Who Else Uses 35mm About This Page:

[Charlie97]

I have, and continue to use a Canon EOS Rebel Ti 35mm camera. Actually, I have two. Does anyone else, in this day and age, still use a 35mm besides me? I love the digital age, but for me, a 35mm is much more personal and produces a lot more beautiful photos. I am considering taking one of my 35mms to WDW next year, but do not want to be bogged down by too much stuff, namely too many cameras. Have any of you taken a 35mm to the parks, and if so, was it a hassle for you?

[mom2twingirlies]

I still have my 35mm, but since I went digital and purchased a DSLR, I rarely use it. For the parks, I have both the "big" camera - the DSLR and my small point and shoot. What a carry depends on the weather and if we are travelling bagless or not.

[coffeechef]

Its been a few years since I used 35mm. the idea of being limited to 36 pictures and not knowing if the camera setting will be good or if I got he shot is not worth the agravation or going theu the xray machine at the airport. A few years ago my cousin went with me and she still had a 35mm. She was snapping away on KS in AK . and missed a lot because she had to change film. I can remember haveing 2-3 pictures left on a roll and just using them up to have a fresh roll for the parade. I find the digital so much easier.

[Dave Marx]

I can't remember the last time I shot 35mm. I think the issue of "beautiful pictures" has more to do with your relative mastery of the film medium vs. digital than the intrinsic properties/benefits of analog vs. digital. If you know how to get great shots using film, it'll take a while to get to a similar level of mastery/control with a digital. So, if you're great with 35mm and just so-so with digital, and you prefer to get great shots on that special trip, go with your strength.

I was reminiscing last night about my old Nikon F (1967-vintage body), all the abuse it took (backpacking, whitewater boating), all the years it lasted, all the photos I took with it. Buying Tri-X in 100 ft. bulk rolls to be able to afford my habit. Doing my own b&w darkroom work in a converted bathroom in my parent's basement.. But I trashed the Nikon back in the mid-'80s, on a whitewater trip, and I never got back on my feet with another 35mm camera - by then I'd have needed to invest in all new equipment (my old lenses modified for Nikon F2 or F3-style auto-exposure... not the greatest idea), I had other budgetary requirements... So I got a fresh start with digital in the late 90s, after having done digital audio professionally for over 10 years. I can't imagine going back to film at this point. I just got back from a trip to the Pacific Northwest with close to 1500 images. I couldn't possibly have shot all those frames on a 35mm film budget. It could have been closer to 2000 images if I'd thought to auto-bracket my exposures on Mt. Rainier...

[Cam22]

I haven't used a 35 mm in years, but I do carry my DSLR everywhere, every day in the parks.

[Charlie97]

I took an interest in photography back in high school, after taking some classes. Although I don't consider myself great with my 35mm, I have taken some decent shots. To me, I prefer the 35mm quality of photo as opposed to the digital; even tho I know it is a lot more convenient to use. I was just wondering if anyone still used the 35, and if they had any recent trips to Disney while using it. I am seriously considering taking it, and maybe storing it in a locker and then retrieving it later on for photos; but it seems more of a hassle this way.

Thanks for your input.

[mzozzietj]

I love how other people's pictures look when they use 35mm but mine were never so good and by the time I found out it was too late to go back and retake them. I'm a very poor photographer so digital helps me a great deal. I've actually even stopped bringing my regular digital camera along and now I tend to just rely on my iphone camera.

[Gin]

I like 35mm A LOT. I liked the surprise of getting my photos back and seeing if I got the shot I expected. However, my husband is one of those guys who takes literally thousands of pictures over the course of a few days, and that would be impossible to do with film.
So, no, we take my little digital Elph and my husband's Canon DSLR. No 35mm.

[Dave Marx]

During my years in broadcasting and film production, the trade publications were filled with articles about the "film look" vs. the "video look," and how video/digital could never duplicate/replace the aesthetic of film. (Heck, I was smack in the middle of the black vinyl vs. CD thing, too - strongly in favor of digital, by the way.)

While a certain amount of the differences really are a matter of technology, a lot of the perceived differences have to do with lighting and camera technique. In order to allow for the typical three-camera video shoot, TV studio lighting is designed to be consistently bright and even for all cameras, at all camera angles. Shadows are something to be banished, as a shadow that looks good to one camera may be horrible for another camera. To facilitate working "live," video folks prefer using maximum depth of field (everything in focus), rather than work with narrow depth of field ("selective focus") and risk losing a shot. This kind of lighting also accentuates contrast (like bright, mid-day sunlight). On movie sets, they usually use a single camera, and can therefore light the scene more selectively and dramatically. Shadow can be used creatively. They plan and rehearse every camera move (and have "focus pullers"), which allows them to use depth-of-field creatively. Hard contrast is generally avoided as a matter of aesthetics.

But... every piece of film you see on TV, every piece of film that looks like film when you watch it on TV, has been converted to video/digital by scanning the film. And today, more and more "films" are being shot in digital video, using film-style lighting and camera techniques. If the video "look" was intrinsic to electronic photography... film viewed on TV shouldn't look anything like film, but it does.

Modern digital imaging equipment is more than capable of delivering exceptional images, and digital "darkroom" techniques are capable of doing things film photographers could only dream of. But a digital camera, used badly, is going to look horrible compared to 35mm done well. And vice verse.