Is 35mm still worth it

I like 35mm. I use mine on the odd occasion, but less since I brought my TLR.

As a photographer, I like having both film and digital to play about with. There is a certain feel that film (MF/135 etc) have that I have yet to replicate with digital.

Also, metal bodies and small form factors. This makes them great when you are out and don't want to carry much / have the possibility of crashing at +40mph on snowboard
 
As someone that's rediscovered the joys of 35mm this year (previously 35mm, then digital) it's a great, fun alternative to digital.

Different camera, different process, different lenses, different film types to play with. I tend to end up with two different styles, regularly take both the digital and analogue gear on a shoot.

Always happy with the quality as well.
 
Strappy said:
I normally preview my strips, choose which shots I think are worth scanning and then run 3 or 4 exposures on each negative plus an ICE scan in VueScan, which adds considerably to the time it takes to process a whole film. Does it really make much of a difference to the quality if I only run one scan pass at 2400dpi instead?

On second thoughts, that's a pretty subjective question that I could answer for myself by trying it and then posting my results so leave it with me and I'll have a play tonight :)
Click to expand...
My understanding of Digital Ice technology, is that it only works on C-41 negatives (including C-41 b/w). When I have some C41 strips, then I run Digital Ice, and it cleans them up nicely. However, I mainly scan my home processed true b/w (both 35mm and 120), so I don't often use it.
 
The main advantage of 35mm is that most high streets have somewhere you can get it developed. Do any of the high street usual suspects do 120 in an hour?
 
srichards said:
The main advantage of 35mm is that most high streets have somewhere you can get it developed. Do any of the high street usual suspects do 120 in an hour?
Click to expand...

A place in Wandsworth might still do it and Snappysnaps did my 120 in 1 hour for £3.50
 
XA2inmypocket said:
My understanding of Digital Ice technology, is that it only works on C-41 negatives (including C-41 b/w). When I have some C41 strips, then I run Digital Ice, and it cleans them up nicely. However, I mainly scan my home processed true b/w (both 35mm and 120), so I don't often use it.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the only types of film ICE doesn't work with is traditional B&W and Kodachrome. I believe ICE should work with C41, C22, E6, E4, etc.
 
skysh4rk said:
My understanding is that the only types of film ICE doesn't work with is traditional B&W and Kodachrome. I believe ICE should work with C41, C22, E6, E4, etc.
Click to expand...
That's my understanding too. I've certainly used it with slide films of various processes (but as you say it doesn't work with Kodachrome).
 
srichards said:
The main advantage of 35mm is that most high streets have somewhere you can get it developed. Do any of the high street usual suspects do 120 in an hour?
Click to expand...
My local Asda (Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne) will process C41 120 film (in less than an hour if you talk nicely to them) but can't scan it or print from it apparently.
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
My local Asda (Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne) will process C41 120 film (in less than an hour if you talk nicely to them) but can't scan it or print from it apparently.
Click to expand...

Wow! I could ask at my Asda, but I don't think the girls would know how to handle 120 roll film :( Well if they could it would mean £2 for dev...a bargain and if the word got out surely they would do more trade while people shop waiting.
 
srichards said:
The main advantage of 35mm is that most high streets have somewhere you can get it developed. Do any of the high street usual suspects do 120 in an hour?
Click to expand...

It really shouldn't be a problem for most labs to develop 120/220 as I believe most of these high street places are using equipment capable of developing 135/120/220 and probably a few older film formats as well (110, perhaps?). If any of these labs say that they can't develop it, they probably just don't want to do it or the staff simply aren't trained to do it.

I know for a fact that my local Snappy Snaps develop 120/220 in an hour. In fact, it usually only takes 20-30 minutes for them to process single rolls of 120 for me.

The only technical difficulty you could run into would be if the lab doesn't have the necessary masks/holders to scan specific film sizes (e.g., 6x4.5, 6x6, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Maybe the frontier is different as the shop about a mile from me said he would do my 120 for £3, and I took 2 or 3 rolls at a time to make it worth while, anyway he had a Konica m/c and after a few visits said he didn't want to do it anymore as he had to clean the rollers in the m/c which is used for 35mm and might have put streaks on a large neg.
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
That's my understanding too. I've certainly used it with slide films of various processes (but as you say it doesn't work with Kodachrome).
Click to expand...

I managed to use it with Kodachrome with some really ancient slides, by using masks, restricting it to the sky areas. That was when I was using Silverfast; Vuescan doesn't have that capability. It was a PITA, but less of an issue than cleaning hundreds of dust spots off the area where they are most visible!
 
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that I won't be buying any more 35mm film, to concentrate on medium format instead. However I still have about 12 rolls of 35mm left which might take up to two years to get through at my usual rate.

One thing that will affect the 35mm/MF issue for some photographers is how many photos you typically take. I've just returned from a week in Skye; I used only one camera (Mamiya RZ67) and got through 16 rolls of 120, i.e 160 negatives. I managed well with the weight of the equipment (walking up to 11 miles with waterproofs, food and drink, tripod, camera, extra film back, and up to 4 lenses) and have come to the conclusion that if an image isn't worth taking on medium format, then I can live without taking the image.

To be honest I thought I was being a bit too trigger-happy using up that much film, but compared to 160 images in a week in a location with high image potential, I just can't imagine finishing 4 * 35mm films in one day ... all I'm saying is that being more selective in when you press the shutter will reduce the scanning effort. Of course it partially depends on the type of images you make. I favour landscapes and still life; the subject isn't going anywhere fast and I can try out different compositions in the viewfinder before deciding what will work best. If I was shooting wildlife or sports that would be a different matter - but not many people do that on film anymore.
 
Pretty much the only format I use. I grew up shooting it and I don't think I will ever stop. Small cameras, lovely lenses, the 35mm look and the fact that I can develop at home. It's bliss.
 
:agree: ... although I am still trying to try medium format, IYKWIM!
 
I shoot 35mm primarily because I love using the cameras. I'm not actually that bothered about the resolution of the results. I shoot MF too and although the results are way better - it's still very much a process rather than product thing for me :)
 
All of my 120 trials so far have been unsatisfactory in various ways (lack of light meter, viewfinder difficulties, loading etc), although I had one set of results that I really liked. But my 35mm cameras just get out of the way and do their jobs, leaving the terrible framing and exposure decisions to me! I want to like MF, but I'm nowhere near there yet!

I'm currently having a terrible fight with myself on whether to buy that Bessa R2A in the classifieds (35mm sweetness, lightmeter, rangefinder experience), or hold out for a Bronnie later....
 
ChrisR said:
All of my 120 trials so far have been unsatisfactory in various ways (lack of light meter, viewfinder difficulties, loading etc), although I had one set of results that I really liked. But my 35mm cameras just get out of the way and do their jobs, leaving the terrible framing and exposure decisions to me! I want to like MF, but I'm nowhere near there yet!

I'm currently having a terrible fight with myself on whether to buy that Bessa R2A in the classifieds (35mm sweetness, lightmeter, rangefinder experience), or hold out for a Bronnie later....
Click to expand...

An RB and a tripod is what you need Chris. Focus on either side, shutter release with a cable, big chunky levers for film advance and cocking and a tripod means you don't need to hold it. I barely ever hand hold it any way, it can be done, you can walk round Edinburgh for a morning with it hanging off your neck but you'll pay for that in the morning....
 
I do 35mm and 120 - and even a wee bit of digital APS. There is no way around it for myself - 120 gives me the best results. If I go for a day trip to a City - I take the Bronnie. I enjoy the challenge of doing Street with a big chunky manual camera. I even enjoy exposing 120 in manual, without a light meter. It adds to the challenge and experience.

However ... if I am just popping out into town, or on a casual trip anywhere, then I take 35mm. It is so much more portable, and casual. Either the Spotmatic on the shoulder, or a pocket camera in the pocket. As I said earlier, some cracking cameras were manufactured for 35mm film. If it was good enough for HCB, it's good enough for my meagre efforts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top