Why bother with 35mm? (tongue-in-cheek)

Sepia Hawk · May 14, 2014

I've recently ran a few dozen films through my Canon F-1 and Canon FTB. But I know it is pointless. Why do I bother? Why do we all bother? Small negatives, very fast lenses and all that... it doesn't really mean anything, does it? In the end of the day (there was a url link here which no longer exists). Anything smaller than that should be banished. Right? After all great photographers (oh well, Henri Cartier-Bresson was French and they always do things differently down there...) use either Glorious Medium Format or Even More Glorious Large Format (think Ansel Adams and his tank-like van-camera combo). I admit it, I hate 35 mm... I should bury my 35mm toys and get a proper camera. And a suitcase to carry all the lenses and filters. And a tripod and a backpack for roll films
/tongue-in-cheek/

BrianShaw · May 14, 2014

Thank you for being perfectly clear that your tongue is in your cheek. Had you not been so clear my foot might be in my mouth.

cliveh · May 14, 2014

Us 35mm users may respond by saying what are you MF and LF users trying to do by stagnation of your view of a given scene. You set up a predetermined shot of something mostly static. We 35mm shooters record life as it moves and happens, changing our perspective and framing by millimetres for the moment we press the shutter. A million times more difficult to achieve than photographing rocks during a leisurely time period.

snapguy · May 14, 2014

Making do

Well, I just bought a Rolleiflex 3.5 after having to make do with a Yashicamat for 40 years or so and now I have both, not to mention a couple of Crown Graphics. But I beg to differ with your premise. I recently acquired a Kodak 35 camera made in the 1940s. I suggest it is a top contender for the butt-ugliest camera ever made. A hard standard to meet. I have a really swell original Nikon F but I dropped it in 1974 and need to have it repaired. Just because your hounddawg is old or somebody whopped him with an ugly stick about three times, or has a broken leg, don't mean ya don't love him anyway. I have three Bilora Bella cameras in 35mm and 127 film size (does the latter make it a midsized camera?) that I love dearly, too.

Drew B. · May 14, 2014

I can't wait to get my hands on another 35...! Nikon, of course...

mauro35 · May 14, 2014

cliveh said:
Us 35mm users may respond by saying what are you MF and LF users trying to do by stagnation of your view of a given scene. You set up a predetermined shot of something mostly static. We 35mm shooters record life as it moves and happens, changing our perspective and framing by millimetres for the moment we press the shutter. A million times more difficult to achieve than photographing rocks during a leisurely time period.

Incredibly well-said. I think of it that way too, just could not express the concept any better. The world around us is so fast moving and we humans have always been fascinated by motion. That's why we squeezed our brain to find the extremely complicated equations physicists use to descibe it. What more suitable way to catch it and immortalize it that a 35mm negative?

Kc2edh · May 14, 2014

I enjoy taking my little half-frame 35mm camera to cities, not because of its small size, but because when enlarged the pictures show some distortions and grain just like my fading memory of a busy day.

But medium format is still better!

fstop · May 14, 2014

Why bother with 35mm? (tongue-in-cheek)

Because we can.

tkamiya · May 14, 2014

To me, 35mm format balances speed, convenience, practicality, quality, weight and size (of equipment), cost, and (used to be) availability very well. Also, for most purposes, it is quite adequate, quality wise.

I have medium format stuff very well. Quality is nice. Convenience, not so much.... For a lot of my purposes, the extra quality these format provides isn't necessary. Besides! KEH has a lot of 35mm gear cheaply. Why not?

Sirius Glass · May 14, 2014

To keep the film makers busy.

gone · May 14, 2014

You've pretty much hit on all the reasons that I shoot 35mm.

I'm waiting on the rock shooters to respond, and it's not gonna be pretty.

pen s · May 14, 2014

I'm multi talented. I can make crummy pictures with any format. But like Sirius Glass says; "To keep the film makers busy". By wasteing film I'm trying to do my little part to keep it alive for the real photographers.

lxdude · May 14, 2014

Funny thing is, even when all I shot was 35mm, I was often called an MF-er...

dehk · May 14, 2014

With 35mm it's more economical take shots of ourselves in the mirror with #36 and #37.

Ken Nadvornick · May 14, 2014

lxdude said:
Funny thing is, even when all I shot was 35mm, I was often called an MF-er...

(Best-in-show of the year so far...)

Ken

removed account4 · May 14, 2014

cliveh said:
Us 35mm users may respond by saying what are you MF and LF users trying to do by stagnation of your view of a given scene. You set up a predetermined shot of something mostly static. We 35mm shooters record life as it moves and happens, changing our perspective and framing by millimetres for the moment we press the shutter. A million times more difficult to achieve than photographing rocks during a leisurely time period.

hi clive

some LF shooters don't prescribe to the notion that lf has to be slow and methodical and take 1hour / shot
and use use the format like a 35mm and half frame (i know i do ) ... if i was forced to be super slow with lf ( i shoot upto 11x14 )
i wouldn't bother with it ... it helps having a graflex slr ( 4x5 at least ) , they are masterful for street shooting ... ...
if they made a 8x10 or 11x14 one i would have one of thems as well ...

unfortunately, they arenot easy to put in your pocket like a 35mm ( unless you have huge pockets ).

