Any of you prefer the look 35mm compared to larger formats?

[Maximilian]

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

 

[keytarjunkie]

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.

 

[benlees]

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.

 

[mathomas]

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 🙂

 

[Thardy]

I like the look of MF over 35mm at any size print. 35mm cameras are much more convenient to me though.

 

[Turtle]

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.

 

[Pablito]

"it all depends..."

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

 

[Roger Hicks]

For some shots, of course. For others, of course not. Depends on what I'm shooting, and what results I want.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tomalophicon]

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.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

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

 

[Keith]

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.

 

[KenR]

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.

 

[Brian Puccio]

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.

 

[tlitody]

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.

 

[tlitody]

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.

 

[Chris101]

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.

 

[Tim Gray]

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...

 

[BobYIL]

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@N08/5234584847/sizes/o/in/set-72157625322532104/

 

[jsrockit]

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.

 

[roadmouse]

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.