with no appreciable change in dmin or curve shape.

In addition, I keep chemistry for up to 6 months in sealed containers (Jobo are the best IMHO) and I process at 68 degrees to save on our water heater bill. I use Kodak chemicals. You cannot process C41 or E6 at other than 100 deg F though, just the paper.

So, you see, there are answers to questions, but they are rarely asked.

PE

 

[Daniel Lawton]

I shoot a decent amount of E-6 but unfortunately I'm not up to Cibachrome right now so I don't really do anything with the slides other than look at them on a light box. I've considered doing color printing with C-41 but I spend enough money as it is on my B+W and the cost of a color head plus chemistry and all that goes with it isn't really in my budget at the moment. Interesting though, I didn't know you could process color paper at 68 deg. 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?