Why 35mm in the age of digital

After shooting quite a lot of medium format film, I feel like a rich man when I pick up a 35mm camera! 36 whole exposures to work with! I shouldn't allow it to be so, but the truth is, I definately shoot more freely with 35 - since I bulk load I just don't think about the cost, and for a working class guy, cost is often a factor in what/how much I shoot. I find I take a few more chances in 35. In a perfect world I would work the same way with 35 and 120, but I always have in mind what my shooting is costing me (and my family) as I work. Knowing ahead of time what and how I plan to shoot definately influences which format I go with.

Also, I have always enjoyed the notion that in 35mm, now more than ever, we amatuers can afford to shoot with and use the exact same gear that the legends and pros of our Art have and do use - an amateur filmmaker usually can't afford to shoot in Panavision, and many amateurs in digital medium can't afford the top-of-the-line digital SLRs. But there is no reason the average person can't get their hands on the finest in 35mm equipment, and have no techincal barriers in improving their imagery.
 
If you pay attention to the way your vision changes under certain conditions–differing light levels, focusing on foreground objects in your field of view, etc., you'll see (ouch, that was unavoidable ) how wrong your conclusion is.
Click to expand...

His conclusion is more correct than not. The human eye sees much more like a small-sensor P&S than it does, say, a 50/1.4 at full aperture, nevermind a Noctilux.
 
williams473 said:
Also, I have always enjoyed the notion that in 35mm, now more than ever, we amatuers can afford to shoot with and use the exact same gear that the legends and pros of our Art have and do use - an amateur filmmaker usually can't afford to shoot in Panavision, and many amateurs in digital medium can't afford the top-of-the-line digital SLRs. But there is no reason the average person can't get their hands on the finest in 35mm equipment, and have no techincal barriers in improving their imagery.
Click to expand...

Isn't this the truth? I have nothing to add.
 
I have gone through quite a few cycles of nostalgia, bouncing between film and digital — until I became fully retired, that is. Then, several things became apparent:

1. I could no longer afford to trade and change camera systems

2. Buying and processing film was expensive, not to mention the sources drying up

3. When shooting film I still had the intermediate process of scanning to utilize all the digital darkroom features that were, to me, better than the traditional wet darkroom

4. In retirement I needed the added income of stock picture sales — Now, I personally love film grain but the stock houses are generally revolted by it — A film image took a lot of PS work to even get considered as a stock image

5. My Sony A100 with Sigma 30/1.4 gave me a way to practice PJ in about the same way I used to with Leicas — With image stabilization built in, variable ISO and a 1.4 lens there isn't much in the (barely) visible world that can escape my lens!

And so, I will remember fondly all the film rangefinders, SLRs and MFs in my history, but I'll be shooting digital from here on out.
 
I found your essay very interesting and a good read. It also bugged me, made me think and begged a reaction. Maybe I don’t fully understand what you are (trying to) say, but I’m not sure that you prove the point that 35mm is the medium most intimately tied to memory.

It cannot be the size of the negative itself because any negative can be printed at any size, given some constraint. And it is usually the print that tells the story.

It is in the 36 frames? Larger formats – less frames – would have a looser relationship with memory because the roll would be processed with less images stored in the photographers memory. But this has to do with the practice of the photographer and not necessarily the 36 frames. If you take a long time to fill-up a 120 film or shoot several rolls 135 which you develop immediately, then would not 120 be more intimately tied to memory? Moreover, if it is just the number of frames, then digital memory could offer even more be more intimately tied to memory than 36 frames?

You state that digital can’t resist the temptation to break the spell (to view the image), for 135 you have to wait. However not for 36 frames, but I think for development. I am not sure that it is the format or the medium that ‘casts the spell’, it is the photographer and the way he organises the work. I grant that digital makes it possible to reduce the delay dramatically (your LCD or laptop linked to your DSLR). I have a Nikon D70s, with a LCD that is definitely not spell-breaking by today’s standards and downloading images takes time. Developing takes longer, but not necessarily so much. Again it depends on your particular set-up and practice.

With the increase in the capacity of the digital media and high FPS-rates, maybe photography moves towards video/cinematography. (PS often haing a video mode already). Photos are more like video-still’s mined out of the immense amounts of data collected by the camera. If video/cinema is better at telling stories because it captures the time dimension better and allows for montage within the medium, it would seem that an artist who wishes to tell a story would welcome any move photography makes towards ‘continious capture’.

I like the 35mm film format, and just bought a new film RF. I learnt photography in 135/36 and that largely explains why I like it: it is familiar. And I learnt – when out taking pictures – to take into consideration the number of frames left. Because of that the medium is – for me – part of the message, and that medium has – contingently – 36 frames. Going out with two roll of film for a day forces me to choose and deliberate. Digital seems to invite you to capture it all and not miss a single shot. Indiscrimante shotgun photography, picking up the pieces later. And sometimes that is the perfect way to tackle a subject.

In this era of of machine-gun DSLR’s, I find the delay of developing film satisfying and rewarding. It is the magic of two seperate moments: taking the picture and – later - looking at the negative. Prolonged satisfaction! It is here that digital SLR and PS tend to compound everything into instant – stressy, yet fleeting - satisfaction, for which I am not always in the mood. Growing up with 35mm is what ties me closely to it, not the format as such.

Regards

DJ
 
For me its the simple pleasure of using some old, but top class cameras and lenses. Today I handled a virtually mint Leica R8. And boy was I impressed. This thing is built like a tank and wheighs about as much. The shutter, when fired, has the same kind of feeling and sound of quality that you get when you close the door on a Rolls Royce or something similar. A solid and gentlemanly click that is redolent of fantastic build quality.
 
Why 35mm in the age of digital?

-35mm slides! What can be better than a projected 35mm slide in a dark room?

-Black and white traditional silver prints look pretty well like what they are.

-At least 36 archival exposures on a roll. Other formats have less. (In my opinion digital is not archival.)

-Very small, very light, very good cameras usually take 35mm film.

-I already have some 35mm cameras, whereas I don't have any digital.

-Some very good 35mm cameras can be bought for very little money. Pentax Spotmatic $25.00 or Canon FTB $35.00.

-At this time, 35mm film still seems plentiful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom