Why 35mm film?

[BradS]

I do not look at real photographs on my iPhone or on a computer screen, I view them as prints and on slide screens. Basically if one cannot hold a print it is not a photograph. One can disagree with me on this, but then they would just be wrong.

Yup. This is the fact.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

By that argument my Speed Graphic Pacemaker is even more flexible because I can change film every shot, and don't have to worry about using the rest of the roll! And the Speed Graphic is designed to be hand held to boot. Of course my Contax iia is much more nimble, easy to carry around all day. I choose 35mm for now since I am getting back into film photography, and I can enjoy a few interesting cameras which give me good results inexpensively. Like many have said if I have a specific purpose and choose film I would consider my MF cameras. I actually have not taken the Speed Graphic for a spin yet, but will get around to it (I am pretty confident it will work with the leaf shutter and focusing on the ground glass).

Mark I was addressing Eric's definition of flexibility of changing film which you seem to agree with as well regarding your Pacemaker. He and me were not discussing nimbleness or ease of carrying. Obviously, 35mm is better at that, it's main selling point.

 

[jtk]

I do not look at real photographs on my iPhone or on a computer screen, I view them as prints and on slide screens. Basically if one cannot hold a print it is not a photograph. One can disagree with me on this, but then they would just be wrong.

What are "prints on slide screens" ?

Are unprinted slides, projected on "slide screens" not "real photographs" ?

Do you avert your eyes when images appear on your iPhone?

 

[jtk]

With my Mamiya RB67, the medium format film backs are interchangeable. So I can have different films loaded in different backs and switch in the middle of shooting from let's say Tmax100 to Velvia 50. I don't have to finish the roll to change film types. So it's more flexible than 35mm, much like LF.

A good 35mm camera weighs less than half a Mamiya RB67, probably has better optics, and can be paired with a second 35mm with a longer or shorter lens. .

 

[Maris]

I gave up 35mm photography decades ago because it was impossibly expensive for what it delivered.

A 35mm negative costs me about 30 cents to buy, shoot, and process. Then to turn out the best possible 8x10 in the darkroom I need maybe three sheets of photographic paper, a pilot print, a first refinement, and a final "fine" print. Each sheet of 8x10 paper costs about $2 so the total expense is about $6.30 and about a half hour of time.

My 4x5 sheet film runs about $1.50 each (not Kodak, obviously) so the final "fine" print costs about $7.50 plus that half hour of time.

Look at the difference just in terms of technical quality. For $6.30 I get the worst 8x10 in ordinary photographic production and for $7.50 I get the best. Then to diligently work through a 36 exposure roll of 35mm is going to cost me more than $200 in materials and a very long day in the darkroom all the while knowing that everything bigger would have been better. That's so discouraging I refuse to do it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What are "prints on slide screens" ?

Are unprinted slides, projected on "slide screens" not "real photographs" ?

Do you avert your eyes when images appear on your iPhone?

"and" can be used as an inclusive or exclusive.

 

[markjwyatt]

"and" can be used as an inclusive or exclusive.

Well, if the standard is to use Boolean logic in conversations on Photrio (hope it does not come to that), Sirius should say

[view them as prints] OR [on slide screens]
them="real photographs"

 

[abruzzi]

Well, if the standard is to use Boolean logic in conversations on Photrio (hope it does not come to that), Sirius should say

[view them as prints] OR [on slide screens]
them="real photographs"

Given that its no longer possible to print direct from slides, can we narrow that to [view them as prints] XOR [on slide screens]?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Are photojournalistic images on TV screens any less a photo then a print? By extension, are my 35mm or 6x7 pictures of film scanned for my own TV screen in the form of a slide show any less photos then projecting the original slide film? Maybe we should just pass around the 2 1/4" slides one-by-one and hand-to-hand so we can each hold the original film shot up to the light to get a glimpse of the "real" photo.

 

[markjwyatt]

Given that its no longer possible to print direct from slides, can we narrow that to [view them as prints] XOR [on slide screens]?

Probably need a bit more logic than that. You are leaving out the possibility that some photographs are made from negatives.

[{(Shoot Negatives) OR (shoot slides AND create an internegative)} AND (View them as prints)] OR [ (Shoot slides} AND (view them projected on screens)]

I am sure we could go on from here. I think I prefer imperfect language with its likely bickering and bantering.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I gave up 35mm photography decades ago because it was impossibly expensive for what it delivered.

A 35mm negative costs me about 30 cents to buy, shoot, and process. Then to turn out the best possible 8x10 in the darkroom I need maybe three sheets of photographic paper, a pilot print, a first refinement, and a final "fine" print. Each sheet of 8x10 paper costs about $2 so the total expense is about $6.30 and about a half hour of time.

My 4x5 sheet film runs about $1.50 each (not Kodak, obviously) so the final "fine" print costs about $7.50 plus that half hour of time.

Look at the difference just in terms of technical quality. For $6.30 I get the worst 8x10 in ordinary photographic production and for $7.50 I get the best. Then to diligently work through a 36 exposure roll of 35mm is going to cost me more than $200 in materials and a very long day in the darkroom all the while knowing that everything bigger would have been better. That's so discouraging I refuse to do it.

I'm not seeing your logic. There is such a vast difference in handling and applicability of 35 vs. larger formats (especially LF) they all essentially play into different scenarios (with some overlaps of course). Also, I can't see your coins adding up either, they certainly don't where I am and what I can do at times with 35 I simply cannot with LF. MF is just nicer albeit still slower to use than 35. All together, I see space, applicability, and merit to using any format that is still accessible in film supply.

 

[film_man]

I'm confused, is a projected slide on a piece of canvas a real photo? How does it differe from a projection of that scan into an imaging device that then projects it to a piece of cloth? Or are we to look at slides with a loupe? In any case, are negatives real photos at all? Should I be looking at them with a loupe on a lightbox? Are we still in 1953?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Given that its no longer possible to print direct from slides, can we narrow that to [view them as prints] XOR [on slide screens]?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Probably need a bit more logic than that. You are leaving out the possibility that some photographs are made from negatives.

[{(Shoot Negatives) OR (shoot slides AND create an internegative)} AND (View them as prints)] OR [ (Shoot slides} AND (view them projected on screens)]

I am sure we could go on from here. I think I prefer imperfect language with its likely bickering and bantering.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

My 4x5 sheet film runs about $1.50 each (not Kodak, obviously) so the final "fine" print costs about $7.50 plus that half hour of time.

G'day Maris, it's probably a good thing you're not using Velvia 50 in 4x5, which has a common going price of $353.00 per 20 sheet box (!) — rising to $453 after 1st April — "slightly more" than your $1.50 / sheet in B&W...