Curious about the 6x10 format

Sanjay Sen · May 15, 2007

I was wondering if the 6x10 format is one that has fallen out of favor or if it is something that Ron Wisner tried to start. I think the only reference I can find on this format is a mention on Wisner's website (here) and in an article by Oren on the TOP blog (here). If anybody has any information on this format, I am interested to learn more.

Best wishes,
Sanjay

PHOTOTONE · May 15, 2007

Historically, I don't think there was a 6x10 format.

photomc · May 15, 2007

PHOTOTONE said:
Historically, I don't think there was a 6x10 format.

Would have to disagree, see this link

The 6x10 is close to the same perspective as 7x11 or 12x20 (note I say close). Have actually been considering making a slider/splitter board for my 8x10 Korona so I can shoot 6x10 (actually 6.125x10) as I tend to see in 5x7 format better than 8x10. If you have a 8x10 camera, give it a try.

matt miller · May 15, 2007

I recently saw a 6x10 back for a 5x7 Rittreck on ebay. I have a 5x7 Rittreck, but passed because I'm sure holders in that size are nearly impossible to find.

Sanjay Sen · May 16, 2007

photomc said:
Would have to disagree, see this link

The 6x10 is close to the same perspective as 7x11 or 12x20 (note I say close). Have actually been considering making a slider/splitter board for my 8x10 Korona so I can shoot 6x10 (actually 6.125x10) as I tend to see in 5x7 format better than 8x10. If you have a 8x10 camera, give it a try.

Interesting, to say the least. Thank you, Mike, for the link.

I recently got a 10x12 camera which arrived yesterday. This format got me thinking about the other possibilities with additional backs - 5x12, 6x10, and the "standard" formats. 5x12 and 6x10 could be done by using a splitter along the length or the width of the format. However, the dark slides do not come out all the way out of the film holder, so this is not possible with the holder that came with the camera. I could get an S&S holder, but I have no clue if it will fit the camera I have.

Thanks for the info.

Best wishes,
Sanjay

Emile de Leon · May 16, 2007

Ron Wisner still makes a 6x10. There is also a 6x10 back for the Rittreck 5x7 w/ holders from Tachihara. I have a 6x10 Rittreck outfit I bought cheap from Japan recently. AWB will make 6x10 filmholder for around $300- each. 6x10 is a nice format, smaller than 8x10 and close to the golden mean in composition. I have 3 cameras similar to these proportions, Brooks Veriwide roll film 6x10, Rittreck 6x10, and 12x20. All are very nice to shoot with. If you need a 6x10 Wisner or AWB filmholders I'm a dealer. Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com.

Oren Grad · May 16, 2007

The story I heard was that Ron Wisner first made his 6x10 at the request of Clyde Butcher, who wanted a "mini-12x20". I don't know how many he actually built beyond what Clyde ordered - I think I've seen one for sale only twice in all the years I've been watching. If I recall correctly Clyde also ordered a run of Delta 400 in 6x10.

I have the Rittreck 6x10 back with matching Tachihara holders. I think the format is actually just a hair smaller than 6x10 on both dimensions, though I haven't yet tried to make exact measurements of what the holders can accept.

It is a very nice proportion. Even though the Rittreck is a fairly heavy camera for its size - all that heavy metal - with the 6x10 back it's still much smaller and many pounds lighter than my 7x11 Eastman, which is quite a beast.

Thanks, photomc - I had missed the mention of the 6x10 Seneca on the wonderful "Field Cameras of the US" site. Although it was offered, I wonder how many were actually made. I'm not aware of any other modern cameras in the format.

Ole · May 16, 2007

photomc said:
Have actually been considering making a slider/splitter board for my 8x10 Korona so I can shoot 6x10 (actually 6.125x10) as I tend to see in 5x7 format better than 8x10. If you have a 8x10 camera, give it a try.

Why not try the metric 8x10" equivalent - 18x24cm is close to the same proportions as 5x7", and only requires a separate holder in any 8x10" camera. Used 18x24cm holders are easily available for a fraction of the price of 8x10" holders (I use both sizes).

photomc · May 16, 2007

With the 10x12, it would be possible to go with a 7x11 back/film. I do not have one (but looking ) and have read a few threads discussing the format, it seems like a nice format for contact printing (and from what others have said, is like a mini-12x20).

Good luck

sensanjay said:
Interesting, to say the least. Thank you, Mike, for the link.

