35mm film format Pro’s & Cons

35mm still has a big place for me even though I still use 120 and 5x4.

It has a certain quality that I like as well as being (as has already been said) portable, affordable and in some case, fully mechanical (yes that's the case for some MF and LF too).
I'm often impressed by a lot of the photographs from the great photographers who used 35mm for street photography as well as portraits and general stuff (Erwitt, Meyorowitz, Bresson, Fred Herzog, etc) and unsure how to replicate some of the looks they had (I know they used different films for a start). FOr example, how were they using K64 on what appears to be a foggy day yet everything is sharp??. Blows my mind.
 
Probably the smallest and lightest camera I have is an Olympus XA - 35mm, and uses a battery. Only one of my medium format cameras has a meter (built into the prism which I have never used) and only one other uses a battery (RZ67). None of my LF cameras require batteries.

My Selfix folding camera fits into the pocket of my jacket (normal sports jacket, not some massive pocketed job) and gives 6x9 negatives.

As to a meter, yes I carry one as I'm cautious - but I can estimate exposure well enough to not need it, and once didn't bother going back when I left it in the car at a car park and I was out with a 5x4 camera. I couldn't tell the difference in the negatives. As an aside, I think that using a separate meter and having to transfer the readings manually is a great help in letting you see how the light is, and being able to assess it without the meter. I still tend to think about what exposure to give, then check it with the meter. I'm usually near enough to what it says.

As someone who normally used PanF (50 ASA) in 35mm in the 1960s, I never had a major problem except for sports on dull days when I used HP3, so K64 seems semi fast to me.
 
I think film still has an advantage over digital in terms of colour depth, contrast, *possibly* resolution and most definitely dynamic range, but the cons are it's a massive faff. Personally, I enjoy the faff.

I've recently started to realise film contains way more resolution than we initially thought and it all depends on how well it is scanned. I've grown extremely frustrated with lab scans and so I'm currently doing it myself using a Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II set at the maximum of 42 megapixels - this was an insanely high resolution photo back in 2005 and pretty much no one used it, plus the computing power just wasn't available, but now it's child's play.

This year, I'm going to look for an even higher resolution solution to see how much detail I can pull but for now here's a 42mp scan and 2 close ups at 100% size. I was particularly impressed with the amount of detail in the bricks etc:

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg
 
In terms of printing or viewing the results from 35mm film, I always felt viewing distance was the governing factor in perceived quality.
I'm not very good at explaining myself but, for instance, if you look at a billboard poster from say 100ft the image looks quite sharp/clear. If you get your nose up to the same poster it looks like garbage.
In short, I think you can print almost any format to nigh on any size provided you are at the correct viewing distance.

Just sayin!
 
Karl.t1965 said:
<snip>
Film really comes into its own if you love long exposure photography, a 100asa film is still a 100asa film regardless if you have the shutter open for 1/60 sec or 30 minutes or even 6 hours,
Click to expand...

All the film I used to use for long exposures at night used to suffer from reciprocity failure to varying degrees, needing longer exposures. You couldn't meter a night scene and expose as per metering. This effected the speed of the film. With a digital camera long exposures at night will expose fairly accurately but with an increase in noise, but this can be dealt with in PP.
 
Last edited:
PixPete said:
I think film still has an advantage over digital in terms of colour depth, contrast, *possibly* resolution and most definitely dynamic range, but the cons are it's a massive faff. Personally, I enjoy the faff.

I've recently started to realise film contains way more resolution than we initially thought and it all depends on how well it is scanned. I've grown extremely frustrated with lab scans and so I'm currently doing it myself using a Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II set at the maximum of 42 megapixels - this was an insanely high resolution photo back in 2005 and pretty much no one used it, plus the computing power just wasn't available, but now it's child's play.

This year, I'm going to look for an even higher resolution solution to see how much detail I can pull but for now here's a 42mp scan and 2 close ups at 100% size. I was particularly impressed with the amount of detail in the bricks etc:

View attachment 411490

View attachment 411491

View attachment 411492
Click to expand...

I still have the same scanner bought new long ago., and have retained a very old Apple Power Book with the last software installed. Later I switched to using VueScan on much newer Macs. My first scanner was a Polaroid Sprintscan 35, but it didn't last., then I used to borrow a Nikon Coolscan 4000 before investing in the Konica Mlnolta. I have started revisiting old 35mm negs using a Nikon ES-2 adapter used with a 60mm Macro lens and Nikon D750 DSLR. This produces some of the best RAW digital files yet.

Over years I have shot film in 35mm, 6x6, 6x7 and 4x5 and wet printed all except 4x5. Then 4x5 and scanning, mainly in the search of minimal grain/noise and maximum quality. Now my output is different, all digital for an agency, where some has to be quickly edited and uploaded as fast as possible. Depending on circumstances this can be as low as within 10 minutes, an hour is often too long. A different ball game now and with license values dropping to a point where even live news can be licensed for silly money.
 
PixPete said:
I think film still has an advantage over digital in terms of colour depth, contrast, *possibly* resolution and most definitely dynamic range, but the cons are it's a massive faff. Personally, I enjoy the faff.

I've recently started to realise film contains way more resolution than we initially thought and it all depends on how well it is scanned. I've grown extremely frustrated with lab scans and so I'm currently doing it myself using a Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II set at the maximum of 42 megapixels - this was an insanely high resolution photo back in 2005 and pretty much no one used it, plus the computing power just wasn't available, but now it's child's play.

This year, I'm going to look for an even higher resolution solution to see how much detail I can pull but for now here's a 42mp scan and 2 close ups at 100% size. I was particularly impressed with the amount of detail in the bricks etc:

View attachment 411490

View attachment 411491

View attachment 411492
Click to expand...
Just curious, what film is that?
 
PixPete said:
I think film still has an advantage over digital in terms of colour depth, contrast, *possibly* resolution and most definitely dynamic range, but the cons are it's a massive faff. Personally, I enjoy the faff.

I've recently started to realise film contains way more resolution than we initially thought and it all depends on how well it is scanned. I've grown extremely frustrated with lab scans and so I'm currently doing it myself using a Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II set at the maximum of 42 megapixels - this was an insanely high resolution photo back in 2005 and pretty much no one used it, plus the computing power just wasn't available, but now it's child's play.

This year, I'm going to look for an even higher resolution solution to see how much detail I can pull but for now here's a 42mp scan and 2 close ups at 100% size. I was particularly impressed with the amount of detail in the bricks etc:

View attachment 411490

View attachment 411491

View attachment 411492
Click to expand...
If you enjoy "the faff" I suggest you go large format.
42 mpx is teeny compared to a 3200 dpi scan of a 4" X 5" positive sheet.
 
Sangoma said:
I have my doubts that in the majority of cases such a high resolution scan would be any better than a 10MB scan.
The limitation there is the grain
Click to expand...
If you regard grain as a limitation you may be better off sticking with digital.
 
Topsy said:
Just curious, what film is that?
Click to expand...
Kodak Ektar 100

soupdragon said:
If you enjoy "the faff" I suggest you go large format.
42 mpx is teeny compared to a 3200 dpi scan of a 4" X 5" positive sheet.
Click to expand...

Might do one day, but my next step is progressing to medium format first. I bought a Kiev 88CM a few months ago and have been acquiring the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses slowly and cheaply as possible. The camera body needs a little work so hopefully get that done soon.

Been wanting to get into Medium Format since developing an obsession with IMAX films - I just love the look, and 6x7 stills are very close. Can't afford any of the 6x7 systems so going with 6x6 square format instead.
 
Sangoma said:
Seems you misunderstood the point of my comment :)
Click to expand...
It would seem so, its often the way on forums, was describing grain as a limitation not your point?
 
As a general observation, more recent lenses are capable of much greater detail resolution than those of the film era for 35mm/full frame. Even if film could capture as much information as a 20mp sensor I don't think it would be possible to make use of it because of the lenses. Certainly colour negative film had a wider dynamic range than a digital sensor and greater tolerance of over-exposure, although with 14+ stops of dynamic range we much be getting close to film now.

My feeling, having printed medium format & 35mm film plus using more recent full-frame digital, is that a recent-ish FF digital camera is giving about the same image detail as medium format film did. Film has certain unique properties that may or may not be advantageous depending on your wants and needs. I suspect chasing resolution in smaller formats is probably going to result in disappointment, but OTOH working in the larger formats is likely to bring much more pleasure if that is something you want.
 
ancient_mariner said:
As a general observation, more recent lenses are capable of much greater detail resolution than those of the film era for 35mm/full frame. Even if film could capture as much information as a 20mp sensor I don't think it would be possible to make use of it because of the lenses. Certainly colour negative film had a wider dynamic range than a digital sensor and greater tolerance of over-exposure, although with 14+ stops of dynamic range we much be getting close to film now.

My feeling, having printed medium format & 35mm film plus using more recent full-frame digital, is that a recent-ish FF digital camera is giving about the same image detail as medium format film did. Film has certain unique properties that may or may not be advantageous depending on your wants and needs. I suspect chasing resolution in smaller formats is probably going to result in disappointment, but OTOH working in the larger formats is likely to bring much more pleasure if that is something you want.
Click to expand...

The test example I posted above scanned at 42mp has way more detail than anything shot on my 20mp Canon 5D Mark II.

It was shot on a Pentax MX (1976) using a Pentax-M SMC 50mm f1.4 lens (1977).

Based off this, my feeling is we haven't even begun to see what detail Medium Format film is capable of - it will be in excess of 100mp absolutely no doubt. Bare in mind that 6x7 frames of film are projected on to screens 20m high by 26m wide at the BFI in London, and they are crisp!
 
RaglanSurf said:
It would seem so, its often the way on forums, was describing grain as a limitation not your point?
Click to expand...
Not in the terms you mentioned , no.
What I said was in reply to another thread, not expressing my feeling that that it was a limitation to my using film to be "better off sticking with digital"
 
ancient_mariner said:
but OTOH working in the larger formats is likely to bring much more pleasure if that is something you want.
Click to expand...

More pleasure and frustration for me in equal measure.

Just had some LF negatives back and I missed focus wide open rendering them useless. But when they are in focus, my word they are a thing of beauty.

I still continue to shoot 35mm and 120 and really don't get hung up on the comparison to digital resolutions as I feel it should be taken for what it is on it's own merit.
 
PixPete said:
The test example I posted above scanned at 42mp has way more detail than anything shot on my 20mp Canon 5D Mark II.
Click to expand...
That may be so or it may not be.

If it floats your boat, though, go for it. Your efforts, along with others, will keep one or two film manufacturers in business, ;)
 
PixPete said:
Kodak Ektar 100



Might do one day, but my next step is progressing to medium format first. I bought a Kiev 88CM a few months ago and have been acquiring the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses slowly and cheaply as possible. The camera body needs a little work so hopefully get that done soon.

Been wanting to get into Medium Format since developing an obsession with IMAX films - I just love the look, and 6x7 stills are very close. Can't afford any of the 6x7 systems so going with 6x6 square format instead.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean about 6x7 systems although the Bronica GS-1 can be had for not a lot of money (if you can find one)
 
Last edited:
soupdragon said:
I know what you mean about 6x7 systems although the Bronica GS-1 can had for not a lot of money (if you can find one)
Click to expand...

The rise in popularity and therefore price of 67 systems is insane. P67, Mamiya 7, etc. Someone told me it was partly fuelled by the Instagram crop ratio although I am not sure how much truth there is in that. You're quite right about the GS-1 but like you say, rare to find those popping up. I have considered letting my P67ii go in favour of a 6x6. I like square format and would have money left over due to the rise in 67 prices.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
There are plenty of RB67's about (and a few RZ67's) - fairly weight beasts though!
Click to expand...
Koni Omegas are still coming up at sensible prices.

For those who wish to know more...

filmphoto.net

The Koni Rapid Omega: A classic film camera with lots of quirks! — Film Photography Hub

The Koni Rapid Omega 200 is a medium-format film camera known for its high-quality photographs and interchangeable lenses. It was developed by the Simmon Brothers and takes 6x7cm images on 120 roll film. It can be cumbersome to shoot with and requires practice to load film.
filmphoto.net filmphoto.net
 
Last edited:
Some good shouts here for Medium Format cameras but they can still be quite pricey when you factor in the cost of the glass. I would love to get a Pentax 67 II but it's silly money.

Reason I went with 6x6 on Kiev 88CM is the affordability of the Zeiss glass. The 88CM has a Pentacon Six mount, but I'm not a fan of the Pentacon Six camera bodies, so just combining the two systems seemed to be a good choice.
 
6 decades ago, I concluded that if I even wanted a 16X enlargement of a neg, that result was too visibly grainy to please me...a 16" x 24" print of 135 neg just could not please my eye unless I was standing farther back enough. Granted film was grainier then than T-max emulsions, but my conclusion was with Tri-X film. Plus-X grain was more acceptable, but you cannot buy that any longer.
It is for that reason that I adopted shooting on Medium Format, and put 135 format away for shooting (other than when I needed to use very fast aperture lenses in low light, for shooting events)

It took Digital cameras to even get me back to ordinarily shooting with 135 format sensors...135 format film was largely fallow, for me for decades.
 
Last edited:
I dabble in both. Although, like many of us, I come from a film background. With film I sometimes feel I'm under a lot more psychological pressure. There's the cost, and being frugal with what you shoot. I think that is even counter productive. And because I have these, self imposed, restrictions it sits around for a lot longer, and is actually a struggle to finish it. It shouldn't be like that. Digital, on the other hand, is like cutting loose. I'm a lot freer to make compositions, and the more tools available to you means you can shoot where you might not be able too otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Downhill Specialist said:
The rise in popularity and therefore price of 67 systems is insane. P67, Mamiya 7, etc. Someone told me it was partly fuelled by the Instagram crop ratio although I am not sure how much truth there is in that. You're quite right about the GS-1 but like you say, rare to find those popping up. I have considered letting my P67ii go in favour of a 6x6. I like square format and would have money left over due to the rise in 67 prices.
Click to expand...
I too like the square format. For some reason I find it easier to compose in a square.
Zeiss glass is good but no better than say, Mamiya, Pentax or Bronica. I think Hasselblad/Zeiss quality is more urban legend than fact.
I'm not sure about the insta thing, I actually was under the illusion insta favoured square, not that I've ever used it.
 
soupdragon said:
I too like the square format. For some reason I find it easier to compose in a square.
Zeiss glass is good but no better than say, Mamiya, Pentax or Bronica. I think Hasselblad/Zeiss quality is more urban legend than fact.
I'm not sure about the insta thing, I actually was under the illusion insta favoured square, not that I've ever used it.
Click to expand...

I noticed Zeiss glass always seems to have that 3D pop effect, and it's why I went with the Pentacon Six gear for my Medium Format.

As for Insta, it actually prefers video now, but if you are posting stills then go with 4x5 in vertical format as it takes up the most amount of screen space when people scroll.
 
I don't think that there is a format that offers as much convenience and versatility as 35mm. Cameras and lenses are available second hand at reasonable prices in a wide range of focal lengths. You can get macro attachments like tubes and bellows, flash units and all sorts of accessories to suit your style of photography. Also, the depth of field is greater than with medium or large format cameras so allows the taking of some landscape photos that larger formats would struggle to focus close enough. And it is cheaper frame for frame. Its not all about grain and massive images. If that is of most importance to you then 35mm is not the answer.
 
Clive K said:
I don't think that there is a format that offers as much convenience and versatility as 35mm. Cameras and lenses are available second hand at reasonable prices in a wide range of focal lengths. You can get macro attachments like tubes and bellows, flash units and all sorts of accessories to suit your style of photography. Also, the depth of field is greater than with medium or large format cameras so allows the taking of some landscape photos that larger formats would struggle to focus close enough. And it is cheaper frame for frame. Its not all about grain and massive images. If that is of most importance to you then 35mm is not the answer.
Click to expand...
Well, that's not completely true.
Whilst depth of field on small formats is generally greater, all large format cameras have some degree of technical movement.
Which means you can give the illusion of grater depth of field by shifting or rotating the standards.
 
Clive K said:
I don't think that there is a format that offers as much convenience and versatility as 35mm. Cameras and lenses are available second hand at reasonable prices in a wide range of focal lengths. You can get macro attachments like tubes and bellows, flash units and all sorts of accessories to suit your style of photography. Also, the depth of field is greater than with medium or large format cameras so allows the taking of some landscape photos that larger formats would struggle to focus close enough. And it is cheaper frame for frame. Its not all about grain and massive images. If that is of most importance to you then 35mm is not the answer.
Click to expand...

TBH 35mm wasn't good enough even when it was current tech, but it has it's uses.
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH 35mm wasn't good enough even when it was current tech, but it has it's uses.
Click to expand...
I think that statement needs some qualification: "good enough" for what?

In days of yore, I used everything from sub miniature to 5x4 and found that 35mm was completely acceptable for many subjects.
 
I do wonder if all those pro' photographers with their top end 35mm Cannons and Nikons realised that the images they were selling weren't good enough? :)

For me 35mm was like a 4x4 estate car. It wasn't the best at most things, but it was practical and inexpensive and served the needs of most of us mere mortals.
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH 35mm wasn't good enough even when it was current tech, but it has it's uses.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on that for two reasons.
1. My composition skills are junk and I like the headroom for cropping that larger formats afford.
2. When I print it is almost always 10 X 8 or larger. I like detail and 35mm just doesn't cut it for me.
 
soupdragon said:
I'm with you on that for two reasons.
1. My composition skills are junk and I like the headroom for cropping that larger formats afford.
2. When I print it is almost always 10 X 8 or larger. I like detail and 35mm just doesn't cut it for me.
Click to expand...
As one of my in-laws is fond of saying: "different folks, different strokes".
 
