To me, the answer on this question is very personal.
Working with 35 mm (Pentax LX) makes me nervous, MF (Hasselblad) brings me peace...
I even stopped printing my 35 mm negatives, I threw them all in a box and never opened it again, although I have a rather huge amount of them and perhaps there might be some interesting work among these shots, but no, no more 35 mm, don't ask me why!
"...If you can not stand the rustle of the leafs, then do not go in to the woods..."
(freely translated quote by Guido Gezelle)
PS: English is only my third language, please do forgive me my sloppy grammar...
A 35mm film camera has its own LoFi charm. I wouldn't use it any other reasons. Digital is so much better than 35mm film these days.
This should be interesting - I'll fan the flames
Originally Posted by Endo
35mm used by those who are skilled with it exceeds the quality of all but the most expensive/highest end digital.
Now I'll report myself to the moderators.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Actually I agree that modern digital in the hands of most users has the quality edge over most 35mm film in the hands of most users. So what and who cares? Quality isn't the reason I use film. I use film because I enjoy using film.
Duly noted. In perusing this pointless debate I'd just like to point out that at a certain level of performance "quality" is utterly subjective. A person who views film as "low fi" simply isn't familiar of the wide range of capabilities, emulsions, and skill sets film and film users have to offer. There, I just wanted to make that point before I started crushing skulls.
Originally Posted by MattKing
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I actually *am* enjoying the discussion and finding that a lot of people think very differently about this particular thing than I do.
I have three cameras. I will give none of them up right now. I don't really lust after anything new at this point, but I'm still really learning about what I have.
That said, I'm using medium and large format and plan to continue. I have no desire for 35mm again. What I have works for what I want to shoot. If this ever changes, I'll get something that does.
The camera itself is a means to an end: the image. While Leicas are sexy, Hasselblads are amazing, and Rollei makes some things I'd actually like to try at some point, I don't think they're intrinsically more likely to produce an awesome image than anything else. As someone else has said on the board recently, though I can't remember who, a lot of awesome images were taken by people who had nothing more than a light tight box with a hole in it and a small plate to move a rudimentary shutter over that hole. Hell, some didn't even have the shutter. With newer tech, it just depends on what equipment gets you to whatever your end is.
I do think that having the right equipment for you is important, though. If you're not comfortable with what you're using, your images will be crap.
Last edited by Stephanie Brim; 10-26-2012 at 12:56 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Because I don't want to be that guy.
No idea what's going to happen next, but I'm hoping it involves being wrist deep in chemicals come the weekend.
Advantages of MF over 35mm
I haven't shot any 35mm since my Kodachrome trip in 2010. That's not true I took out my AE-1 on a date a few months ago for fun, but not before that.
I had an interesting discussion about film, I conceptualize better on film, but get better quality from a digital unless I spend $100+ PER IMAGE on a sure resolution scan. It's just become too expensive for less result.
HOWEVER I still shoot MF regularly. Both reflex and rangefinder.
On that note, portability was mentioned above, what about my Mamiya 7, very portable, very hand holdable, very sharp! Problem solved
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller
Cool, let's get back on the op topic. No need for this other stuff.
Ok, let's go back to the original topic. I can see the "difference" between MF and 35mm regardless of the level of enlargement. The difference is small between 645 vs 135, though.
Originally Posted by xtolsniffer
35mm film is cool, but I don't think the "quality" is high compare to today's digital camera. It's true that 135 photography can be high quality, but it's very rare, and it's not the reson d'être of 135 film camera today.
You scan 135 format and then join APUG to tell us how low quality the format is?
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Originally Posted by Endo
prints, slides or negatives?