Originally Posted by markbarendt
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....
"I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~
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.
Originally Posted by cjbecker
But, the way you shoot MF (which is outstanding) don't change a thing! Love seeing your work
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
Shoot more film.
There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.
Originally Posted by zsas
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.
I can satisfy my urge to take pictures with any film format. With any other format I do not feel satisfaction.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
It's more matter of the style how one photographs than the format.
Originally Posted by MaximusM3
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.
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.
Originally Posted by MaximusM3
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
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