Why 35mm film?

[Jim Jones]

Two reasons compelled me to use 35mm film: Kodachrome and a U. S. Navy career. Only after retiring did larger formats become practical, and even then 35mm was the logical choice for almost all of my photography. With evolving technology, a 4/3 digital camera does almost everything that 35mm film ever did, and more conveniently and at lower cost. I appreciate the respect that 35mm has earned after using Leica since 1953 plus Nikon since 1967, but rarely miss their image quality in today's photographs. There are many other things I don't miss from my youth: summers without refrigerators and air conditioning, gravel and dirt roads, clothes that needed ironing, and farming with horses instead of tractors. Progress is often good. We should embrace its best qualities.

 

[film_man]

I have reevaluated my opinion on 35mm vs medium format after buying some modern lenses. I used to play with old stuff or the consumer modern stuff. I have to say, since buying a stabilised 35/2 and the 50/1.2 L I can put them on a £5 EOS 300 body, load some Portra 400 and that will get me shots that are just not doable with anything that takes 120 on it. The newst 120 camera I owned was a 2000something Rollei 2.8FX. Yes it was sharp but in the end 80/2.8 is 3+ stops slower than a 50/1.2 and that does open up so many photo opportunities. There used to be an argument that with 120 you can use 400 film that looks like 35mm 100 film but properly scanned Portra 400 in 35mm looks just amazing. The new TMax 3200 is an eye opener too, combine that with a stabilised lens and you're in digital territory when it comes to low light shooting. You can get an ancient Leica or something and put a modern Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander on it, same story.

So unless you want the handling experience (which I admit is fantastic), or the square factor, I just don't see the point of anything smaller than maybe 6x7 vs 35mm. The only exception to this would be an H Hasselblad but if you have money for those you don't need to ask for opinions. Maybe when I grow up I'll get a brand new Hsomething with a 100/2.2.

 

[naaldvoerder]

For the grain..

 

[Alan Gales]

The only 35mm I shoot anymore is slide film for my Stereo Realist cameras. I prefer my 8x10 or my medium format camera for film work. I do own a D camera for snapshots or eBay listings. I don't own a cell phone. I like cameras that don't ring.

Shooting 35mm can make more sense for shooting sports, wildlife, street photography and travel photography. They are smaller and lighter and if you need really fast lenses or really long lenses then 35mm is great. Look at all the things pros used to shoot with them!

Witold in post #25 is right though. You ought to try medium and large format too. It's all good!

 

[Joel_L]

For me, versatility was it. 35mm large enough to make reasonable enlargements. System is small enough to be fairly portable. Wide spread of lens choices make it very flexible. I have MF and LF and as much as I like those, they are more for a planned outing. 35mm is just more versatile for me.

 

[1kgcoffee]

My preference is for medium format. Printed work looks beautiful.

35mm however has some interesting glass and grain can look beautiful on it. I have aperture priority and exposure compensation in my 35mm cameras and can put effort into composing and focus rather than adjusting for light.

 

[wiltw]

In shooting professionally in three formats (135, 120, 4x5 sheetfilm) the choice of 135 format was when

• final print size was smaller than 16" x 24", due to grain concerns
• available light photography in low light mandated the use of fast max aperture lenses (which were not available in MedFormat or sheetfilm)

 

[nick_clark]

I'm wondering if anyone would share their thoughts on why in particular they chose 35 mm film.

I shoot both 35mm (Pentax MX, LX and Spotmatic F, and Leica M2) and 120 (500cm, SMC/m and Autocord) and 35mm tends to be my 'everything' format, while I usually take the medium format stuff out for a particular purpose.

So some of the reasons I shoot 35mm...
- Compact and portable. An MX or M2 and prime is small enough to carry all day and be forgettable.
- Efficiency of shooting. The shooting experience with my 35mm bodies feels much more streamlined - the camera doesn't get in the way of the shooting.
- Bodies. I just really like the 35mm bodies I have. I've never shot a MF body that felt as good as the M2, and that MX viewfinder is sublime.
- Lenses. I'm a sucker for lens GAS and the K/M42 and M/LTM mounts both have an amazing back catalogue of fantastic glass. Wides to teles, fast and slow, cheap and not so cheap. As soon as you move away from medium-speed normal primes, 120 lenses quickly become very expensive and very big.

There's also lots of reasons why I shoot 120, but that wasn't the question

 

[Montanawildlives]

I'm pretty overwhelmed with all the thoughtful, interesting responses! Thanks so much everybody. You've given me lots to think about

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Asking why 135 is odd question.
HCB switched to it. Jane Bown switched to it. Vivian Maiers switched to it for travel and lately.
Because it is more sufficient.
Tell me at least one great photog who switched from 135 to MF.

 

[logan2z]

Tell me at least one great photog who switched from 135 to MF.

Robert Adams, Lee Friedlander. I'm sure there are others. Friedlander does still shoot with a Leica but the majority of his work since the '90s has been MF (Hasselblad Super Wide).

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Asking why 135 is odd question.
HCB switched to it. Jane Bown switched to it. Vivian Maiers switched to it for travel and lately.
Because it is more sufficient.
Tell me at least one great photog who switched from 135 to MF.

So the reason to use 35 is because somebody else used it? This logic only says "I don't know why". Unless one realizes that HCB had tens of thousands of negatives he never allowed to be viewed by anyone. Here goes digital way of thinking, use 35 because it is a lot cheaper per frame than any larger format. Better yet use Olympus Pen half-frame for even better economy.

 

[warden]

I suspect that 35mm will be the first of the present film formats to go and sheet film will be the last.

I don't know, if film departs the scene (which I don't think it will) I believe the order you suggest will be reversed.

But (and it is a big BUT) if you are truly committed to making pictures out of light sensitive materials, which assuredly digital does not do, and you want the convenience and you accept the quality downgrade then 35mm might have a continuing role and my pessimism is out of order.

I'd be willing to bet for most casual photographers there is no quality downgrade with the 35mm format compared to MF and larger because they print at normal sizes (8x10 and smaller, say, or whatever their home printer will handle) and share images online, and you don't need MF or larger for that. I agree as you say that most digital cameras outpace 35mm film these days but I don't think the average 35mm customer is interested in blowing away digital quality anyway, which is a contest that was settled years ago.

My heart is with medium format and that's what I shoot mostly. I like the negative size for darkroom printing. But it's overkill for almost everything I shoot because I print small for hand held viewing. For what I do 35mm is equal quality, convenient, portable, fast, cheap and fun.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

So the reason to use 35 is because somebody else used it? This logic only says "I don't know why". Unless one realizes that HCB had tens of thousands of negatives he never allowed to be viewed by anyone. Here goes digital way of thinking, use 35 because it is a lot cheaper per frame than any larger format. Better yet use Olympus Pen half-frame for even better economy.

HCB archives are in the Magnum. Why do you think it is not allowed to access them?
https://www.henricartierbresson.org/en/faq/
And your conclusion is wrong. I know exactly why all three I mentioned switched to 135 film format.
Just for same reason I get rid of MF. It is next to useless if you want to be mobile and be able to manipulate it very quick and intuitively.
Basically all you could do with MF is static shots. And for some of us it is limited and boring photography. Larger film format gets, more static photography comes out.

Half-frame has very limited amount of decent cameras and lenses, if you don't know it.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

HCB archives are in the Magnum. Why do you think it is not allowed to access them?
https://www.henricartierbresson.org/en/faq/
And your conclusion is wrong. I know exactly why all three I mentioned switched to 135 film format.
Just for same reason I get rid of MF. It is next to useless if you want to be mobile and be able to manipulate it very quick and intuitively.
Basically all you could do with MF is static shots. And for some of us it is limited and boring photography. Larger film format gets, more static photography comes out.

Half-frame has very limited amount of decent cameras and lenses, if you don't know it.

I don't believe Magnum has all HCB negatives, he maintained control over his negatives. And why? Because among the thousands he shot, he was not even close to being satisfied with majority of them.

BTW, I am not against 35, I'm all in favor, especially if it helps keeping up market demand for sustainable film production.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

...
Just for same reason I get rid of MF. It is next to useless if you want to be mobile and be able to manipulate it very quick and intuitively.
Basically all you could do with MF is static shots. And for some of us it is limited and boring photography. Larger film format gets, more static photography comes out.

Half-frame has very limited amount of decent cameras and lenses, if you don't know it.

If you think MF is NEXT TO USELESS for street photography, you have never tried it, or at the very least did not give it an honest try. This i snot the same as saying MF is jst as nimble as 35, but it surely capable of fast shooting with right gear.

 

[Wallendo]

I shoot 35mm because I own a wide selection of 35mm cameras: rangefinders, completely manual SLR's, automated SLR's and waterproof. I still primarily use 35 for underwater because most underwater digital cameras are prone to failure at absolutely the worst time. 90% of my film use is 35mm 35mm provides the quality I need for most of my purposes, is portable, and I can often share some of my digital lenses. I also have multiple lens adapters for my mirrorless camera and dSLR.

I do own a Yashica Mat and Mamiya m645's (2 working and one for parts). Although picture quality is higher, I generally only use them for particular situations.

35mm became popular for many reasons already discussed on this thread which I shall not repeat, but it also a non-proprietary format and the film has long been readily available worldwide. It's a little harder to find these days, but in an emergency, I could probably find a few rolls of Kodak Gold or FujiColor at a Wal-mart, Walgreens or CVS in most cities.

 

[logan2z]

For some reason people like to make up rules about what can and cannot be done with a certain type of camera - 35mm is no good for landscapes, MF is useless for street photography, etc.I've seen beautiful landscape work done with 35mm cameras and excellent street photography done with MF. If you like using a particular type of camera and are happy with the end results then that's all that really matters. A great picture will transcend the format.

 

[logan2z]

Because among the thousands he shot, he was not even close to being satisfied with majority of them.
.

Not at all uncommon, especially when trying to capture 'the decisive moment' in a world that's in constant motion. Most shots will be failures .

A timely quote of Harry Callahan's posted on Instagram today:

"I guess I've shot about 40,000 negatives and of these I have about 800 pictures I like"

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Not at all uncommon, especially when trying to capture 'the decisive moment' in a world that's in constant motion. Most shots will be failures .

A timely quote of Harry Callahan's posted on Instagram today:

"I guess I've shot about 40,000 negatives and of these I have about 800 pictures I like"

Sort of my point and that of ... HCB too. He was a control freak, BTW, regarding what was and was not published.

 

[petrk]

For the grain..

Exactly. I do not want my photos look digital.

 

[abruzzi]

For some reason people like to make up rules about what can and cannot be done with a certain type of camera

There is also a tendency to extrapolate from their opinions to universal rules.

 

[Chan Tran]

Exactly. I do not want my photos look digital.

I hate the grain.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I hate the grain.

You won't once you learn how to use it.

 

[Chan Tran]

You won't once you learn how to use it.

I never want to use the grain. I don't even use ISO 400 film. It's a drawback of film not the advantage.