Why 35mm film?

[CMoore]

What film does not Have or Show grain.?
Somebody want to define the word "Grain".?

 

[manualcrank]

I personally like the loose sketchy quality some photographers obtain from fast 35mm. A good artist exploits the properties of his medium.

 

[Alan Gales]

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

I respectably disagree. I think it's both a drawback and an advantage. It just depends upon what look you want.

 

[manualcrank]

Hand-holding fast 35mm film often results in grain, motion blur, sloppy focus & other surprises and defects, which might otherwise ruin a good photo if "corrected".

 

[abruzzi]

What film does not Have or Show grain.?
Somebody want to define the word "Grain".?

I'll let someone else define it, but take a fine grained film like TMAX 100 or better, shoot it at 6x7 or better and the grain will be almost imperceptible at 8x10

 

[nick_clark]

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 don't think that's true... Even looking at tiny Instagram images on my crappy old iPhone SE screen, a portrait shot on a Pentax 67 is instantly distinguishable from a portrait shot on 35mm.

 

[warden]

I don't think that's true... Even looking at tiny Instagram images on my crappy old iPhone SE screen, a portrait shot on a Pentax 67 is instantly distinguishable from a portrait shot on 35mm.

I didn't say 35mm was indistinguishable from medium format, I said for most casual photographers there is no quality downgrade. With excellent lenses, slow film and proper technique we can print basically grainless, sharp images on 8x10 paper whether we use 6x7 or 35mm.

Of course MF looks somewhat different, and that's good. 35mm looks different in a good way too - Delta3200 in 35mm has a wonderful graininess and organic feel that's awfully hard to replicate in that Pentax 67 but it doesn't mean there is a quality downgrade with the medium format image. It's just different, which is why it's best to use both.

 

[MattKing]

I don't think that's true... Even looking at tiny Instagram images on my crappy old iPhone SE screen, a portrait shot on a Pentax 67 is instantly distinguishable from a portrait shot on 35mm.

Like as not, that is due mostly to the camera "operators" rather the cameras themselves.

 

[mshchem]

I love medium format. However this last year we took a nice vacation, Yellowstone, Tetons, Black Hills. My trusty Nikon D5 a couple fast primes. I took a D800 as well. The auto bracketed Fujichrome slides, edited down to about 75 very pleasant photos. I mounted and projected. 6x6 slides would have been more impressive, but my wife would have left me behind . If I would scan I'm sure I could make some magic.
That's the most 35mm (8 rolls) I have shot in years. I still like to print. 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 6x17 medium format is my go to. I rarely get the gumption to get out large format. And DSLR has replaced a lot of what I used to do with 35mm film, especially negative film. Candid shots of the family, Cats and Dogs, birds etc.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I don't think that's true... Even looking at tiny Instagram images on my crappy old iPhone SE screen, a portrait shot on a Pentax 67 is instantly distinguishable from a portrait shot on 35mm.

This statement isn't even remotely correct. Call it your opinion, but it is certainly far from facts. There will be cases when MF negative will provide an easily distinguishable result, and quite a few you won't tell the difference. A lot more goes into what things look like then mere film format.

 

[nick_clark]

This statement isn't even remotely correct. Call it your opinion, but it is certainly far from facts. There will be cases when MF negative will provide an easily distinguishable result, and quite a few you won't tell the difference. A lot more goes into what things look like then mere film format.

I never said there wasn’t. All I said was that medium format (in this case Pentax 67) is recognisable as medium format on very small digital displays... And I’ll stand by that.

 

[nick_clark]

Like as not, that is due mostly to the camera "operators" rather the cameras themselves.

I doubt that.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I never said there wasn’t. All I said was that medium format (in this case Pentax 67) is recognisable as medium format on very small digital displays... And I’ll stand by that.

And I said it's BS. I wish we could do blind test just to prove it to you, but let's just leave it as a difference in opinion.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I doubt that.

How can you doubt anything not knowing facts about an image? Superior images have been produced from 35mm, and there have been form any other format while at it. Your arguments are pixel peeping lab results category that are majority of times completely disconnected from visual experience, which is THE determining factor.

 

[nick_clark]

How can you doubt anything not knowing facts about an image? Superior images have been produced from 35mm, and there have been form any other format while at it. Your arguments are pixel peeping lab results category that are majority of times completely disconnected from visual experience, which is THE determining factor.

I actually have no idea what you’re talking about?

 

[Alan Gales]

Here is a definition of film grain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain

Like it or not, I think we all can agree that film grain still looks better than digital noise.

 

[RPC]

A larger negative gives not only less grain but smoother tonality over a smaller negative.

 

[Agulliver]

Well...I've just posted some colour photos shot on 35mm and 6x6 to facebook and on both my laptop and my phone it's pretty clear there's less grain and more detail in the 6x6 photos. One does have to pinch zoom on the phone to really see it....but it's there.

Caveat, my optician says I have "super human" detailed vision (his words)

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Well...I've just posted some colour photos shot on 35mm and 6x6 to facebook and on both my laptop and my phone it's pretty clear there's less grain and more detail in the 6x6 photos. One does have to pinch zoom on the phone to really see it....but it's there.

Caveat, my optician says I have "super human" detailed vision (his words)

If one has to "pinch zoom" to see, then there is no difference as pixel peeping isn't part of viewers' experience.

 

[Agulliver]

If one has to "pinch zoom" to see, then there is no difference as pixel peeping isn't part of viewers' experience.

It is on phones and tablets.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

It is on phones and tablets.

If one has to pinch zoom, it is pixel peeping, that is my point. Don;t zoom in and view images at given size, then compare and judge apples to apples.

 

[abruzzi]

Probably not since most phone browsers won’t display an image at greater than 1:1, and given the high resolution of most modern phone screens, that’s not going to be enough to distinguish individual pixels.

 

[RPC]

I optically print color and b&w and can definitely see a difference in tonality between 35mm and 120 film with 5x7 prints and larger; it is noticeably smoother with 120. I don't scan so can't comment there.

 

[MattKing]

I optically print color and b&w and can definitely see a difference in tonality between 35mm and 120 film with 5x7 prints and larger; it is noticeably smoother with 120. I don't scan so can't comment there.

I don't think there is any issue about optical prints, or even well scanned film with a digital print from a scan.
What there is an issue about is whether those differences would be visible on a small digital display, like a phone screen.

 

[RPC]

I don't think there is any issue about optical prints, or even well scanned film with a digital print from a scan.
What there is an issue about is whether those differences would be visible on a small digital display, like a phone screen.

But the OP hasn't mention that. Grain was being discussed so I thought it prudent to mention tonality, as I hadn't seen that mentioned as a difference between format sizes. As for phone image quality, don't know, don't care.