• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

actual negative dimensions

Well, that is one version! I have used 2 different 4x5 films and. neither were glass plates. One was the size of the sheet film that came from the manufacturer for you to put in your film holders. The other size came from film packs and were larger. The situation was the same for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 films except there was a third size, those negatives that came from 120/620 roll film. Most enlarger manufacturers made negative holders in the different sizes. That was in the "golden age of photography that some of this group talks about.........Regards!
 
To be precise
  • the Bronica ETRS image area is 42.5 x 55.1mm
  • the Mamiya 645 image area is 41.5 x 56mm,
  • the Pentax 645 image area is 41.5 x 56mm,
  • the Hassy image area is 56 x 56mm
  • the Mamiya RB67 image area is 56 x 69.5mm
  • my Regal 4x5 film holder exposes an image area of 96 x 120mm
  • my Kodak Readyload 4x5 holder exposes an image area of 92.5 x 118mm
  • my Polaroid 4x5 holder exposes an image area of 95 x 120mm
... Tmax sheetfilm measures 99.5mm(3.918") x 125.3mm(4.934") and Ilford HP5 measures 101.6 x 127mm, and Kodak Portra 160 measures 101.6 x 127mm, so 4x5 is only a figurative name
 
Last edited:
Yikes! Hard to believe all this, and for what logical reason? Regarding the RB67, a camera I've long been interested in but never owned, is that the rollfilm negative sizing or the sheet film negative sizing?. If so it should rightly be sold as a 6x9 camera. I have several Fidelity 21/4x31/4 holders for the RB67 and the negative area of those is 54x79.
 
Barry, 56 x 69.5 isn't quite 56 x 79. There's no real 6x9 or 2x3 standard, gate lengths of commonly used 2x3/6.9 roll holders range from 78 mm (Graflex with pin rollers at the end of the gate) to 82 mm.
 
I have 6 Hasselblad 6x6 filmbacks, with year codes TH (62), TP (62) (bought new in 1964), UH (72), two UU (77) and one EE (99). The all have an image area of about 55x55 mm, not 56x56mm, wich is good since I then can get the black border when I scan with Nikkon Coolscan which scans 59.9 mm wide. As an example below an old image exposed in TH62861, when I remove the black borders thi image is 54.7x55.3 mm.
 

Attachments

  • 66ba403.jpg
    990.2 KB · Views: 121
An interesting tidbit. People often said that 6x7 was ideal for common print formats, however as stated above the 55.1mm x 42.5mm of the Bronica ETRS system is very close to the 14x11 print ratio and therefore a pretty optimal film image size for what I believe would be a very nice enlargement size, not to big but big enough for many.
 

Thx for the correction. In just reviewing the A12 user manual, Hasselblad says only "2-1/4 x 2-1/4 " which is 57mm x 57mm !
Then I referred to Ernst Wildi, who was a spokesperson for Hasselblad for many, many years, and a published author on the topic, who stated, "The exact image size is 54 x 54 mm, with 12 images on one roll of 120 fi lm and 24 on the 220 type. " but in his earlier book states, "55 x 55mm" Go figure.

In also looking up Bronica SQ, it says "55.6mm x 55.6mm"
 
Last edited:
The Eastman Kodak Company's No. 2 Brownie, the camera that 120 film was first made for, took a 2-1/4 in. by 3-1/4 in. picture (57 mm by 83 mm)
 
alanrockwood said:
What are the actual dimensions of 6x4.5 negatives?

I also wonder what the actual dimensions are for 6x6 format and 4x5 format.

Thanks.

Alan
Click to expand...
It depends a little bit on the camera brand but, it is typical for a MF negative 6 by x to be 56mm in width.
 
alanrockwood said:
What are the actual dimensions of 6x4.5 negatives?

I also wonder what the actual dimensions are for 6x6 format and 4x5 format.

Thanks.

Alan
Click to expand...

You have to measure it. There can be variability in the image frame between even cameras of the same type.


 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register