Is 35mm still worth it

AshleyC

AshleyC

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,956
Name
...
Edit My Images
No
ok, monday morning blues no doubt and a rotten commute. But im just thinking, is it still worth shooting 35mm? Im just thinking of the workflow here, coming back from a walkabout with 3 or 4 rolls of 36 exposure. You have to dev it all, which is an ok part of it, i quite enjoy that.

But then the problems set in. Drying it never seems to give me a flat stip of film so its a bit of a faff setting it up in the scanner, the curve of the film ensures that im left with about a molecule of negative either side resting on the film holder and you can guarantee it will drop out of it a couple of times when im trying to put the glass plate on top.

Scanning itself, 4 rolls of 36 wipes your evening out completely, and thats with just bare scans, no time to really adjust each image frame for optimum results, i assume i can make something decent in lightroom once its in.

The final image is only around 9MP at 2400dpi and you have the inevitable chore of dust and fluff spotting to do. Modern mirrorless (forgive me) digitals start at 16.

Is it worth it in the end? Im still in love with MF and LF but 35mm is turning into the elephant in the room. Why do we do it?
 
Well I only shoot film and compared to modern digital cameras 35mm is not worth the bother (in fact I gave up 35mm 25 years ago and only came back to it about 5 years ago because of 35mm cameras going for peanuts).....MF is the way to go. So why do I shoot 35mm? well I've got a stack of 35mm to use up and too tight to spend a lot of money on a digital camera (cos the one I want ain't cheap).
Mind you in saying all that, 35mm could be useful to play around in B/W or slides.
 
Last edited:
Get a decent dedicated film scanner with proper holders :D

The bendy film thing isn't an issue with decent film holders. The ones for my minolta trap the film all the way along. Scanner has ICE so with C41 devved films it removes the majority of the crud you'd normally waste time trying to remove too. This is why I also use XP2 for B & W as you can use ICE with that too. Doing B & W and dust spotting that would drive me crazy.
 
I'm with you Ash, I very rarely use 35mm unless I want the look or need the lenses for the OM(s). The grainy look is handy for some stuff and no point in faking it in digital when I've got all the gear to do it properly. I've got a selection of lenses for the OM which I don't have in the larger formats, a 1.4 50mm and f3 135mm. Every now and again its handy to have 36 instead of 10 exposures.
 
It's not worth it for me, because I can't get a decent print size out of such a small format. I've kept my OM bodies for sentimental reasons, but I can't see me ever using them again. I switched from 35mm years ago (before digital really took off) for this reason, and never saw any reason to go back to it. The lenses are another matter - I use them on a Sony a7r and get better results (which is all I personally care about) than I ever would if I used them on a 35mm camera. Medium and large format is another matter, though. I'll use medium format if I want a small, light camera and large format if I want to photograph seriously.

I've been scanning a number of slide films recently for a magazine article, and using Vuescan and an Epson V700 was able to set it up easily to scan 24 at one go without intervention on my part. Having a spare holder meant I could just swap them when the first finished, so I was free to do other things.
 
Last edited:
Another thing I forgot is 35mm is handy for the hobby of playing around and comparing different lenses and I enjoy this. The Canon 19mm lens I bought recently, I would guess not many digital AF lenses go that wide as most are not full frame....but I could be wrong.
 
I use 35mm occasionally, but it's really more for the pleasure of shooting the F2 than anything to do with the medium. I'm sure there are other classic cameras that fall into this category too, and I'd like to think there might be a Leica M3 in my future, although it's way out of reach for me right now!
 
Well, horses for courses and all that. I've yet to find a MF setup that's right for me, and I really enjoy using my Pentaxes. I'm not really interested in buying lots of gear just for the sake of it (although I AM trying to experiment with MF). I just want to take better photographs, and having a light manual camera with excellent lenses seems as good a way as any to learn how to do it better! Mind you, I do find the 36-shots per roll thing a curse (as well as a financial advantage, of course) sometimes...
 
Same for me. The pleasure of using the gear is why I shoot 35mm still. I have a backlog of shot B&W to develop sitting in the fridge. Some of it was shot years ago & I can't motivate myself to get around to it. Have started shooting XP2 instead for my mono needs. I have a flatbed film scanner but seldom use it now. My laziness has got to the point of simply scanning the 6x4 print. It is mostly going to be put online anyway so the quality is fine for me.
 
I sold all of my 135 gear last year and haven't missed it at all. I think there's a place for it, just not in my own cupboard at the moment.

That said, although 135 doesn't have the sharpness or tonality of the larger formats, I still think the colours of the emulsions look great, especially compared to what I see from most people's digital output, but I just can't get passed the 3:2 format and the eye-level viewing of most 135 cameras.

I think the one thing that could tempt me back into 135 would be those Nikonos waterproof cameras, which look like great fun for beach holidays.
 
I've been looking at getting more 35mm kit. I like the Bronica, don't get me wrong, but it's big and heavy and I don't look forward to carrying it. The XA2 fits in my jeans pocket and goes everywhere with me. I also find it easier to scan 35mm than 6x6 on the v500 - the holder is just better.

skysh4rk said:
I think the one thing that could tempt me back into 135 would be those Nikonos waterproof cameras, which look like great fun for beach holidays.
Click to expand...

http://webshop.cashconverters.co.uk/auction-item/782245/nikonos-v-underwater-camera
 
Although I do shoot mainly MF I still have a place in my heart (and display cabinet) for 35mm. If I want an easy day of shooting film out comes the F100 and the 24mm AF lens and blast through a few rolls in aperture priority.
Next month's POTY theme (Street) will be a much easier proposition with that set up than on MF.
And like Keith an XA2 is a cracking little camera for some easy carrying fun.

Andy
 
I own film cameras of various sorts, they are all capable of taking excellent quality photographs. I have a dedicated minolta film scanner and a flatbed film scanner.
In times past I have processed film of all shapes and sizes and made prints up to 3 meters square, I have had my fill of chemicals and stained fingers. even the hazards of chromium and uranium intensifiers the print staining problems associated with ferricyanide bleach. not to mention preparing containers of alum hardeners and natural Ox gall glazing solutions.

However I also have comparable Digital kit, and ever since the arrival of the canon D40, I have been convinced that film is fun , but not worth the effort.
 
^^^ Wrong....well at least for me anyway.(y)

It is fun and it is worth the effort. I can imagine that if it was something you did as a job for many years (as I believe you did Terry) then it would soon become just another chore. But for us who only do it as a hobby, part of the fun is in developing your own and even in my case scanning and dust spotting... This could be my OCD kicking in though. :)
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I have been convinced that film is fun , but not worth the effort.
Click to expand...

I'd almost put that the other way round. For me, film isn't fun (although I find using a large format camera more satisfying than a point and shoot eye level camera), but the results are worth the effort. If I want fun with a camera, I'd pick the Sony a7r over any of my film cameras; if I want to make a worthwhile image, I'll pick one of my 5x4s. Which brings us back to the thread topic - 35mm isn't worthwhile for me, although I'll admit to having been tempted by seeing how easy it is to get some of the cameras I formerly wanted to have. But that isn't photography to my eyes - it's collecting.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Another thing I forgot is 35mm is handy for the hobby of playing around and comparing different lenses and I enjoy this. The Canon 19mm lens I bought recently, I would guess not many digital AF lenses go that wide as most are not full frame....but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

[heresy]It could be argued that d#####l is a better medium for playing with lenses than film is since the shots can be viewed almost immediately (discounting rear screen reviews as close to useless for proper analysis of images) they've been shot. Can't speak for Canon but my D700 (same image size as a 135 film frame) can accept pretty much any Nikon F mount fit lens ever made.[/heresy]

I have AF lenses suitable for 135 use from an 8mm fisheye through a 12-24mm zoom, via a 19-35mm zoom (all 3 available in Canon AF mount, being a Sigma 8mm, Sigma 12-24 and a Cosina 19-35).
 
I mostly shoot MF. I enjoy all the film processing and darkroom stuff, but find it more fun with 120 than 35mm. Only time I shoot 35mm film is to enjoy the camera.
 
StephenM said:
I'd almost put that the other way round. For me, film isn't fun (although I find using a large format camera more satisfying than a point and shoot eye level camera), but the results are worth the effort. If I want fun with a camera, I'd pick the Sony a7r over any of my film cameras; if I want to make a worthwhile image, I'll pick one of my 5x4s. Which brings us back to the thread topic - 35mm isn't worthwhile for me, although I'll admit to having been tempted by seeing how easy it is to get some of the cameras I formerly wanted to have. But that isn't photography to my eyes - it's collecting.
Click to expand...

Well it's not collecting if you use em.....quite ofter I would use my cameras like a woman using\choosing handbags, also horses for courses e.g. T90 with 300tl flashgun for the times I know I'm going to use flash. e.g.2...T70 as I know I can trust it and wont care if I lose it or is ruined on sandy beaches on holiday e.g 3 and so on.
 
DNH said:
Same for me. The pleasure of using the gear is why I shoot 35mm still. I have a backlog of shot B&W to develop sitting in the fridge. Some of it was shot years ago & I can't motivate myself to get around to it. Have started shooting XP2 instead for my mono needs. I have a flatbed film scanner but seldom use it now. My laziness has got to the point of simply scanning the 6x4 print. It is mostly going to be put online anyway so the quality is fine for me.
Click to expand...

This is it though, you end up like Vivian Mayer with 10,000 cans in the fridge because its a total ballache getting it on the PC. I love the shooting, i just cringe at the thought of 5 hours grinding away over a hot scanner. Now if someone could produce a bolt on for 35mm ,maybe a little digital sensor behind it with wifi built in which scanned the neg as you shot it ;)
 
essexash said:
This is it though, you end up like Vivian Mayer with 10,000 cans in the fridge because its a total ballache getting it on the PC. I love the shooting, i just cringe at the thought of 5 hours grinding away over a hot scanner. Now if someone could produce a bolt on for 35mm ,maybe a little digital sensor behind it with wifi built in which scanned the neg as you shot it ;)
Click to expand...

That's why I use Asda and anything a winner concentrate on those negs at home (or lab)....h'mm for me I have very few outstanding shots, so not much home scanning :rolleyes:
 
For me personally, 135 isn't worth it. I adopt the approach whereby I only take the photograph if the photograph is worth taking. I have tried to move away from the smaller formats because I feel myself taking photographs for the sake of it which, personally, I feel is a waste of time and money. By shooting large format, I now only take the photo if I deem it to be worth it - which isn't at all a statement to my self confidence in my ability - and as such, I find I get a far better shot to keep ratio. This arrives at my point, mindful of the thread context: I don't think 135 is worth it because for me, I yield a far worse shot to keep ratio. On an unrelated point, I believe the 'photographic' benefits of larger formats also far outweigh the financial and logistical benefits of smaller formats.

Of course, saying all that, I still love my FM3a. This, however, is almost completely down to the fact that I think it's a stunning piece of kit and engineering. It'd sooner be a mantle piece item than sold :D
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Well it's not collecting if you use em.....
Click to expand...

Agreed; but I simply wouldn't use them. I use a camera to produce photographs, not to enjoy "the photographic experience" and I know that I simply can't get the results I want from 35mm no matter how much effort I put into it. If I want a snapshot camera (which is all 35mm is to me) then I'd prefer to borrow one of Sue's digital compacts and get better results with less effort. I know all the (historical) arguments in favour of hand over stand cameras; but they depend on the type of photography you do. My type doesn't need a hand camera; and my personal weaknesses (basically, lazyness) means that I'll always do better with a tripod.
 
I think 35mm is still worth the effort, though it helps if you're using it for the right reasons and with appropriate expectations. A landscape shot on 35mm might not look as good as one shot on 120 but if it's taken from the top of a mountain, it was probably easier to get the 35mm kit up there.
 
If all you care about is ultimate technical quality then 35mm is a waste of time. 35mm does still look good for some things, and it's still nigh on impossible to produce the look you get from using it (Fuji S3/S5 come the closest of any digicams though) so it still has a place.

Must admit I'm seriously considering ditching 35mm and going Medium format though.
 
I think the quality is there and always has been. I shot my last OCA assignment all on 35mm B&W and they looked lovely printed out. Its just the post processing you have to go through, the convenience of a modern APS-C mirrorless just seems to make life more pleasurable.

Im not doubting MF and LF, ok you can argue that the latest FF's are giving MF a run for its money these days but there is nothing digital that comes close to the look of a 5x4 neg. But thats not what this thread / moan was all about :)
 
Interesting points being raised and while I can see the utilitarian view that a camera is just a tool, and the only important thing is the end result works for many. But for me, part of my enjoyment is in the photographic process and in using lovely old pieces of equipment.

I shoot MF for quality. I only continue shooting 35mm as I love using my old Leica rangefinder, and Nikon FE and Pentax LX all for sentimental reasons. I don't/cant expect the results to match my MF gear, but they are lovely cameras to use. So for me, it's not just about the image, the process plays an important part of my enjoyment of the hobby. And maybe its because I am a hobbyist and have never (and never will) sell a photo. Maybe I have a more rose tinted, nostalgic and overly sentimental approach and the ex pros and more serious photographers have a more pragmatic approach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jao
I still use a mix of 35mm and 120 and will doubtless continue to do so. A good 35mm neg, especially on good slowish film and with a good lens, can easily enlarge to 10x8" or bigger and look stunning. I rarely print anything bigger than that. A quick mention is also required for all the fantastic photographs that were taken in the 20th Century on 35mm - iconic images like the Afghan Girl for instance, or most of Cartier-Bresson's work. Great photos can be taken on 35mm, and even today it has advantages over 120 in terms of speed of use, and over digital in terms of being, well, film.

And no way is my F2 being allowed to retire yet, just as it's getting run in properly :cool:.
 
As mentioned by several people - I only really shoot 35mm sometimes because I like the gear (the Nikon SLRs just feel right). If I want to shoot film but I want a camera that is faster to operate than a medium format camera, I'll use 35mm.

Those are probably the two main scenarios!
 
Pretty straightforward decision for me - I can't afford a digital camera or PC to process and store digital photos, but most of all because I much prefer the look of film - it's more in tune with how the eye responds to light, and all digital photos to me have the same dull 'dry' look, so I don't know if I would buy a digital even if I could. Virtually all of my favourite film photos of the past were taken by photojournalists on 35mm.

I would however get a film MF camera & lens set-up if I cold afford it, and use it in addition to my 35mm cameras, but those 35mms are so convenient and portable - I can carry 2 of them around town no problem - so they would still be my main cameras.

I don't scan/process/post-process, so it's even more simple for me - just drop them in a lab to be developed and possibly printed - again I don't have the space or money to set up my own dark room, but probably would if I could.

So I'm sticking with 35mm film - it's best for me financially and visually, plus I really enjoy the process of taking a film photo - winding on, setting aperture/exposure, pressing the shutter button and then waiting several days/weeks/months till I see the actual photo. Each to their own though - other people will have different preferences.
 
Last edited:
I have to admit that film photography for myself isn't just about the image - I get a lot of satisfaction from using some great but cheap film equipment. I do enjoy MF, even for a bit of street - quite happy with the challenge of lugging an SQ-A around in the street, and shooting to the Sunny F16 rule. However ... MF is more expensive in running costs. The exposures can be a little pricey in terms of only 8 - 12 per film, and the extra chems for processing. In comparison 35mm is cheap as chips, with >36 exposures per film and cheaper to process. Even with my limited Paterson tank, I can process two films, and nearly 80 exposures, for just a little more chems than a single 120 roll of 12 exposures.

So I subsidise my MF film photography with budget 35mm film. Some cracking cameras were manufactured for 35mm, and I'm not ready to give it up yet.
 
essexash said:
...its a total ballache getting it on the PC. I love the shooting, i just cringe at the thought of 5 hours grinding away over a hot scanner...
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I'm starting to really dislike scanning negatives, especially 35mm, as there's so many of the damn things on a roll.

If only they would invent a way of getting the negatives onto paper without all the messing about with computers, scanners, scanning software, image editors etc. Something like a big vertical projector where you could shine the image onto paper, and have it appear? That would be awesome.

Oh, hang on...

:facepalm:
 
If you hate scanning so much then it is best to get the lab to scan after they've devved it ;)
 
StephenM said:
I use a camera to produce photographs, not to enjoy "the photographic experience" .
Click to expand...


For me it's to produce photograhs AND enjoy the photographic experience.


Tbh I'll gladly shoot any format with whatever type of camera and enjoy the experience...........................I like to play with kit .:snaphappy::snaphappy:

In fact I probably spend as much, if not more time "playing" with gear at home than what i do actually shooting film through it.


I believe that ALL formats, including 135, have potential to give a good result.


Lets's not forget that there are a lot of other factors other than film format that gives us the quality that we yearn for.


As for scanning, yes it is very time consuming but is it just me that gets a "buzz" when the "positive" image appears on the computer screen??


110, 126, 135, 828, E29, 120, 620, Disc, 5x4, 10x8, Quarter/Half/Whole plate, 16mm, E10, 116, 616, 127, not forgetting very early roll films such as 101 etc etc.....bring em all back and let's have fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jao
Indeed Asha playing with cameras and lenses can be a hobby in itself esp if you run out of subjects to shoot, also you gain knowledge and can join in more conversations about gear.
 
I don't not scan 35mm because its too much of a faff
I've jacked scanning in altogether.
You have to be engaged or at least motivated to do it or else its just a chore.
Maybe that goes for shooting it too....I dunno, it has so many advantages over MF
 
We all need to find what works best for ourselves. 135 does require some effort and the negs are that bit smaller and more labour intensive than other formats. That said, I still shoot more 35mm than 120 even on though I love the thrill and output of 120.

I am relatively time poor but I find the precision drudgery of 35mm scanning positively therapeutic, a real escape from a busy and hectic working life. This might sound odd but I accept that there is a lot of effort required in using this format, it is not a quick win, indeed one of the things I like about it is that it is not a quick win. I am seeking a final image that I am pleased with and proud of, but the journey, the equipment and the process are also part of the gratification I get from photography.

Bottom line, shoot what makes you feel good and gives you the most satisfaction, life is too short to do anything else!
 
Last edited:
As for scanning 35mm, I really don't understand what the issue is. I'm just a pleb V500 user, but I can scan up to twelve 35mm exposures in not much more time than I can scan a mere two 120 exposures. Sure it can be a bit curly, but the Epson masks do good enough a job of keeping them flat enough for a reasonably sharp image. If I want a fine photograph, sure, I'd use 120. However, 35mm offers relative value.

What I don't always get, are people that shoot 120 in toy cameras. Horses for courses I guess - and I'm a hypocrite because I sometimes enjoy a roll of 120 in an Isolette or even in a Lubitel - heck, I even sometimes stick one in a box Brownie! As Adrian said:

Jao said:
Bottom line, shoot what makes you feel good and gives you the most satisfaction, life is too short to do anything else!
Click to expand...
 
XA2inmypocket said:
I'm just a pleb V500 user, but I can scan up to twelve 35mm exposures in not much more time than I can scan a mere two 120 exposures.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top