6x4.5 users: what do you like about the format?

[MattKing]

I've got a fair stock still of GEPE slide mounts for 6x4.5, and a box of cardboard mounts for 6x4.5 too.

 

[Helge]

I've got a fair stock still of GEPE slide mounts for 6x4.5, and a box of cardboard mounts for 6x4.5 too.

That’s not the format. 55x40. Not x45.

 

[MattKing]

The 6x4.5 mounts could be easily masked:

 

[Helge]

The 6x4.5 mounts could be easily masked:

Sure. But that’s extra work. Are there native wide “super slides”?

But now that you mention it, what are/was the common brands of cardboard frames?

 

[MattKing]

But now that you mention it, what are/was the common brands of cardboard frames?

All the ones I've seen are unbranded - most likely sold by the thousands to commercial labs.

 

[Salma]

Question, I take picture they are 600X600 Pixles and Ihe size of the file about 2m I want to reduce the size of the picture to 250X250 and size of the file to 10Kb but do not change alot of the picture features. Thanks for your help.

 

[Cholentpot]

I've recently changed my scanning workflow for 6x4.5 and it really has brought new life to the format for me. That and my M645 is the only 120 camera I own that has a meter.

M645, Portra 400NC

 

[Dan Daniel]

Question, I take picture they are 600X600 Pixles and Ihe size of the file about 2m I want to reduce the size of the picture to 250X250 and size of the file to 10Kb but do not change alot of the picture features. Thanks for your help.

There is a section of the site for digital processing. This is an analog area. Try over here-

https://www.photrio.com/forum/forums/digital-image-editing.362/

 

[Arthurwg]

All good answers, so far. The one thing you need to understand is, a 6x6 is nothing more than a 6x4.5 that you never have to rotate to change orientation between portrait and landscape. Nearly all 6x6's have composition lines for this already marked in the view finder. Sure, you get more exposures per roll using a dedicated 645, but I prefer the ease of a 6x6 and the added advantage of composing square if I choose. If you like the aspect ratio shoot a 6x9 instead, bigger negative equates to bigger enlargements. It's only film, don't cheap out thinking more shots per roll is better, shoot more film and keep the manufacturers in business.

I occasionally shoot 645 with my Hasselblad but I would love to have a A12V back, which has vertical orientation. You don't get extra frames with this back, still limited to 12, but I would find the portrait format easier to use than trying to rotate the camera and shoot sideways. The Hasselblad screen with grid provides 645 format lines for both horizontal and vertical formats, but the ultra rare A12V would be better INHO. I saw a new one for sale some years ago for $500, which I thought too expensive. I see a used one for sale now for E899.99.

 

[Arthurwg]

Ansel was a fan of cropped 6x6…
.

One of Ansel's most famous pictures, "Moon Over Half Dome," was cropped from a Hasselblad 6x6 negative. That negative had so much light leakage from the dark slide slot that it would have been unprintable as a square. I would have thought that Ansel would have had well-serviced backs, but not in this case.

 

[BrianShaw]

One of Ansel's most famous pictures, "Moon Over Half Dome," was cropped from a Hasselblad 6x6 negative. That negative had so much light leakage from the dark slide slot that it would have been unprintable as a square. I would have thought that Ansel would have had well-serviced backs, but not in this case.

At times it seems that one of his hallmark talents was making the best of imperfect negatives. I can respect the philosophy of capturing a great image in an imperfect way rather than losing the opportunity by fussing too much to make everything perfect.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I would have thought that Ansel would have had well-serviced backs, but not in this case.

Much of his photographic life, his personal equipment wasn't top of the line, and it was often heavily used. Yes, he had a Leica (a screw-mount, as I recall) for that famous portrait of Georgia O'Keefe, and used a Hasselblad at times -- but his personal work (especially the images that weren't Yosemite or Grand Canyon) was often shot with whatever he had with him at the time.

 

[Arthurwg]

I think the portrait of O'Keefe was shot with a Contax.

 

[Arthurwg]

At times it seems that one of his hallmark talents was making the best of imperfect negatives. I can respect the philosophy of capturing a great image in an imperfect way rather than losing the opportunity by fussing too much to make everything perfect.

Yes, that's why I used a Holga for many years.

 

[Dusty Negative]

4:3 is jazz, 1:1 is 1980's German techno pop.

You mean….

 

[Donald Qualls]

I think the portrait of O'Keefe was shot with a Contax.

Well, apparently he shot a number of portraits of Georgia over a period of decades (they were friends for half a century, give or take) -- at least one of the later ones seems to have been done with a Hasselblad (there's a photo of him, her, and the camera, and she's dressed the same and same age as in a portrait he took).

However, the one I'm thinking of is in The Negative and I'm virtually certain he said he shot it with a Leica. Might well have been some with a Contax as well.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, I found references that say he used both Leica and Contax cameras for 35mm at various times. I know I've seen a photo of him with a screw mount Leica; I don't recall any with a Contax (but that only means I haven't seen such).