Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Any of you prefer the look 35mm compared to larger formats?
Old 06-28-2011   #1
Maximilian
Registered User
 
Maximilian's Avatar
 
Maximilian is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 94
Any of you prefer the look 35mm compared to larger formats?

Hi Gang!

I've been shooting more medium format recently and the quality is really nice, but I still think i might prefer 35mm in some cases. But I'm not sure if that's just because 35 is what I'm mostly used to and know how to approach the best, or If I actually prefer the lesser detailed rougher look in some situations. Comparing 35mm to medium format photographs side by side is troublesome, because then medium format always looks nicer, but I think that may because my brain is then more set on detail quality, then artistic quality, if that makes sense.

Anytime I'm at an exhibition and I see photographs that have been taken with 35mm black and white film, I am immediately drawn to them. But again, I'm not sure if that's because I actually like the look, or if I'm just happy to see someone else making use of it.

So do any of you "serious" photographers sometimes prefer the look of 35mm film compared to other formats? I'm only talking about the look of the finished photograph, not the convenience, cost, technical possibility etc. of working with it compared to other formats. No specific size of the print in mind either, just in general.

Maximilian
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #2
keytarjunkie
Registered User
 
keytarjunkie's Avatar
 
keytarjunkie is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 527
35mm certainly has the "look." It really depends on the size of the print to me, though. 8x10's I have no problem looking at floor-to-ceiling. 35mm and 6x4.5 look better to me in the 11x14-16x20 range, and 6x7 seems to work better around 20x24-30x40.

In a large body of work with many images being displayed, I like the look of a lot of 35mm images in smaller frames all together. But it really depends on the size of the print to me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #3
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,510
A year a go I had pretty much written off 35mm. I was using a V700 to scan most of my stuff so medium format seemed to make a lot more sense. In Nov. 2010 I figured if I was using b&w film I might as well learn to wet print, especially with enlargers being kicked to the curb in epidemic levels; it seemed like a good time. When I started printing all the medium format stuff it seemed too clean- not enough grit. I printed a picture from 35mm HP5+ at 800- a total nothing picture, a shot out the window of my car while stuck in a traffic jam in the middle of nowhere- it was grainy and ugly and I loved it. The internet will tell you can't print 35mm bigger than 11x14- total BS. Of course, if you want to print huge and don't like grain then 35mm may have end limits. Totally subjective, of course! I still use MF and LF but 35mm has really increased.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #4
mathomas
Registered User
 
mathomas's Avatar
 
mathomas is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 638
Short answer: NO

I was pretty disappointed in the grain and lack of detail when I started shooting film again early last year. I started with 35mm because that's what I knew (and could afford) from pre-digital days. I eventually bought a Fuji 6x9 camera and was blown away by the "look" and detail of medium format. Have bought a couple more MF cameras since then, and am pretty dedicated to 120 now (but I won't be selling my Contax RX or M2).

That being said. I see a lot of other folks' 35mm images that I like, and occasionally get something I really like out of my own 35mm cameras with particular emulsions (Ektar, Efke 50).

Of course, carrying a 35mm kit is heaven compared to MF

Last edited by mathomas : 06-28-2011 at 14:24.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #5
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,180
I like the look of MF over 35mm at any size print. 35mm cameras are much more convenient to me though.
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #6
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,628
I have grown to love the crisp grain and the look of a well enlarged 35mm prints can look spectacular if the shot and the technical limitations match i.e. a landscape that needs tonnes of detail or sumptuous tonality is not going to look good at 20x24 from 35mm TriX! However, an image that suits a rougher look, or is more documentary in nature, often looks better from 35mm precisely because it has a certain loss of detail and an injection of sparkle along with grain.

I liked 35mm D3200, but I LOVE Tmax 3200 at about 1000 in 35mm for lots of sparkle and subtle but crunchy grain. I just printed a 20x16 last night for a charity project (street shot from London) off Tmax 3200 and it is one of the most satisfying prints I have made in a long time.

Every negative has a size it wants to be printed to and for more and more of what I do, that sumptuous, creamy LF look is the opposite of what I am trying to achieve. LF/MF enlarged modestly can never come close to the sparkle of grainier images IMO. They can glow. They can look rich and creamy and have amazing depth, btu sparkle is so much easier to achieve with grain present - visibly so.

Once I started ignoring those who say 'X is the limit for Y format' I discovered that some negs actually look better at very big sizes precisely because the subtle grain and loss of detail at 11x14, becomes much more obvious at the bigger size and so the nature of the image seems to make more sense. Its in that half way house territory where things tend to look not quite right.... where there is kinda sorta some grain and its not clear whether it is meant to be there!

A good exampke is one of my favourite child portraits, which is off TriX (in Rodinal!) and I test printed to 10x8. I uploaded the image to the computer and later submitted it for a competition. I ended up winning and the image was selected for exhibition.... at 20x16. I thought I was in trouble, but when I made the print I could not believe how good it looked. So I then went over some other similar negs (like 35mm D3200) I had passed over due to 'lack of detail under the loupe' and blew them up too. The result has changed everything and I am going about shooting a little bit differently now.

PS out of about ten B&W images I exhibited in NY this year at 20x16, all were off 35mm, half were off 400 film and the comments from the floor were very, very positive. In no case did the 400 speed prints look 'worse' than those of 100 films. The more printing I do (and I will probably be starting up some low volume commercial printing as a sideline next year), the less it is about formats and the more it is about sympathetic styles, in the matching mateials with you photographic style, and in the printing. A LOT has to do with the printing to get that sparkle.

Last edited by Turtle : 06-28-2011 at 14:51.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #7
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,481
"it all depends..."

(If you like Salgado do you like his medium format images better than his 35mm images?)

Last edited by Pablito : 06-28-2011 at 14:56.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #8
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
For some shots, of course. For others, of course not. Depends on what I'm shooting, and what results I want.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #9
tomalophicon
Registered User
 
tomalophicon is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: URALLA NSW
Age: 100
Posts: 317
Yep, 35mm is awesome. I love the grain (or lack thereof, if you so wish), the shape, the ease, the cost, the lenses, the cameras... the list could go on.

All formats have their place; I also use 6x7 and 4x5, but 35mm is still king in my humble opinion.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #10
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 3,956
I prefer the portability of 35mm.
BUT...
Since I got my M9, 35mm film seems kind of passe and with lower resolution than I can scan. The tonality isn't necessarily as good but for the most part the M9 has superseded 35mm completely for me. If I'm traveling, I'll take my beloved M4 as a backup but not as a main shooter. Of course, there are results that I can get with the M4 that I can't get with the M9, so it comes down to proper tool for the job.
What I really prefer is 6x6 medium format. I love the square.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #11
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,595
Convenience and thirty six available exposures plays a big part. One keeper on a roll of 35mm I can live with ... one keeper on a roll of 120 I'm not so happy about!

Resolution and detail aren't my priorities and a lot of the 120 film I've bought languishes in the freezer while I try to think of a good reason to use it.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #12
KenR
Registered User
 
KenR is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 692
I also vote for "it depends". A gritty subject, especially a street scene cries out for the grain of 35mm. A soft landscape requires the better tonality and decreased grain of MF. Portraits = subject driven. That said, if you look at a Hurrell photo you see the creamy tones of LF. Even Bogart looks good - would he have looked better with more grain? Don't know.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #13
Brian Puccio
Registered User
 
Brian Puccio is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Long Beach, NY, USA
Posts: 338
I love the look of 6x9, I would be so happy to have a GSW690III and use that, but it's much larger, I can't afford to upgrade from my coolscan 4000 and the film costs much more and I would be stopping to reload much more, slowing down the people I'm often with even more.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #14
tlitody
Registered User
 
tlitody is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 1,770
I prefer working with 35mm cameras. Time was I used to go on long walks and take lots of photographs. Then I bought a 4x5 with 3 lenses, associated gubbins and rucksack to put it in. By the time I had been walking with that lot for 10 mins I'd find something to photograph. So it all had to be unpacked, assembled, aligned, focussed and finally image taken. Then it had to unassembled and packed away ready to carry on the walk. Another 10 mins and the next image would present itself and the process repeated. By that time there wouldn't be time to do the planned walk so it would get aborted.
Have now given up 4x5 photography and reverted to 35mm. Don't care if the print quality isn't quite as good as it could be because I take far more images with a much bigger choice of subjects because I can walk much further and faster. The process counts for a lot. The compromise would be medium format but I'm not tempted although I do have a hassy stached away.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #15
tlitody
Registered User
 
tlitody is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 1,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
I have grown to love the crisp grain and the look of a well enlarged 35mm prints can look spectacular if the shot and the technical limitations match i.e. a landscape that needs tonnes of detail or sumptuous tonality is not going to look good at 20x24 from 35mm TriX! However, an image that suits a rougher look, or is more documentary in nature, often looks better from 35mm precisely because it has a certain loss of detail and an injection of sparkle along with grain.

I liked 35mm D3200, but I LOVE Tmax 3200 at about 1000 in 35mm for lots of sparkle and subtle but crunchy grain. I just printed a 20x16 last night for a charity project (street shot from London) off Tmax 3200 and it is one of the most satisfying prints I have made in a long time.

Every negative has a size it wants to be printed to and for more and more of what I do, that sumptuous, creamy LF look is the opposite of what I am trying to achieve. LF/MF enlarged modestly can never come close to the sparkle of grainier images IMO. They can glow. They can look rich and creamy and have amazing depth, btu sparkle is so much easier to achieve with grain present - visibly so.

Once I started ignoring those who say 'X is the limit for Y format' I discovered that some negs actually look better at very big sizes precisely because the subtle grain and loss of detail at 11x14, becomes much more obvious at the bigger size and so the nature of the image seems to make more sense. Its in that half way house territory where things tend to look not quite right.... where there is kinda sorta some grain and its not clear whether it is meant to be there!

A good exampke is one of my favourite child portraits, which is off TriX (in Rodinal!) and I test printed to 10x8. I uploaded the image to the computer and later submitted it for a competition. I ended up winning and the image was selected for exhibition.... at 20x16. I thought I was in trouble, but when I made the print I could not believe how good it looked. So I then went over some other similar negs (like 35mm D3200) I had passed over due to 'lack of detail under the loupe' and blew them up too. The result has changed everything and I am going about shooting a little bit differently now.

PS out of about ten B&W images I exhibited in NY this year at 20x16, all were off 35mm, half were off 400 film and the comments from the floor were very, very positive. In no case did the 400 speed prints look 'worse' than those of 100 films. The more printing I do (and I will probably be starting up some low volume commercial printing as a sideline next year), the less it is about formats and the more it is about sympathetic styles, in the matching mateials with you photographic style, and in the printing. A LOT has to do with the printing to get that sparkle.
I agree entirely. I've been through the "the grass is greener on the larger format negative side of the fence" thing and realised it isn't all about the size of the negative at all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #16
Chris101
summicronia
 
Chris101's Avatar
 
Chris101 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,358
I love the 35mm look! The hyper-detailed look of large format, or even medium format is a bit too much like reality. My photography does NOT look like reality. Grain, blur, processing irregularities - they all go into my pictures in abundance. My favorite film is delta 3200, and before that it was hie. I even put 35mm into my Holge for a bit more of what I like about it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #17
Tim Gray
Registered User
 
Tim Gray is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,855
I really like the 35mm look a lot of times. It's one of the reasons I still shoot film. Of course, certain types of shots really do look better on a larger format...
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2011   #18
BobYIL
Registered User
 
BobYIL's Avatar
 
BobYIL is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,262
For me both formats, MF and 35mm, have their exclusive looks. I can not say that I prefer the looks of a portrait from my 150/4 Sonnar on the Pentax 645 over the one from first Elmarit 90/2.8 on a Leica. That would be like holding Vermeer over Rembrandt..

Go to the website of Mr. Mike Tinsley, he has some fine examples on the same subject through different formats:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9609365...7625322532104/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #19
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,875
Yes, I prefer the look of 35mm generally speaking (based on work from photographers I like). However, a good photo is a good photo... regardless of format. That said, I do prefer the 2:3 aspect ratio the best.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #20
roadmouse
Registered User
 
roadmouse's Avatar
 
roadmouse is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Gouda, The Netherlands
Posts: 41
I prefer the look of MF over 35mm. I like the smooth tones and details of a large negative. And I also like the square composition. But for practical reasons, I mostly shoot 35mm.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #21
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,801
I like 6x4.5.
The cameras are very close to 35mm in terms of convenience.
You get 16 frames per roll, enough for me even with bracketing (either compositional or exposure).

And I can consistently produce good 11x14 B&W prints in my darkroom. Even bigger if I go the digital route (color).

And it still has that shallow DoF and details like a Medium Format picture should.


This one is called "Four Tulips"
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #22
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlitody View Post
I prefer working with 35mm cameras. Time was I used to go on long walks and take lots of photographs. Then I bought a 4x5 with 3 lenses, associated gubbins and rucksack to put it in. By the time I had been walking with that lot for 10 mins I'd find something to photograph. So it all had to be unpacked, assembled, aligned, focussed and finally image taken. Then it had to unassembled and packed away ready to carry on the walk. Another 10 mins and the next image would present itself and the process repeated. By that time there wouldn't be time to do the planned walk so it would get aborted.
Have now given up 4x5 photography and reverted to 35mm. Don't care if the print quality isn't quite as good as it could be because I take far more images with a much bigger choice of subjects because I can walk much further and faster. The process counts for a lot. The compromise would be medium format but I'm not tempted although I do have a hassy stached away.
Maybe because I live in a place where natural beauty is not easily accessible, I tend to scout for locations and rely on my memory to visualize a scene, so I can bring my LF gears when I have the time to take the picture.

Also, I don't walk around, I *drive* around

For 4x5, I may take up to six frames in a day, but for 8x10, two are plenty.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #23
rogerzilla
Registered User
 
rogerzilla is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 753
645 didn't give me enough of an improvement over 35mm, although the tones were smoother. I think the biggest problem was the lenses on my Bronica; the 75mm was pin-sharp but the 60mm was very soft and the others weren't too good either. It also needed at least a 10 x 8 enlargement to see much difference at all in grain. The final straw came when my pro lab started digitally printing everything and the scan resolution they use for MF is lower than for 35mm, so even small prints look as if they were shot on a 3MP digicam. Hopeless, so I sold up.

In the end Leicas gave me sharper results with a lot more portability.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #24
tlitody
Registered User
 
tlitody is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 1,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
Maybe because I live in a place where natural beauty is not easily accessible, I tend to scout for locations and rely on my memory to visualize a scene, so I can bring my LF gears when I have the time to take the picture.

Also, I don't walk around, I *drive* around

For 4x5, I may take up to six frames in a day, but for 8x10, two are plenty.
Who was it that said (paraphrase)"If ain't within ten yards of the road it ain't worth photographing".
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2011   #25
braver
Registered User
 
braver's Avatar
 
braver is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 322
Technically a lot can be said for smaller grain and smoother tonalities. However, I moved away from medium format for the look of 35mm. Part of it may be in the grain, but mostly for me is the freedom of using a small Leica with a long roll of film in it that brings forth images with an entirily different personality. That is the look I want. Call it snapshot aesthetic or something. Wouldn't have anything else even if it came free with pinsharp grainless 16x20 prints.
__________________
Koen - portfolio - flickr - 1X.com
Leica M6 TTL .58, 28 Elmarit asph, 40 Summicron-C
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-30-2011   #26
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 58
Posts: 2,822
Many of us grew up looking mostly at 35mm photos and are accustomed to the "35mm look".
Younger generations seeing mostly digital photos will no doubt prefer their look.

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-30-2011   #27
andreios
Registered User
 
andreios's Avatar
 
andreios is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 279
It depends for me on what I am taking pictures of and what kind of prints I intend to make from this particular subjects. That is - for "ordinary" silverbased prints I prefer MF, but if I "feel" the subject will be more suitable for a lith-print, I usually seem to go for 35mm camera.
__________________
My My Website

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-30-2011   #28
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPlatt View Post
Many of us grew up looking mostly at 35mm photos and are accustomed to the "35mm look".
Younger generations seeing mostly digital photos will no doubt prefer their look.

Chris
When I was a boy my age, my mother filled the photo albums with square prints from a medium format camera.. But the prints were so tiny, that a cropped 35mm shot would have been just as good, and when my parents switched to 35mm somewhere in the sixties, the shots indeed had similar quality.

What was immensely different though, was that the rollfilm pictures were shot from waistlevel with boxcameras, and the small format was shot from eyelevel. There's a marked perspective break in the albums.. that's what I think formed the great divide between small and medium format at that time..
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-30-2011   #29
[email protected]
Registered User
 
raytoei@gmail.com's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,000
alot of interesting points. one thing i can add is that using 35mm, i have found myself using portrait view alot more than landscape.
__________________
------------------------------------
Film is Photography.
------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-01-2011   #30
Thomas-Paris
Registered User
 
Thomas-Paris is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Paris, France
Age: 41
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
Maybe because I live in a place where natural beauty is not easily accessible, I tend to scout for locations and rely on my memory to visualize a scene, so I can bring my LF gears when I have the time to take the picture.

Also, I don't walk around, I *drive* around

For 4x5, I may take up to six frames in a day, but for 8x10, two are plenty.
Those modified polaroid Land cameras look like a really nice compromise between image quality and portability. Walk-around portability, not drive-around, but still a 4x5 negative from a good lens. But I could imagine a box camera being a great fit for, for example, Southern California.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-01-2011   #31
Instantclassic
Hans
 
Instantclassic's Avatar
 
Instantclassic is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadmouse View Post
I prefer the look of MF over 35mm. I like the smooth tones and details of a large negative. And I also like the square composition. But for practical reasons, I mostly shoot 35mm.
I agree on that. My back usually tells me what to carry.
/H
__________________
I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.
Alexander the Great


________________________________________
F l i c k r
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-01-2011   #32
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,992
I like the look of some 35mm films for some things, the look of other 35mm films for other things, and I like the look of Large Format for other things.

I like pizza, but it doesn't mean it's the only thing I'd eat.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-01-2011   #33
Chris101
summicronia
 
Chris101's Avatar
 
Chris101 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
I like 6x4.5.
The cameras are very close to 35mm in terms of convenience.
You get 16 frames per roll, enough for me even with bracketing (either compositional or exposure).

And I can consistently produce good 11x14 B&W prints in my darkroom. Even bigger if I go the digital route (color).

And it still has that shallow DoF and details like a Medium Format picture should.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2495/...cde3f659_z.jpg
This one is called "Four Tulips"
Will, I jumped on the 645 bandwagon when it first hit - way back in '76, and the M645 was the first camera I ever bought with my own money.

I loved it then, but we've grown apart over the years. These days I find it difficult to position myself for the best shot, it's not as responsive to my techniques, and sometimes I just feel awkward trying.

Sure we still have great communication - I did some excellent work last Spring with "M645", but it was all mechanical. 35mm slr and especially Leica RF feels at home in my hands now. I will do anything - even bend over backward to get the proper angle, and the size of 35mm never makes me feel inadequate.

I've pared my M645 system down to the two lenses I actually use: the 45 and 110 f/2.8s. I take them out regularly, and I can do good stuff if I plan for it, then follow through. But I LOVE spontaneity! With such a small camera as my OM or Leica, nothing is off limits. So I just do it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-01-2011   #34
j j
Registered User
 
j j is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 792
35mm (especially slides) produces little jewels of concentrated loveliness.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-01-2011   #35
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,902
In regard to the OP, absolutely! Granted, I have never been able to afford anything other than 35mm and most recently, digital SLR's. But, I have never felt that I was being less of a photographer because it was simply not true.

Regardless of the format, the equipment, etc. it still boils down to the 6-inch space between one's ears.
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-01-2011   #36
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,875
To me, 35mm is a great compromise between depth of field, format, and convenience.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-01-2011   #37
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlitody View Post
Who was it that said (paraphrase)"If ain't within ten yards of the road it ain't worth photographing".
Yep, that's my principle when shooting large format (especially 8x10).

But with my 4x5 converted Polaroid, I may be a bit more flexible, I can use my compact tripod with that one, or even handheld if it's in bright daylight.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 07-01-2011   #38
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris101 View Post

I've pared my M645 system down to the two lenses I actually use: the 45 and 110 f/2.8s. I take them out regularly, and I can do good stuff if I plan for it, then follow through. But I LOVE spontaneity! With such a small camera as my OM or Leica, nothing is off limits. So I just do it.
Chris, I may have stumbled upon the most spontaneous 6x4.5 with the Konica Pearl I just got.
That camera is smaller than our M4-P
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 07-01-2011   #39
barnwulf
Registered User
 
barnwulf's Avatar
 
barnwulf is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ankeny, Iowa
Age: 81
Posts: 1,406
I like the 35mm because of so many film choices. I like the look of some grain, but when I go out with my Zeiss Super Ikonta IV I am amazed with the images. I will continue with my Leicas and occasionally a MF. Jim
__________________
"Basically, I no longer work for anything but the sensation I have while working."
- Alberto Giacometti (sculptor)
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2011   #40
iBay
Insoo Bay
 
iBay's Avatar
 
iBay is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Age: 56
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris101 View Post

Sure we still have great communication - I did some excellent work last Spring with "M645", but it was all mechanical. 35mm slr and especially Leica RF feels at home in my hands now.
"Excellent work" indeed. Deeply impressed. Thank you for sharing.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:13.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.