This is a 35mm year!

[digiconvert]

Just had a look at my uploads to the gallery this year. I knew I'd used the 35mm a lot for colour but I'm staggered at how little MF BW I've done. The fact that I bought a fair bit of portra and a new 35mm camera probably have some bearing.
Do others get this change in shooting habits in different years or do I need to sell the Bronica ? Noooooooooooo1

 

[SilverGlow]

Me too....2009 will be the year of B&W 35mm film for me. I'm coming out of 8+ years of solid digital shooting, for fun and work, but since around August I've been shooting film only for my personal stuff, and I think the same will be true for all of 2009 going forward. I agree, that going forward film will primarily be used by those few film nuts, the artsy types, the type that would post in this site ;-)

 

[mikebarger]

Good question, I've used my F3 and EL2 so little the last couple years I wonder if I just shouldn't sell them and the Nikkors.

I am getting ready to sell my Sinar F, replaced it with a Zone VI 4x5, and tend to use the Hassy the most often if I'm going to carry a camera just in case.

Was given a Koni-Omega a couple years ago and used it some, but I like the square format better than the 6x7. Although I really like using the Koni rangefinder.

Plus I've added a couple Hassy items I really didn't need. bought a ELM w/a PM 45 finder because it sold for less than what the finder was going for alone on Ebay. When I get it it has a 9 volt conversion, an A12 back that wasn't listed with it, front body cap, and one of the little side levels that wasn't listed either.

The guy sent a note he was tired of listing hassy stuff and it going for nothing so he decided to throw in the few odds and ends he had left. He said he was getting out of the film business.

Anway, it is interesting how you change shooting styles over the years.

Merry Christmas

Mike

 

[PhotoJim]

I find myself wanting to go the other way (doing my more serious shooting on 120 and 4x5) but 35mm is still my bread-and-butter system because of its spontaneity and ease of use. I suppose if I had a DSLR I might shoot a lot of that on digital, but I don't, and the quality of my film gear is such that there is no giant rush to do so.

 

[pentaxuser]

All the years are 35mm years for me in terms of usage. I do have an Agfa Isolette I and it's very good for its vintage but at up to 10x8 the 35mm(Pentax MZ7) prints look just as good and maybe sharper. Probably not surprising given the different eras they are from and the other restrictions such as lack of shutter speeds, one focal length etc. I allegedly have better tonal differentiation with the MF Agfa but if so it doesn't exactly jump out at me. At a rough guess my 35mm neg sheets outnumbers my 6x6 by about 15:1

Now a Pentax 645N might be a whole different kettle of fish

pentaxuser

 

[Excalibur2]

Maybe it's because 35mm film cameras and lenses are so cheap, some people are thinking....... I'll give it a go what could I lose and can always say "been there done it".

 

[redrockcoulee]

This past year I have shot more MF and a lot less LF and digital. 35mm seems to be still the least format that I do shoot but this coming year I do have some plans to put the Pentaxes to use. Judging from my freezer I should be using 35mm and LF but I don't think I will set the Hasselblad aside this year. It might also be that it is the newest system to me.

 

[David Brown]

Film is NEVER going to be the average person's medium of choice again .

Who wants to be average?

 

[digiconvert]

Who wants to be average?

Amen to that .

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Even with a recent step-up to large format, I find myself armed with my trusty EOS 1N or RS more than the Toyo, for obvious reasons of spontaneity and ease of use. No question that the Toyo doesn't deliver: it does, just that it is pretty darned slow/intensive (I enjoy that) and several times lately the lighting has changed after I've got the composition and metering 'just so'!!

For the past 29 years, every year has been 35mm year and I don't see that changing permanently to another format, even with an armoury that now includes a darned good digi and the large format outfit. But for travels, it's now 3 cameras: 35mm, digi and LF. If push comes to shove, I'll leave the LF in the locker and just take, as I have for 3 decades, the 35mm body and digi.

Long live 35mm.

 

[lgrabun]

Being bored a bit with 6x6 I think that either I will get 645 mask for Hasselblad or shoot 135 fillm which is a bit more interesting ratio, at least I find it so recently. 35mm cameras are also easier to handle which can be an issue when you hike along, say, Portugal coast. 2009 wil be a 35mm year for me, definitely, even though in 2008 I was more committed to MF and square format pictures.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Being bored a bit with 6x6 I think that either I will get 645 mask for Hasselblad or shoot 135 fillm which is a bit more interesting ratio [...]

Think outside the square.

 

[lgrabun]

Think outside the square.

I should.

Tough, however. Me being able to frame using only the entire viewfinder was one of reasons I let Bessa R go - I just can't focus on framing seeing more of what is going to be on a film.

 

[mikebarger]

Just drop a cut out of the ratio you want onto your square screen. Then you'll see the format you want.

Mike

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I should.

Tough, however. Me being able to frame using only the entire viewfinder was one of reasons I let Bessa R go - I just can't focus on framing seeing more of what is going to be on a film.

How much more is that with the Bessa R, which if I recall is a rangefinder?

I see 110% on my digi compact's screen—I never use the squinty viewfinder on that given its quirky alignment, but I like the much more engaging and refined view of 100% on my EOS 1Ns.

Strangely, I was asked an hour ago if I thought 6x6 is good for landscapes. A question like that can have a very subjective answer. Personally, and over a long time, I've observed some beautiful landscapes fitted to 6x6 using Hassies; it's a personal choice I think and I'd recommend photographers experiment with all formats. A refined visual literacy ("fit-to-frame", composition, focii and alignment) would be prerequisite; I imagine the square is much more critical to the objective of creating the image than, for say, 6x4.5, 35mm or 120.

The 6x6 format I have never tried; I'm on LF 'on a whim'/when I please now and that + the 135mm format I'm quite happy with.

 

[removed account4]

I should.

Tough, however. Me being able to frame using only the entire viewfinder was one of reasons I let Bessa R go - I just can't focus on framing seeing more of what is going to be on a film.

i use a graflex 4x5 slr and have a roll back 2x3 on the back of it
i don't use a mask or a cut out or anything, but i somehow know
what will be in the frame without worrying much about it.
just "feel it" ... kind of like closing your eyes when you shoot
once you get the hang of it, you will be ok ...

 

[Steve Smith]

Next year may be a 35mm year for me.

After a few years of slowly working up in format size from 6x4.5 to 6x6 then 6x7 and finally 5" x 4" I have decided to go back to 35mm for colour. Especially when I just want to carry a camera on a walk.

For black and white though, I am going to continue with the larger formats and possibly even build a 8" x 10" camera.



Steve.

 

[lgrabun]

How much more is that with the Bessa R, which if I recall is a rangefinder?

Bessa, as far as I recall, has a viewfinder that covers 28mm and frames for 35mm, 50mm and 75mm lens. Thus the covered area is a bit wider than field of view of 35mm lens I used most often.

I see 110% on my digi compact's screen—I never use the squinty viewfinder on that given its quirky alignment, but I like the much more engaging and refined view of 100% on my EOS 1Ns.

Sure, since you can't much simpler than this - what you see is what you get, no worries about tree branches getting into bottom left corner of the frame when you compose an "Adamsy" mountain landscape.

Strangely, I was asked an hour ago if I thought 6x6 is good for landscapes. A question like that can have a very subjective answer. Personally, and over a long time, I've observed some beautiful landscapes fitted to 6x6 using Hassies; it's a personal choice I think and I'd recommend photographers experiment with all formats. A refined visual literacy ("fit-to-frame", composition, focii and alignment) would be prerequisite; I imagine the square is much more critical to the objective of creating the image than, for say, 6x4.5, 35mm or 120.

Really, with 6x6 you don't have to worry about composition as much as you would with rectangular formats. Correct me, if I am wrong, but with square the subject placed in strong point will make as good picture as subject placed in, say, center. I am not sure why they made up with square format but I would say it was the sake of photographers whowouldn't have to worry now about the frame alignment - you could've cropped from 6x6 frame both vertical and horizontal images.

 

[André E.C.]

Really, with 6x6 you don't have to worry about composition as much as you would with rectangular formats. Correct me, if I am wrong, but with square the subject placed in strong point will make as good picture as subject placed in, say, center. I am not sure why they made up with square format but I would say it was the sake of photographers whowouldn't have to worry now about the frame alignment - you could've cropped from 6x6 frame both vertical and horizontal images.

Yes, you're completely wrong, that's why you're bored with it, just because you don't know how to take full advantage of the format, feel or see it.
Maybe one of the reasons 6x6 was created, was for the photographer don't have to turn the camera for vertical composition?



Cheers



André

 

[lgrabun]

Maybe one of the reasons 6x6 was created, was for the photographer don't have to turn the camera for vertical composition?

But there is no vertical nor horizontal when we talk about 6x6.

 

[Steve Smith]

But there is no vertical nor horizontal when we talk about 6x6.

There is but they're both the same length.



Steve.

 

[Excalibur2]

Being bored a bit with 6x6 I think that either I will get 645 mask for Hasselblad or shoot 135 fillm which is a bit more interesting ratio, at least I find it so recently. 35mm cameras are also easier to handle which can be an issue when you hike along, say, Portugal coast. 2009 wil be a 35mm year for me, definitely, even though in 2008 I was more committed to MF and square format pictures.

erm what about Bronica etrs 6X4.5, fit the speed grip on and add the AEII meter and you have a dirty great 35mm SLR with better quality.

2&1/4 sq is silly, when you can get 16 shots from a roll of film and the lenses are very good to excellent, if you choose the right ones (later not earlier ones).

 

[Steve Smith]

erm what about Bronica etrs 6X4.5, fit the speed grip on and add the AEII meter and you have a dirty great 35mm SLR with better quality.

That's what I have except my prism isn't metering.

2&1/4 sq is silly, when you can get 16 shots from a roll of film and the lenses are very good to excellent, if you choose the right ones (later not earlier ones).

I also have 2.25" sq. with the Rolleicord. It may be silly but I like silly!



Steve.

 

[André E.C.]

2&1/4 sq is silly, when you can get 16 shots from a roll of film and the lenses are very good to excellent, if you choose the right ones (later not earlier ones).

Silly statement!


Cheers


André

 

[lgrabun]

There is but they're both the same length.

A rotated circle is still a circle and horizontal square is still a vertical square i.e. I see no point in saying that a square frame can be horizontal or vertical depending on what is on a picture. Square is a square is a square