Why 35mm film?

BradS

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
8,120
Location
Soulsbyville, California
Format
35mm
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.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,501
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm
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

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm

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

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
1,574
Location
Noosa, Australia
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,389
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
2,417
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
"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

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
3,072
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
Large Format
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]?
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,501
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
2,417
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
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'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

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
1,575
Location
London
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,389
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,389
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

 
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
5,462
Location
.
Format
Digital
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...
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…