Last edited:
35mm was tolerable for printing up to 10X8 from colour/mono negatives, maybe a little larger from something like Kodachrome 25, although only if the best lenses had been used. I have some Cibachrome 10X8s of a mother and daughter in a dandelion field that I thought were great when I first printed them, but every time I went back to look at them, they never made me feel like I was there and it was just really disappointing. If I'd been shooting street, sports, a band at high ISO it would have been tolerable, but in that quietly and carefully composed space the image quality just really wasn't there.

As for pros who shot 35mm 20, 30, 40 years ago, do you think they would all choose to do so now?

But it's always down to what you want. Some are happy with a rough approximation which hints at what was in front of the lens, while others want a bit more. Never forget that 126 and disc were once popular formats too, as well as half frame, and many were very pleased with their enprints from boots. My grandfather bought a polaroid camera before I was a teen - my lasting memory of it was how useless the prints were, and yet he was pleased with them as have been many others since.

One of my tasks is to go through the photos left behind by my mother, removing the irrelevant ones of people & places we don't know, keeping anything of significance. It emphasises to me how poor pictures were with 35mm, even on 'OK' cameras, for recording those kinds of scenes.
 
ancient_mariner said:
35mm was tolerable for printing up to 10X8 from colour/mono negatives, maybe a little larger from something like Kodachrome 25, although only if the best lenses had been used. I have some Cibachrome 10X8s of a mother and daughter in a dandelion field that I thought were great when I first printed them, but every time I went back to look at them, they never made me feel like I was there and it was just really disappointing. If I'd been shooting street, sports, a band at high ISO it would have been tolerable, but in that quietly and carefully composed space the image quality just really wasn't there.

As for pros who shot 35mm 20, 30, 40 years ago, do you think they would all choose to do so now?

But it's always down to what you want. Some are happy with a rough approximation which hints at what was in front of the lens, while others want a bit more. Never forget that 126 and disc were once popular formats too, as well as half frame, and many were very pleased with their enprints from boots. My grandfather bought a polaroid camera before I was a teen - my lasting memory of it was how useless the prints were, and yet he was pleased with them as have been many others since.

One of my tasks is to go through the photos left behind by my mother, removing the irrelevant ones of people & places we don't know, keeping anything of significance. It emphasises to me how poor pictures were with 35mm, even on 'OK' cameras, for recording those kinds of scenes.
Click to expand...

I think that's a fair comment. I don't think 35mm will ever match the quality that we enjoy now. I think we shoot film today mainly for aesthetic reasons. It is the heart to digital's head.
 
ancient_mariner said:
35mm was tolerable for printing up to 10X8 from colour/mono negatives, maybe a little larger from something like Kodachrome 25, although only if the best lenses had been used. I have some Cibachrome 10X8s of a mother and daughter in a dandelion field that I thought were great when I first printed them, but every time I went back to look at them, they never made me feel like I was there and it was just really disappointing. If I'd been shooting street, sports, a band at high ISO it would have been tolerable, but in that quietly and carefully composed space the image quality just really wasn't there.

As for pros who shot 35mm 20, 30, 40 years ago, do you think they would all choose to do so now?

But it's always down to what you want. Some are happy with a rough approximation which hints at what was in front of the lens, while others want a bit more. Never forget that 126 and disc were once popular formats too, as well as half frame, and many were very pleased with their enprints from boots. My grandfather bought a polaroid camera before I was a teen - my lasting memory of it was how useless the prints were, and yet he was pleased with them as have been many others since.

One of my tasks is to go through the photos left behind by my mother, removing the irrelevant ones of people & places we don't know, keeping anything of significance. It emphasises to me how poor pictures were with 35mm, even on 'OK' cameras, for recording those kinds of scenes.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't see the relevance of asking pro' photographers what they would use now. I assumed that you were comparing formats when 35mm was in common use, i.e 20, 30, 40 years ago, before digital. The overwhelming majority of 35mm users would have run their films through low quality cameras, using low quality film, use high street processors and rarely having prints over 6"x4". Today, I'll bet that 99% of those who buy 8Mp digicams actually view any images over 0.3Mp on their devices.

To say that 35mm was never very good and then back it up with photos taken by ordinary people using ordinary film and processing and ordinary cameras rather misses the point of what could be achieved using 35mm equipment imo.
 
........and another thought using a 35mm film camera is:- there can't be many users (with their home printers) going above A4 and I'm happy that family and friends enjoy my photos over the years. I have shown in the past what a pro printing house can do (probably with digital manipulation) for a shot to 16 X20" just taken with a Canon 28mm and Fuji Superia 200iso.
Anyway surely the point is what is in the shot and how it's presented whatever the type of camera used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top