The clear holders I use will fit 3 6x7 negatives in a row. It's tight, but they do not hang out of the ends.
This way I can have 2 x 3 + 2 x 2 negatives on one page.
Sounds like you are referring to the sheets - 120-4B - that will hold four lines of three 6 x 6 (not 6 x 7) negatives. If you try to put 6x7 negatives in them, they hang out the end.
Alternatively, you may be referring to the over-sized sheets - 120-4UB - which only fit in the over-sized binders - not the standard office size binders that take 8.5" x 11" pages.
Those over-sized sheets also don't contact print on to 8" x 10" photo paper.
In my personal experience the Mamiya Universal with its 50mm could bring you near to your desired panorama aspect ratio. I printed in the 6x9 cropped panorama format up to 50x100cm and image quality was surprisingly good. I like very much 6x9 format with 50mm lens in landscape and family scenes; family groups, group portraits, or candids are spectacular (you have almost the 90° angle you have with a 20mm wideangle in 35mm format).I would like to find an affordable way to shoot 120 film in panorama. The cost of roll film backs for 4x5 surprises me.
A quick search on ebay shows quite a few 6x7 enlargers but very few 4x5 enlargers. In the dying days of film the LPL 67 enlarger sold massively.There are tons of 4x5” enlargers out there, too. It’s arguable that, if one has the space for it, one might want a 4x5” enlarger anyway for all formats 4x5” and smaller, because they’re more solid than smaller enlargers, have tons of accessories available, usually have longer columns for bigger enlargements, etc., plus you’ve got it in case you ever decide to try 4x5”.
A quick search on ebay shows quite a few 6x7 enlargers but very few 4x5 enlargers. In the dying days of film the LPL 67 enlarger sold massively.
That's a cool photo. Well done.Brought up on 35mm 2:3 format, so I love the nice and wide 6x9... This was taken with a second series Brooks Veriwide, not quite 6x9...
View attachment 229011
Really? There's a coverage difference but where's the quality difference?
For 8x10 enlargement the sweet spots are formats 4.5x6 and 6x7. Note that there is only a 14% potential quality improvement in going from 4.5x6 to 6x6 (based on area ratios), which isn't much, but there is a 43% potential quality improvement in going from 6x6 to 6x7 (based on area ratios), which might be noticeable. Going from 6x7 to 6x8 or 6x7 to 6x8 would be a 9% quality improvement (based on area ratios), which probably wouldn't be noticeable, and probably not worth it given the amount of film that would be wasted.
I rarely shoot 35mm because the negatives are so tiny. I've shot a lot of 645, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9. The SLR advantages are obvious, but the cameras are huge. My default walk out the door with a few rolls of TMY2 is a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder. However I love shooting my Hasselblad too. I frame square when shooting the Hasselblad and print square.Really? There's a coverage difference but where's the quality difference?
For 8x10 enlargement the sweet spots are formats 4.5x6 and 6x7. Note that there is only a 14% potential quality improvement in going from 4.5x6 to 6x6 (based on area ratios), which isn't much, but there is a 43% potential quality improvement in going from 6x6 to 6x7 (based on area ratios), which might be noticeable. Going from 6x7 to 6x8 or 6x7 to 6x8 would be a 9% quality improvement (based on area ratios), which probably wouldn't be noticeable, and probably not worth it given the amount of film that would be wasted.
I crop, huge advantage. This is why press guys shot 127mm lenses with 4x5 press cameras, shoot wide and pick out the part of the negative that gives the right print. I rarely print a straight 8x10 print, I like wider margins, different aspect ratios.If you are interested in 8x10 prints then there is almost no benefit in using 6x9 as far as image quality is concerned. Why? because 6x7 is almost a perfect fit to enlarge to 8x10, but 6x9 is a poor fit to 8x10. This means that you end up wasting a lot of film for 6x9 without much quality improvement compared to 6x6 format.
Here's a table that might be of interest:
format (nominal) actual format cropped for 8x10 area (square cm)
4.5x6 4.2x5.6 4.2x5.25 22.05
6x6 5.6x5.6 4.48x5.6 25.09
6x7 5.6x6.7 5.36x6.7 35.91
6x8 5.6x7.5 5.6x7 39.20
6x9 5.6x8.5 5.6x7 39.20
I got the actual format dimensions from http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/filmformats.html, except for 6x9, which I guessed at.
For 8x10 enlargement the sweet spots are formats 4.5x6 and 6x7. Note that there is only a 14% potential quality improvement in going from 4.5x6 to 6x6 (based on area ratios), which isn't much, but there is a 43% potential quality improvement in going from 6x6 to 6x7 (based on area ratios), which might be noticeable. Going from 6x7 to 6x8 or 6x7 to 6x8 would be a 9% quality improvement (based on area ratios), which probably wouldn't be noticeable, and probably not worth it given the amount of film that would be wasted.
An interesting comparison is 4.5x6 vs. 6x7. The 6x7 has a potential quality advantage of 63% (based on area ratios), but 4.5x6 gives 60% more shots on a roll (16 vs. 10 shots per roll), so there is almost a perfect quality/cost tradeoff between those two formats.
One advantage in using 6x9 for 8x10 enlargements is that it gives you a little more flexibility for cropping in the long direction, in case that is important.
Of course, if the preferred format is something different from 8x10 then the comparison will be different.
I apologize for the formatting of the table. I laid it out well in my text, but the formatting got mangled in the process of translating what I wrote into what is displayed. Hopefully the mangled form displayed in the post will be understandable with a little effort.
OK, I am uploading an image of the table above, nicely formated:
View attachment 229033
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?