I recently got a 10x12 camera which arrived yesterday. This format got me thinking about the other possibilities with additional backs - 5x12, 6x10, and the "standard" formats. 5x12 and 6x10 could be done by using a splitter along the length or the width of the format. However, the dark slides do not come out all the way out of the film holder, so this is not possible with the holder that came with the camera. I could get an S&S holder, but I have no clue if it will fit the camera I have.

Thanks for the info.

Best wishes,
Sanjay

photomc · May 16, 2007

Ole said:
Why not try the metric 8x10" equivalent - 18x24cm is close to the same proportions as 5x7", and only requires a separate holder in any 8x10" camera. Used 18x24cm holders are easily available for a fraction of the price of 8x10" holders (I use both sizes).

Interesting thought Ole, should pick up at last one holder and give the format a try - if I converted correctly it would be approx. 7x9.5 inches. Always good to have option.

Ole · May 16, 2007

A propos 10x12" - yet again the "metric" is a little narrower at 24x30cm, often called 9.5x12". My problem with that size is that it seems that all film manufacturere assume that it really is 9.5" by 12", which it isn't. So all the film I buy needs to be trimmed down by a few mm each way...

Sanjay Sen · May 16, 2007

photomc said:
With the 10x12, it would be possible to go with a 7x11 back/film. I do not have one (but looking ) and have read a few threads discussing the format, it seems like a nice format for contact printing (and from what others have said, is like a mini-12x20).

Good luck

Thanks for that! Somehow I didn't think of 7x11. So now there's three non-standard format possibilities that I could try with this camera.

Emile de Leon · May 16, 2007

The only downside to the Rittreck 6x10 is cutting down 8x10 film and the widest you can go on it is 180mm. Other than that it is a very nice camera in operation.

wfwhitaker · May 17, 2007

I've still got six S&S 7x11 film holders for sale...

-Will

jimgalli · May 18, 2007

6X10 is easy and cheap. It's 8X10 and a pair of scissors.

Sanjay Sen · May 18, 2007

jimgalli said:
6X10 is easy and cheap. It's 8X10 and a pair of scissors.

I have this habit of not cropping anything. When I compose on the viewfinder/ground glass, I never compose with the option of cropping out something later on. All my compositions are done in such a way that everything that shows up in the negative will show up on the print. So try as I might, I wouldn't be able to compose a scene for 6x10 on an 8x10, or 10x12 in this case. Of course, the cheap and easy option is to mask the GG for 6x10.

I am sure I am not the only one with this habit. Or do you always compose with the option of cropping out later on?

Best wishes,
Sanjay

matt miller · May 18, 2007

sensanjay said:
I am sure I am not the only one with this habit. Or do you always compose with the option of cropping out later on?

I compose, quite often, with the intention of cropping the print. It's refreshing to have so many "formats" available with one neg size.

George Losse · May 18, 2007

Sanjay,

The simplest way to try 6x10 or 5x10 or even 4x10 is to take an old holder add a couple of rails down the center of the film area wide enough to hold the the trimmed-down film. I did this with 4x10 so I didn't have to buy special holders or a new camera back. All it cost me were some holders that I already had.

Then just mask the 8x10 back so that you are seeing the 6x10 area in the center and use the 8x10 camera. How you mask the camera back is up to you, for me I used two red lines to show the edge of the image area. They did not distract me too much while still using the camera as an 8x10 and could be seen when using it as the 4x10.

jimgalli · May 18, 2007

sensanjay said:
I have this habit of not cropping anything. When I compose on the viewfinder/ground glass, I never compose with the option of cropping out something later on. All my compositions are done in such a way that everything that shows up in the negative will show up on the print. So try as I might, I wouldn't be able to compose a scene for 6x10 on an 8x10, or 10x12 in this case. Of course, the cheap and easy option is to mask the GG for 6x10.

I am sure I am not the only one with this habit. Or do you always compose with the option of cropping out later on?

Best wishes,
Sanjay

I was being a bit of a smart aleck. No I don't cut up my negs But at the cost of 6X10 holders and back, I'd certainly make a block out for the 8X10. It fits in the back and simply blocks what you're seeing to focus on and what the film will "see". They're common for 4X10 and 5X8. You could make a 6X10 one from a 4X10 blank out or simply cut a piece of black 4 ply matt board to do the job.

Curious about the 6x10 format

Sanjay Sen

PHOTOTONE

photomc

matt miller

Sanjay Sen

Emile de Leon

Oren Grad

Ole

Moderator

photomc

photomc

Ole

Moderator

Sanjay Sen

Emile de Leon

wfwhitaker

jimgalli

Sanjay Sen

matt miller

George Losse

jimgalli

Curious about the 6x10 format

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency