35mm film format Pro’s & Cons

ancient_mariner said:
35mm was tolerable for printing up to 10X8 from colour/mono negatives,
Click to expand...
In my experience, 35mm FP3 was fine for 20x16 or even bigger. It all depends on what you wish to achieve.

Discussions of this type always come down to opinion and we should be wary of thinking "mine is better than yours".
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
In my experience, 35mm FP3 was fine for 20x16 or even bigger. It all depends on what you wish to achieve.

Discussions of this type always come down to opinion and we should be wary of thinking "mine is better than yours".
Click to expand...
I consider healthy debate to be a good thing.
As you say, it's only a problem when mud slinging starts.
 
Admittedly I don't print much, either from digital or traditionally in the dark room (I would like to and need to do more) but in my scans have never come across the shortcomings I see some people mention here. As @AndrewFlannigan says above, it all comes down to what you want to achieve but I have shot a lot of 35mm in many of the modern formats (sadly never Kodachrome) and it's always been......ok, for my needs.
 
It has always been the case in photography. Some will sniff with disdain because detail in the corners of an image are deemed to be soft or dark even when it does not impact on the overall impression of the photograph. This was temprarily suspended when digital came on the market. All those magazine editors who had dictated that submissions must be pin sharp, well exposed and saturated in colour suddenly ignored anything shot on film and instead featured soft, murky digital images in order to satisfy their paymasters.

The arms race of larger formats and slower film suddenly ended. But now norrmal service has been resumed in another form ;)
 
End use is always key. If you were shooting for newsprint then 35mm was always fine when it was a current format. I've made prints up to 30"x20" using Tmax 3200 for a metal band I shot once, but at that size the grain was an effect and other aspects of the image were secondary. I used a Minolta outfit for 35mm and Bronica with Agfa 1000 asa roll film, and the MF pictures were excellent.
 
ancient_mariner said:
...and the MF pictures were excellent.
Click to expand...
If you mean that the medium format images showed more detail than a 35mm version of the same subject, then they could not be "excellent", because a 5x4 negative would have shown much more detail and a 10x8 negative yet more, given the appropriate level of care.
 
ancient_mariner said:
End use is always key. If you were shooting for newsprint then 35mm was always fine when it was a current format. I've made prints up to 30"x20" using Tmax 3200 for a metal band I shot once, but at that size the grain was an effect and other aspects of the image were secondary. I used a Minolta outfit for 35mm and Bronica with Agfa 1000 asa roll film, and the MF pictures were excellent.
Click to expand...
So why were fashion and wildlife pro's using it? Look in the old photography books and there are many examples of stunning photos of all sorts of subjects taken using 35mm. Perhaps your issues weren't actually with the film. We had an old saying in dog training that went along the lines of; "The problem is at the other end of the lead!"
;)
 
Clive K said:
So why were fashion and wildlife pro's using it? Look in the old photography books and there are many examples of stunning photos of all sorts of subjects taken using 35mm. Perhaps your issues weren't actually with the film. We had an old saying in dog training that went along the lines of; "The problem is at the other end of the lead!"
;)
Click to expand...
Would you mind posting some of your 35mm work in the show us your film shots thread?
Clearly you have a depth of experience.
 
Clive K said:
So why were fashion and wildlife pro's using it? Look in the old photography books and there are many examples of stunning photos of all sorts of subjects taken using 35mm. Perhaps your issues weren't actually with the film. We had an old saying in dog training that went along the lines of; "The problem is at the other end of the lead!"
Click to expand...

There were a lot of reasons why suuch kit was used: size, weight, availability and convenience, the medium in which the images would be reproduced, sponsorship, laziness/getting away with it, to name a few. I've been back through some of the books I have that were produced with 35mm images, and was a bit shocked TBH at the relatively low image quality by people like Michael Bussell among others (names escape me right now).

Wildlife toggers, sure they'd use 35mm because no-one made long-reach lenses for medium/large format camera that could be stealthily carried all day. Ditto sports. Fashion? Well a lot of wedding photographers would use medium format, as would many others doing portrait work to a high standard. David Bailey famously used Olympus 35mm system, but his work was sought after for qualities of sexuality and excitement, not fine image aesthetic.

My point - last time I'm going to make it - is not that 35mm film cameras can't make usable pictures, but the image quality just isn't very good.
 
ancient_mariner said:
My point - last time I'm going to make it - is not that 35mm film cameras can't make usable pictures, but the image quality just isn't very good.
Click to expand...
Surely, for that claim to stand up, you have to define "good" and "bad" image quality?

That's what doesn't seem to be coming out of this discussion.
 
AM has already stated that he thinks that 35mm is only OK for newspaper photos. Yet admits that 35mm images were good enough for top wildlife and fashion pro's to use. It doesn't make sense.

If he were simply to say that the image quality of 35mm is not as good as MF given equal quality of film, lens, etc. and that MF image quality was not as good as LF under the same criteria then I would have to agree. But to say that 35mm "was not that good" and is only "good enough for newspaper images" leads me to question his knowledge and judgement.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Surely, for that claim to stand up, you have to define "good" and "bad" image quality?
Click to expand...

You want a number to measure against as a way of assessing the aesthetic qualities of a photograph?

Clive K said:
But to say that 35mm "was not that good" and is only "good enough for newspaper images" leads me to question his knowledge and judgement.
Click to expand...

Feel free to question, but we're edging into the personal now. My photography is easily accessible if you want to judge based on what I do. How about yours? I've seen the spider.

This is not a competition, nor politics. I've been careful not to attack - please extend the same courtesy.
 
ancient_mariner said:
You want a number to measure against as a way of assessing the aesthetic qualities of a photograph?
Click to expand...
No.

I'm suggesting, as I always have, that the words "good" and "bad" are inappropriate to describe photographs, unless the user defines their meaning within the context in which they are used. Even that does not imply that I'd agree with such a statement, as it is hard to understand how such a context could be objective.
 
Sorry if think this is personal. I was trying to offer Andrew an answer. I find it odd that you think that 35mm images are only good enough for newspaper reproduction when there is a vast amount of 35mm images having been used in magazines, posters, and entered in national photographic competitions in sizes greater than 10" x 8". I would think that the majority of WPOTY winners and wildlife images sold have been shot on 35mm as are many catwalk fashion photos. The judges and editors obviously thought that these images were "good enough".
 
I too am in the camp of 35mm being good enough for a lot of applications. As someone who shoots 35mm, 120 and 5x4 I find each has their own merits but 35mm lends a certain quality to the images that I wouldn't categorise as bad or inadequate, just different.

Looking at some of my favourite books by photographers who would have been using 35mm such as Joel Meyorowitz, Elliott Erwitt, Saul Leiter, Robert Frank, William Eggleston, the images printed in some of the books are stunning both in quality and content. In fact, I have a roughly A3 sized book by Steve McCurry of portraits on his travels and they look beautiful. I know he was using Kodachrome but even so, beautiful image quality reproduced at a good size.
 
35mm is just not good enough "for me".
It's all well and good taking a well exposed, composed and processed picture with 35mm but for me, they don't contain enough detail.
Also, as I said earlier, my composition skills are low brow and I love the second chance larger formats afford regards cropping.
The only "pro" to 35mm I can see is affordability.
 
soupdragon said:
35mm is just not good enough "for me".
It's all well and good taking a well exposed, composed and processed picture with 35mm but for me, they don't contain enough detail.
Click to expand...
That is, in my opinion, a fair and sensible statement.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
That is, in my opinion, a fair and sensible statement.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Annoyingly, I really like some of the 35mm cameras though. I don't want to, I just do. They're lovely to use and let me take pictures where it would sometimes be impractical or impossible to take a large or even medium format. That's a trade off though where 35mm HAS to be good enough as something else isn't an option. And it's not for lack of enthusiasm. I have carted a P67ii up snowy mountains and around cities.
 
I think it's also true that the smaller formats started appearing as a way of appealing to happy snappers, and that's pretty much what they got.
 
soupdragon said:
35mm is just not good enough "for me".
It's all well and good taking a well exposed, composed and processed picture with 35mm but for me, they don't contain enough detail.
Also, as I said earlier, my composition skills are low brow and I love the second chance larger formats afford regards cropping.
The only "pro" to 35mm I can see is affordability.
Click to expand...
That is fair enough as a personal opinion. If you are wanting to render an image down to a smaller format then it makes sense to make the initial image larger. But, that doesn't cover the vast majority of users who would not need to or think of cropping their images.
 
soupdragon said:
I think it's also true that the smaller formats started appearing as a way of appealing to happy snappers, and that's pretty much what they got.
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree with that last statement. 35mm served professional photographers for decades.
 
Is it also worth mentioning that 35mm comes from motion picture film which is still used today to make Hollywood blockbusters running through the cameras lengthways to make an 18x24mm image then sometimes cropped to a wider format and then the print is projected onto a screen many feet in width?
 
Clive K said:
Strongly disagree with that last statement. 35mm served professional photographers for decades.
Click to expand...

Yes, an elite bunch of professionals who didn't waste film and chemicals, and were skilled enough to get good results with the limitations expounded on by those who couldn't :)
 
Downhill Specialist said:
Is it also worth mentioning that 35mm comes from motion picture film which is still used today to make Hollywood blockbusters running through the cameras lengthways to make an 18x24mm image then sometimes cropped to a wider format and then the print is projected onto a screen many feet in width?
Click to expand...
The history of cinematic formats is complicated...

List of motion picture film formats - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Plain Nev said:
Film is great for taking snapshots in good light. Take it anywhere else and its lack of flexibility is immediately apparent.
Click to expand...
Oh come on! Are you suggesting that all the great photographers of the film age were only taking 'snapshots in good light'? In the 'olden days of film' you had to understand, and work with, the limitations of film and therefore potentially learnt a heck of a lot more about how the camera itself works. It's far too 'easy' with digital just to blast away and then manipulate in Photoshop or similar to improve the initial image, but have no understanding about the image was actually created.
I do a lot less photography now than I used to do, but I think I have more images I'm really pleased with from the film days than now. That will be in part down to the fact that I can't be bothered (polite version) to spend hours using software to modify the original. My film work was almost entirely transparency when it really was vital to get it right 'in camera.
 
kt53 said:
Oh come on! Are you suggesting that all the great photographers of the film age were only taking 'snapshots in good light'? In the 'olden days of film' you had to understand, and work with, the limitations of film and therefore potentially learnt a heck of a lot more about how the camera itself works. It's far too 'easy' with digital just to blast away and then manipulate in Photoshop or similar to improve the initial image, but have no understanding about the image was actually created.
I do a lot less photography now than I used to do, but I think I have more images I'm really pleased with from the film days than now. That will be in part down to the fact that I can't be bothered (polite version) to spend hours using software to modify the original. My film work was almost entirely transparency when it really was vital to get it right 'in camera.
Click to expand...

I do appreciate that there was a great deal of skill involved, and that photographers of old were probably more sophisticated than I am, in that respect. But that is just my experience of it. I just don't find it at all practical for the type of photography I do.
 
Downhill Specialist said:
It is but we don't need to delve into it for this instance. 35mm is widely used and as i say, not the 'full' 36x24 frame of it as we use for stills.
Click to expand...
I take the simplistic view that all the facts need to be available in any discussion.

Otherwise specious side arguments develop about "cherry picking" those facts which support the writer's position,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top