I use 35mm film for the simple fact that if i want grain as a compliment to an image I can enlarge this smaller format to get a larger grain size than say shooting on 4x5 and wishing to get large grain from that.... get what im mean?
I also think for simple fast paced shooting 35mm is a speedy medium. when doing the digital vs 35mm battle all im going to say is film gives a different look! and Archive ability ...well films going to win on that!
An observation ive made in my lab that has surprised me is that for every roll of 35mm i get i seem to get 10 rolls of medium format.
The Lighthouse Lab
I still shoot 10 rolls for every roll of 120 and every 10 4X5. In my way thinking MF and LF supplement 35mm, I imagain that for others 35 supplements MF or LF. I think 35mm provides better selection of films, lens, better speed, 5 FPS with my Sigma SA 9, and overall much is more lugable, not to mention cost. I seldom print larger than 11X14. MF and LF will delver higher quality negatives but for the most part I prefer 35mm.
[QUOTE=23mjm;605606]I could never give up 35mm but I also would not want to limit myself to it either! 35mm is the only format for shooting sports, I shoot a lot of cycling and rock climbing and the 35mm is the best choice. Speed, rapid shooting, auto-focus, and lens selection, hands down 35mm is the best there. QUOTE]
Where do you climb? I spent much of my youth, climbing in J-Tree, Yosemite, the Needles, etc.
I'm pleased to say that this thread inspired me to pull out one of my old Soviet rangefinders and take it for a walk on Sunday evening. Haven't developed the film yet (I'll wait until I have another roll to gang with it), but even if I didn't get a single worthwhile image, it's worth it to be reminded of how dang much fun that thing is to shoot with.
Thanks for calling my attention back to it, y'all.
I do most of my shooting on 35mm, but when I have time I switch to MF. It's more than just negative size, although I think MF does give better tonal gradations in B & W than any except the slowest 35mm. films. It's also that MF slows me down, and forces me to visualize the image in advance. That's probably a bad sign--if I ever have the time I'll probably go all the way to LF...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'm almost exclusively 35mm due to the fact it permits me great flexibility. I don't yearn for larger formats.
"The secret to life is to keep your mind full and your bowels empty. Unfortunately, the converse is true for most people."
There are a few things that keep me in 35mm, although I own a few MF cameras as well:
- size - this fall/winter I've been carrying a 35mm P&S in my jacket pocket - although I've shot less with it than I'd like (it's starting to warm up, but it's been a cold winter here), it's still nice to have around. I don't know of any MF camera I can do that with - although I've been looking into the Fuji GA645ZI, which looks like it might fit, although they're going for US$500-600, which is a little more than I'd like to spend on another camera. I do have a couple of folders - they're still somewhat too big for that.
- lens cost - in 35mm I use primarily K-mount and M42 screwmount lenses, with a few Soviet-era LTM lenses thrown in - a lot of them are going very cheaply now ($100 or less) - even with "firesale" pricing MF lenses tend to be more expensive than that
- features - in SLRs I've found I particularly like aperture-priority mode on my Pentax ME Super(s) and the metered modes in the couple of fixed-lens rangefinders that I have. Equivalent (semi-)automation in MF means moving up cameras/systems, which will get more expensive. I do have several meterless cameras, so I'm trying to get "down and dirty" with them more often - it's good practice
That said, I like the negative size and the "feel" of several of my MF cameras (older and refurbed, primarily) - I've picked up a few more this fall/winter, so I intend to shoot more MF this year.
i can't wait to take a picture of my thumb with this beautiful camera.
- phirehouse, after buying a camera in the classifieds
Originally Posted by Wolfeye
A good point. For any of us just recording memories,friends and family,tourist mementos is a legit part of it. A 4x6 print may be all you really need. At another point I might go to Point Lobos or Yosemite or Big Sur and I'm thinking about the shot that turns into an 11x16 print that's on the wall. The OTHER 100 frames I shot on the trip may never be more than 4x6 prints I consider and pretty much discard.
Recently I saw a friend's photos of a trip to SE Asia. There were shots of folks he met and or traveled with,personal memento value. There were shots that showed people or places but without that something extra,and there were a few shots that were beautiful and inspired and would blow up well. It covered the spectrum.
I tend to look for that hang on the wall 11x 16 and am nt one to do many snapshots. For a lot of folks,those "everyday" snaps really do matter and they don't too often look for that one real artistic print.
Take what you need from it.
Originally Posted by Paul Howell
If,at some point I'm making shots National Geographic wants-desperately....it's time to quit my day job and get a med format rig and hike the Sierra Nevada,visit the Amazon,the country villages of France etc. I'm GOOD at photography...not excellent. If I could make photography a lucrative career and not just a hobby...I'd have a 645 Pentax,with ALL the lenses and a View Camera that would make Weston jealous. I'd STILL often shoot with my 35.
The ability to be very mobile or subtle and discreet can more than offset scale and resolution.
Well, that's basically the "argument", isn't it?
Originally Posted by mhv
There are different tools for different jobs. Photographers that consider cameras as tools will choose accordingly. I think comparing formats is often a bit like comparing cars to trucks to motorcycles. They are all vehicles and will all get from point A to B, but then any direct comparisons start to break down.
And (IMHO) comparing film sizes to the megapixel standard (which is questionable as a "standard" in its own right - but for another forum) is just pointless. To me, it's just being a gearhead. ("filmhead"?)
Having said all that: The last few years have seen me shoot 95% medium format at the expense of 35mm. This is mostly attributable to my participation in a project with other photographers (all of them shooting sheet film), where we are doing what I call "tripod" photography. In this case, the larger cameras and negatives have a reason (see above: right tool for the job).
But after a few years of this, I feel a real strong need to return to my own, solo (as it were) photography, and two immediate projects I have in mind lend themselves to 35mm. One is macro oriented. This project, if it evolves, may morph to medium format later, but the experimental stage will all be done in 35mm. It's just easier.
The other project requires portability and a lot of telephoto usage, and 35mm wins hands down for this. It's also going to be (mostly) in color.
I may even start bulk loading, just so I can have shorter rolls. I do admit to disliking 36 exposure rolls!
So, it's all in what one needs, and wants. And, gear is so cheap, have both!