Some 35mm frustration...

[Vincent.G]

If it weren't for the gorgeous equipment, I think I would have given up on 35mm film already. The let-down is the scanning, and "faking it" (VSCO, Silver efex, etc) has gotten so good on digital, that sometimes I wonder why I go to the trouble.

Dear friend, I strongly encourage you to buy an enlarger and print out the good photos. If you find this a big hassle, perhaps you should reflect why you choose to shoot with film in the first place. All the best! 🙂

 

[Pete B]

But I have a lot of prints using 17-35 f2.8 and 28-70 f2.8 zooms that are amazing. I once surprised myself thinking "wow, so this is the Leica look they're all talking about"... From Nikon glass. Face palm.

Yes, those are two incredible lenses considering how much glass is in them, but my God, they're heavy. They were the reason I turned back to film and onto Leica. I've never looked back. Regarding film vs digital, I just find something is lacking in digital and I quickly lose interest in photography.
Pete

 

[p.giannakis]

I use 135 solely for the process and imperfection, knowing full well I can do better than Tri-X@800 with digital. Everytime I try digital I find myself going back to film;.

Exactly how i feel. Slight errors during exposure or development, the grain, the way films react with the developers, everything contributes to some characteristics that are unique to film photography.
I might take a digital shot from time to time, but it is too good, too clinical for my taste...
A few examples to show you what i mean...

 

[Spanik]

[FONT=&quot]Incidentally, I asked to borrow a friend’s 645 for the weekend to see how I got on with it. I was expecting something relatively compact, but this is the package he handed me

LOL. A CZJ 180/2.8 adapted to a Pentax 645 is never going to be a very compact light package. That is a beast of a lens, even by MF standards! But at the same time a lovely piece of glass (got 2 of them). That lens is also made for 6x6 so it will always be lighter than an equivalent 6x4.5 lens. Not that you will find an equivalent one.

A lot has already been said. A M645 Pro or ProTL with a grip is easy to handle, the lenses are easy to find and reasonably priced. And it is a very low maintenance system. Not the fastest or the most ergonomic at times. But certainly not much different than a 135 camera used toughtfully.

The Bronica RF645 mentioned is also a very great camera, ergonomically the best I ever handled. Pity about the few lenses, the f/4 and the fragile rangefinder that is easy out of alignment.

And the Fuji 645 series has some great camera's that are neglected. My GA645Zi looks like a Fisher-Price P&S but delivers each time.

Got to admit with almost everybody here that scanning is where the problem with film lies. The day someone markets a fast, foolproof, affordable scanner that can handle any MF size I'll cue for one.

 

[02Pilot]

Exactly how i feel. Slight errors during exposure or development, the grain, the way films react with the developers, everything contributes to some characteristics that are unique to film photography.

I'm in the same boat. I find that chasing perfection gets in the way of making interesting photographs, and the look of film is more interesting to me than digital.

 

[harpofreely]

Adding a +1 for darkroom printing as the best way to experience 35mm - if I really want a digital copy, its pretty easy to make a low-contrast wet print around 6x9 inches, scan that on my v500, and adjust levels.

On the same v500, even very casual scans of MF negs are head and shoulders above 35mm scans.

If you are still considering 645 systems, let me chime in for the Mamiya 645e. It was "entry level" back in the day but gets the job done well; if you can live without leaf shutters, the Mamiya lenses are cheaper & faster than Bronica equivalents.

 

[MaxElmar]

Started out as a kid shooting a Koni Omega 6x7, developing and printing for school newspaper and yearbook. And that basically ruined me for 35mm forever. Not that I haven't kept trying for the last 39 years or so...

 

[Timmyjoe]

Interested, which specific lenses. Years, focal length?

Using Nikon AF 50mm 1.4D, 35mm f2 D, 85mm f1.8D and then switching to Leica 50mm Summilux (pre-asph), and later 50mm Summicron (pre-asph), 90mm Elmarit-M, 35mm Summicron ASPH (which I found too contrasty for my tastes so I sold it) and finally 90mm Summicron (pre-ash). Shooting all these on either Leica M6 TTL or M3. The Leica glass allowed for much better enlarged prints (sharpness, dynamic range, detail) compared to the Nikon glass.

 

[mdarnton]

35mm isn't digital; they are different, each offers something, and only you can decide what you need to get out of a camera.

The main reason I use film is dynamic range, and the peculiarities of film's tonal curve, where even the best digital cameras can't match film, but for the last year I've been shooting mostly 5x7 film, and frankly, by comparison 35mm film looks like crap (with a 35:1 size advantage for 5x7, how could it be otherwise?) But that's just the way it has to be. My Nikon D300 delivers great results, equal to film larger than 35mm in some respects, but I just don't like the tonal curve it gives, so. . . . film, and sometimes even 35mm!

You pay your money, and you make your choices!