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

GaryFlorida · Apr 4, 2015

Old-N-Feeble said:
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.

how would 16x24 look from 6x9?

wiltw · Apr 5, 2015

GaryFlorida said:
how would 16x24 look from 6x9?

16" x 24" print from 56mm neg is 7.25x enlargement

7.25x enlargement from 24mm neg is 6.8" x 10.2" print

Same grain level. Better tonality from the larger neg, due to more grains for capturing the same image area.
Detail is dependent upon the lens in use for each.

markbarendt · Apr 5, 2015

GaryFlorida said:
how would 16x24 look from 6x9?

Good.

Different.

I've done 16x20 from 6x7, they were just fine as far as I'm concerned.

I've done 16x20 from 35mm that were fine too.

Part of what must be considered is the print viewing difference.

If you are too close to see the whole picture easily, then are you really judging "the photo"?

Old-N-Feeble · Apr 5, 2015

GaryFlorida said:
how would 16x24 look from 6x9?

With a high quality neg and good printing technique it should look quite good. I just think that's pushing it a bit. Again, that's only my opinion. I don't care what others say about viewing distance. I like to get up close and see all the tiny details that can't be seen from two meters away.

RalphLambrecht · Apr 6, 2015

Old-N-Feeble said:
With a high quality neg and good printing technique it should look quite good. I just think that's pushing it a bit. Again, that's only my opinion. I don't care what others say about viewing distance. I like to get up close and see all the tiny details that can't be seen from two meters away.

you should,because, normal viewing distances are realistic an I don't want your nose print on my photographs or glass.in digitalyou'd be called a pixel peeper .maybe in analog tyou'd bea grain peepers and then only an 11x14 contact print will do

Old-N-Feeble · Apr 6, 2015

RalphLambrecht said:
you should,because, normal viewing distances are realistic an I don't want your nose print on my photographs or glass.in digitalyou'd be called a pixel peeper .maybe in analog tyou'd bea grain peepers and then only an 11x14 contact print will do

Ha ha... yes, I'm a grain peeper. I can't help being a pervert. I like moving in close as well as viewing from a few feet away because it makes me feel like I'm there at the time of exposure rather than just viewing a flat object.

DREW WILEY · Apr 6, 2015

That "normal viewing distance" myth only works in reverse gear, that is, when there's nothing worth seeing up close. Otherwise, a richly
detailed print will draw people in, regardless of how big it is. But the point is not what is "correct" to do, but what do you want to do, and
how well do you do it. Since I shoot every format from 35mm to 8x10 I get to know the distinctions pretty well. Smaller formats give you
more portability and spontaneity, while large formats give you more surface area with more visual information, as well as a different approach to looking at the world. I'd far rather make a 16x20 print from an 8x10 negs than from 4x5 than from 6x7. But if 6x7 is what bagged the shot, I'll sure as heck do my best in the darkroom to make that little Dachshund mutt of a negative pretend it's a Rottweiler!

GaryFlorida · Apr 6, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
That "normal viewing distance" myth only works in reverse gear, that is, when there's nothing worth seeing up close. Otherwise, a richly
detailed print will draw people in, regardless of how big it is. But the point is not what is "correct" to do, but what do you want to do, and
how well do you do it. Since I shoot every format from 35mm to 8x10 I get to know the distinctions pretty well. Smaller formats give you
more portability and spontaneity, while large formats give you more surface area with more visual information, as well as a different approach to looking at the world. I'd far rather make a 16x20 print from an 8x10 negs than from 4x5 than from 6x7. But if 6x7 is what bagged the shot, I'll sure as heck do my best in the darkroom to make that little Dachshund mutt of a negative pretend it's a Rottweiler!

What kind of an enlarger do you have that can print 8x10? Must be gigantic and costly.

ic-racer · Apr 6, 2015

Richard Jepsen said:
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.

You should be able to see a difference in your own work. If not, then you are not optimizing the 4x5 format. Only you can determine if the difference is worthwhile.

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency