Have GAS (again), looking for a cure

[Steve Mack]

As I noted in the heading, I have GAS again. I'm looking for some information that might act like photographic Beano and help alleviate the problem.

I know that new gear won't make any improvements in my photos. I currently own a Mamiya 645 Pro, with a diopter-adjustable prism finder and a power winder and all the other trimmings (standard 80 mm lens.) I was wondering if the 6X4.5 negatives and transparencies will enlarge well to about 16X20. I kind of like the 6X6 format, but I can't see trading my Mamiya in as I will probably get $100.00 for it, to apply toward the purchase of a $1000.00 Hasselblad...:rolleyes:

BTW, what IS the biggest size print that's feasible with with the 6X4.5 format?

Anyway, just wondering.

Thanks to all who reply.

With best regards,

Stephen

 

[Morry Katz]

Even with medium speed film you should have no problem getting a decent 16 X 20 from a 6X 4.5.
Cheers
Morry Katz - Lethbridge, Canada

 

[MattKing]

Stephen:

If you like your Mamiya, a nice, additional lens would be a great treatment for GAS .

When used carefully, all of the Mamiya 645 lenses I have had experience with are eminently capable of producing quality 16x20 prints (or larger).

Matt

 

[DanielStone]

no problem. at least for me

but it depends on YOUR standards as to grain size, etc....

I rarely go past 11x14 paper size anymore, just because I'm running out of room for the prints . I only print my best now though, scan the rest.

-Dan

 

[pgomena]

6x4.5 with TMX, Acros, Delta 100 to 16x20 will be just fine. As suggested above, go buy a new additional lens. Look on the KEH website for many, many options. You're right that your body and lens will not fetch a whole lot of money. Trading up for an extra 1.5cm of film probably is not worth the loss you'll take on your setup. Mediium format gear is not bringing a whole lot of money these days.

Peter Gomena

 

[2F/2F]

Turn that GAS into PAS: print acquisition syndrome. Instead of spending money on a camera, improve (or build) your darkroom!

You can get 16 inch prints from 6x4.5 that look just as good as 8 inch prints from 35mm. That is a simple mathematical fact. They may, in fact, look better, because your viewers may back off a bit more than normal due to the size of the print, decreasing magnification to below that of the 8 inch print print. In the same theoretical vein of thought, a 30 inch print from 4x5 film would look just as good as either of these.

 

[polyglot]

Given that I can get a decent 11x14 from Pan-F in 35mm, I should expect that you can get even better quality in 16x20 from a similarly slow fine film. If you must buy something, buy a shorter lens.

 

[Q.G.]

You can indeed.
It has already been mentioned that it depends on viewing distance too. Pictures i shot on 6x6 are hanging in a local hotel (printed on translucent film using an ink sprayer), measuring more than 2 meters (about 80") tall.
People regularly go up close to these thingies to have a close look (what else? ), and still get to see more detail than they do from a normal viewing distance.
Despite the size, and the gruelling proces the images have gone through to get from perfect negative to the thingies that are on the wall.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The limit for print size at Q.G. noted depends on the viewing distance and quality of the enlarger. If you look for threads started by me, there is a thread about maximum print sizes. The conclusion is that the quality of the enlarger including the lens dictates the maximum size of the print. One enlarger may make soft prints above 11"x14" while the next has no problem taking the same negative to 16"x20". I have a custom color lab that has an enlarger on a horizontal track that can take the same print and make a 12 foot high print.

The solution is to give into the GAS, as I have, and buy a Hasselblad. We know that you really want a Hasselblad SWC!

Enjoy your GAS.

Steve

 

[Mike1234]

Turn that GAS into PAS: print acquisition syndrome.

Wouldn't that be PAS GAS?

Although 'Blads are nice I wouldn't think you'll see a significant improvement over the Mamiya especially if you crop rectangular. If you want to see a marked improvement you'll need to increase the size of your film image to at least 6x7cm. Frankly though, that will be somewhat incremental so why not move up to 4x5?

 

[fschifano]

I've got to agree with Mike. A 6x6 negative, when cropped to fit an 11x14 print is using only about 6x4.5 from that negative anyway, so what's the point? The Mamiya lenses and cameras are better than good, and hardly a limiting factor. Some real benefit will be seen by going up to a 6x7 negative because you will get to use much more of the negative to make that 11x14 print. Good deals can be had for Mamiya RB67 and RZ67 cameras, as well as the venerable Pentax 67 cameras. Going up to 4x5 from there may not be practical, and certainly not as convenient. Hand held shooting with 4x5 is out of the question unless you're using an old press camera like a Speed or Crown Graphic.

 

[Q.G.]

I've got to agree with Mike. A 6x6 negative, when cropped to fit an 11x14 print is using only about 6x4.5 from that negative anyway, so what's the point?

First, you do not have to crop.

Second, you get to choose where to crop: a 6x6 cropped to 6x4.5 is a 6x4.5 with 25% shift, without having to buy a shift lens.

But you're right. Assuming you do not like the square format, not much 6x6 will do for you.

[...] Some real benefit will be seen by going up to a 6x7 negative because you will get to use much more of the negative to make that 11x14 print.

That's not true though (even though you say "some").
The difference is minute.
You really need to go up to a much larger format to see a real difference.

 

[fotch]

I took some color aerial photos with my 645 and had them enlarged to 24x36 inch. Still have them 20 yrs. later and they look great. Don't remember the film although I am sure it what Kodak and around 100 speed.

 

[removed account4]

what 2f/2f and q.g. said

but after it is all said and done,
if you want a new camera and can afford
to buy it, and it makes you happy, what is the point
of asking how or why you shouldn't do it ?

plenty of people make beautiful images enlarging 35mm film
to mind boggling sizes, so enlarged 120 film shouldn't really be an issue ..

 

[Mike1234]

How can you possibly compare 135 with LF or even MF?? If size makes no difference then go buy a Minox and make billboard-sized images. With this logic resolution/grain are independant of film size.

Even the digital crowd consensus is that a bigger sensor yields better results... even when pixel count is the same.

 

[Anscojohn]

First, you do not have to crop.



For an 11x14 from a square neg? How be that possible???

 

[fschifano]

Thank you, John.

 

[Ian David]

How can you possibly compare 135 with LF or even MF?? If size makes no difference then go buy a Minox and make billboard-sized images. With this logic resolution/grain are independant of film size.

Even the digital crowd consensus is that a bigger sensor yields better results... even when pixel count is the same.

I think John N's point is that the "feasible" print size for a given film format is entirely subjective. It depends on the printer's/viewer's personal taste. For some purposes, a Minox neg blown up to billboard size would no doubt look great.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

Good photographers crop while they are taking the photograph. Then they print on large enough paper so that they do not have to crop again.

There is no law that demands that you print to standard size prints. If you like square then shoot square; if you like rectangular then shoot rectangular. Choose the format that you like but allow yourself to compose the the shape that you do not have with you when that is what is called for by the composition.

Steve

 

[Mike1234]

I think John N's point is that the "feasible" print size for a given film format is entirely subjective. It depends on the printer's/viewer's personal taste. For some purposes, a Minox neg blown up to billboard size would no doubt look great.

Ian

Now Ian... I know you know better than this.

 

[Mike1234]

Good photographers crop while they are taking the photograph. Then they print on large enough paper so that they do not have to crop again.

There is no law that demands that you print to standard size prints. If you like square then shoot square; if you like rectangular then shoot rectangular. Choose the format that you like but allow yourself to compose the the shape that you do not have with you when that is what is called for by the composition.

Steve

What if we want to shoot circularly or ovoid or w/a\v/e\y?

 

[Q.G.]

First, you do not have to crop.

For an 11x14 from a square neg? How be that possible???

O.k.
"First, you do not have to crop" the negative.

How about a nice 11x11, or 14x14?

 

[Christopher Walrath]

So, basically, Keith is prescribing D.I.P.P. (Darkroom Improvement and Photographic Printing). I must admit, this has been key in satiating my own G. A. S. this year. And will serve to lessen my G. A. S. this coming year by encouraging my own S. A. D. (Supply Acquistions for Darkroom work). Finally, a cure for G. A. S.

 

[fschifano]

O.k.
"First, you do not have to crop" the negative.

How about a nice 11x11, or 14x14?

Nothing wrong at all with a nice square print. Sometimes that aspect ratio works, and sometimes it doesn't. Fact is, if you want a rectangle from a square, you're going to crop something.

 

[Q.G.]

Fact is, if you want a rectangle from a square, you're going to crop something.

Sure.

But you can make a 6x6 negative fit an 11x14 piece of paper by cropping the paper (or leaving part of it blank).
Who's "using only about 6x4.5 from that negative anyway" then?

So your following "So what's the point?" is pointless.