There's still something special about 35mm

  • Thread starter Deleted member 21335
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 21335

Guest
Here in the film section, we have people who shoot on all different mediums, some (me included) choosing to shoot mainly on medium format because of the sheer size of the negative. Well, whilst on my recent holidays, aside from a wedding I shot, I shot 9 personal rolls of 120 through the Contax 645 and a single roll through the Leica. Got all my scans back this morning and, whilst I have said it before, for me, there is still something about 35mm, or particularly through my Leica and 50mm combination that I really, really like. It just has a certain quality to it that makes me love the images (sometimes, these are my own photos I am talking about) it produces. Maybe in the future, I will reach for it more. :)

Does anyone else feel the same?

All Ektar 100 in this instance. :D
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Here in the film section, we have people who shoot on all different mediums, some (me included) choosing to shoot mainly on medium format because of the sheer size of the negative. Well, whilst on my recent holidays, aside from a wedding I shot, I shot 9 personal rolls of 120 through the Contax 645 and a single roll through the Leica. Got all my scans back this morning and, whilst I have said it before, for me, there is still something about 35mm, or particularly through my Leica and 50mm combination that I really, really like. It just has a certain quality to it that makes me love the images (sometimes, these are my own photos I am talking about) it produces. Maybe in the future, I will reach for it more. :)

Does anyone else feel the same?

All Ektar 100 in this instance. :D
Click to expand...

Well 35mm surprises me in quite a few shots, but if you going to squash a MF down to 1000px on the longest size to post here then comparing with 35mm there is less difference, but then I've noticed you can still see a difference in quite a few shots e.g. a path thru' trees or bushes and the MF shot just is better in pop\3d in depth compared to 35mm, probable something to do with "perspective" even though equating the MF and 35mm lens. Also IMO the colour saturation for MF is better h'mm well it should be as you are not enlarging so much.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Here in the film section, we have people who shoot on all different mediums, some (me included) choosing to shoot mainly on medium format because of the sheer size of the negative. Well, whilst on my recent holidays, aside from a wedding I shot, I shot 9 personal rolls of 120 through the Contax 645 and a single roll through the Leica. Got all my scans back this morning and, whilst I have said it before, for me, there is still something about 35mm, or particularly through my Leica and 50mm combination that I really, really like. It just has a certain quality to it that makes me love the images (sometimes, these are my own photos I am talking about) it produces. Maybe in the future, I will reach for it more. :)

Does anyone else feel the same?

All Ektar 100 in this instance. :D
Click to expand...

135 format would be fine for some uses if it weren't locked to the dreadful 3:2 aspect ratio; that's a deal-breaker for me.
 
skysh4rk said:
135 format would be fine for some uses if it weren't locked to the dreadful 3:2 aspect ratio; that's a deal-breaker for me.
Click to expand...

Funny as you were one of the people I thought of on here who only shoots MF, although until now I didn't know that was the reason (or one of them).
 
I don't use much 35mm at all really and I think there are a few main reasons. One is that I'm never as happy with the end results; images are never as sharp and there isn't as much detail in them. I'm sure that's mainly down to the fact that whilst I have a few good medium format cameras, I don't really have anything special in terms of 35mm. I've been lusting after a nice Voigtlander Bessa since the Cornwall meet though!

I originally got into film as I wanted to try the bigger negatives and smaller DoF of medium format. In the back of my mind there's always something telling me that if I'm going to use 35mm SLR then I may as well just use my digital full frame 5D2 which is sat under the bed gathering dust. I know that statement will probably come across as contentious, but I think it ties in with the first reason where I've not really used a good enough 35mm camera that gives me reason to use 25mm film over digital.
 
Carl Hall said:
I don't use much 35mm at all really and I think there are a few main reasons. One is that I'm never as happy with the end results; images are never as sharp and there isn't as much detail in them. I'm sure that's mainly down to the fact that whilst I have a few good medium format cameras, I don't really have anything special in terms of 35mm. I've been lusting after a nice Voigtlander Bessa since the Cornwall meet though!

I originally got into film as I wanted to try the bigger negatives and smaller DoF of medium format. In the back of my mind there's always something telling me that if I'm going to use 35mm SLR then I may as well just use my digital full frame 5D2 which is sat under the bed gathering dust. I know that statement will probably come across as contentious, but I think it ties in with the first reason where I've not really used a good enough 35mm camera that gives me reason to use 25mm film over digital.
Click to expand...

I totally understand what you mean. I am happy never pick up a digital camera again. There's just something about 35mm shot in certain film stocks that I really like.
 
I've been surprised by the level of detail I've achieved from a standard scan, with a Contax camera and Zeiss lenses.
It doesn't stand up to what I can get from my D5200 but it is good enough for web viewing.

I could do higher detail scans, of course...
 
Carl Hall said:
I don't use much 35mm at all really and I think there are a few main reasons. One is that I'm never as happy with the end results; images are never as sharp and there isn't as much detail in them.
Click to expand...

I agree with Carl. When I process 35mm I'm generally struggling to get a quality level that I like.

However there are two scenarios (or "use cases" as software developers might say) where I'm more likely to be happy with the result:

a) 35mm black and white film printed in the wet darkroom - and I've not yet printed anything bigger than 9.5" and 12" so that example may break down with a larger print
b) 35mm Velvia 50 - I should say that the resolution and grain is acceptable but the saturation may be "too much" depending on the subject and weather conditions.

I can't think of any example where a 35mm image has a better quality than a medium format or large format image made with the same film - but of course the handling characteristics of 35mm cameras may make it more likely that we can "get" some shots.

My only digital camera is only 4.9mp but, for colour, the images do appear cleaner and sharper than 35mm when viewed at smaller sizes.

Apart from a few rolls of Poundland film still in the fridge, I'm trying to use my 35mm cameras only with the finer grained and slower films to get the best out of them.
 
I really liked the image quality I got from my Leica M3 and 50mm Summicron, but I'm just not a rangefinder person. I've got quite a few 35mm cameras still, and have had decent fun trying them out with Poundland Agfa this year, but I've also been really disappointed with ood Ilford XP2 via Filmdev. I've still got Rodinal and a couple of packs of powder developer in the garage, so I've ordered some fixer to get back into doing "real" mono and see how that goes. I'm bound to say that I saw my film future in MF and LF rather than 35mm, but I've got quite a bit of mono 35mm film and it'll be a good way back into home processing. (y)
 
For me, the lower detail and enhanced levels of grain in 35mm are part of the 'look' from the format. They're not things I see as disadvantages, but something that can often add to the image. The form factor of 35mm cameras is also an advantage in certain types of photography, such as street, or general snapshots.

Plus you get a lot more shots per roll. :)

That said, I love the look of MF too - the detail in the negatives and way it presents depth of field etc. were what drew me to it, but they're not things that I need to have in everything I shoot.
 
Last edited:
I don't use much 35mm cos my eyes are busted and its too small...:)
I like 35mm for its convenience though.
Besides that, 35mm starts to fall apart in a wet print at 16x12 imo, not that I print bigger than that but I always feel like I'm pushing the envelope, like there's no slack or wiggle room for a crop, composition or grain visibility.
Its a diabolical tragedy that slide can't be wet printed anymore..:(
 
The thing with 35mm is that it’s easy to scan. 2 1/4 square is a nightmare. With my 35mm negs, I bought a £15 attachment for the end of my macro lens and could transform them to files in minutes. From that point, developing in software is quick and has many advantages over wet processes. Tri-X on 2 1/4 is way better but you have to try to enjoy the creative process if you’re doing this as a hobby.
 
I have mixed feelings.

I went through a phase where I couldn't see the point of 35mm, but I use it a lot now, mostly for the convenience aspect.

Perfectly happy with the results.

Thing is though, I 've taken a few photos on 35mm that I wish I'd taken on 120 but I've never taken a photo on 120 and wished I had used 35mm.
 
I hanker for a bit of slot format sometimes, even though it feels like a compromise, square just doesn't fit absolutely everything and I hate cutting
could do with an xpan really...:)
 
FishyFish said:
For me, the lower detail and enhanced levels of grain in 35mm are part of the 'look' form the format. They're not things I see as disadvantages, but something that can often add to the image. The form factor of 35mm cameras is also an advantage in certain types of photography, such as street, or general snapshots.
.
Click to expand...

This ^ It is all part of the look for me.

Also, people keep using that term 'better' with no quantification. MF is better, etc. I don't look at any of the shots from history that are iconic and think that they would be better if they were taken on MF. In fact, if the photographer in a lot of circumstances was only carrying MF gear, he/she probably wouldn't have gotten the shot.

simon ess said:
Thing is though, I 've taken a few photos on 35mm that I wish I'd taken on 120 but I've never taken a photo on 120 and wished I had used 35mm.
Click to expand...

Nope, never. As above, 35mm has a certain quality for me in some respects and am sometimes glad I chose that instead of MF.

For some bizarre reason though, the discussion always seems to come around to a Vs. Digital discussion. Quite sad really.
 
joxby said:
I hanker for a bit of slot format sometimes, even though it feels like a compromise, square just doesn't fit absolutely everything and I hate cutting
could do with an xpan really...:)
Click to expand...

I would LOVE an Xpan, however prices have made it unrealistic for me for something that would be a very rare use. I like the cinematic aspect of it and would love to shoot some portraits with the likes of Cinestill film through one. Shame the lenses aren't fast for that kind of thing. :(
 
gazmorton2000 said:
I would LOVE an Xpan, however prices have made it unrealistic for me for something that would be a very rare use. I like the cinematic aspect of it and would love to shoot some portraits with the likes of Cinestill film through one. Shame the lenses aren't fast for that kind of thing. :(
Click to expand...

you could put some 35mm in that pentax 67 of yours...:D

I know, I know......it just feels like a compromise vs a 6x7 neg, but you could shoot your xpan portraits with it..
 
joxby said:
you could put some 35mm in that pentax 67 of yours...:D

I know, I know......it just feels like a compromise vs a 6x7 neg, but you could shoot your xpan portraits with it..
Click to expand...

Yeah I have seen/heard about that. May try it one day. Until then, I will keep shooting the too many cameras I already have. I need to use the Contax more so I can nail that focus wide open. The AF is a fickle beast. Going to get a Maxwell screen soon.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Yeah I have seen/heard about that. May try it one day. Until then, I will keep shooting the too many cameras I already have. I need to use the Contax more so I can nail that focus wide open. The AF is a fickle beast. Going to get a Maxwell screen soon.
Click to expand...
Thats gonna be tricky with an af rf, but if that's what the people want, s'pose you have to step up to the plate.
unfortunately, if you want to lose the bulk and faff of a big box but keep 120, its gonna be an rf
 
Snip:
simon ess said:
Thing is though, I 've taken a few photos on 35mm that I wish I'd taken on 120 but I've never taken a photo on 120 and wished I had used 35mm.
Click to expand...

Occasionally when I've been using one of my 120 cameras I've wished I had been using a 35mm SLR for the choice of lenses that would have given me, including some of the image stabilised ones! The main issue for me at the moment is that I can't scan 35mm negs from my SLRs at high enough quality to do them full justice, the alternative is paying for a high-res scan but that adds quite a bit of expense to the hobby, so I think a Plustek film scanner will be on my list to Santa this year by way of an acceptable compromise.

As Gareth said, 35mm can have its own 'look' at times, and shooting Ektar 100 should give some nice detail in the images too, certainly when the light is bright enough it's my 'go to' colour film, for MF as well as 35mm. Mind you, I'm looking forward to the results from 3/4 of a roll of 800 Portra 35mm I shot at the weekend (the roll that didn't go through my camera during the F&C Black Country meet!). Hopefully fishing around to retrieve the leader won't have fogged it, I shot the first 10 frames at 1/8000 sec with the lens cap on to leave some blank film at the start just in case!
 
joxby said:
Thats gonna be tricky with an af rf, but if that's what the people want, s'pose you have to step up to the plate.
unfortunately, if you want to lose the bulk and faff of a big box but keep 120, its gonna be an rf
Click to expand...

Not sure about the RF thing? The Contax is an SLR.
 
john.margetts said:
First Contaxes were rangefinders, mind.
Click to expand...

Ash, didn't know that. Must be what @joxby was referring to. :) The 645 is such a great camera, especially with that 80mm f2.0 but definitely has its quirks with regard to the AF and shooting wide open.

skysh4rk said:
Maybe he thought you were referring to the Contax G-series cameras, as those are autofocus rangefinder-style cameras?
Click to expand...

You replied as I was. Yeah, didn't know about that one. Every day is a school day.
 
Nope, I think I'm just getting my cameras mixed up...:wacky:

I just wrote "CONTAX" on a Fuji in my head I think, or mebbe I was still fixated on the xpan we were talking about....who knows

I gotta say though, when anyone say's Contax, the only thing that pops in my head is RF, but then you could say take the bin out and I'd be thinking......RF..:D
 
A lot of my work is experimental or lo-fi on purpose - 35mm is best for this :) Lower cost, smaller negatives, wider and easier-to-use range of cameras!
 
I just love the portability and usability of my Pentax 35mm cameras, and don't find the image quality a barrier at all. As always, I am the limiting factor, not the camera or the film!

I can cope with 3:2; I quite often crop it to 4:3 or 5:4, occasionally square. On many occasions I like the long narrow format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top