Vilk · May 14, 2014

what is "medium format?" :confused:

yulia_s_rey · May 14, 2014

there's an old Spanish saying that applies to something else but that can also apply to 135 vs MF/LF: "Mejor bale que sea pequeño y entretenido que grande y aburido." (It's better that's it small and fun than big and boring.)

^ Naturally, I'm just joking, I love LF and MF as much 35 and any below.

mrred · May 14, 2014

I just think it is a dastardly plot to prevent the rightful assertion of the true 110 digital full frame format.

Bill Burk · May 14, 2014

To quote Genesis....

"I have crossed between the poles. To me there's no mystery."

After many discussions here on APUG I have come to the conclusion that all photography is beautiful, and which child would you give up? As a developer asked me today... Which of these three items do you want fixed first... I couldn't answer because I want them ALL. So now I have them all and I can write...

My daughter hanging out by the birdhouse watching wrens feed the kids (assumed) inside. I've got 35mm Panatomic-X loaded and so I guess the exposure and shoot since it's what I've got. Go back later to measure the incident light and find I underexposed approximately one stop. I think it will be a good shot.

Would this shot have worked on medium format or large format film? You know... If that's the camera I had in hand I would be able to tell you.

Nuff · May 14, 2014

Why can't everyone get along? I shoot both, I would even shoot LF if I could afford it, but then I would probably need to get a car.
I prescribe by the words use the best tool for the job. I love my Hasselblad and my Pentax MX. I actually want to sell few of my Pentax lenses which I do not use and replace it with 50mm f1.4. I do shoot more MF than 35mm, but tonight after work I'm going to catch up with friends, have alcohol flowing and the Pentax MX firing.

Also on my wish list I have a Rolleiflex f2.8, Hasselblad Flexbody and Leica M6/7 with 50mm and 35mm lenses. I just need the $$$ now. Like I said, use the best tool for the job and what your budget allows.

DannL. · May 14, 2014

Bill Burk said:
To quote Genesis....

"I have crossed between the poles. To me there's no mystery."

After many discussions here on APUG I have come to the conclusion that all photography is beautiful, and which child would you give up? As a developer asked me today... Which of these three items do you want fixed first... I couldn't answer because I want them ALL. So now I have them all and I can write...

My daughter hanging out by the birdhouse watching wrens feed the kids (assumed) inside. I've got 35mm Panatomic-X loaded and so I guess the exposure and shoot since it's what I've got. Go back later to measure the incident light and find I underexposed approximately one stop. I think it will be a good shot.

Would this shot have worked on medium format or large format film? You know... If that's the camera I had in hand I would be able to tell you.

We use what we have on hand. I'm finally down to one film/plate camera that can be easily managed handheld. And it's a 5x7. The scenario you described could have been exposed just as effectively with the 5x7, as with any miniature format camera. Notice I used the word "effectively" in lieu of "easily". Ease of use comes with experience. Many may have never used a 5x7 handheld, and then could possibly find the affair somewhat intimidating. But, it becomes second-nature when done repetitively.

Bill Burk · May 14, 2014

DannL. said:
The scenario you described could have been exposed just as effectively with the 5x7.

My wife nixed the 5x7 SLR I saw on Craig's List across the bay... but you are right to the point. If my camera was loaded with 4x5 film I would just as easily have taken that same shot tonight!

Then what would the difference be?

I've learned that the difference would be in my mind and heart. They would both capture the moment. And that's what matters.

p.s. Water's on tonight... it's a TMAX 100 development session for me. Tank is loaded.

DannL. · May 14, 2014

Bill Burk said:
. . . Then what would the difference be?

For me the difference comes down to what I enjoy using the most. I like using film. But I really love using antique wooden plate cameras. With limited resources . . . that being primarily money & time . . . I found trying to shoot everything under the sun to be unrealistic. Up until August I had used 35mm film for some 34 years, non-stop. So, no ill feelings there.

Bill Burk · May 14, 2014

DannL I get that. I had no intention of shooting everything under the sun. I started out, 35mm was the baseline and I added the other formats to see if they fit my spirit.

Oddly I found that everything fit and I am comfortable with it all.

I certainly enjoy spells where I focus on one format. Then I can get into the darkroom with little trouble and make prints without having to change enlarger lens.

But I also know that it's literally 5-15 minutes to change from 35mm to 4x5... So although I grumble at the chores... secretly I'm enjoying every minute of it.

Why bother with 35mm? (tongue-in-cheek)

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency