6x8: The exotic format?

[Slixtiesix]

This format seems to be very uncommon and I wonder why. The only cameras I know of that use it are the Fuji GX680 series and the GW680/GSW680. The former was introduced in the late 80s, the latter in the early 90s. Am I right that this is a relatively new format that was created by Fuji only and no other manufacturer ever adopted it?

 

[Kirks518]

The motorized back for the Mamiya RB67 is also 6x8. Weird thing about it is you really can't compose in 6x8, as the VF only lets you see the 6x7 format, so you're really just getting the additional 1/2 cm on either side of your composition.

 

[wombat2go]

Graflex RH-8 was nominally 6x8 (57.7 by 77.7 mm)
8 exposures per roll

 

[Dan Fromm]

Wombat, the RH-8 is nominally 2.25" x 3.25". The gate is smaller because it was shortened to make room for a pin roller at each end. Late versions of the earlier 2x3 Graflex roll holders' shells have the pin rollers and shortened gates too.

The relationship between nominal and actual gate sizes confuses everyone.

 

[MattKing]

The motorized back for the Mamiya RB67 is also 6x8. Weird thing about it is you really can't compose in 6x8, as the VF only lets you see the 6x7 format, so you're really just getting the additional 1/2 cm on either side of your composition.

Strangely enough, there are film recorders out there that use a Mamiya RB67 motorized back to expose 6x8 negatives or slides.

I really like that aspect ratio (essentially the same as 6x4.5), not to mention the fact that 9 negatives will fit comfortably in certain PrintFile pages.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I like it too. It matches conveniently with some paper sizes like 12X16 or (roughly) 9.5x12.

 

[moto-uno]

Contrary to it's name "Fuji GL690" it in fact produces negs that are 8 cm in length .
Where as my Medalist is much closer to 9 cm . Peter

 

[gone]

This is often the case w/ folders too, and maybe other types of MF cameras. The negative sizes can often vary, and this, along w/ enlarger manufacture's vague or optimistic claims has caused me no end of grief. For starters, 2 x 3 is 5 x 7.6 in mm, or roughly 5 x 8. 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 is 6.35 x 8.9 in mm, or roughly 6 x 9, and 6 x 9 comes out to 2 23/64" x 3 1/2". Here's the conversion chart below, but it's useless, as your camera makes negatives of whatever size it makes, and your enlarger is good for enlarging whatever size you can file the negative carrier out to fit.

If enlarger manufacturers made tires and film makers made rims, then you would probably not be able to mount the tires on the rims because they would be too small. Or more probably, one side of the tire would fit fine, but you could never get the other side on the rim. My enlarger has a glass negative carrier that is way bigger than 6x9, but the metal part is considerably smaller, and needless to say crops off a lot of my Bessa RF negatives in a lengthwise direction. So I filed it to fit my negs.

Phrases like 2x3 and 6x9 apparently refer to sheet film, not roll film, but I wouldn't put any money on that either. Your particular negatives are whatever size you measure them to be. As a former machinist, this kind of thing drives me crazy. When I miked a shaft to be exactly 3" and needed 1/000 clearance, I needed a bushing size of exactly 3.001, not 2.999 or 3.002, just 3.001.

https://mdmetric.com/tech/cvtcht.htm

 

[peoplemerge]

I've had a GX680II since January. I totally love it, it's a great studio camera. The 6x8 format is a great aspect ratio for printing (as MattKing pointed out same as 6x4.5), so it can use a larger negative area on most standard paper sizes than 6x7. It allows full movements on all lenses except the widest 50mm and longest 500mm, work great at closest focus, and all are dirt cheap.

Here's one shot using the 180/3.2 shot wide open at 1/30 at the closest focusing distance allowed by standard rails (scanned on my cheap home Epson flatbed):

If you want to see the raw output, here's a recent unprocessed drum scan (courtesy of Arturo Pedroza @ Rayko Photo, San Francisco): https://peoplemerge.com/img/Image(455)01.tif (working on a new website, will revise the link when it's launched).

Both images are shot in Delta 100 that I processed for 6m in HC110 using IIRC the 150mm/4.5 shot at 1/30 at f8

 

[DREW WILEY]

You forgot about plastic cameras like Diana and Holga. You can just hold these under a hair dryer and stretch them into a wider format once the plastic starts to melt!

 

[peoplemerge]

Whoops! Hope my use of scanned negatives and words doesn't offend anyone. Sorry! This really is just Apug

 

[Slixtiesix]

Great! The 180/3,2 alone would be a reason for me to buy this system. Heard great things about it before...

 

[peoplemerge]

Yes the 180/3,2 is something special! Mine just arrived this week, waiting for my first roll of Ektar to come back from the processor.

 

[John Koehrer]

Whoops! Hope my use of scanned negatives and words doesn't offend anyone. Sorry! This really is just Apug

No problem at all. Just don't start talkin' that digi lingo.

 

[Dan Fromm]

momus, moto-uno, you're confusing nominal roll film formats' (camera gate) sizes with actual. To begin with, the nominal metric sizes 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 are sloppy approximations to the actual sizes. The nominal sizes in inches (2.25" x 3.25", 2.25" x 2.75", 2.25" x 3.25") are fairly close to actual. Actual sizes in metric are 56 mm x 56 mm, 56 mm x 68 - 70 mm and 56 mm x 78 mm - 82 mm (a few 6x9 roll holders have gates 84 mm long). There's some variation, usually slight, in gate length between makers.

Metric 6x8 doesn't have an equivalent in inches. Per a Fuji GX 680 II manual, the actual size is 56 x 76.

momus, 2x3 is an abbreviation of 2.25 x 3.25. 6x9 is, as I've said, a lousy metric approximation. These days both are primarily roll film formats, although b/w 2x3 (= 6x9) sheet film is still available. 6.5 x 9 is a metric sheet film format that doesn't, as far as I know, have an equivalent in inches.

People who don't all know this tie themselves in tight knots trying to make sense of it.