After shooting MF for a couple weeks, does shooting 35mm seem silly?

[sar-photo]

My main camera was a Mamiya 6. I'd always hankered after a Leica, so I borrowed a friend's M6 and 35mm cron. I was out taking photos with the Leica and found myself thinking that if I came across a really good seen I'd be kicking myself for not having a decent camera with me! Nothing against Leica's - just that nothing compares to 120!

That was a while ago and now I have an X-Pro1 and I love it. Haven't used the Mamiya for ages.

Still have a hankering for a Leica though!

Cheers
Simon

 

[benlees]

You could say the same after shooting 4x5 or 8x10, no? I find these arguments silly. I've made 30x40" prints from 35mm tri-x that looked fine - to me. If you are a grain snob go for medium or large format but the history of photography is replete with "good" prints made from 35mm.

I wish we could put this post as mandatory reading on every photo forum on the 'net!😀 I would just add "from 35mm and smaller."

 

[NeeZee]

I used to shoot 6x6 MF exclusively (Pentacon Six) a few years ago (mostly colour slides) but now I'm all 35mm with my IIIf. Reasons for me:

- don't like the square format (I know, there are alternatives, but I can't really afford anything I'd like in 6x7, which I'd love to try)
- number of exposures per film
- I really like some 'structure' (grain) in my photos when shooting b/w
- pocketability/weight
- quicker operation (sounds silly with a IIIf but I'm mainly using the skopar 25mm with scale focusing which makes it quicker than any AF P&S except for rewinding and loading)
- quicker to scan more images with my v700

Still thinking a Mamiya 7 or a Plaubel Makina 67 would be something I might enjoy if I could afford it.

 

[Bob Michaels]

No one can dispute that a bigger neg is better if your primary factor is print quality. That is physics.

But what if your primary factor is content? Sometimes a camera with a smaller neg will work best because of its inherent flexibility.

Therein lies the simple reason that both exist and many of us shoot both in differing situations.

 

[Joosep]

Glad to use 35mm when Im shooting. Sad I didnt use 120 when scanning.

 

[Sylvester]

I do like grain...

Jean Leloup par ChatSylvestre, sur Flickr

 

[Spanik]

Went to 120 couple of years ago and never went back.

 

[oftheherd]

When not using FFL cameras only, I tend to take a 35mm kit, and a 6x6 or 6x9 folder. I have been able to get quite decent photos for great enlargement with 35mm. Especially with the old Kodachrome. If I want MF with better lenses I will take my Super Press 23, but not for carry over large distances. LF isn't for carry either, except for my 9x12s.

I have no problem with 35mm or 120 in a folder. I can get large prints that are satisfactory to me. Others might not agree.

 

[shadowfox]

All I know is that it is equally challenging to produce a masterpiece when darkroom printing either from a 35mm or 6x7 negatives. 🙂

... and equally satisfying when you pull it off.

My sweet spot is 6x4.5 printed on a 11x14.

 

[nightfly]

Depends how you use the medium. I like 35 for street. It has an immediacy and grittiness that I find pleasing and the cameras I use, point and shoots and a Leica, are fast to work with.

If I know I'm shooting something larger where tonality is more important and quickness and immediacy is secondary, I like using a Mamiya 7.

Brought only a Mamiya 6 with me to Argentina a few years ago. Loved it in Patagonia, hated it in Buenos Aires.

 

[carlcox]

I felt the same after seeing the detail on 120 negs - a breath taking experience for me. But I also remember a similar feeling with my first wet print coming to life. Maybe it is the new of it that is exciting the OP. I shoot 35 and 120 depending on my mood. Heck, I even shoot digital.

 

[thegman]

I used to shoot 6x6 MF exclusively (Pentacon Six) a few years ago (mostly colour slides) but now I'm all 35mm with my IIIf. Reasons for me:

- don't like the square format (I know, there are alternatives, but I can't really afford anything I'd like in 6x7, which I'd love to try)
- number of exposures per film
- I really like some 'structure' (grain) in my photos when shooting b/w
- pocketability/weight
- quicker operation (sounds silly with a IIIf but I'm mainly using the skopar 25mm with scale focusing which makes it quicker than any AF P&S except for rewinding and loading)
- quicker to scan more images with my v700

Still thinking a Mamiya 7 or a Plaubel Makina 67 would be something I might enjoy if I could afford it.

Maybe 645 is for you, like a Bronica RF645 or something like that. You get the same aspect ratio as 35mm, a few more shots than 6x6, and a fair bit more negative to hold the detail you want.

 

[mwoenv]

I thought when I got my MF cameras I wouldn't use 35mm much but no, each format has its place - 35mm for outings where you expect to take a lot of shots, need longer telephoto lenses, carry around less weight, and you're happy with 8x10 prints (although 11x14 possible); MF when you expect you'll want more detail and will make larger prints, will not take as many shots, shorter telephoto lenses will be adequate, and weight is not a factor.

 

[J. Borger]

Somehow i take completely different pictures when i shoot 35 mm. Better pictures in fact.
Although my mamiya 7 handles exactly like my Leica.
Do not know why that is.
I also consider 35mm prints beautiful in their own right. Nog every subject needs a large print. Technical quality of the files is not everything.

 

[Rob-F]

After working with my Hasselblad for a while, it is a comfort to put it down and pick up a Leica. Ahhhhh . . . That's better! 😎

 

[semilog]

When I think about larger formats, I ask myself whether I need more technical quality in my negatives than I see in Jim Marshall or Sabastiao Salgado's pictures. Then I consider that both of them shot their iconic images mainly on 135 Tri-X. Then I consider the fact that I have a 'fridge full of ACROS and 2TMY, I put the M6 and some film in my bag, and I go out and take pictures.

 

[raid]

I will use both formats for enjoyment. The SWC with B&W film, and the M9 for flexibility.

 

[68degrees]

... medium format just feels more right for me now.

Nice. Follow your heart man.

 

[goffer]

Felt the opposite this weekend, went and shot my 35mm for the first time in a couple months and loved it. Although I have yet to develop the negatives, so my love will perhaps dwindle again when that comes about.

 

[nightfly]

I think Selgado did some sort of 4 x5 internegative of his 35mm to get that look. Also he had a master printer in Paris. Your results maybe vary.

When I think about larger formats, I ask myself whether I need more technical quality in my negatives than I see in Jim Marshall or Sabastiao Salgado's pictures. Then I consider that both of them shot their iconic images mainly on 135 Tri-X. Then I consider the fact that I have a 'fridge full of ACROS and 2TMY, I put the M6 and some film in my bag, and I go out and take pictures.