6x7 compared to 645?

[sanking]

I love it when an some one extends an argument to its irrefutable conclusion.

I've been going back and forth between 6x6.45 and 6x7 as I struggle to decide how to enter MF film. I find in my digital work with a 17 mp full frame camera that I regularly crop to "non-standard" sizes. I've never been bound by what size a picture is "supposed" to be. This does waste paper in printing but I off-set that somewhat by doing my own matting and framing work. I haven't actually developed or printed film in decades, but my memory is that cropping is considerably more complicated with an enlarger and photo paper. Is it the sense of this group that working with the whole image is the way to go with MF negatives or do many of you crop and what not?

Robert

Robert,

My comments are probably not typical since I don't print any longer directly from negatives. Instead I scan the negatives, correct and manipulate the scanned file in Photoshop, including cropping if that helps the composition IMO, and then I print a digital negative. The digital negative is used to make a contact print with the carbon transfer process. Follow the link at the bottom of my message for more information about carbon transfer if interested.

I generally try to compose the scene on the ground glass or in the viewfinder as close as possible to what I would like for the final image, but I have absolutely no hesitation in cropping the image later if that makes the composition stronger. Obviously you don't want to crop any more than necessary because that just throws information away that can not be recouped.

Cropping is a tool, like dodging, burning, unsharp mask, spotting, etc., not a religious activity.

Sandy King

 

[Tony-S]

I've been going back and forth between 6x6.45 and 6x7 as I struggle to decide how to enter MF film.

I was in a similar situation as you and decided on 6x7 for the substantially larger film size.

Is it the sense of this group that working with the whole image is the way to go with MF negatives or do many of you crop and what not?

I pretty much let the scene dictate cropping, not the camera format. But then again, I have a table saw and matte cutting tools to make just about any frame size I need.

 

[MattKing]

If you are working with an enlarger, cropping is about the simplest and quickest of all the manipulations available to you.

As I think I posted earlier in this thread, the shape of the film format tends to influence my photographs (sometimes subconsciously) but it certainly doesn't dictate my choices - I can always crop later, if necessary.

The intended final use of the image may help dictate size of the format (questions of print vs. projected transparency, large enlargements vs. small, the possibility of contact printing, etc.) but within medium format, you can get good results with any of the choices available.

It can be just a little bit more of a thrill though printing from the larger negatives.

Matt

 

[Sirius Glass]

And extending the argument just a bit more, digital is 100% more efficient than any size film.

Sandy King

Not costwise. It takes a lot on start up cost to go digital - money, color gamut, resolution, electricity, ... The above comment does not bring anything useful nor relivant the the topic.

Steve

 

[Mike1234]

How does digital color gamut capture relate to final print gamut? What's the comparison?

 

[Q.G.]

Extending that argument, 35mm is an even more efficient use of film.

Nope. It falls short terribly in the "given the minimal difference in image quality" department.

 

[Mike1234]

As a generality here... and everywhere... why do people always see (read/understand) what they want to see in order to argue some point as it relates to what they want to prove without an open mind to others' opinions?

 

[Sirius Glass]

How does digital color gamut capture relate to final print gamut? What's the comparison?

For file quite good when using chemical processes; for digital not so. You cannot add in that which was not recorded to begin with. Do some research - it will be an eye opener.

Steve

 

[sanking]

Not costwise. I takes a lot on start up cost to go digital - money, color gamut, resolution, electricity, ... The above comment does not bring anything useful nor relivant the the topic.

Steve

Hi Serious Gas,

My comment was said in jest, not meant to be taken seriously. There was absolutely no intention for it to be useful or "relivant" to the topic.

Sandy King

 

[johnnywalker]

Nope. It falls short terribly in the "given the minimal difference in image quality" department.

Depends on your definition of "minimal". There's a 14.3 % drop in size going from 6X7 to 6X6 to start with. Then, in the context of the message you were replying to, the poster talked about cropping to a more panoramic size, which would increase the efficiency of 6X7 even more.
In addition, you mentioned more shots on a roll, in which case 35mm has them both beat for pretty much the same film area.

 

[Q.G.]

And there's a drop in size of 73% going from 6x6 to 35 mm format.

More importantly, a 6x4.5 only needs an 1.2 to 1.3 times extra enlarging (depending on the exact long side length of the 6x7 format) to produce the same size image. (When you do, you get a larger (!) image from the 6x4.5, providing a clue that simply taking area as measure is not a good idea.)
A 35 mm neg would need over 1.9 times more to reach 6x7 size, 1.6 times to reach 6x4.5.
The 1.2 times more will be hardly visible. Almost two times more, and even 1.6 times more are already well beyond "hardly visible".

 

[sanking]

The 1.2 times more will be hardly visible. Almost two times more, and even 1.6 times more are already well beyond "hardly visible".

The actual difference in magnification factor with the 6X7cm and 6X4.5cm equipment that I use is 1.25X in the long direction and 1.3X on the diagonal.

As for quality, I see a significant advantage in image quality in large prints (over 27" in one direction) made from 6X7cm negatives compared to 6X4.5cm. So I don't agree at all that the improvement is "minimal." It is about a 20-25% improvement IMO, and having discussed this issue with quite a number of photographers I don't believe my opinion is far off base.

I use MF in place of LF and my goal is to get every bit of image quality possible from the equipment, and in order to do that it is necessary to take advantage of every possible opportunity to improve quality, whether it be camera type and lens, format, film type, developer, use of tripod, etc.

Sandy King

 

[johnnywalker]

And there's a drop in size of 73% going from 6x6 to 35 mm format.

More importantly, a 6x4.5 only needs an 1.2 to 1.3 times extra enlarging (depending on the exact long side length of the 6x7 format) to produce the same size image. (When you do, you get a larger (!) image from the 6x4.5, providing a clue that simply taking area as measure is not a good idea.)
A 35 mm neg would need over 1.9 times more to reach 6x7 size, 1.6 times to reach 6x4.5.
The 1.2 times more will be hardly visible. Almost two times more, and even 1.6 times more are already well beyond "hardly visible".

You're changing the argument from the post I responded to. I think you just like to argue.

 

[Q.G.]

That's an old debating device: 'accuse' your opponent of the very same thing you are about to do in the same sentence!


No, i haven't changed anything.
The difference in image quality between 6x4.5 and 6x7 (though certainly there, and real) is very small. (The post above explains why: only 1.3x more enlargement will not do terrible things. I have suggested a test for the unconvinced several times in several threads on APUG).
Cropping 6x6 to 6x4.5, still producing images so close in quality to 6x7 that the difference will be hard to spot, and also still producing 12 frames per roll, cropping to 6x6 is the more efficient use of film compared to using 6x7.

Boring, right? Because even though you think it hasn't, it has all been said before.


This thing will fly, but turns into a lead balloon, as soon as the difference in image quality becomes apparent even without trying hard to find it. And stepping down to 35 mm format is the best way of making sure it does.
So instead of being a more efficient use of film, using 35 mm format is in fact a big waste of film.
A 35 mm film has about the same area as 120 film. And it is all (!) wasted, because of the poor image quality.

I indeed do like to argue. But you will have to try much harder than this to get me arguing for nothing else but the sake of it.
In the words of the Monty Python skit, paraphrased a bit: you're not arguing, you're just gainsaying.

 

[Q.G.]

The actual difference in magnification factor with the 6X7cm and 6X4.5cm equipment that I use is 1.25X in the long direction and 1.3X on the diagonal.

Which is the difference in quality between a 8x10 print made from a 6x7 negative and a 10x12.5 print made from that very same negative.

As for quality, I see a significant advantage in image quality in large prints (over 27" in one direction) made from 6X7cm negatives compared to 6X4.5cm. So I don't agree at all that the improvement is "minimal." It is about a 20-25% improvement IMO, and having discussed this issue with quite a number of photographers I don't believe my opinion is far off base.

I however do.
Don't discuss this. Just try it for yourself, and make those two prints from the same negative.
Then give your verdict.

You will be able to see a difference. No argument.
But the word "significant" used to describe it is, i think you then will agree, a significant overstatement.

 

[2F/2F]

Oh, for Christ's sake, people.....same thing every time. You all seem like you would rather argue with each other and state your feelings as facts for your own benefits, than truly attempt to teach and help. What a self-serving waste of server space, and what an unnecessary mess to wade through to pull out any decent information. Give it a rest. Quit baiting each other, and quit taking the bait that is set out for you. Say your well-intentioned, helpful piece or two or three, and then give it up. This is old.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Deleted. Sorry. Never mind.

 

[Rudeofus]

It the main advantage that 6x7 has over 645 is the ability to produce larger prints?

IMHO the main advantage of 6x7 is that it is further away from 35mm. With 35mm you get all the goodies like low weight, good AF, super wide angles, obscene teles, super narrow DOF at focal lengths suitable for portrait, low cost per picture, fast zooms, all this of course at the expense of lowered image resolution. 35mm is where I started from and I got some really nice images out of it (contrary to what others may say about the 35mm format).

When you go MF, you lose almost all of this. Yet, there are MF cameras with AF, but they sure don't beat the 45 point AF with eye control of my EOS 3. You get wide angle lenses for MF, but sure not the equivalent of a 12-24mm zoom. The 500mm lens for RZ67 is equivalent to a 250mm lens on 35mm cameras, yet you get 800mm and longer lenses for these. AFAIK there is no such thing for any MF which would be equivalent to my 85mm F/1.2.

So if you go MF, you might as well go the whole way. If Mamiya had had an RZ69 at similar cost, I would have taken that instead of my RZ67. 645 cameras are somewhere in between 35mm and 6x7. I guess the best argument for 645, although this argument may not be worth much here, is the fact that digital MF-back makers seem to focus on 645 cameras at the moment.

 

[markbarendt]

Don't discuss this. Just try it for yourself, and make those two prints from the same negative.
Then give your verdict.

You are telling us that you think Sandy has not tried this?

 

[keithwms]

Say your well-intentioned, helpful piece or two or three, and then give it up.

+1

I think you just like to argue.

You just might be on to something there, Sherlock...

 

[sanking]

You will be able to see a difference. No argument.
But the word "significant" used to describe it is, i think you then will agree, a significant overstatement.

I am not going to argue the meaning of adjectives. The actual numbers indicate that there should be about 20-25% improvement in image quality from a 6X7cm negative compared to a 6X4.5 negative, all other things being equal, and that to me is significant. Whether one can actually "see" the 20-25% improvement depends on a whole bunch of factors, including type of subject, how the negative was exposed, print size, quality of the printing equipment, etc. It is entirely possible, even likely, that one would not see the difference in a very small print (and 8X10 is a very small print for me) but the primary reason people use larger format cameras is to make bigger prints.

Actual comparisons are complicated by the fact that all things are rarely equal because some camera systems give much higher performance than others. If I were to actually compare the results from my 6X7cm Mamiya 7II negatives with those of a couple of 6X6 or 6X4.5cm system cameras I am familiar with the actual improvement in image quality because of the superiority of the Mamiya 7/711 optics would be more on the order of 50%, not 20-25%. Mamiya 6 has same quality quality optics as 7/711 so that would be a fair comparison.

Sandy King

 

[Q.G.]

Actual comparisons are complicated by the fact that all things are rarely equal because [etc.] Mamiya 6 has same quality quality optics as 7/711 so that would be a fair comparison.

Which is why i suggest a test using one and the same negative. A test only involving one variable.
Test your Mamiya 6 against your Mamiya 6. Your Mamiya 7 against your Mamiya 7

 

[DanielStone]

ohh gosh,

this sure has turned into a real mess

I shoot both 6x4.5 and 6x7. I also use a 6x9/6x12 back on my 4x5, depending on how I want to portray a scene. I use the 6x7(RZ) most of the time, because I can always crop it down to the 6x4.5/6x6/6x?/35mm/24x65, etc..... from the SAME neg.

I don't have a problem with someone saying that they prefer their equipment(say they shoot 6x6 only), but that's THEIR opinion.
It took a while for me to find out what format fit my style. There are times I'll crop a 6x7 down to 6x6, sometimes I'll leave it as is. Its just a matter of one's personal tastes...
If you're looking to save some green on film costs(shots per roll), then 645 will give you more shots per roll. If you shoot 220, its almost like a big 35mm .

but please, lets forget what the math tells us about magnification values and the such, and just think about what tool is best for the job? I don't have any personal attachment to ONE camera, I know lots of people here do, but to me; ITS A TOOL. Just like a hammer(just more expensive ). There are many types of hammers, and you don't use a ballpeen to drive framing nails on a house . You should use a framing hammer to get the best results. Use the right tool for the right job. Sometimes though, you have to improvise.

Use the equipment that helps YOU achieve what YOU want to see, and how YOU want to see it in print/final output.

just my .02

-Dan

 

[stradibarrius]

Dan I agree...I asked the question not so anyone could tell what I think. I want to hear the opinions to gather information and then I can make my own decision. The opinions voiced in this thread hopefully brings up some point that I had not considered.

As I have already stated, I have an RB67 and an M645 as well as a 6x6 TLR. I just want to hear the pros and con of each and how they compare.

To often people read into a question more that the OP intended.

I agree this has gone in a direction I didn't want so let's just drop this one...Thanks for all the information, you helped.

 

[elekm]

I've never quite understood the need to create the 6x7 format. It's only slightly larger than 6x6, and with some of the cameras, you have to rotate the back, which adds mechanical complexity.

I'd just as shoot 6x6 and crop to a horizontal or vertical, if necessary.