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!
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!
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,
Not anymore, but like most of us, I used to.
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.
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.
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!
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
Aaron,
If 5x7 wet is your max size, then fill your boots with 35mm.....it's all you'll need.
All the best.
"what do you want to achieve with the photos."
Fine print, mat, perhaps framed. Thanks!
"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!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks