RaymondC Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 <p>I still love film, those of you who have moved away from 35mm, do they just become mainly unused? I think 35mm might be digital for myself. </p><p>As I don't shoot much frames, I think 120 format may suit myself, I also shoot of a tripod mainly. Per roll is cheaper than 35mm and developing is the same .. </p><p>Cheers .. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bethe_fisher Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 <p>I started with 35mm and added 120 (one camera at first, but several now), and have added 4x5 as well. I possibly use 120 the most, but I do still use 35mm. If I think I'll be handholding instead of using a tripod, I grab a 35mm (sometimes the digital if I think it'll be mostly snapshots). <br> I do my own printing of B&W and the bigger negatives are just so alluring. Resistance is futile, sorta. I see 120 as the gateway to large format, too. :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 <p>I shoot 120 film or digital P&S or digital mft but haven't used my 35mm film cameras in years.</p> Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 <p>If I'm going to shoot film, it's going to be 120. Everything else is digital. My 35mm film bodies are almost entirely untouched these days.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielheller Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 <p>At this point in time I use only film. There is no more 35mm equipment in my arsenal, it is all 6x6. And if I look at the thousands of slides I have photographed with my 35mm film camera back in the day, I ask myself, "...why did I not use Medium Format...?"<br> Per roll cost calculation is immaterial if the resulting media would not give you the option of stunning enlargements (when and if you decide that you would want or need them), if enlargements would never be needed, using 35mm would be OK.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didier Lamy Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 <p>" if enlargements would never be needed, using 35mm would be OK."<br> Could you define your size for an enlargment?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielheller Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 <p>Didier, perhaps the enlargement subject when it comes to printing needs a bit more explaining. Although not directly the subject of this thread.<br> The answer to your question is: For a normal viewing distance, with "good" film (50 or 100 ASA) and I don't mean to say that 400ASA is a "bad" film, only that low ASA can enlarge more before loosing detail, you can get as large as 16". You need to realize that this is my personal preference. Someone else would consider 20" or more as the limit before degradation occurs. Very subjective matter.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goughmd Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 <p>"do they just become mainly unused?"<br> For me personally, yes. Once I went to 6x7 I haven't used my 35mm much. It took me 4 years to finish the roll of Velvia I had in it when I got the medium format system.<br> As much as I love my tiny, reliable Pentax MX, it sits in the closet while my pocket P+S, DSLR or 67 run around the world with me making memories. Different horses for different courses as "they" say.<br> Don't let this scare you, the reason your 35mm will sit in the closet is because medium format is so BA, you'll wonder why you didn't do it years ago. So step up to the plate, put your money where your mouth is, and make the MF jump, you'll love it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielheller Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 <p>Yes they "do just become mainly unused"<br> Or they get sold on the big auction house. That is what I did. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didier Lamy Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 <p>Dani, thanks for your answer which confort my defaut size (A4 with 35mm). Larger prints require some kind of hanging, while A4 is well adapted for quiet contemplation Inside a deep armchair, like with a book.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny_spinoza Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 But one must also factor scanning into the mix. A dedicated 35mm film scanner with silverfast is about $400, plus or minus $50. But the new plustek scanner for medium format is $2,000. Cheap lab scanning is not very good, IMHO. Of course, one can pay for high quality scans of MF, and for a few scans now and then it would not cost too much. But if you want good scans of many images, you might want to think twice about MF. Of course, all these statements only apply to color film. If you are into B&W, then the good old darkroom is a very viable option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny_spinoza Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 And I might add, that my intention with my MF is to get professional scans of the images that are important to me. In fact, one of the contributors to this thread (Mr. Heller) does professional scanning. One can download for free Hasselblad flextight software, so that all one needs to do is get raw 3F scans (Hasselblad's file format), and you are good to go, High quality scans of MF is something to behold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donbright Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 <p>Medium format still on top for me when seeking out that Landscape print with punch. When in the field on a trip, they all have a life of their own. Sometimes one just can't get the yield you had on a former trip. So out of 5 days, 20 rolls of Velvia, 10 may have been exposed, that's 100 frames, minus bracketing, that's about maybe 15 subjects, or scenes revisited, or worked on for the trip. After editing, ones lucky if you can get 8 decent printable, or showable images. For the great ones, I use West Coast Imaging, utilizing their Tango scanner, 400 to 600 MB files 16 bit. Lovely!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_leonard3 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 <p>I began shooting 120 in the 1950s, 35mm in the 1960s, digital (alongside film) in the 1990s. I used whichever medium is best for the job. I adore 120 film photography and use it a lot. I recently bought parts of a 4x5 Crown Graphic and a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 baby Graphic and am putting both together. I need a back for one and a lens for the other. Then I will shoot with those formats, too. Fabulous film cameras are truly cheap these days and if you are easy on the film you can do anything you want for not that much money. These are exciting times, IMO.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Gammill Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 <p>I use both. Manual focus gear includes Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, Konica, and Nikon. For 120 I use Mamiya 645, Yashicamat, and a Rolleicord III. When I really want a big negative I dig out my old Crown Graphic 4x5.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esfishdoc Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 <p>I currently have #3 35mm film cameras that mostily sit. They are a Minolta XE-1, Nikon F and a Rollei 35. The Rollie 35 gets the most use. I have a Leica lens and if I ever get a body for it it would see some use.<br> For 5 years or so I've been 99.8% digital... until the last couple of months when I was stimulated to buy a medium format TLR. I've had a love affair with my Yashica 124 MAT. This is likely to come to an end when my recently purchased Rolleiflex gets delivered.<br> I'm not giving up digital (Canon FF) but I'd give up the 35mm film (but I won't).<br> I shoot a roll or two at a time and develop myself. The negatives get scanned on an Epson V700 which does a very good job. I have no tolerance for a partially exposed roll to sit in the camera and will shoot something to finish off a roll.<br> Richard</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer_conrad Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 <p>I have a pretty large selection of 35mm cameras, and love most of them. I really hate to see them lie dormant, and take them out for 'exercise' every few months even without film, just to get the moving part moving. I know I should probably get them all together and try to find homes for them, but with the current market, I wonder if maybe I should create a "museum wall", and mount them to it with descriptions.<br> The 35mm camera I do still use is the old Canonet, because it's just so danged handy. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimpete Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 <p>I gave up on 35mm film a ways back. I still have Nikon N80 that gathers dust, but no lenses so it is a paper weight. Once I went to 120 there was no looking back. Scanning is a major bottleneck, but only do a selected few. I get Imacon scans for $12.50 each from AGX Imaging. There is no problem printing up to 24" X 30" on a well executed shot if inclined to do so. I will eventually go to digital down the road but still love the process of shooting film and have a nice stash of various films in the Frig.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 <p>Jim: How big is 120 file that they return? Is it 16 bit rather than 8 bit color?</p> Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielheller Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 <p>Alan,<br> The size of an Hasselblad Flextight X5 (Imacon became Hasselblad) 6x6 frame, scanned at 3200 PPI results in the following:<br />A 7,000x7,000 pixels image, (I scan all my negatives in 16 bit Adobe RGB (1998) color space). The size of the file is about 280MB. The equivalent dimensions are 23"x23".<br> I am pretty confident, that you could print up to 48"X48" for sure, and if the negative or positive are pretty sharp the image would look very good.<br> I am offering this service.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now