35mm film format Pro’s & Cons

[antonroland]

Hello All

OK, so size of negative and related grain and all the basic principles aside, I would love to hear some of your thoughts on the limitations of 35mm film, subjective or otherwise.

I recently reconnected with an old acquaintance who does really high quality film scanning.

He turns a 35mm frame into a 70-80Mp file and calls that a “medium scan”

This definitely opens new possibilities BUT demands the best possible technique.

Any thoughts highly appreciated.

 

[Marino]

Hello,

There’s not many limitations really, especially if you scan the file and later digitally manipulate it.
There’s really no reason to prefer film over digital unless you’re a masochist(like me). Two limitations could be:

• Not been able to change ISO after you have shot a few frames. You have to decide what ISO you’re using from the beginning. Say you go out on a lovely sunny day with a 100 iso film and if you’re left with 10 frames and bad weather, you’re in a difficult situation.
• Again you have to decide if you’re shooting B&W or colour from the beginning(you can change your mind and take the film out but you might lose a frame or run the risk of overlapping pictures when putting it back in)

Do you mind me asking what do you mean “it opens new possibilities “? Is it about the size of the file?

 

[Sangoma]

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

 

[antonroland]

Hello,

There’s not many limitations really, especially if you scan the file and later digitally manipulate it.
There’s really no reason to prefer film over digital unless you’re a masochist(like me). Two limitations could be:

• Not been able to change ISO after you have shot a few frames. You have to decide what ISO you’re using from the beginning. Say you go out on a lovely sunny day with a 100 iso film and if you’re left with 10 frames and bad weather, you’re in a difficult situation.
• Again you have to decide if you’re shooting B&W or colour from the beginning(you can change your mind and take the film out but you might lose a frame or run the risk of overlapping pictures when putting it back in)

Do you mind me asking what do you mean “it opens new possibilities “? Is it about the size of the file?

Cheers for the response!

I hear you and agree fully on both points you raise.

I have a few MF systems and I find that 10-15 frames per roll is great to finish on 1 outing whereas 36 could be a stretch.

I tend to do 3 exposures per image I shoot and I mostly thumb-suck off Sunny f/16 although my thumb-sucks often cause me to over/expose…not horribly but often by 1-2 stops…OK for B&W but not for colour.

As for the “new possibilities” thing, my photography often runs with knee-jerk strategies from one extreme to the other.

I have discounted 35mm as a “viable format” for a long time because I like the ability to make BIG prints. That was until I recently had some old negatives scanned. The results were mind-blowing but poor technique and cheap-n-nasty lenses simply won’t do…

 

[antonroland]

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

I thought exactly that but the results from those scans made me sit up and rethink a few things…

I am planning a conventional wet darkroom soon but no space available just yet so digital printing it is for now…

 

[Plain Nev]

Film is great for taking snapshots in good light. Take it anywhere else and its lack of flexibility is immediately apparent.

 

[StephenM]

Well, if we omit the negative size (means more enlargement and loss of detail as per laws of physics), then the pros are

Cheaper per exposure
Greatest choice of films
Smallest and lightest cameras (OK some SLRs are heavier than some 5x4 cameras)

Cons
Need to carry more than one camera to change films, unless you have a Contarex
Need to possibly waste film to ensure PanF gets processed within the short timescale Harman recommend
No camera movements (unless you use a 35mm camera instead of a film holder on a large format camera - can be done)

I'll see what else I can think of, but the elephant in the room is the effect of the laws of physics. Plus as an often overlooked corollary, you don't get smaller dust particles on smaller negatives.

 

[antonroland]

Film is great for taking snapshots in good light. Take it anywhere else and its lack of flexibility is immediately apparent.

Not sure I TOTALLY agree but the approach is definitely different.

Digital has some shortcomings too…but let me play more and see if I can bring evidence to the table…

 

[antonroland]

Well, if we omit the negative size (means more enlargement and loss of detail as per laws of physics), then the pros are

Cheaper per exposure
Greatest choice of films
Smallest and lightest cameras (OK some SLRs are heavier than some 5x4 cameras)

Cons
Need to carry more than one camera to change films, unless you have a Contarex
Need to possibly waste film to ensure PanF gets processed within the short timescale Harman recommend
No camera movements (unless you use a 35mm camera instead of a film holder on a large format camera - can be done)

I'll see what else I can think of, but the elephant in the room is the effect of the laws of physics. Plus as an often overlooked corollary, you don't get smaller dust particles on smaller negatives.

I do believe a GOOD high-res scan challenges a few of those laws…

 

[Plain Nev]

Not sure I TOTALLY agree but the approach is definitely different.

Digital has some shortcomings too…but let me play more and see if I can bring evidence to the table…

I should have prefaced that with "In my experience" of course. I do use both film and digital. It depends on the look I want.

 

[antonroland]

Well, if we omit the negative size (means more enlargement and loss of detail as per laws of physics), then the pros are

Cheaper per exposure
Greatest choice of films
Smallest and lightest cameras (OK some SLRs are heavier than some 5x4 cameras)

Cons
Need to carry more than one camera to change films, unless you have a Contarex
Need to possibly waste film to ensure PanF gets processed within the short timescale Harman recommend
No camera movements (unless you use a 35mm camera instead of a film holder on a large format camera - can be done)

I'll see what else I can think of, but the elephant in the room is the effect of the laws of physics. Plus as an often overlooked corollary, you don't get smaller dust particles on smaller negatives.

I do believe a GOOD high-res scan challenges a few of those laws…with that being said, in my early days of film shooting all I knew was a handful of jumbo prints from the 1 hour lab…

 

[Topsy]

For me 35mm film just doesn't cut it today against digital, the grain and inherant softness of the images is just too disappointing against a digital file which is why I very rarely shoot 35mm film anymore. I prefer the look of 120 MF in either 6x6 or 6x4.5 and even then the B&W films still look too grainy for me when scanned and placed beside a morderate digital. for example, one of these is shot on M4/3 and processed with a touch of added grain, the other on HP5 Plus 120 film in a Bronica SQ-B.

 

[Marino]

I thought you wanted to try film for the first time, so you've done this before.

Film is great for taking snapshots in good light. Take it anywhere else and its lack of flexibility is immediately apparent.

I agree, but with film you have to be more intentional.
What i mean is, you know from the beginning you're limited, in terms of what you shoot (what time of the day, still or moving subject) and you have to adjust accordingly.
I know it seems counterproductive but sometimes it's better to be deliberate instead of spontaneous with photography.
Hope it makes sense

I thought exactly that but the results from those scans made me sit up and rethink a few things…

I am planning a conventional wet darkroom soon but no space available just yet so digital printing it is for now…

What scanner is your acquaintance using? I've seen excellent scans here from members, but these scanners (e.g nikon coolscan 5000) are pretty darn expensive.
I have bought a cheap one for £200 and the results are a bit disappointing (although not so bad for prints up to a4).
I have made a digital print and a wet print of the same image.
Digital had a lot of ugly noise (could remove in Photoshop i suppose), but the wet print had considerably less (and better looking) noise.
But for me it's not just about the noise, a wet print can be stunning looking when done properly. Something about the tones (wide range of tones, all the way from deep dark to pure white) that i cant get with an inject printer (it could be just me also not been able to make a decent digital print).
.
.
I've paid a lot of money so far for shooting with film but it doesn't bother me as i enjoy the entire process from shooting to developing and printing.

 

[StephenM]

I do believe a GOOD high-res scan challenges a few of those laws…with that being said, in my early days of film shooting all I knew was a handful of jumbo prints from the 1 hour lab…

We'll have to disagree on that. I have in mind the maximum resolution of a perfect lens in white light, the maximum resolution of even Tech Pan which is no longer made, and the requirement for 30 lpm (or lppm, I never recall which...) in the print to not look unsharp. If anyone disputes that figure on the grounds of the maximum resoltion of the eye, read up Ctien's Post Exposure where it's explained.

Now if the scan uses AI to provide extra (interpolated) detail, then bets are off.

 

[Plain Nev]

I agree, but with film you have to be more intentional.
What I mean is, you know from the beginning you're limited, in terms of what you shoot (what time of the day, still or moving subject) and you have to adjust accordingly.
I know it seems counterproductive but sometimes it's better to be deliberate instead of spontaneous with photography.
Hope it makes sense

I agree, absolutely. Although the same is equally true of digital. That's technique. But it is true that you decide what you are going to do and how to achieve it. I won't even take a film camera into dense woodland now. Open country, yes.

 

[StephenM]

I won't even take a film camera into dense woodland now. Open country, yes.

Wow. Under those circumstances, I wouldn't bother with digital. Perhaps it's down to my experience with film and the disappointments the Sony a7r2 always gives me with woodland. Then again, I wouldn't use colour either...

 

[ancient_mariner]

Pros of 35mm film - already mentioned with variety of films available, 35 shots per roll etc.

Cons - also as mentioned, it's simply not very good at resolving detail, even using slow film and decent lenses. Speaking as someone that used to print up to 16X20 mono and 12X16 colour, it's just not up to it. I moved to medium format after a couple of years because 35mm was always a bit soft - using Minolta lenses that are still relatively decent today (I still have them).

 

[Plain Nev]

Wow. Under those circumstances, I wouldn't bother with digital. Perhaps it's down to my experience with film and the disappointments the Sony a7r2 always gives me with woodland. Then again, I wouldn't use colour either...

It's always horses for courses, I suppose. A better photographer than I am would undoubtedly get better results with film.

Pros of 35mm film - already mentioned with variety of films available, 35 shots per roll etc.

Cons - also as mentioned, it's simply not very good at resolving detail, even using slow film and decent lenses. Speaking as someone that used to print up to 16X20 mono and 12X16 colour, it's just not up to it. I moved to medium format after a couple of years because 35mm was always a bit soft - using Minolta lenses that are still relatively decent today (I still have them).

It always tickles me when I admire MF images posted here. They are often outstanding. To the point that they could easily be digital.

 

[ancient_mariner]

It always tickles me when I admire MF images posted here. They are often outstanding. To the point that they could easily be digital.

I'd say that my Sony A7III with some of the better lenses is pretty much where my Bronica was in the 1980s in terms of image quality (and I don't mean just sharpness, but aesthetics that are quite invisible to some too).

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Speaking as someone that used to print up to 16X20 mono and 12X16 colour, it's just not up to it.

That possibly needs a little expansion.

Back at the end of the 1960s, I got a job producing staff pictures for a London company. These pictures were to be printed life size. Naturally, I started checking the hire company price lists for 8x10 kit.

"No, nothing like that", said the client, "use Tri-X and get bags of grain - then print them as hard as you can!" So I used my Nikon, with its 105mm (OK, I cheated and put it on the tripod) then got one of the specialist labs to make the prints and mount them on plywood. My heart was in my mouth when I took them in, using a delivery service van (I didn't drive in those days).

I thought they'd be less than happy but they paid promptly and several of the pictures were still in their reception area, when I passed the office a few years later!

 

[StephenM]

I have just displayed one of my 5x4 scans on my 18.5" wide monitor. Having successively shifted the image from one side to the other, I would need a monitor a little over 24 feet wide to view the whole image. This is spotted, but unsharpened, from an older Epson flatbed scanner (certainly no newer than a 4990) on FP4, developed in Rodinal and using a 1950s vintage lens. Technically, then, a lot against it, as scans normally need some degree of sharpening.

So that you can see what I see, I'm attempting to put the whole 1.3 gb scan (no typo there) on my OneDrive. If it works, I'll amend this post to give the link.

Edit: It seems to be struggling with a file of that size. It's still trying....

It may well have worked - in triplicate! The link is below; but I will delete the files in 24 hours, which should give anyone interested a chance to attempt a download. They are tif files by the way, and 29669x23559 x 64k according to my file viewer.

OneDrive

1drv.ms

 

[lindsay]

Surely it's horses for courses? 35mm is great for accessibility, availability, ease of use. Larger formats of film require more effort, time, deliberation and technique. There's a reason why Pro's back in the film days used larger formats for advertising and commercial work. Digital blurs the lines somewhat, as a phone camera probably equates to 35mm in some ways for the accessibility, availability, ease of use but is not necessarily up to the job for serious work (although that is moot); M43 can do pretty much as well as FF in certain genres, but it's equally true that by and large one would use larger sensors where the final product requires the extra definition/resolution/magnification.
To the OP: it must most likely be AI that is providing the capability to produce those high-res scans from 35mm, but at what cost in money as well as genuineness?

 

[LeeRatters]

According to the 'properties' my 35mm scans come in as a Tiff file at 138mB and a fraction over 6000 x 4000MP in size.

Still don't want to be viewing them at 100% though!!

I've only really printed film images at 7"x5" - annoyingly I've just had some printing done so I could have done a larger test print if this thread was started last week Purely for (my own!) interest of course.

For me, I don't shoot the little amount of 35mm that I shoot for any other reason than the feel of the images & the challenge/surprise results from shooting night skies - 13 frames from the last 24 (26 actual) roll were milky way, star trails, Orion and 1 of the moon. Oh, and to enter the FPOTY of course

I also shoot 35mm because my stepdad bought me the Yashica in the mid 90's and it's a nice small kit alongside the digital (& night sky kit!)

Still very interested to see the results & comparisons of a scan though @antonroland

 

[ancient_mariner]

That possibly needs a little expansion.

I thought they'd be less than happy but they paid promptly and several of the pictures were still in their reception area, when I passed the office a few years later!

In a local Tesco there was an image all over 1 wall, 20 feet high and 35 feet wide. It was very recognisably a family looking happy. Get in close and individual grains were about the size of my eyeballs each.

It certainly worked in the context, in that you could see what it was, but it wasn't something that I would want to have in my livingroom, even if the room had been big enough. I took photos for a friend's metal band in concert using TMax 3200 pushed to 6400, grain like golf balls etc etc. Made a composite image about 30" tall by exposing separate overlapping sheets of 10X8, then cutting & pasting them ontp the backing board - instant art. They loved it because the effect was great, very very striking - but a landscape shot that way would just be ugly.

Choose the tools for the job.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I've only really printed film images at 7"x5"

I think @StephenM and I agree, that a good 35mm neg is OK at 10x8, but starts to struggle as things get bigger.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Personally I find 35mm perfect for displaying on a screen (if you don’t print bigger than A4 it’s brilliant) 12 x 16 is also possible with care.
Below is a 35mm (Negative) scan on cheap film and a Rollei 35se zone focus camera:

Chevy Bel Air by Fraser White, on Flickr

Medium format film is better (Rolleiflex 6003 with Zeiss planar 2.8 80mm):

Vices - naturally a waste of money! by Fraser White, on Flickr

 

[StephenM]

One interesting effect, noted by Barry Thornton in one of his books, is that given the same size print etc etc and varying only the film, the fine grained print looked less sharp than the coarser grained one. This was attributed with the eye looking for something sharp, and finding it in the grain.

Zeiss (I think) published some interesting photos in the 1960s demonstrating that pure resolution figures weren't a reliable indicator of perceived image quality. They were demonstrating that the MTF method rather than lpm method gave a better indication of real world performance. In a nutshell, higher contrast, low resolution images looked better than low contrast images with twice the resolution.

With regard to print sizes, I was pleasantly surprised at the results in A3 from scanned Kodachrome 25 slides - but Kodachrome is/was known for high contrast and high resolution.

 

[Marino]

Strange thing @StephenM, with digital i added grain to make the image look sharper. I didn’t choose grain to make it look like film. Only because it just made the image look sharper and the sharpening tool on photoshop looked a bit unnatural (to my eye)
Sharpness has also a lot to do with edges.
Like painting edges can shift the attention of the eye. Soft edges, lost edges and hard edges can make an image look sharper, high contrast would create hard edges and probably make the image look sharper.

 

[StephenM]

That's basically the reason the images need to be sharper than the eye's ability to resolve detail to look sharp. The eye is better at spotting differences than resolving detail - vernier calipers are more accurate used visually than the eye can resolve.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Choose the tools for the job.

I agree.

The important thing to remember is that other people may have very different aims and intents to your own. When it comes to photography, I don't think that others have to share my opinion.

 

[Sangoma]

I do believe a GOOD high-res scan challenges a few of those laws…with that being said, in my early days of film shooting all I knew was a handful of jumbo prints from the 1 hour lab…

If you have a 35mm negative that you can see the grain on an 8X12 print, a high res scan is not going to reduce the grain.

However, scanning a negative and digitally processing it and printing it gives amazing results compared to "just average" wet printing

I enjoy 35mm and rarely use MF, my daughter usually used MF and rarely 35mm.
We have compared lab scanning compared to home scanning. 35mm makes no visible difference, grain limits enlargement or cropping, colour or B&W

MF makes no visible difference up to 8X8, can see a slight difference at 10X10 and if cropped or enlarged further there is a huge difference, lab scanning is far superior. (that is using lab developed Kodak Gold)
On MF B&W it depends on the film, on many films grain is the factor that has the biggest effect, and lab scanning does not help if the film is grainy.

My daughter hopes to soon have access to a Hasselblad and I think a Minolta (can't remember what she said) scanner, so if and when that happens we will do more comparisons.


Compared to 1 hour lab jumbo prints, any scanning and digital development and printing is going to look vary good
A FF digital camera and slide copier with digital development and printing will give amazing results when compared to consumer grade wet printing.

For us and 35mm, B&W is all done at home, 20 minutes to develop, and less than 5 to scan, somewhat spoilt by a 2 hour wait between the developing and scanning for the film to dry

35mm colour and most (not all B&W) MF goes to the lab

 

[antonroland]

For me 35mm film just doesn't cut it today against digital, the grain and inherant softness of the images is just too disappointing against a digital file which is why I very rarely shoot 35mm film anymore. I prefer the look of 120 MF in either 6x6 or 6x4.5 and even then the B&W films still look too grainy for me when scanned and placed beside a morderate digital. for example, one of these is shot on M4/3 and processed with a touch of added grain, the other on HP5 Plus 120 film in a Bronica SQ-B.

View attachment 409049View attachment 409050

I have PLENTY homework ahead of me…

 

[FishyFish]

The biggest pro of 35mm for me is its portability. It's easy to grab a 35mm film camera and travel light, even if I chuck in a couple of extra lenses. I also tend to have a compact camera in my pocket - especially in wintertime when I wear a coat. Something like an Olympus XA series camera is very good for this. Most of the 35mm cameras I own have reliable meters too, so I don't need to carry additional gear as I do with my larger format cameras.

The resolution of 135 film doesn't concern me. I know what it's capable of and where it might have limitations, so work with what it can do. I've seen countless exhibitions of 35mm film prints and can't say I've ever thought they would be better if they'd been shot on larger formats. It's the picture that counts. The thing that I do sometimes find frustrating is where larger format images are downsized so that I can't see the detail that I know is there.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It's the picture that counts.

Yes.

 

[Karl.t1965]

Sharpness is overrated, the human brain is great at reading even the most grainy of images and the ability to use a consistent grain artistically is great. Digital noise is not the same at all.
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, I wouldn't want to try either of those longer ones with a digital and using the camera iso to reduce the time to a more manageable level just adds noise.
There are the odd films that compete with even some of the best digital sensors, mostly B&W, like Adox CMS 20 II and Tech Pan (if you can find it). The image quality and feel of the images, from Tech Pan particularly, is a thing to behold, almost has a silky feel to it that works so well with a lot of subjects.

 

[FruitFlakes]

I regularly handprint 35mm Portra 400 to 16x12 and with the right setup and technique it can come surprisingly close to the 6x7 negs I print to the same size. Probably indistinguishable at normal viewing distances to be honest. Tonality is a bit nicer on the larger negs although the relative harshness of 35mm can work in your favour - it's all about intent, and really no one will notice it unless you've trained your eye for it.

 

[Plain Nev]

One definite plus I can think of is that you can use them fully manually. Imagine going on a long trek with no way to charge all the batteries you would need with digital. My trusty MX served me well on a couple of occasions in the Himalayas.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

One definite plus I can think of is that you can use them fully manually.

Agreed.

That's why I hang on to my basic 35mm kit...

 

[ChrisR]

I'm a bit bemused by this thread, particularly the earlier posts. Well over 99% of my photos are taken on 135 film, using MMM cameras (metal, manual, metered) dating from the 1970s/80s. I find I'm rarely interested in "critical/clinical" sharpness, and generally don't care if fine detail is missing. So I'm generally happy to subscribe to the "sharpness is over-rated" idea. That said, I recently got a Fuji GS645S, and even scanned on a lowly Epson V500, the images do quite often surprise (and please) me with their general appearance and feel, including looking sharper.

So pros, as said portability, range of films, range of cameras, wide selection of lenses (depending on the camera/mount), often with built-in metering, robust, often inexpensive. Oh, many will have faster shutter speeds available compared with 120 or 4x5, which might be a real advantage in South Africa!

Cons, if you're in the habit of looking at your images at 100%, don't go there! 36 frames could be a con for some, though if you go for bulk rolls you can make 20-frame rolls or whatever.

Grain is neither a con nor a pro IMHO, it's a feature, use it!

I don't think I'm saying much new here, just that 135 can make you happy or angry, it's really up to you in the end. You've generally got plenty of light, so that's on your side.

 

[Sangoma]

I'm a bit bemused by this thread, particularly the earlier posts. Well over 99% of my photos are taken on 135 film, using MMM cameras (metal, manual, metered) dating from the 1970s/80s. I find I'm rarely interested in "critical/clinical" sharpness, and generally don't care if fine detail is missing. So I'm generally happy to subscribe to the "sharpness is over-rated" idea. That said, I recently got a Fuji GS645S, and even scanned on a lowly Epson V500, the images do quite often surprise (and please) me with their general appearance and feel, including looking sharper.

So pros, as said portability, range of films, range of cameras, wide selection of lenses (depending on the camera/mount), often with built-in metering, robust, often inexpensive. Oh, many will have faster shutter speeds available compared with 120 or 4x5, which might be a real advantage in South Africa!

Cons, if you're in the habit of looking at your images at 100%, don't go there! 36 frames could be a con for some, though if you go for bulk rolls you can make 20-frame rolls or whatever.

Grain is neither a con nor a pro IMHO, it's a feature, use it!

I don't think I'm saying much new here, just that 135 can make you happy or angry, it's really up to you in the end. You've generally got plenty of light, so that's on your side.

I didn't notice the OP was from SA, and yes that does change things a bit.
Most of my film photography, and all my darkroom printing was in SA, I have done relatively little here. (no space)

It is certainly more of a challenge here, faster film mean more grain usually, as does pushing any film, and slower finer grain is possible there for many times the number of days it is possible here.

Photographically it is a very different world, a lot of re-learning to do here, which obviously (hopefully ?) would not be such a challenge to a professional, but old habits die hard