>>2673342Look at the sprocket holes again. They could've easily been cropped out. That photo is stronger because of the failings. Even if this photo had no context, and just fell out of some book, I would definitely take notice, although I guess that's up to the beholder.
And these photos are just in the world of photojournalism (I guess you could argue not HCB) not to even mention art photography.
A good photo is a good photo. Depending on your wants/needs technical or mechanical failings aren't such a big deal. If I was doing photography for a job, I'd be concerned, but I probably wouldn't be shooting film either.
I agree with you that 35mm is usually better for low light stuff. I completely disagree that if it isn't sharp it isn't a photo.
>>2673207I have a medium format camera and a 35mm camera. I started on medium format, shot mostly slides, and now shoot mostly b&w 35mm, but I develop and print it myself, which I enjoy a lot. 35mm has a certain charm, which you may or may not like.
I really love the look of 120 slide film, but like the b&w process and the look of tri x.
That probably doesn't answer your question, really, but maybe you'll get a feel of what types of questions you should be asking.
