bensyverson
Well-known
I like the look of 35mm... You see more of the grain character, as opposed to larger formats where grain can completely disappear.
With that said, if they had made a 120 version of the Hexar AF, I'm not sure how much 35mm I would be shooting.
With that said, if they had made a 120 version of the Hexar AF, I'm not sure how much 35mm I would be shooting.
johnwood
Member
Agree, but for different subjects: I very much like 35mm more than med/large format for people. Not necessarily just for family snaps, or decisive moment...but semi-posed portraits I just like better in 35. When I can get some grain into a 5x7/8x10, with a person in an atmospheric scene...just has a better feel. I dig portraits with the big guns...but more for the signature of the lens. For feeling, with people as subjects, I, too, like 35mm.
jawarden
Well-known
I've been experimenting with a 6x6 "starter", a Yashica, for a little while now, just to see if I like it for the size that I print and the subject matter I enjoy. The idea is to upgrade to a Mamiya or something.
So far I'm more inclined to stick with 35. Horses of courses.
So far I'm more inclined to stick with 35. Horses of courses.
TareqPhoto
The Survivor
Is the question about the look/quality or about the use? if about the look then i will never prefer 35mm over Mf or LF anytime in my life unless i have bad shot of LF and amazing decent shot of the LF or MF, but the question i think is between amazing decent 35mm against decent amazing LF, in this case 35mm is out of the game no doubt. If it is about portable or use then all or most will say that 35mm is unbeatable for portability, for many people who care about portability i don't care about it, because there are many gear in MF and LF that are lightweight enough to take and hike around, and because i am not a street photography guy, so in this case 35mm will never be my top choice as quality over larger formats.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Art can arise from different kinds of representation.
For the kind that comes from detailed recording, that conveys surfaces and textures by showing detail, negative area or pixels help a lot. I'm thinking of f/64, Ansel Adams, and a wide range of large-print MF work. The Richard Avedon show that toured last year. It takes craftsmanship to produce such images from 35mm. Taken to excess, one could get overly focused on craftsmanship, while losing the art.
But, there are other kinds of art. Think of Edward Steichen's Flatiron image. Or HCB's image of the guy leaping over the puddle. That art doesn't require detail. Less detail may actually be better art because it lets the viewer fill in more from their own experience. Dreamy can be nice; it pushes the viewer to dream. Soft/dreamy alone is easy; great dreamy images are not easy to produce.
For the kind that comes from detailed recording, that conveys surfaces and textures by showing detail, negative area or pixels help a lot. I'm thinking of f/64, Ansel Adams, and a wide range of large-print MF work. The Richard Avedon show that toured last year. It takes craftsmanship to produce such images from 35mm. Taken to excess, one could get overly focused on craftsmanship, while losing the art.
But, there are other kinds of art. Think of Edward Steichen's Flatiron image. Or HCB's image of the guy leaping over the puddle. That art doesn't require detail. Less detail may actually be better art because it lets the viewer fill in more from their own experience. Dreamy can be nice; it pushes the viewer to dream. Soft/dreamy alone is easy; great dreamy images are not easy to produce.
Last edited: