35mm format landscapes

[Aaron_5037]

Would you shoot landscapes on a 35mm format? Technically or esthetically, most part of me says no. I'm hoping someone here could change my mind. Thanks!

[David Luttmann]

Short answer is no. However, if that was all I had at my disposal....it's better than no photo at all. Such being the case, you'd do well with a fine grain film like Velvia or Reala (slide or neg), or fine grain B&W like Ilford Pan F 50, a solid tripod, mirror lock-up and the best darn glass you could find. That coupled with bang on focus, you can get a very nice 11x14. You could go as far as 16x24, but by then tonality and sharpness breaks down from grain.

How would you output? Are you talking your own B&W darkroom? Are you scanning your negs or printing wet? Would you be printing color to a lightjet or inkjet? Lots of variables here....but I'd say go with at least a MF 6x7.....then you know you're good to at least 16x20.

Regards,

[David A. Goldfarb]

Not anymore, but like most of us, I used to.

[Eric Leppanen]

If 35mm were the only way I could get a compelling landscape composition, then I certainly would use it! To capture an unexpected scene during rapidly changing or especially demanding conditions, 35mm is sometimes my only choice. Better to get it in some format than not at all!

All else being equal, certainly we'd prefer to use a larger format. But all else is not always equal.

[Donald Brewster]

Of course you can. How much time you have and how large you want to blow it up makes a difference. Is it ideal? Probably not. I'd like to shoot 20x24". I'd like to take an LF camera to the top of Everest. It would probably be "better" technically and aesthetically, but it just isn't practical (for me at least). And in my mind taking a picture on any format is better than not having taken one at all.

[Aaron_5037]

How would you output? Are you talking your own B&W darkroom? Are you scanning your negs or printing wet? Would you be printing color to a lightjet or inkjet?

B/W, max print 5x7, wet. Thanks!

[Darin Boville]

Well, of course!

But the real question is "what do you want to achieve with the photos." That will dictate your tools. No point in reaching blindly for the 4x5.

35mm will, obviously, give you a different "look" than 4x5. But it also gives you opportunities to shoot "landscape" in regions of the genre that are less explored.

Think: What sort of cool landscape image can you imagine would require a highly mobile camera? What sort of landscape image can you imagine would require shooting a number of images in rapid succession? What sort of landscape image can you imagine would present rapid changes of light and unpredictable exposures that would require a built-in light meter?

4x5 is just a tool for solving certain problems. There are other problems and other tools.

I'm working on a new landscape thing myself, using a 6 mp digital camera.

It's a big world out there!

--Darin

www.darinboville.com

[David Luttmann]

Aaron,

If 5x7 wet is your max size, then fill your boots with 35mm.....it's all you'll need.

All the best.

[Aaron_5037]

"what do you want to achieve with the photos."

Fine print, mat, perhaps framed. Thanks!

[Aaron_5037]

"I'd like to take an LF camera to the top of Everest. It would probably be "better" technically and aesthetically, but it just isn't practical (for me at least)"

Yes... I will be on a long rough journey. Thanks!

[David A. Goldfarb]

Galen Rowell certainly made some impressive landscapes with 35mm, but having seen some of the prints and acknowledging the limitations that come with combining climbing with photography, and that given his use of grads and polarizers a rangefinder wouldn't really be an option, I wonder what he could have done with an ultralight 4x5". He did shoot some 6x17.

[CXC]

Only with the Widelux. I just enlarged a cityscape to 28"x11.375" and it looks fab hanging on the wall...

[paulr]

" "what do you want to achieve with the photos."

Fine print, mat, perhaps framed. Thanks! "

I have the feeling Darin's asking a more esthetic /substantive question. Different mediums look different ways and serve different visions and purposes. 35mm isn't the best choice is you want your work to look like an 8x10 contact print (did anyone say "duh?") but the contact print look doesn't serve every vision or every idea.

Take a look at some of the 35mm work done by Friedlander and Robert Frank that have strong landscape components. It's beautiful. It's also more about gesture at feeling than about precise description.

If you're trying to get a more large format look out of a small camera, you have to treat it like a large camera. Use a tripod, work carelfully and obseesively, use slow, sharp film, good lenses, etc.. You probably won't fool anyone, but you'll get closer to a large format kind of description than the typical small camera picture. For small prints you can get some very nice results.

[Alan Davenport]

Certainly! I did so for many years, and if I no longer had a real camera I would do so again.

[Mark Sawyer]

"Would you shoot landscapes on a 35mm format?"

I started there, (bet we all did,) but today it would feel like going into a nice restaurant and asking for a day-old Big Mac and a warm glass of Hawaiian Punch with a hair in it...

[Oren Grad]

I certainly would, and do. I agree with Paul R - it's a poor substitute for an 8x10 contact print if that's what you really want, but a small enlargement of a 35mm negative can be beautiful in its own way.

[Paul Butzi]

Horse for courses, as they say.

If I were going to remote places and wasn't wanting to make prints larger than 5x7, I'd have no problem using 35mm.

I have some lovely landscape photos made in Tuscany when I was on a bike trip. They were made with a wonderfully tiny Contax T3.

These days, I might be tempted to use a little digital camera, if I could solve the battery problem.

[David Beal]

Well, will your journey be so rough that you couldn't take a MF folder?

I have a prewar Ikonta (no rangefinder) with a 3 element lens that I keep loaded with TriX and use as my "walkaround" camera. On a "sunny 16 day", stopped down to f22, I can shoot 645 b/w that will print pleasingly to 11x14. With better glass (the Zeiss Tessar lenses in postWar models, or the Fuji GZ645), you could do much better.

Nothing is better than LF. But, if LF isn't practical, get as close to LF as you can.

Good shooting.

/s/ David Beal
Memories Preserved Photography, LLC

[brook]

With perfect technique, sand bagged tripod, perfect focus and exellent glass, and a combo like Pan F / PMK, with great light and superb printing, I bet you could fool anybody that doesnt contact print for a religion.
But if you sold the Lieca/Nikkon/Cannon gear and bought a cheap 5x7 and an ok lens, you could be a bit sloppier and still do better. And use fastrer film, print in platnium or what ever, and be so much cooler.

[Aaron_5037]

"I have the feeling Darin's asking a more esthetic /substantive question".

Thanks Paulr. You hit the nail. I am pondering a little wider now. I shall explore 35mm works by some photographers. Thanks to all for your thoughts. Appreciate it!

[KWSmith]

"I shall explore 35mm works by some photographers."

http://www.mountainlight.com/gallery.html

If you've seen any of Galen's prints in person the question will answer itself - yes, you can take wonderful scenics with 35mm and print them to 16x20 and beyond with a little help in the computer. Obviously, there's a whole lot more to his work than the camera, it was mostly about having the time and physical ability to be at the right place at the right moment.