Why 35mm film?

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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.

 

[Eric Rose]

One thing I really like about 35mm is that you can load your own film. If I want 12 shots of Delta 400 I roll that, If I want 5 of something else I can roll that as well. Or maybe 36exp's of FP4. Can't do that with MF. Of course you have the same flexibility with LF. I like 35mm for it's spontaneity.

 

[johnha]

My eyes were opened the first time I compared 35mm with 120: Pentax MX, Pentax lenses, Ektar 25 printed to 12x8 compared to a Lubitel 166, average ISO 100 print film printed to 8x8. The Lubitel print was sharper, slightly lower in contrast (3 element lens with unknown coating) but had much greater tonal graduation and simply looked better. This is compared to a precision Japanese SLR, with very good glass and the highest resolution colour print 35mm film (both were handheld).

 

[warden]

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.

An experiment that might be fun and that I'll never do:
1) Take a Fuji 6x9 and a 35mm Leica (which are the same aspect ratio) and put equal quality lenses on them that are about the same effective focal length. Use slow film. Velvia 50 let's say. Use a tripod like Avedon.
2) Expose images of a model gazing longingly at a hot dog with each camera. High res scan the images like a rockstar, cost be damned!
3) RESIZE each full frame scan to 2000 pixels on the longest edge so they're the same number of pixels regardless of format.
4) Upload to Instagram and peep those sexy pixels. Go on, pinch and zoom that action!

Does one show more or less information than the other? Is one "better" than the other when shown at social media resolution? Does one have smoother tonality? (I picked 2000 pixels randomly and have no idea what works best on instagram but that ought to be enough info for a phone.)

My guess would be that the images would be virtually the same, fwiw.

 

[Chan Tran]

An experiment that might be fun and that I'll never do:
1) Take a Fuji 6x9 and a 35mm Leica (which are the same aspect ratio) and put equal quality lenses on them that are about the same effective focal length. Use slow film. Velvia 50 let's say. Use a tripod like Avedon.
2) Expose images of a model gazing longingly at a hot dog with each camera. High res scan the images like a rockstar, cost be damned!
3) RESIZE each full frame scan to 2000 pixels on the longest edge so they're the same number of pixels regardless of format.
4) Upload to Instagram and peep those sexy pixels. Go on, pinch and zoom that action!

Does one show more or less information than the other? Is one "better" than the other when shown at social media resolution? Does one have smoother tonality? (I picked 2000 pixels randomly and have no idea what works best on instagram but that ought to be enough info for a phone.)

My guess would be that the images would be virtually the same, fwiw.

Yup. Digital is the equalizer. I do agree that a small print like 4x6 from a 6x7 neg is better than one from a 35mm neg but only if it's optically printed. If it's scanned then print then it's not. The reason is that the RA-4 paper has more resolution than typical digital printer of 300 or 400 ppi.

 

[wiltw]

An experiment that might be fun and that I'll never do:...
My guess would be that the images would be virtually the same, fwiw.

The 35mm film at 'about 1" tall' would contain 'about 4800 pixels' scanned even on the finest film scanner, or about 5 microns per pixel.
Film grain size is in the range of 10 to 30 microns. But film grain is actually a perception of a collection of smaller particles; film grain is far larger than the resolving power (MTF Curve) of film: 10-30 microns (um) vs. 6-10 um.

 

[warden]

Yup. Digital is the equalizer. I do agree that a small print like 4x6 from a 6x7 neg is better than one from a 35mm neg but only if it's optically printed. If it's scanned then print then it's not. The reason is that the RA-4 paper has more resolution than typical digital printer of 300 or 400 ppi.

The thing with those smaller sizes (which is how I optically print) is that technique is as important as negative size. I print about 6x7" usually, and I can make a bad print with careless technique hand holding a medium format camera (which I occasionally do, oops), and also can make a wonderfully sharp print of the same size with my 35mm camera if I'm using a tripod and not being sloppy.

Of course that dynamic changes when the print sizes increase because bigger is bigger after all and you really need that large negative. There comes a size where tripods won't save smaller negatives, even very good ones; I don't know what that size is for me but it's above 8x10". I'm quite pleased with the optical prints I've made on 8x10 paper with 35mm and 6x7 negatives alike.

The question the OP needs to answer for him/herself is how much information should be recorded with every button push. If he/she must have large prints or large scans then MF is the way to go, and you just have to put up with some of the drawbacks of working with larger cameras.

 

[Agulliver]

Given that most phone screens now have a greater resolution than many laptops......what is the issue? My Galaxy S9 has a screen resolution of 2960x1440 which is significantly greater than a 1080 television or my laptop and desktop PCs.

 

[mshchem]

Yup. Digital is the equalizer. I do agree that a small print like 4x6 from a 6x7 neg is better than one from a 35mm neg but only if it's optically printed. If it's scanned then print then it's not. The reason is that the RA-4 paper has more resolution than typical digital printer of 300 or 400 ppi.

Truth!

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

in 5x7 prints? I hardly believe that unless darkroom process is not up to same level on each format. It is harder to print well form 35, but at 5x7 (from equally well exposed negatives) there is hardly a way t see a difference between 35 and MF. They may be some subject matters that will show that, but not in general. At least I see what I have (in that size) on my wall from either format and nobody can tell what negative they were made from. It is almost impossible to tell even at 8x10 BTW.

 

[RPC]

in 5x7 prints? I hardly believe that unless darkroom process is not up to same level on each format. It is harder to print well form 35, but at 5x7 (from equally well exposed negatives) there is hardly a way t see a difference between 35 and MF. They may be some subject matters that will show that, but not in general. At least I see what I have (in that size) on my wall from either format and nobody can tell what negative they were made from. It is almost impossible to tell even at 8x10 BTW.

I do mostly color work using the standard processes and that is where I see the biggest differences but I also see it in b&w.
The collective effect of grain, sharpness and tonality differences are visible to me even at 5x7 size prints, especially in side-by side comparisons of the same subject. But at that size I think tonality differences show up the most.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yup. Digital is the equalizer. I do agree that a small print like 4x6 from a 6x7 neg is better than one from a 35mm neg but only if it's optically printed. If it's scanned then print then it's not. The reason is that the RA-4 paper has more resolution than typical digital printer of 300 or 400 ppi.

Not if one uses film and only optical printing, like I do. Then there is a world of difference. If one must scan then they have to live with the image loss, but if one can stick to all analog processes why take a photograph and look at it through a Coke bottle bottom?

 

[MattKing]

All of these discussions about evaluating one medium using the tools of another are always so frustrating.
The quality of the result is always affected by how one converts between the media.
If scanning is your means of conversion, then it is almost always the scanning that determines the quality of the converted result.
If you are talking about a display as small as 2960x1440, and have a drum scanner available to you, then a high quality 16mm or 110 negative will still provide more useful information than the display can fully present.
However, if you are talking about a display as small as 2960x1440 and are having to rely on a flatbed scanner, then a 35mm negative is about as small an original as you can reasonably expect to be able to extract a fully useful amount of detail from.
The limitations inherent in flatbed or low to moderate quality scanning procedures will be somewhat offset by starting from a larger than 35mm negative.

 

[Chan Tran]

Not if one uses film and only optical printing, like I do. Then there is a world of difference. If one must scan then they have to live with the image loss, but if one can stick to all analog processes why take a photograph and look at it through a Coke bottle bottom?

That is what I said. In fact digital has no problem printing good billboard but for small prints it can't match the resolution of film including 35mm. If you have a 45MP digital camera and a 35mm camera and make 4x6 prints. The optically printed 4x6 from 35mm film will show more details.

 

[Ces1um]

That is what I said. In fact digital has no problem printing good billboard but for small prints it can't match the resolution of film including 35mm. If you have a 45MP digital camera and a 35mm camera and make 4x6 prints. The optically printed 4x6 from 35mm film will show more details.

really? I wouldn't have thought that. Considering the small print I would have thought the paper you printed it on would be the final determiner of how much detail you'd see at that small size.

 

[cooltouch]

I bought my first 35mm camera, a Canon AE-1, because I was already familiar with it. My mother owned one, and I had used it on several occasions. So because I was comfortable with it and because I enjoyed its limited automation, I bought one. It's worth noting that about a year later I bought an A-1 because I was so fascinated by automation that I wanted even more. And then maybe a year after that I bought my first medium format camera -- a Yashica Mat 124G -- which was the first camera I bought specifically because of its film format.

The Mat was the first camera I owned that had no automation, thus it was the first camera that I owned that became a useful tool as I learned about photography. And it wasn't too much longer after that when I decided I needed a manual 35mm camera also. So I bought a Canon FTb. That camera was really responsible for me learning the inverse nature of exposure and how it depends on three principles of exposure: film speed, shutter speed and aperture value. Not much longer after I bought that old FTb, I bought an original F-1 and that camera was what really set into stone my attitude toward cameras that has held ever since then. I eschewed automation and still tend to prefer this attitude with respect to photography.

 

[ic-racer]

For me 35mm is convenient because the camera is small and you get 35 exposures and I can process 8 rolls at once. Otherwise it is a pain. Much more critical to enlarge than 4x5 or 8x10 negatives. In the last few years I have only been making 4x6" prints from 35mm.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

For me 35mm is convenient because the camera is small and you get 35 exposures and I can process 8 rolls at once. Otherwise it is a pain. Much more critical to enlarge than 4x5 or 8x10 negatives. In the last few years I have only been making 4x6" prints from 35mm.

The question is WHY only 4x6.

 

[Chan Tran]

really? I wouldn't have thought that. Considering the small print I would have thought the paper you printed it on would be the final determiner of how much detail you'd see at that small size.

It is the paper but paper like RA-4 or typical B&W paper has significantly higher resolution than 300 - 400 ppi that the digital printers are capable of. If you print 4x6 with a digital printer regardless of how many MP file you feed it, it can only produce a print with about 2MP.

 

[John51]

If a 4x6 digi print is 2mp max, then 8x12 = 8mp and 32mp can get you 16x24?

 

[MattKing]

If a 4x6 digi print is 2mp max, then 8x12 = 8mp and 32mp can get you 16x24?

My 16 mp micro 4/3 gives me jpegs right out of the camera that print directly to bordered 12" x 16" prints.

 

[Huss]

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.

I approve of this message.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yawn

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

One thing I really like about 35mm is that you can load your own film. If I want 12 shots of Delta 400 I roll that, If I want 5 of something else I can roll that as well. Or maybe 36exp's of FP4. Can't do that with MF. Of course you have the same flexibility with LF. I like 35mm for it's spontaneity.

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.

 

[markjwyatt]

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.

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).