Advantage of 6x8 over 6x7?

[stradibarrius]

What is the main advantage if any of a 6x8 negative over a 6x7 negative?
I am thinking about getting a 6x8 powerback for my RB67 and was wondering what benefit I will gain??

 

[Q.G.]

The different aspect ratio. That would be a benefit, if you like it more than 6x7's ratio.
Else, nothing.

 

[John Koehrer]

Um, a slightly wider negative?
If you would prefer the slightly more rectangular look, that's reason enough.
I'm making a mask for an RB back that gives me a 1:1.618 ratio. That's the "golden mean" which is supposed to be the "perfect" visual proportion. Has to do with the proportions of the Parthenon. Some other artsy yakkety-yak.
It's just something to do. In order to do this I end up with an opening of ~48X79mm.

 

[Chazzy]

It gives you a slightly more rectangular negative: nothing more, nothing less. But I think you already knew that. Are you asking how the 6x8 proportions will fit on standard paper sizes, or is your question about something else?

 

[stradibarrius]

that's is sorta of what I was thinking. 6x7 fits printing paper fairly well and I was thinking that if I went to 6x8 I my lose part of the image???
John, the Golden Mean has been a standard in design for ever. a majority of furniture is design using these proportions. There are some very interesing correlations between this ratio and nature, design etc.

 

[kauffman v36]

the golden mean/aspect/ratio, whatever you want to call it is derived from nature and is in more elements of design that we are aware of. being an architecture major i can say it goes into EVERYTHING we use and see.

i have a 6x8 back for my RZ and while its not perfect, i do prefer the ratio, prints 9x12 on 11x14 paper which gives you a perfect 1 inch border.

 

[Pinholemaster]

More

Acreage.

 

[unclemack]

The aspect ratio suits A-series paper a little better IMHO - but the main reason I use them is that I'm much too lazy to wind the back myself.

 

[Jim Noel]

The world was not created in 8x10 or 11x17 or A-series.
There is nothing wrong with having a wide border top and bottom in order to utilize the beautiful aspect ratio of the Golden Mean.

 

[keithwms]

I like 6x8 a lot. I don't feel any need to justify that, I just like it. Yes, there are some technical advantages and disadvantages i.e. less cropping for some standard paper sizes, but... in the end everybody's artistic vision is individual (or should be). I mean, basing these things in what standard papers are available, it's just not how I like to think.

One drawback of shooting 6x8 on the rb: your VF won't show you 100% of the image... but you'll get used to it.

Another minor drawback: the 6x8 back is powered and it's kinda heavy. I mean, camera + prism + back + lens easily gets it into 4x5 territory, in terms of weight and bulk.

Advantage for architecture and such: if you shoot ultrawide and want to do lens correction electronically (perspective or other corrections), then you will want as much frame as possible. It's never quite as good as working with a view camera but it can come pretty darn close. I have even gotten quite acceptable results shooting a fisheye to 6x8 and then electronically defishing it and cropping out the funky edges. You can do similar things with 6x7 too, but, when you do the corrections you lose a lot of frame area, maybe a third of the overall image area, or so. I guess we won't discuss that here because it involves PS Naturally, I prefer to do these things on a view camera but that isn't always workable.

6x8 also quickly becomes 6x9 or further with a minor crop, if you like pano landscapes. Or you could load 35mm film into the 6x8 back if you just want to go wiiiide...

 

[Vaughn]

One can go through a roll of film faster?

 

[Ian Grant]

Variety is the spice of life.

So is choices of format, I've almost completely abandoned 35mm, and for 20+ years only shot 5x4 for my personal work, with some 6x9 in a roll film back occasionally.

Now I've gone back to 6x6, and also shoot 6x17 as well as 5x4/10x8, but you compose to the format, so if you want a touch wider than 6x7 then 6x8 is a good choice and gives you another option.

Ian

 

[thisismyname09]

Or you could load 35mm film into the 6x8 back if you just want to go wiiiide...

I'm planning on doing this, but instead I'll be loading small cuts of 35mm film into that cut film holder you mentioned in the thread I made a week or so ago. I need a wider lens, first, though.

 

[keithwms]

I'm planning on doing this, but instead I'll be loading small cuts of 35mm film into that cut film holder you mentioned in the thread I made a week or so ago. I need a wider lens, first, though.

Sounds cool. So you are making some sort of insert so that the film will be held reproducibly in the same spot? Or you could simply tape it down.

What lens are you looking for?

 

[stradibarrius]

Keith, do I need any special adapter for the powerback to fit my RB? do I have to change the rotating adapter?

 

[keithwms]

No, I don't think so. Mind you I only had the pro SD so I can't say whether previous RBs might require some adapter. I don't think so; I think they all have pretty much the same graflok attachment on the film side of the rotating adapter.

 

[2F/2F]

What is the main advantage if any of a 6x8 negative over a 6x7 negative?
I am thinking about getting a 6x8 powerback for my RB67 and was wondering what benefit I will gain??

Approximately one centimeter on the long dimension. Do you really need to ask what that will do for you?

As for the idea that you would have to crop your image because a 6x8 image does not proportion up to standard paper sizes...are you serious?

I do not in any way get why so many people work such that that goal number one is to fill the printing paper, even if it means cropping off part of their picture. It shows a remarkable lack of vision and intent, and zero common sense.

 

[unclemack]

Hope this isn't too late...
There are two different sizes of rotating adapter for the RB - 6x7 and 6x8.
The original Pro bodies would need the rear plate of the ProS with its slightly larger gate to be fitted, or the existing plate's gate to be similarly widened.

 

[thisismyname09]

Sounds cool. So you are making some sort of insert so that the film will be held reproducibly in the same spot? Or you could simply tape it down.

What lens are you looking for?

I may be able to have an insert made, otherwise I can always wedge the film into the bottom of the frame and deal with the slight shift, or tape it, like you mentioned. As far as lenses go I'm looking to get the 50mm C, but I won't be able to afford it for a while, methinks.

 

[kauffman v36]

As for the idea that you would have to crop your image because a 6x8 image does not proportion up to standard paper sizes...are you serious?

I do not in any way get why so many people work such that that goal number one is to fill the printing paper, even if it means cropping off part of their picture. It shows a remarkable lack of vision and intent, and zero common sense.

x1048683404968 i will never understand why people crop off parts of their image to fit standard sizes. when i print on 8x10 paper i make 35mm prints in 5x7.5 or 6x9, i try to make use of as much as possible of the negative. for 6x7 i print 6x7.5. for the few 6x8 negs i have ive printed them 6x7.5 because the corners have severe falloff and i cannot use the whole neg. same with 11x14 except the dimensions increase proportionally.

the bad part of doing your own sizes is then you have to cut your own matts, as i do. PITA

 

[stradibarrius]

2f/2F, If you don't like this thread then don't waste your time to read it or replying. A little common sense would at least make someone wonder why Mamiya would go to the trouble and expense to manufacture a 6x8 option if there were no good reason to do so. Did they spend that money just for one centimeter? Was it a marketing move or was there some "photographic" reason that prompted them to spend the money. I know there are several people on this forum that are fans of the 6x8 format and I was curious as to why. A little common sense would also dictate asking a question here where people use the format before I spend my money to buy something that has no real purpose.

As far why someone would want to fit standard size paper there are several reasons. But you seem to lack the "vision" to understand why that could possibly be true.

Judging from your response you seem to be saying that your way of looking at things is the only correct way... Also where are some of you photos? To have such a slanted opinion you must have some photos that we could look at and see if you can "walk the walk" or if you just "talk the talk".

For the rest of you I apologize for my rant.
unclemack, am I understanding you to say that the the 6x8 powerback will fit the Pro-S but not the Pro? Do you know if the powerback will fit the Pro-SD?

 

[Chazzy]

2f/2f, you are an ASS. If you don't like this thread then don't waste your time to read it or replying. A little common sense would at least make someone wonder why Mamiya would go to the trouble and expense to manufacture a 6x8 option if there were no good reason to do so. Did they spend that money just for one centimeter? Was it a marketing move or was there some "photographic" reason that prompted them to spend the money. I know there are several people on this forum that are fans of the 6x8 format and I was curious as to why. A little common sense would also dictate asking a question here where people use the format before I spend my money to buy something that has no real purpose.

As far why someone would want to fit standard size paper there are several reasons. But you seem to lack the "vision" to understand why that could possibly be true.

Judging from your response you seem to be saying that your way of looking at things is the only correct way...that shows what an IDIOT you are! Also where are some of you photos? To have such a slanted opinion you must have some photos that we could look at and see if you can "walk the walk" or if you just "talk the talk".

For the rest of you I apologize for my rant.
unclemack, am I understanding you to say that the the 6x8 powerback will fit the Pro-S but not the Pro? Do you know if the powerback will fit the Pro-SD?

I know that 2f/2f can be blunt, but I take exception to your calling him an ass and an idiot. Surely we can have a little decorum on APUG.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Let's all dial it back, please.

 

[SuzanneR]

I know that 2f/2f can be blunt, but I take exception to your calling him an ass and an idiot. Surely we can have a little decorum on APUG.

Agreed.

Name calling is hardly productive. There is an ignore function here, if you don't like the tone of someone, put them on ignore instead of name calling.

 

[Ria]

A tangent, if you don't mind...There have been several mentions of the 6x8 as being "more rectangular" than the 6x7. This is not technically true. A rectangle is, by definition, a 4 sided figure whose opposite sides are parallel and whose corners are all right angles. Therefore, even a square is a rectangle.
I realize that there are those who will regard this as splitting hairs, since people know what is meant by "more rectangular"; but it is one of those things that gets to me, thanks to my 10th grade geometry teacher.
Ria
P.S. I suppose, on the other hand, that 6x8 could be referred to as "less square"?