esearing
Established
Last year I started shooting my 4x5 with film after a several years break to digital and I started enjoying the darkroom experience over computer processing. With 4x5 I may only shoot 4-8 images in a day so I thought I would find a nice little camera to take along with small lenses for the extras.
After a few months I found a Leica M3 made in the same quarter as my Birth date. I added a couple of lenses, a meter, and presto, I had two kits I could carry into the field that wasn't ungodly heavy. Being a slow shooter it took me a couple of months to go through a couple of rolls.
I processed one of the rolls the other day and even made a contact sheet. The images look so puny to me. They are so small compared to the 4x5 negative/contact or even compared to the basic screen size of digital prints.
While I enjoy using the M3 I do not get the satisfaction I do with the larger formats. Is it just me? I imagine ULF shooters feel the same about 4x5 format negatives.
Also first roll jitters are apparent.
5 overexposed (first few on the roll)
8 underexposed
2 not focused
2 lens cap shots
1 what the heck is that
and maybe 1 keeper on the roll
After a few months I found a Leica M3 made in the same quarter as my Birth date. I added a couple of lenses, a meter, and presto, I had two kits I could carry into the field that wasn't ungodly heavy. Being a slow shooter it took me a couple of months to go through a couple of rolls.
I processed one of the rolls the other day and even made a contact sheet. The images look so puny to me. They are so small compared to the 4x5 negative/contact or even compared to the basic screen size of digital prints.
While I enjoy using the M3 I do not get the satisfaction I do with the larger formats. Is it just me? I imagine ULF shooters feel the same about 4x5 format negatives.
Also first roll jitters are apparent.
5 overexposed (first few on the roll)
8 underexposed
2 not focused
2 lens cap shots
1 what the heck is that
and maybe 1 keeper on the roll
mich rassena
Well-known
35mm is tiny
35mm is tiny
I find medium format to be a nice balance between size and convenience, but I've been using 35mm quite a bit recently in an effort to use up my remaining color negative film. I've also bought a few interchangeable lens 35mm rangefinders recently and want to test them.
What I find with 35mm is that it's fun, the cameras can be sleek and elegant machines, and can be inexpensive per shot. I find it easier to get in the zone with 35mm (because I can just shoot not worry about how much film I have left or what it costs) but not as easily as digital. I feel increasing pressure to get it right as the film size goes up.
On the other hand 35mm is not a format I can take seriously. I have a full frame digital camera, and in the comparison 35mm film does not come off well. Perhaps film has a slight edge in resolution, or color rendition, but the convenience of digital tips the scale every time.
I've walked around over the past month with a digital SLR, a Mamiya press camera and a Speed Graphic. One thing I've observed is how much I make use of a zoom lens. If you want an experience that is markededly different than using a 4x5 camera, it's a zoom. I was using a 6x zoom, so I had wide and telephoto ready to go at any point. I felt a sense that I could reach out and photograph anything, that any field of view was mine. It greatly increased the sense of spontaneity I felt in using the camera. Whereas with a prime lens, it's often the case that I wish I had brought a different focal length, or had to pause to mount the lens.
My point is that 35mm as a film format is limited, but as a way of doing things offers an expanded set of options over larger formats (the small selection of medium format zooms not withstanding).
35mm is tiny
I find medium format to be a nice balance between size and convenience, but I've been using 35mm quite a bit recently in an effort to use up my remaining color negative film. I've also bought a few interchangeable lens 35mm rangefinders recently and want to test them.
What I find with 35mm is that it's fun, the cameras can be sleek and elegant machines, and can be inexpensive per shot. I find it easier to get in the zone with 35mm (because I can just shoot not worry about how much film I have left or what it costs) but not as easily as digital. I feel increasing pressure to get it right as the film size goes up.
On the other hand 35mm is not a format I can take seriously. I have a full frame digital camera, and in the comparison 35mm film does not come off well. Perhaps film has a slight edge in resolution, or color rendition, but the convenience of digital tips the scale every time.
I've walked around over the past month with a digital SLR, a Mamiya press camera and a Speed Graphic. One thing I've observed is how much I make use of a zoom lens. If you want an experience that is markededly different than using a 4x5 camera, it's a zoom. I was using a 6x zoom, so I had wide and telephoto ready to go at any point. I felt a sense that I could reach out and photograph anything, that any field of view was mine. It greatly increased the sense of spontaneity I felt in using the camera. Whereas with a prime lens, it's often the case that I wish I had brought a different focal length, or had to pause to mount the lens.
My point is that 35mm as a film format is limited, but as a way of doing things offers an expanded set of options over larger formats (the small selection of medium format zooms not withstanding).