35mm is for snapshots, low light and sometimes travel - photos that will be 4x6 in an album. MF is overkill for these little photos. If I want an 8x10 or larger print, it has to be MF or LF - the bigger the better. Now that I have an Iconta, I doubt the 35 will go with me many places. The 6x9 folder makes pretty nice negs and is smaller than any of the 35mm SLR cameras. I have some 35mm negatives that are "art" - no matter how good the glass and how solid the support - there is no comparing to the MF negative in richness. I makes it hard to carry the 35mm. This is one of my better 35mm images made with HP5 developed in D76. Camera was a Contax with a Zeiss Planar lens. I have an 11x14 print of this at a local gallery.
I use both 35mm and MF. I use my Contax G for walking around. Depending on the situation I'll load with Delta 3200 for night time and overcast day shots and rate it at 1600. Sunny day time shots get hp5+ at 500.
The MF camera is used for my long hikes in the local mountains for landscape/nature. I tend to shoot Delta 100 or Maco IR film (still playing with this stuff)
Each camera has it's own purpose for what I'm trying to achieve. Interestingly I don't really favor one camera over the other. They are just the tools to get the "job" done.
Come on guys, being a mostly 35mm format shooter I'm beginning to feel like I shoot digital reading this thread Excuse me whilst I crawl back under my rock.
35 mm can do many things much easier than MF or LF. The range of lens, good depth of field when using long lens, close up work, and shooting on the fly of course come to mind. In my early days I had to shoot a football game with a baby speed, even with a roll back it was a chore. In terms of expense you can shoot a lot 35 for the cost of MF and LF. Many of the great photos of the 20th century were made with 35 mm. If for some reason I lose my mind and return to photojournalism I would need to go digital, but I would still carry a manual rangefinder as a fall back camera. MF and LF (I shoot both) provide excellent tools for subjects when large negatives and and the advanced controls of a view camera are needed. One size does not fit all.
As a side note the local photo editor for a local paper (no I cant mention which paper) is concerned that when the photographers are shooting digital they now they spend too much time looking at what they shot and are missing some of the action.
Don't worry Tony, you're not alone.
If grain size is the ultimate difference between a good or a bad photograph then all ULF photographs are automatically better than all photographs taken with smaller formats.
Every format has it's own strengths and weaknesses, each is especially suited for different subjects and styles of shooting. That's what makes photography the rich and varied creative medium that has kept me fascinated and fulfilled over the decades. But if you were to sneak into my bedroom in the middle of the night and shake me out of a sound sleep and shout "Neal!... Neal!... What's your' favorite film format?" I'm sure that I would mumble "35mm in an all manual SLR" followed quickly by "Now get the *&%%#^ out of my bedroom and let me get back to sleep before I call the Cops".
As far as digital imaging rendering film photography obsolete, that has been discussed to death already but IMHO it hinges on, what your' personal criteria for "better" is. I like film and darkroom.
That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Neal I'm very much with you on that posting and some of it made me laugh so much about waking you in the night thank you Interestingly on the "all manual SLR" I've been playing with what was my sons, but he wanted something smaller Centon K100 this week. Considering it's only got spot metering and cheap (inexpensive) 50mm plastic lens I love the feel and freedom of it much more than my F100 LOL Shot Delta 3200 rated @ 1600 with it today and souped the negs in Rodinal, I can't wait to get the time to print them
I used my 35mm gear the other day for the 1st time in ages and it was fun! click, clack (MD12 motordrive!) click, clack... I was chasing our new puppies around the yard. Run through 2 30exp rolls in a flash.
Soup the Delta 400 in XTOL 1:1... make a couple of enlargements... hmm, wish I'd used the Mamiya 645 for that one... wonder if I can get them to sit still in front of the 4x5, probably not, I had enough trouble getting my sons to sit still long enough!
Actually, I do like taking a little Yashica ME1 (zone focus compact) along on bike rides and walks loaded with 400 film. Very occasionly I need the 300mm of the 35mm, and I do like the 24mm, options I don't have in MF and LF formats. I think I'll keep it (the 35mm gear) for awhile yet, it just won't get used as much as it once was.
From my labs experience I have seen a drop in film processing with my commercial clients, all formats.
With my fine art clients I have seen an actual resurgence or increase in all formats of film. 35mm has not dropped in my opinion.
I do think that because we held to traditional processing while a lot of the larger labs moved with the digital flow, we now are one of the only choices when a photographer wants good black and white, other than process themselves. (therefore increased processing , rather than decrease)
As well if you are a serious photographer working on long term projects that span years of work, the decision to move away from film , would jeapordize the whole project, For some of my clients I have been processing their film (all formats) for 10years .. To change now would be critical error.
I think that some manufactures will drop film , but I do believe others will continue for a long time into the future. (all formats) can't beat a Leica or G2 for sharp crisp detailed images.
I use all formats up to 8x10. To Barbados for Christmas I took a Contarex bullseye, an M3 and a Rolleiflex TLR. Enjoyed using them all. No apparent problem with Tri-X with three passes through the X-ray. There are some nice looking negs there especially from the slow films.
My children run around with these nasty little plastic digital things which I usually have to bring back for repair because the humidity in the tropics has done in their circuit boards or whatever makes them work for a while. Thank goodness they fail within the warranty period.
My wife complains that there is no room for food in the freezer, so to explain the problem to her I ask her to phone the dealer and check on the order for Polymax FA C surface and the gallon of Selenium toner which I placed before leaving. She comes back with the reply 'the Polymax is discontinued and they can't get confirmation on the toner. But they are still both in the catalog though!'
Pity that color labs all print digitally now-can't evaluate a lens that way anymore.
As I understand it, this activity is called "chimping", because of how they look gathered round a camera looking down at the display.
Originally Posted by Paul Howell