Gear Quandary for Scotland Trip...

Forkbeard

Forkbeard

Messages
475
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm going up to Fort William and Glencoe in a couple of weeks with a friend on a few days road trip/camping getaway and am wondering if I should take my film gear or digital? I've been put off by people saying 35mm is no good for landscape etc and I don't particularly want to lug around both. I have more lenses for my film body I'm taking (I only have a 35mm for my D90) but I'm also still getting to grips with film and don't want to come back with shots I'm not happy with. I'm not in a financial state to be buying another lens for the D90 and not even sure I want to, I'm enjoying using film and have no plans to extend my digital kit.

Should I just bite the bullet and take the film gear and stop overthinking?!
 
A very good friend of of mine is a retired pro.
In the Old days ( pre digital) they shot film on 5*4 and using Hassleblads
They used to take a polaroid before making the final exposure to make sure everything was OK.
Take both, use your digital like a polaroid and when you are happy with the composition and exposure take the shot on film.
 
As someone who has been shooting large format for the past 9-10 years, of course we would say that landscapes aren't shot on 35mm. But then, someone who shoots 8x10 would say no landscapes are shot on 4x5! And the guy who shoots landscapes on 11x14 would say that no photographer worth their salt would shoot landscapes on 8x10. Etc. etc.

It's snobbery. Nothing more, nothing less. Plenty of superb landscapes have been shot on 35mm. Cartier Bresson shot some outstanding landscapes on 35mm, as did Ansel Adams.

Take your film camera with you to Scotland and make some cracking landscape photographs.
 
I was a bit confused too by the comment about 35mm, but as Forkbeard has said, " I only have a 35mm for my D90" and, "I'm not in a financial state to be buying another lens for the D90 and not even sure I want to" , I think '35mm' refers his 35mm lens, not the 35mm format.

This would make a bit more sense, 35mm on a D90 will give the same view as about 52mm on a FF35mm camera. I'm sure plenty of landscapes have been taken with such a lens but I agree if the OP has more lenses for his film camera and is obviously happy using it, then it is the one to go for.

Dave
 
I am biased but I would say take the film and leave the digital at home. I haven't shot anything on digital (aside from weddings which I have no stopped) in a few years now and shot a mixture of 35mm and 120. There's something about the feel of 35mm you can't replicate IMO, even though 120 gives more detail, bigger negative etc. I would hate to shoot a digital frame first just to shoot a frame of film. I did it when I was starting out in film and it's just hassle and ned necessary.

In fact, I have recently considered selling everything except my M£ and just shooting that!
 
Tringa said:
I was a bit confused too by the comment about 35mm, but as Forkbeard has said, " I only have a 35mm for my D90" and, "I'm not in a financial state to be buying another lens for the D90 and not even sure I want to" , I think '35mm' refers his 35mm lens, not the 35mm format.

This would make a bit more sense, 35mm on a D90 will give the same view as about 52mm on a FF35mm camera. I'm sure plenty of landscapes have been taken with such a lens but I agree if the OP has more lenses for his film camera and is obviously happy using it, then it is the one to go for.

Dave
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that does make more sense.
 
I'd probably take both but your heart seems to be more with film so that sounds the best bet.

As for landscape on 35mm cameras - the late great Galen Rowell used 35mm Nikon almost exclusively I believe. Fantastic stuff.
 
Tringa said:
I was a bit confused too by the comment about 35mm, but as Forkbeard has said, " I only have a 35mm for my D90" and, "I'm not in a financial state to be buying another lens for the D90 and not even sure I want to" , I think '35mm' refers his 35mm lens, not the 35mm format.

This would make a bit more sense, 35mm on a D90 will give the same view as about 52mm on a FF35mm camera. I'm sure plenty of landscapes have been taken with such a lens but I agree if the OP has more lenses for his film camera and is obviously happy using it, then it is the one to go for.

Dave
Click to expand...

welly said:
Oh yeah, that does make more sense.
Click to expand...

I was actually talking about the 35mm format (although there is the argument about 35mm on aps-c not being wide enough). I have read a few times about 35mm film not being a big enough format for landscape and that it can't retain enough detail and is too grainy etc etc. That being said I'm not planning on printing any bigger than 7x5 unless something looks really good in which case I might get a couple done a bit bigger. As has been said, it's perhaps just snobbery?

Anyway, I've decided on ditching the digital.
 
Last edited:
Generally, in both senses (35mm focal length on D90, or 135 format film cameras, both in the context of landscapes), if someone said either of those statements to me, I'd probably start ignoring their opinion very quickly indeed. In the first case, I recently got back from Cornwall where I shot 8 rolls of landscapes on a mamiya 645 with a 105-210mm lens, exclusively. Clearly this was "not wide enough". Well, for what I wanted to achieve, it was actually not long enough, so really this whole argument about what focal length you *should* be using, is typically the domain of those who don't shoot anything and probably stand around talking about kit they own, rather than producing a decent photograph once in a while. Ignore all arguments about what focal length you should be using, and instead use what you want to use. In the second case, yes, it is pure snobbery and should also be roundly ignored :)
 
Last edited:
Forkbeard said:
I was actually talking about the 35mm format (although there is the argument about 35mm on aps-c not being wide enough). I have read a few times about 35mm film not being a big enough format for landscape and that it can't retain enough detail and is too grainy etc etc. That being said I'm not planning on printing any bigger than 7x5 unless something looks really good in which case I might get a couple done a bit bigger. As has been said, it's perhaps just snobbery?

Anyway, I've decided on ditching the digital.
Click to expand...

You made the right choice... :)

I'm sure the limitations of 35mm film will show up if you want to print something really large and look at it really closely. But you can certainly take some stunning landscapes with 35mm film. If you're worried about grain and associated effects there are plenty of ISO 100 films like Ektar, Provia, Velvia etc. I don't think you'd notice any grain with Portra 400 at 7" by 5"!
 
ChrisR said:
You made the right choice... :)

I'm sure the limitations of 35mm film will show up if you want to print something really large and look at it really closely. But you can certainly take some stunning landscapes with 35mm film. If you're worried about grain and associated effects there are plenty of ISO 100 films like Ektar, Provia, Velvia etc. I don't think you'd notice any grain with Portra 400 at 7" by 5"!
Click to expand...

I've tried a couple of 400 films (althought not Portra)and have been happy enough with the results printed at that size - Superia 400 and XP2. I've got some nice results from a roll of Ektar that I tried, although not really landscape shots. I'm taking some Ektar and a roll of Portra 160 to try out. I like the more subtle look of it and am interested to try it in a few different situations. I just need to finish a roll of c200 I've just put though first (actually I might take some of that too as I quite like it).
 
Last edited:
I moved from 35mm to medium format and then large format purely because I couldn't get the print quality I wanted in the print size(s) I wanted to use from 35mm. BUT - my print sizes are a little larger than 7x5! I'd be completely happy with 35mm if I didn't go above 10x8, and was frankly amazed at the results from Kodachrome (not an option any more) printed at A3. People who comment about 35mm not being large enough should be people who print large(ish).

The focal length you choose is determined more by how you see and interpret what you see than the object that you're actually looking at. Going to the places you're going (I know both quite well) I'd take standard and long lenses, not wide angle - but that's how I see things. You're probably different.

In your position, I'd certainly take the film camera rather than the D90.

So I think you've made the right decision :D
 
StephenM said:
I moved from 35mm to medium format and then large format purely because I couldn't get the print quality I wanted in the print size(s) I wanted to use from 35mm. BUT - my print sizes are a little larger than 7x5! I'd be completely happy with 35mm if I didn't go above 10x8, and was frankly amazed at the results from Kodachrome (not an option any more) printed at A3. People who comment about 35mm not being large enough should be people who print large(ish).

The focal length you choose is determined more by how you see and interpret what you see than the object that you're actually looking at. Going to the places you're going (I know both quite well) I'd take standard and long lenses, not wide angle - but that's how I see things. You're probably different.

In your position, I'd certainly take the film camera rather than the D90.

So I think you've made the right decision :D
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. I'm completely happy about taking the film gear now after reading the comments on here.

I've decided on taking the the 50mm and 135mm (I don't have anything longer). The 28 will be in there too - even though i don't use it all that much - for the size it may as well stay in the bag.
 
Last edited:
Forkbeard said:
Thanks for the input. I'm completely happy about taking the film gear now after reading the comments on here.

I've decided on taking the the 50mm and 135mm (I don't have anything longer). The 28 will be in there too - even though i don't use it all that much - for the size it may as well stay in the bag.
Click to expand...
Just to move things forward here Jim, your choice of tripod may be more important for getting the right quality of shot. It also helps on landscapes to be able to compose the shot and then wait for the light if necessary, so a sturdy tripod is a must.
 
Peter B said:
Just to move things forward here Jim, your choice of tripod may be more important for getting the right quality of shot. It also helps on landscapes to be able to compose the shot and then wait for the light if necessary, so a sturdy tripod is a must.
Click to expand...

This is the tripod:

www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-slik-sprint-pro-3-way-tripod.htm

I've only used it once but it seemed sturdy enough. The size & weight of my Minolta x300 that I'm taking wasn't much of a problem for it.
 
Should be OK for a Minolta X300 in decent weather, although worth watching at full extension. It's generally possible to hang a camera bag off the top of the tripod to add additional weight to keep it steadier. Worth investing in a bubble level to get your horizons level, and there are plenty at low cost on the auction site. Don't order from abroad or you'll be home before the level gets here!
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_...pirit+level.TRS0&_nkw=spirit+level&_sacat=625
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top