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

[shadowfox]

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"

 

[shadowfox]

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.

 

[rogerzilla]

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.

 

[tlitody]

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".

 

[braver]

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.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

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

 

[andreios]

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.

 

[pvdhaar]

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..

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

alot of interesting points. one thing i can add is that using 35mm, i have found myself using portrait view alot more than landscape.

 

[Thomas-Paris]

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.

 

[Instantclassic]

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 😎

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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.

 

[Chris101]

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/2495/5848519527_86cde3f659_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.

 

[j j]

35mm (especially slides) produces little jewels of concentrated loveliness.

 

[dave lackey]

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.:angel:

 

[jsrockit]

To me, 35mm is a great compromise between depth of field, format, and convenience.

 

[shadowfox]

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.

 

[shadowfox]

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 🙂

 

[barnwulf]

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

 

[iBay]

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.