Your most orphaned format?

[fotch]

....Does that imply that 35mm is a "joke" format just play around with? ULF.....

I think it is because of how many pictures fit on a roll. The tendency is to take way more pictures than if you were shooting sheet film. Certainly, a 36x roll can be an advantage, in certain situations. Some of the Pros would shoot with a long roll attachment to their pro camera. However, for most anything else, not needed. But what do you do if you have 36x, wait? Not likely. Get a motor drive, burn through that roll. Lots of pictures, not much thought to taking them.

If you load you own 35mm, try 12x loads or even less, then you will think about what you are doing, much the way you have to, in large format. JMHO

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've abandoned all sheet film shooting for a few years now, because the format and shooting style never allowed me to get what I wanted in the print. It's way too slow for how I work, and I basically don't find it fun to set up a shot for minutes, agonizing over minute details while I could just advance to the next frame while looking through the viewfinder, actually able to see what I'm capturing before the shutter is released. 35mm and roll film represents true freedom of photography to me, and sheet film more or less feels like a straitjacket by comparison. That's MY world, guys. We're all entitled to our preferences.

My favorite formats are 35mm and 6x6. In my world I actually get better print quality from 35mm than I do 120, because it gives me more texture, grain, and substance to support the subject matter and the mood that I am after in almost all of my photography than does the 120 format. While I still love my Hasselblad camera, I more often go to 35mm because I just like what I end up with in the print more. Both camera types have beautiful lenses that help me draw wonderful pictures (for me) and I love them both.
If these cameras continue to work as serviced, and film continues to be available, I see no reason to ever switch.

And, for the record, print size is not a consideration here. I print largish prints from 35mm, and the same analogy is true as for small prints, with getting what I like. Often I don't even think too much about the print quality even, just knowing it'll be good enough. Instead I just have the freedom to point the camera where I'd like to point it, and within a split second am ready to release the shutter, or to continually re-frame the shot as the subject matter moves in front of me.

 

[PKM-25]

I think it is because of how many pictures fit on a roll. The tendency is to take way more pictures than if you were shooting sheet film. Certainly, a 36x roll can be an advantage, in certain situations. Some of the Pros would shoot with a long roll attachment to their pro camera. However, for most anything else, not needed. But what do you do if you have 36x, wait? Not likely. Get a motor drive, burn through that roll. Lots of pictures, not much thought to taking them.

If you load you own 35mm, try 12x loads or even less, then you will think about what you are doing, much the way you have to, in large format. JMHO

If you work that way, then yes. I have put up to 20 rolls a day through a Leica M3, Nikon F100 or FM3a. Or, when I am busy shooting a lot of digi and medium format, a roll can take a month to go through, but I use just as much thought and care with 35mm as any other format. If I am shooting TP in my XPan, then I use a tripod, make sure everything is good. But if I have Tri-X in my M3, pretty much the only Leica I have left and the only film I use in it, then the shooting style is different, more fluid, loose.

I find that the combo of 35mm, 35mm pano and 6x6 leaves me wanting for nothing more and I will make a 30" wide print from 35mm Tri-X just as I would from a 120mm Techpan neg.

 

[MaximusM3]

I think it is because of how many pictures fit on a roll. The tendency is to take way more pictures than if you were shooting sheet film. Certainly, a 36x roll can be an advantage, in certain situations. Some of the Pros would shoot with a long roll attachment to their pro camera. However, for most anything else, not needed. But what do you do if you have 36x, wait? Not likely. Get a motor drive, burn through that roll. Lots of pictures, not much thought to taking them.

If you load you own 35mm, try 12x loads or even less, then you will think about what you are doing, much the way you have to, in large format. JMHO

Could be, but it's very personal really. I load my own with 10 frames and a lot of times develop a 36 roll with only 3-4 frames if they are important. Of course, the tendency to take more is natural but, depending on subject matter, it is also advisable and that is a freedom that sheet film just doesn't offer. I'm not a tripod/landscape guy 99% of time so I live in a different world, I guess. Most of my "serious" work is with 35mm and I print as large as 16x20. No complaints yet

 

[PKM-25]

Could not have said it better my self. I just find that shooting square format and being able to swap backs in a split second makes the Blad my tool of choice for at least 70% of my work on film. In photographing for over 35 years, this is the happiest I have ever been.

I've abandoned all sheet film shooting for a few years now, because the format and shooting style never allowed me to get what I wanted in the print. It's way too slow for how I work, and I basically don't find it fun to set up a shot for minutes, agonizing over minute details while I could just advance to the next frame while looking through the viewfinder, actually able to see what I'm capturing before the shutter is released. 35mm and roll film represents true freedom of photography to me, and sheet film more or less feels like a straitjacket by comparison. That's MY world, guys. We're all entitled to our preferences.

My favorite formats are 35mm and 6x6. In my world I actually get better print quality from 35mm than I do 120, because it gives me more texture, grain, and substance to support the subject matter and the mood that I am after in almost all of my photography than does the 120 format. While I still love my Hasselblad camera, I more often go to 35mm because I just like what I end up with in the print more. Both camera types have beautiful lenses that help me draw wonderful pictures (for me) and I love them both.
If these cameras continue to work as serviced, and film continues to be available, I see no reason to ever switch.

And, for the record, print size is not a consideration here. I print largish prints from 35mm, and the same analogy is true as for small prints, with getting what I like. Often I don't even think too much about the print quality even, just knowing it'll be good enough. Instead I just have the freedom to point the camera where I'd like to point it, and within a split second am ready to release the shutter, or to continually re-frame the shot as the subject matter moves in front of me.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

But what do you do if you have 36x, wait? Not likely. Get a motor drive, burn through that roll. Lots of pictures, not much thought to taking them.

It's understood that this is opinion only, but it sure does highlight shooting style, doesn't it? And, I'd like to point out that to put 'thought' into photographs may not always be successful. It could be just as important to react on instinct, emotion, or sudden inclinations.

This thread highlights that there are many ways to practice photography, with many preferences regarding outcome. Some love and embrace grain, and some fight tooth and nail to eliminate it. Some are wholly interested in subject matter, and others are into ultimate print quality. And there is probably a little of all types in each and every one of us, just more or less dominant.
Only one thing is for certain, we are all different and have different inclinations.

 

[jscott]

I have no problem with 2x3 sheets and 620 and 127 rolls, and some of my favorite older cameras use those formats.
For 2x3 sheets I got a holder that fits into a steel 35mm daylight tank. Makes everything real easy.

Least used? 35 mm and 5x7.
Except that sometimes I put 35 mm in 127 and 120 cameras.

 

[Roger Cole]

By 2x3 do you mean 2.25x3.25? Won't the Jobo sheet film reels take this size? I know mine have settings for, and the snap in panels on the 2509n reels marked with, 6x9 cm.

 

[cjbecker]

35mm for me. I tried my hardest to shoot it and it just did not work out. I really admire people who shoot it because there are people making great images in that format, but its just not the way I shoot. I also hate having that many pictures per roll. I like having no more then 12 per roll and my favorite is 1 per sheet.

 

[markbarendt]

It's understood that this is opinion only, but it sure does highlight shooting style, doesn't it? And, I'd like to point out that to put 'thought' into photographs may not always be successful. It could be just as important to react on instinct, emotion, or sudden inclinations.

Style is huge and I do agree that lots of thought and fuss doesn't always generate better shots, but neither does volume.

When I started shooting digital for money 100,000 shots in a year was pretty normal, silly but normal. Essentially 1 to sell and a 199 to make the sitter feel like a modle and me feel confident.

After a few years of that the volume started falling precipitously, experience allowed me to skip 99% of shot I used to take.

A roll of 120 is now enough for 5 poses with a spare negative for each pose.

This is as you say a matter of style and I would suggest subject matter choice.

At 10 frames per hour I have the time to talk with and enjoy my subjects company and find the 1-shot I want.

 

[PKM-25]

Style is huge and I do agree that lots of thought and fuss doesn't always generate better shots, but neither does volume.

Volume..?...naah...

I don't use 35mm for volume unless it is some form of high risk of not getting the shot otherwise. The kind of shot I am talking about is getting a splendid underwater shot of Trout spawning in a high alpine lake on Kodachrome. That kind of shot is no-mans-land for swapping film holders, but still looks awesome in 24"x36".

Otherwise, I shoot 35mm like 120mm, a nice steady rhythm if the subject is great or one frame at a time, just like you are talking about.

My orphan format right now is my half of a box of 20" x 24" litho that I am supposed to shoot in a friend's pinhole camera dubbed "Glory Hole", he's being a pain in the other one....

 

[zsas]

I also hate having that many pictures per roll. I like having no more then 12 per roll and my favorite is 1 per sheet.

I have felt the same way till recently getting a bulk loader and shoot a dozen or so frames and just feel so much more happy, food for thought.

But, the way you shoot MF (which is outstanding) don't change a thing! Love seeing your work

 

[ME Super]

4x5 for me. When I was in high school, I built a 4x5 pinhole camera in shop class. Shot the pictures on B&W paper, made contact prints. Felt too tied to the darkroom as there was the need to return to the darkroom after each shot. I still have the camera, and could probably convert the bathroom to a temporary darkroom. B&W Chemistry is readily available within a 30-minute drive.

Next would be 35mm pinhole. I built a populist pinhole 35mm camera in 2010. I didn't really like the fuzziness of the enlarged 35mm prints, and I haven't gotten around to building a medium format pinhole. if I did, I would likely do 6x6 because it reminds me of the 126 I shot in my youth.

The Slide Curmudgeon, aka ME Super

 

[cjbecker]

I have felt the same way till recently getting a bulk loader and shoot a dozen or so frames and just feel so much more happy, food for thought.

But, the way you shoot MF (which is outstanding) don't change a thing! Love seeing your work

Thanks. I actually had a bulk loader for a while and never used it and sold it. haha. Since I just learned a new way to develop sheet film in a nikor roll tank (taco method 5 at a time), it’s going to be hard not to shoot lots more LF.

Medium format will still have its place.

 

[Bill Burk]

I can satisfy my urge to take pictures with any film format. With any other format I do not feel satisfaction.

 

[Bill Burk]

I'm shooting very little color these days.

Even shooting Minox satisfies my urge to photograph, so I have used it as a "backup body" when backpacking.

I just picked up another roll of Verichrome Pan 110 so now with three rolls, 12 shots each, I've got enough to shoot 110 some weekend.

A recent shooting binge left me with only two unexposed sheets of 4x5 TMY-2.

So this weekend I shot 3 rolls of Panatomic-X in a spring camera (Ikonta 6x9 with Tessar). I hadn't used this camera much because I used to dislike flare (and my first week with the camera I came back with flare). Now my taste has changed and I look forward to the flare I might have "in the can". I used a spindly-legged tripod, forgot my cable release and the self-timer doesn't buzz. I had to work very hard to avoid camera shake - I poked the chrome shutter lever on the lens barrel slowly and carefully with small sticks while watching the camera body looking for vibrations - there is a risk several of my shots will not be rock sharp.

When I shoot 35mm Panatomic-X, one or two rolls can last a weekend. Slower film does just that, it forces me to slow down.

 

[Usagi]

It seems that some people do "serious" work with MF or LF but ditched 35mm. Does that imply that 35mm is a "joke" format just play around with? Where is all this "serious" work in larger formats? Last time I checked, MANY great photographers have used 35mm very successfully.

It's more matter of the style how one photographs than the format.
My "serious" photography is slow paced, always with tripod, ... So only thing where 35mm (or MF) is better is a bit lighter weight. I won't get more "good photographs" with smaller or faster tools. My lightweight 4x5 field camera weights even less than my 6x6 camera. The large format gives also some advantages, like controllable depth of field.

If my style would be something that requires faster approach or keeping camera always ready, then my choice would obviously be towards small formats.

Even my preference of print sizes has gone towards smaller prints, so actually there's not much to gain over 35mm in technical view point by using MF and/or LF.

 

[Ian Grant]

Interesting answers. I'm scratching my head at some of these though. It seems that some people do "serious" work with MF or LF but ditched 35mm. Does that imply that 35mm is a "joke" format just play around with? Where is all this "serious" work in larger formats? Last time I checked, MANY great photographers have used 35mm very successfully. Not trying to start yet another format war here (please let's not), but I'm just curious of why the distinction between "serious" (MF and LF) and non (35mm). As far as I am concerned, ANY format can be used for serious (whatever that means anyway) work, as long as what's between the ears is working, from half frame to ULF.

All formats have their pros and cons, coming from a comercial background I've always chosen the format that best suits the images I want to make and the circumstance that accompany the. That choice could be 35mm, MF or LF and these days Digital for some commercial work.

I stopped using 35mm for personal work simply because I found I wasn't using the negatives/images for exhibitions etc, the 35mm camera had really just become a visual diary. I'd made a decision back around 1986 to shoot 35mm hand held and use LF rather than my 645's (MF) when working with a tripod for my landscape projects.

There are comments (in this thread) that LF is a slow way of working but that goes for any photography where a tripod's used, 35mm and MF included, and that for me tipped the balance to LF over 645. Maybe it's because I've been using LF for many yeras but I have no trouble working very quickly with both 5x4 and 10x8 cameras. I've had to adapt to change with current projects often shooting now where tripods aren't permitted that's meant learning how to use LF hand held.

LF isn't for everyone but it's ideal for my way of working. I have gone back to shooting MF hand held intead of 35mm but rather than using my 645's and carrying spare lens etc I just pop a TLR (a Yashicamat 124 or a Rolleiflex) into the LF backpack.

Having used 35mm for over 40 years I don't think of it as a "joke" format rather one that I personally find better for some purposes than others, I may well start using it again for specific projects.

Ian

 

[MaximusM3]

All formats have their pros and cons, coming from a comercial background I've always chosen the format that best suits the images I want to make and the circumstance that accompany the. That choice could be 35mm, MF or LF and these days Digital for some commercial work.

I stopped using 35mm for personal work simply because I found I wasn't using the negatives/images for exhibitions etc, the 35mm camera had really just become a visual diary. I'd made a decision back around 1986 to shoot 35mm hand held and use LF rather than my 645's (MF) when working with a tripod for my landscape projects.

There are comments (in this thread) that LF is a slow way of working but that goes for any photography where a tripod's used, 35mm and MF included, and that for me tipped the balance to LF over 645. Maybe it's because I've been using LF for many yeras but I have no trouble working very quickly with both 5x4 and 10x8 cameras. I've had to adapt to change with current projects often shooting now where tripods aren't permitted that's meant learning how to use LF hand held.

LF isn't for everyone but it's ideal for my way of working. I have gone back to shooting MF hand held intead of 35mm but rather than using my 645's and carrying spare lens etc I just pop a TLR (a Yashicamat 124 or a Rolleiflex) into the LF backpack.

Having used 35mm for over 40 years I don't think of it as a "joke" format rather one that I personally find better for some purposes than others, I may well start using it again for specific projects.

Ian

Makes perfect sense, Ian. Like I've said, any format can be used for meaningful (serious) work and it is just a matter of personal preferences and the photographer's particular needs and wants.

 

[graflexboy]

The past few months it has been my submini film formats: Minox, Minolta/Mamiya 16s, and 110.

Time to slit some Minox film down from 35mm!

--Micah in NC

 

[Pioneer]

Simplify??

Unlike many of you I am just recently re-starting with this hobby, and realizing that there is a lot I need yet to learn. The last couple of years I spent a lot of time learning how to use cameras and accessories, but I am not so sure I learned much about the art side of photography. I have learned how to shop pretty good though. And I am a mean bidder!

So this year I decided to simplify so I could hopefully learn a little more about actually making photographs. You know, composition, lighting, visual balance, those kinds of things. So now I am working very closely with just three medium format cameras. When I am traveling via air, and hiking, I use a 6x6 folder. When I am running around town in my car I carry the 6x9 rangefinder next to me on the seat. For birthday parties, school events and macro work I work with a great 645 SLR. Think of it as kind of a one camera, one lens kind of thing...only with three cameras instead of just one.

By exclusion I guess that means that my digital, 35mm and 5x4 cameras are pretty much orphaned, and that is pretty much how it has worked out so far this year.

But I still fiddle around a bit with pinhole, just because it is so much fun and there don't seem to be a lot of rules. I also picked up an 8x10 Cambo recently that is a little rough around the edges, and I am trying to learn how to make paper negatives with it, as well as how to repair bellows. Finally, in between all of this I am still fiddling around with this developing/enlarging thingy.

Sigh, maybe things it ain't quite as simple as I had hoped. There is just so much neat stuff I haven't figured out how to do yet.

 

[Leigh B]

Half-frame 35mm on the Tessina.

- Leigh

 

[benjiboy]

I don't have any orphaned formats, yet .

 

[Ed Bray]

Hasselblad H1D Outfit, especially since I converted the Imacon Ixpress 528C Digital Back to work on my Fuji GX680s (I mean why would you shoot 6x4.5 when you can shoot 6x8 with lens movements too).

I don't use my Pentax LXs or Super A much these days either.

 

[mark]

All of them.