6x7 vs 645 prints

Roger Cole · Mar 10, 2016

If you want to get results like that from 35mm you will need to use it as if it were a larger format - that is, on a tripod and at medium apertures of good lenses. Do that and the difference at 8x10 will indeed be fairly small, mostly as you say in grain, and even that can be nearly indistinguishable if you use a very fine grained film in 35mm. This doesn't require a frozen stock of Tech Pan. The old Pan-X would be good enough, or APX 25, or today TMX. Acros or Delta 100 are not quite as fine grained as TMX but still very good. But with most 400 speed films grain will be apparent, not necessarily objectionable but apparent, at 8x. Expose for the minimum amount needed for adequate shadow detail and do not develop more than necessary.

One of the advantages of larger formats, though, is that you don't have to do this. Shoot Tri-X in your P67 or RB/RZ, with good but (if appropriate) wide open lenses, and give a bit more exposure if you like, to ensure good shadow separation, and you will still get prints as good or better than the very careful 35mm ones.

A careful worker can get amazing results from surprisingly small formats, but the larger negative is much less sensitive to any factor being less than optimum. This shouldn't be an excuse to be lazy or haphazard of course but does provide flexibility.

DREW WILEY · Mar 10, 2016

Hi Tony. You're right with respect to how your understood what I said. But what I meant was the paper crop, not film crop. Therefore if the full 6x9 image is on 16x20 paper, it will be distinctly sharper than a 6x7 image, but more like a 14x20 print, more linear.

DREW WILEY · Mar 10, 2016

Roger, Roger, Roger.... you just gotta do something about your film loading station. I never seem to get dust on sheet film. But in a worst case scenario I do have to change all my clothes and blow off my arms if I've been petting a cat on my lap watching the evening news, before heading
to the darkroom.

Tony-S · Mar 10, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
Hi Tony. You're right with respect to how your understood what I said. But what I meant was the paper crop, not film crop. Therefore if the full 6x9 image is on 16x20 paper, it will be distinctly sharper than a 6x7 image, but more like a 14x20 print, more linear.

Thanks for the clarification.

Roger Cole · Mar 11, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
Roger, Roger, Roger.... you just gotta do something about your film loading station. I never seem to get dust on sheet film. But in a worst case scenario I do have to change all my clothes and blow off my arms if I've been petting a cat on my lap watching the evening news, before heading
to the darkroom.

Well we shall see. I am suspicious now that much of my dust may come from the ancient, original, as-much-black-tape-as-leather-now bellows on my elderly creaky Tech III. I've tried vacuuming it out but that didn't seem to work well, not to mention threatening to finish killing the elderly thing and its now brittle leather.

I actually haven't been in the darkroom in an embarrassingly long time as I gave up (not as a decision as such just how it worked out) pretty much all my hobbies and interests trying to save an ultimately doomed marriage. Now I'm getting started again, and I have new measures I want to implement. I bought some nice lab coats for a very good price off ebay, the intention being to save my regular clothes from any splashes or spills but they have some kind of coating for such purpose that seems to also reduce any lint, and they are of course long sleeved. The cats went with the ex. I like cats but no longer have one. I kept the dog (my bestest friend and buddy) but he's a pit bull mix with quite short hair and virtually no noticeable shedding. He never gets in the darkroom either, though it's downstairs and he DOES lounge on the couch down there in the home theater room with me. I have a nice HEPA air filter which I always ran when loading holders or printing, and that will continue. I also bought - I think it's the Kodak version of the electric anti-static brush that Zone VI also sold - and haven't tried that yet just found it on the 'bay and grabbed it. I had been using a Kinetronics plus compressed air.

Probably not the time or place to describe my previous attempts to prevent dust, maybe another thread soon. But I really think with all the care I took with the holders my real culprit was the ancient camera with bellows (and thus dust - not sure all previous owners kept it as protected as I) that date from the Eisehower administration.

I think there's going to be a new Chamonix or similar on my "birthday gift to myself" list this summer.

RalphLambrecht · Mar 11, 2016

tomfrh said:
I have a Pentax 645n at the moment. I use it a lot, and really enjoy it. I'm going to start making b/w prints from it. Im also wondering about 6x7 cameras. I don't have one at the moment, however i plan to get one sooner or later, if only to look at bigger slides on the light box!

Regarding b/w prints, what sort of advantage do you see in practice between a 645 and a 6x7 print? At what size does the 6x7 show a decisive advantage? Eg at what size print would you be able to immediately pick one from the other in a blind side-by-side test?

I would expect the 6x7 to have a slight tonaladvantageat11x14 or larger but both being a big step above 35mm

RalphLambrecht · Mar 11, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
That's why people shoot square 6x6 with 645 backs. They just flip the back from horizontal to vertical. But that's what we can do with view cameras too, without even having to become a "square" to do it! But ergonomics also come into play. My brother used to sell that marvelous Rollei SL66 system, and had a couple rigs of his own. But every time we went shooting together, he'd ask to borrow my Pentax 67 instead. Guess he just liked the more intuitive handling, kinda like a big 35mm SLR. Then I loaned it to him for about a decade before he passed away, since I shot exclusively large format during that era. There are pros and cons to all these systems, and in the long run, you just get comfortable with whatever you have, like an old pair of shoes that finally fits comfortably.

I 2nd the 6x6 recommendation.I use the Hasselblad in the studio and a Mamiya6 for travel and hand-held shooting.To me the square format is ideal and easily enlargesup to 16x20 if needed

Soeren · Mar 11, 2016

Roger Cole said:
>SNIP
I think there's going to be a new Chamoix or similar on my "birthday gift to myself" list this summer.

That is a great birthday gift. I'm sure the reciever will be very happy

telkwa · Mar 13, 2016

paul ron said:
at 16x20 (my max print size) you will not see any difference... I do both 6x7 n 645 on TMax film if that makes any difference in the equation.

I respectfully disagree. I did a side-by-side comparison about 10 years ago with the following:

Pentax LX, Tech-Pan
Pentax 645, TMX
Pentax 67, TMX

At a 16x20, the 67 was upon inspection best. It wasn't immediately obvious, but it could been seen in multiple test-shots.

tomfrh · Mar 13, 2016

I've done some 645 printing now.

I can quite easily see the difference between 7x enlargement and 9x enlargements using fine grain films (tmax 100 and 400), which equates to roughly 645 and 6x7 printing 20x16s

The difference im noticing is the grain.

Roger Cole · Mar 13, 2016

I doubt I would see any grain at all in either one without a magnifier. YMMV of course.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Mar 13, 2016

Roger Cole said:
I have a nice HEPA air filter which I always ran when loading holders or printing, and that will continue. I also bought - I think it's the Kodak version of the electric anti-static brush that Zone VI also sold - and haven't tried that yet just found it on the 'bay and grabbed it. I had been using a Kinetronics plus compressed air.

PecPads! They are like dust magnets. Love them.

M Carter · Mar 13, 2016

One other thing to consider - if your B&W printing gets to the point you want to experiment with enlarger masks, 6x7 can make registration and handling a little easier. As far as I understand it, masking really is more of a 4x5 thing, but I've had some success with 6x7 negs and some home-built registration gear.

ColColt · Mar 13, 2016

Let's say I'm making a portfolio of 16x20 black and white prints. An exceptional 6x7 image will barely squeak into that company.

I just read back over this thread. I can't agree with this at all. I've had some exceptional 16x20 prints made from VPS 400 film even for brides/families I've done and some for myself and they were superb. At a normal viewing distance for that size there was zero grain to my eyes and sharpness was about as good as it gets and I'm pretty picky about that. I feel very sure ASA 100 film would have yielded results most close to 4x5 quality although I could not complain from the 400 film at all.

This is a scan of a negative I had a 16x20 made from using the Pentax 6x7. It's a scan so the quality is not going to be like an actual print and there's a few specks but you can get an idea. I had one made for this lady and liked it so well I had a 16x20 on canvas made for myself to hang on the wall.

Francis and Kami004a by David Fincher, on Flickr

idamia · Apr 25, 2016

@ColColt :
Great picture!!

DREW WILEY · Apr 25, 2016

All other things being equal, size always matters. I can readily detect the difference between a 16x20 print taken on 645 film versus 6x7 versus 4x5
versus 8x10. Can the general public? Not always. The distinctions are more likely to be according to how these different systems facilitate one way
of seeing versus another, handling qualities, etc. But I do have to be quite nitpicky if I'm going to insert a medium format print into the same portfolio as large format prints. And obviously, big enlargements benefit from a bigger film original to begin with. But the best results tend to come from the equipment you are most familiar with, regardless. There are quite a few excellent MF systems out there.

ColColt · Apr 25, 2016

idamia said:
@ColColt :
Great picture!!

I loved that background and must have been crazy to have sold it but, I got away from wedding/portraits and didn't figure I needed it anymore-sellers remorse.

wiltw · Apr 25, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
All other things being equal, size always matters. I can readily detect the difference between a 16x20 print taken on 645 film versus 6x7 versus 4x5
versus 8x10. Can the general public? Not always.

16x20 print made from...

135 = 24mm image enlarged to 400mm = 16.7x enlargement of grain
645 = 42mm image enlarged to 400mm = 9.5x enlargement of grain, like making 9" print from 135
6x7 = 56mm image enlarged to 400mm = 7.1x enlargement of grain, like making 6.7" print from 135
4x5 = 93mm image enlarged to 400mm = 4.3x enlargement of grain, like making 4" print from 135

...so with what size print would anyone expect the average person begin to notice grain? In a B&W print from Tri-X, I would say it becomes noticable above about 10x and is intolerable (for me) above 17x.
But as for color neg I have not done extensive testing myself to determine tolerability vs. visibility.
It is said that Kodak Portra 160NC shows just perceptible film grain at 4.3X enlargement, so the 9x and 7.1x enlargement factors in the above list should indeed be perceivable visually.

ColColt · Apr 25, 2016

For roll film the 6x7 reigns supreme.

Maris · Apr 25, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
... But I do have to be quite nitpicky if I'm going to insert a medium format print into the same portfolio as large format prints ...

Absolutely darn right! I make 8x10 contacts which are a thing apart and 6 1/2" X 8 1/2" enlargements from 4x5 and roll film. Even at that small size I can see image quality steps between 645, 67, and 4x5 but only if the pictures are compared directly side by side as happens in a portfolio set. Basically 645 is too small to mix with 4x5 while 67 holds up pretty well. That's why I'm loaded down with a Mamiya RB67 system instead of a nice Hasselblad. When I'm making rectangular pictures the Hassie is effectively a 645 and a large and expensive one at that.

DREW WILEY · Apr 25, 2016

Tri-X !!%#*%!! ???? No, that's not a film I would select if the appearance of grain were a personal issue. Probably see it in a contact print. The nice
thing about big sheet film is that you can somewhat ignore the grain issue and concentrate more on tonal range, edge effect, speed, etc. If you want
something comparable in quality with roll film, you might need a much slower film. For example, one of my favorite 6x9 films is ACROS. If I make a cropped 16x20 print from that (roughly 14x20), grain is hard to detect, even on high-contrast images printed with apo lenses. But on a 16x20 print from 6x7 format, fine grain will be visible to the naked eye, but very, very fine. By comparison, using the same type of film (ACROS) in 8x10 format, you'd need a print nearly six feet wide to reach that point. What that means is that I can select much faster films with other characteristics, like TMY
or HP5 in 8x10. But I keep around some 8x10 ACROS too, since it has superb recip characteristics.

dynachrome · Apr 25, 2016

I can see a difference between 645 and 6X7 in a 16X20" print. If I will be using a tripod then an RB or RZ is fine. If I need to shoot 6X7 hand held then a Bronica GS-1 with a Speed Grip is more comfortable. For 645 I can use Mamiya M645/1000S/J or Bronice ERT/ETRS. I find the Bronica 645 cameras more comfortable to use hand held. I am right handed and like the Speed Grips. The right hand motor winders I have for Mamiya M45s are very heavy. I wind up supporting the whole thing with my left hand. Even with Ektar 100 I can see a difference between 6X7 and 645 in a 16X20. At 11X14 it's harder to see the difference but the 6X7 shots will have less depth of field.

wiltw · May 15, 2016

Roger Cole said:
In total area the 6x7 is 1.6 (and change) times larger than the 645.

The idea that it takes a 16x20 print to see grain from a 35mm negative seems bizarre, unless you are shooting a remaining supply of Tech Pan or something. Even with 100 speed films (maybe not TMX but then I never really got along with it) I can see grain from 35mm at 8x10, and smaller than that from 400 speed films. That doesn't mean it is necessarily objectionable, but I can certainly see it.

...yes, the point of TOLERABILITY of the grain, for me and for many other folks, is hit when the 135 format Tri-X film image is enlarged about 16X (16x20" print), it is NOT that one cannot see grain at all in smaller prints!

(16 * 24mm) < (16 * 42mm) < (16 * 56mmm), same level of grain in all three, but final size is much greater
...that is the point I was making.

moto-uno · Jun 11, 2016

Ignoring grain as an issue , if you can't see the difference in the shades of grey ( tonality )
while viewing the same subject matter when going from 35mm to 6x7 on an 11x14 print ,
then the lights are off in your room . Peter ( Mr Understatement )

Arcturus · Jun 11, 2016

Sometimes I think I can see a difference between the formats and sometimes I can't. Ultimately 645 won out for me with its lighter weight, more shots per roll, and automatic features. I mostly shoot my hand held shots with a Fuji GA645 these days and mostly print to 11x14. Using Tri-X/D76 I can barely make out the grain at 11x14, and that's if I'm holding the print up to my nose.

6x7 vs 645 prints

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency