How close is a 6x9 neg enlarged to 11x14 v LF 4x5

[DREW WILEY]

The working method of large format is the key difference, regardless of square inches of film. It shows you down, forces you to contemplate
your composition more carefully, introduces a greater level of discipline for many photographers who do undertake it, which then transfers into
even their smaller camera work. It's also highly enjoyable for many of us. Bigger negs are easier to print from in the darkroom. But there are times when you need more spontaneity and a more conventional small camera. So it's not really one versus the other, but when is a particular
kit or method more appropriate than another. I don't even know which kit I going out with tommorow - I've got both a 6x7 and the 4x5 all packed, so I can make a last minute decision. But I shot a bit too much 8x10 last weekend, so need to do a little penance with my budget.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Gosh, you could probably make a squillion with beautiful images created on a 6x9 pinhole camera!

I printed Ilfochrome from the oft-derided 35mm for more than 20 years, this work sold well framed up. You could probably do the same in 35mm if you have the foundation photography skills and business knowledge, or maybe even better in medium format or large format, but the quality of your work, the knowledge and execution of your chosen oeuvre is more important than the format. Too many people are carried away nowadays with cameras in ever imaginable format and producing quite mediocre work (very especially digital, and I make no apologies for lambasting their piss-poor efforts at sending up successful photographers working in analogue); I see better work here in the community of APUG than I do in the broader world. Sorry, but that's what I am seeing. People need to choose a format and work it, work it, work it to perfection and get their work to rise to heights unseen by others.

For me medium format provides all the slow-down, contemplation and attention to composition that was refined in my 35mm work. No benefit to me (or my work) in moving to a large format set up; that's what experience and the craft has told me.

 

[John Koehrer]

Hi Richard,

If you elect to go with a 6X9 you might want to consider a Horseman 6X9 or a 6X9 view camera with a roll back for full movements.

Great compromise, this. It gives a vast variety of lens availability. IE: you're not locked into one brand of usually limited focal length lenses.

 

[jp80874]

I have no issues at all in making a print from a great 35mm shot for a show. I do tend to feel quite embarrassed for those poor ULF shooters who sing the praises of the format only to show some of the most boring photographs the world has ever seen.

The format does not matter, the talent that gave birth to the photograph shown is all that *does* matter.

Please don't be embarrassed for us, just send money.

John P.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Poisson - if any media drastically benefitted from a larger original, it was Ciba. Yeah, I did do well selling certain prints generated from 35mm
Kodachrome, but I would far far far rather being printing Ciba from 4x5, or in the case of large prints, from 8x10 chromes. There are all kinds of technical reasons alone for this, not to mention the vastly greater amount of detail that can be conveyed in a print from large format originals,
something Ciba was eminently good at. I'm not putting down 35mm in this respect by any means, but to get good color in anything larger than
about 8x10 it was valuable to enlarge the original onto a sheet film dupe, so that the final degree of enlargement was only 2X to 4X. But that's
a whole other topic, and of limited interest anyway, now that Ciba is almost extinct. By people who only shoot ordinary cameras, along with
today's digital shooters, often conceive of large format technique simply in terms of film size, and don't recognize the various other inherent
advantages to going that route. Once you've gotten accustomed to large format, you wonder why you didn't do things that way all along.
But I still use my Nikon too. It's all fun.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes, Ilfochromes looked beautiful from MF and LF, including panoramas, that's definintely known. I always tempered my enthusiasm and angst with the belief that what I was doing, what I was producing, and the format I was using, was best for that time and place, but eventually the spell wore off (but it took the better part of almost three decades using 35mm and two decades of Ilfochrome production!); I was one of only 4 photographers in Australia printing from 35mm, and getting some income back from it. I had to live on a boiled egg for a fortnight at times, it was so bloody expensive. I would not go down that path again, it was too stressful.

And by the time I moved on to medium format, Ilfochrome was finished, LOL! Certainly, the 35mm 'chromes do not look as spectacular as the later MF prints, even if those prints are not Ilfochromes. I still produce work on 35mm but now in greeting cards and postcards — a nice product proportional to the format, while the MF heavy-hitter is used for exhibition prints, the largest almost a metre across. I imagine LF can go bigger than this, but as I've said earlier, I have and see no reason to move any further in formats.

It would be nice to see, as I beaver and weave around the bush, a large format photographer, but I just do not see them now. The landscape genre does not seem as wedded to LF as it does to digital. Oh well...

Now if you'll excuse me, on this most auspicious Australia Day long weekend, it's time to go surfing — no, not web surfing, the real thing, in the briney!

 

[markbarendt]

It's all fun.

Yes.

 

[Mark Fisher]

At 11x14? I'd be comfortable with anything 645 and up if you are using FP4/Acros/Tmax100. That said, if I did that project, I would absolutely use a view camera of whatever format. I hate it when lines slope in. The movement are the important difference between your 6x9 and a 4x5. There is a bit of a learning curve, but it isn't that bad.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Thanks for the responses. My bet is 6x9 with movement would be a slight improvement.

Considerations are I have a LPL 6x7 enlarger with dichro and condenser head.... so 6x9 means another enlarger. I have limited DR space. Even a Bessler 23 would be a shoe horn fit.

I'm not going back to LF...the 5x7 is for display

At viewing distance selected 35mm images (FP-4), (1956 Summicron), look as good as images from 6x6 Rollei negs. I used small format only for DOF, format shape, and involved silhouettes. I'm satisfied with B&W MF, especially when enlargements are not beyond 11x14 considering the give and take. As I mention previously, I caught myself over thinking. You work with the limits you find yourself in.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I shot the same subjectbut in France with a Mamiya6;enlarged to 211x14 it left nothing to be desired.with a 4x5, I wouldn't even have gotten into the churchand even if, I 'd lost a lot of time due to set up.MF is much more versitile. the quality jump from 35 to MF is huge. T|he quality jump from MF to LF is less spectacularunless uourLFcamera formats large enough to stay with contact printingand.Also, someview camera movements,such as parallel verticalsbut not DOF, can be simulated withe right enlarger.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

You mean invasion day?

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I've always liked the B&W results and tonality that I've gotten from medium format backs on a 4x5 camera. But, I typically print them on 8x10 paper. I've had good luck using the old Graphic knob backs. After showing one of these prints to a photographer who regularly contact prints 8x10 negatives, he asked me if it was an 8x10 contact print.

One thing to consider. Since view camera optics allow for movements, they won't be as sharp as optics for a dedicated medium format camera like a Mamiya RB67. But, you get the movements and other advantages that a view camera can offer.

After many years, I finally purchased a medium format view camera, so that I could have both the medium format view capability with a lighter and more convenient camera.

For color, I'm biased towards 4x5. I've obtained some excellent results with that combination. The tonality can be really beautiful, even printing a scanned digital image on 17x22 paper..

 

[GaryFlorida]

6x9cm does not equal 4x5 in in quality and more importantly in tonality. If you go the 6x9cm route I would follow PDH suggestion and get a view camera either from Horseman or Linhof you need the movements for serious architecture work. A rangefinder like the Texas Leica is not the best choice for architectural work no movement and not so precise finder. A great 6x9 is the rather rare Makiflex SLR that used to be made by Plaubel.

why is tonality different between 6x9 and 4x5?

 

[Doc W]

to put it simply,the change from 35mm to MF is a huge jump in quality.the jump from MF to LF is dissapointing in comparison.in you case I'd suggest 6x9 is a good strategy.

+1

At that magnification, you won't see much difference, if at all. Most people use 4x5 for more reasons than resolution.

 

[Doc W]

...
One thing to consider. Since view camera optics allow for movements, they won't be as sharp as optics for a dedicated medium format camera like a Mamiya RB67. But, you get the movements and other advantages that a view camera can offer.

.

Neil, I don't quite understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?

At very large magnifications, prints from my 4x5 negs are noticeably sharper than from my Mamiya RB67.

 

[Bill Burk]

I'm hoping to exhibit in the near future. The subject is an abandoned French Catholic Indian Mission located in Oklahoma. Almost all of my negatives of the site are made with a Rollei TLR. I have some shots in small format (FP-4) that don't make it because I wish to see more detail.

This got me thinking how much better a print may look if I shot the scenery with a 6x9 neg from a Fuji rangefinder. I posted the question here as some LF shooters surely migrated from roll film to sheet film.

Its unlikely I would ever move to LF. I may be justifying laziness but is there a noticeable print difference between 6x9 roll film vs 4x5 sheet film (perspective controls not considered)...if only enlarging to 11x14.

I saw a show by a member of LFPhoto.info, who included a few 35mm in with his 4x5 work. The entire show looked great. So don't be concerned about format.

I print everything to 11x14.

Although I can clearly tell the difference between 35mm and 6x6 on 11x14...

I feel like the amount of detail you can see on 11x14 between 6x9 and 4x5 is very hard to tell apart.

Except for the obvious aspect ratio and possibly the choice of camera/lens which might leave a signature.

For 6x9 I use an Ikonta Super C with Tessar and a Bessa II with Skopar. For 4x5 I use a converted Polaroid with Ysarex.

If I were to exhibit - I would not hesitate to show my 6x9 next to 4x5.

 

[markbarendt]

why is tonality different between 6x9 and 4x5?

Assuming the same composition on the negative, the larger negative can define more detail per inch so the visual transition between tones is smoother, more detailed.

 

[Bill Burk]

Just had a Deja vu... I already posted in this thread twice.

markbarendt,

I don't agree with MDR that tonality is different between 6x9 and 4x5. At least not that I can see in an 11x14 enlargement. Do you feel strongly that it makes a significant difference?

And after re-reading Ralph Lambrecht's contribution to the thread, I changed my position on 6x6. It is suited to the purpose as well.

 

[palewin]

I shoot mostly 4x5 because I love working with a view camera, but the prints I have on my wall are a mix of 11x14s from both 4x5 and my 6x6 Roleiflex6006, and at that size the results are very comparable.

But in terms of detail, no one seems to have emphasized the use of a tripod. For most view cameras (as opposed to press cameras) the tripod is taken for granted, which allows for slow shutter speeds, small apertures, and the resulting great depth of field (if that is what one wants in a particular image). To get similar images with a medium format camera, you need to use a tripod for the same reasons. The difference between hand held medium format and tripod mounted view camera prints has much more to do with camera settings and shake, rather than the size of the negative.

 

[markbarendt]

Just had a Deja vu... I already posted in this thread twice.

markbarendt,

I don't agree with MDR that tonality is different between 6x9 and 4x5. At least not that I can see in an 11x14 enlargement. Do you feel strongly that it makes a significant difference?

And after re-reading Ralph Lambrecht's contribution to the thread, I changed my position on 6x6. It is suited to the purpose as well.

I do see a difference in the generic look between my shots on 6x7 and on 4x5 printed 11x14. I'm calling that a tonality difference.

That said most of my real super keepers have been done with 6x7 and I've not been disappointed with the tonality of any keeper from 6x7. 4x5 does though add a little something extra to the equation that I don't see with 6x7.

It is very possible that the real difference in my case is in the lenses, haven't tested both film sizes with one lens.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm hoping to exhibit in the near future. The subject is an abandoned French Catholic Indian Mission located in Oklahoma. Almost all of my negatives of the site are made with a Rollei TLR. I have some shots in small format (FP-4) that don't make it because I wish to see more detail.

This got me thinking how much better a print may look if I shot the scenery with a 6x9 neg from a Fuji rangefinder. I posted the question here as some LF shooters surely migrated from roll film to sheet film.

Its unlikely I would ever move to LF. I may be justifying laziness but is there a noticeable print difference between 6x9 roll film vs 4x5 sheet film (perspective controls not considered)...if only enlarging to 11x14.

the move from 35mm to MF gave me a huge quality increase;something I was hoping to repest whrn movin from MF to 4x5 but did not get.. I suspect a 6x9 negative to produce a print very similar in image quality to 4x5 in your case,not worth reshooting everything I'm afraid.

 

[wiltw]

Consider this about the relative improvement...

• 35mm to 6x9 is going from 24mm frame to 56mm frame...2.33x linear dimension, or 5.4x area
• 6x9cm to 4x5" is going from 56mm to 94mm...1.68x linear dimension, or 2.8x area

 

[DREW WILEY]

Overall, I think the improvement from 6x9 to 4x5 is just as significant as the improvement from 35mm to MF. There are a number of reasons
for this besides just the area of the film and degree of magnification. Sheet film is easier to print from than roll film. Dust spots and film flaws will appear much smaller. The film lies flatter in the carriers. If you want camera movements and decide to use a rollfilm back, some
view cameras tend to deflect with the added wt of these holders and fail to sustain a precise focal plane. Sometimes the holder it at fault
internally (some are better than others). Focus upon a small area of the groundglass in much more fussy than with full 4x5 viewing, let alone something like 8x10. But there are all advantages: roll film is a lot more economical and easy to transport, and of course, you can also use it in convention MF cameras. As I get older (I'm almost 66) and still plan to do a lot of backpacking in the mtns, I find myself using roll film holders to supplement sheet film. For example, on one upcoming trip in the high Sierra, I'll probably shoot mostly roll film, and only carry a couple of sheet film holders just in case I see something I want to enlarge bigger than 16x20.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Overall, I think the improvement from 6x9 to 4x5 is just as significant as the improvement from 35mm to MF. There are a number of reasons
for this besides just the area of the film and degree of magnification. Sheet film is easier to print from than roll film. Dust spots and film flaws will appear much smaller. The film lies flatter in the carriers. If you want camera movements and decide to use a rollfilm back, some
view cameras tend to deflect with the added wt of these holders and fail to sustain a precise focal plane. Sometimes the holder it at fault
internally (some are better than others). Focus upon a small area of the groundglass in much more fussy than with full 4x5 viewing, let alone something like 8x10. But there are all advantages: roll film is a lot more economical and easy to transport, and of course, you can also use it in convention MF cameras. As I get older (I'm almost 66) and still plan to do a lot of backpacking in the mtns, I find myself using roll film holders to supplement sheet film. For example, on one upcoming trip in the high Sierra, I'll probably shoot mostly roll film, and only carry a couple of sheet film holders just in case I see something I want to enlarge bigger than 16x20.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS HOPING FOR TOO but it didn't turn out that waythe film area increase from 6x9 to 4x5 just isn't as much as with 35 to MF.plain and simple but a nice thought nevertheless

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

THAT'S WHAT I WAS HOPING FOR TOO but it didn't turn out that waythe film area increase from 6x9 to 4x5 just isn't as much as with 35 to MF.plain and simple but a nice thought nevertheless

IMHO, the move from 6x7cm to 4x5 inch is every bit as significant as 135 format to 6x4.5cm and that is a pretty good leap. What some are seeing is the difference becomes more apparent on very large prints. If the largest I'd ever want to print is 5x7 inch then I'd shoot nothing but 135 format. For 8x10 prints I'd stick with 6x4.5cm film. For 11x14 prints I'd stay with 6x7cm film. For anything larger I'll go 4x5 film or larger.