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

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
 
Damaso said:
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.
Click to expand...


I wish we could put this post as mandatory reading on every photo forum on the 'net!:D I would just add "from 35mm and smaller."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
NeeZee said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

semilog said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom