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

[Richard Jepsen]

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.

 

[r-brian]

The 6x9 negative enlarged to 11x14 will need to be cropped to basically 6x7, so you are not going to be able to use the whole negative. Remember that when you are composing the shot. I've printed many 11x14's from 35mm negatives (cropped slightly because 35mm and 6x9 are the same aspect). Off a tripod, with a cable release, with slow, fne-grained film, with the proper developer, I've gotten very detailed, sharp prints from 35mm. I've also printed 4x5 and 6x7 to 11x14 and, honestly, it's near impossible to tell the difference at that size. But, again, it depends on the fim and developing. Anything serious enough to print and show, I always shot from a tripod with a cable release.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I've got two of the fuji Texas leicas and enlargements to 11x14 are fantastic. The lenses on these fujis are superb. I have also just gone onto 4x5 but I haven't made any negatives from it yet that I can fairly match it up against as I haven't shot much this winter. It also may not be a fair comparison as I only have one lens on my 4x5 and its a linhof badged symmar 135 5.6 from the 50s or 60s which is uncoated or only single coated. A comparison with a modern large format multicoated fuji lens would be better.

The main advantage with large format is the negative size boost. 6x9 to 4x5 is a good size difference which allows more info to be recorded. Also you don't have to enlarge as much so grain is even less prevalent. You also get movements which could be beneficial to your architecture shots. You can also have a roll film back on such a camera to shoot 6x9 as well. You just have to put up with the weight and costs. And also a whole new enlarger/darkroom setup possibly.

 

[MSchuler]

I agree with r-brian on the resolution issue: a 6x9 should be close enough to 4x5 that you wouldn't notice unless you are using a grainy film-and-developer combination.

As a side note related to cropping, I print 1:1.5 aspect ratio (35mm and 6x9 film) on 11x14 all the time without cropping, with full-frame images enlarged up to 8.25 x 12.375 depending on the border widths I want, and I print on larger paper if I want bigger than that. I personally prefer to use a little extra paper and go with a custom mat than to lose film real estate; losing two centimeters of a 6x9 frame is a loss of over 20% of the film area and the resulting image is close to Richard's 6x6 TLR frame size, which he is trying to get away from.

 

[Hatchetman]

I have shot both formats, but neither extensively. For any kind of "serious" project, I would use the camera I am most comfortable with and have to do the least "thinking" when using. If you have spent years working with a Rollei, I guarantee you will come away with better photos than with a camera with which you are unfamiliar. I can also guarantee that you will struggle at first using 4x5. Everyone does.

 

[gone]

It has been a long time since I shot 4x5, but I remember there was a difference in tonality compared to 120 film, no matter what the negative size was. I was shooting Tri-X and FP4 and yes, I saw a difference in both the negs and the prints regarding that. Never cared for the Fuji rangefinder "look" either. Just too clinical for my tastes. When I shot 6x9 I used a Voigtlander Bessa RF w/ a Heliar lens. Superb IQ w/ tons of character and 3-D quality.

 

[smithdoor]

One of the best in Graflex Crown or Speed
Works for all type of work and weather and flexible for all types of work. Note find one with a range finder
I have had mine since new and has done ever thing I need

Dave

 

[Paul Howell]

Hi Richard,

I shoot both 6X9 and 4X5, I think 4X5 has the edge in tones as you can shoot TriX r Tmax 400 in 4X5 with great grain and detail and keep the highlights open. Although a 4X5 enlarger is much larger than a 6X6 it is not much larger than a 6X9. 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.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

 

[MDR]

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.

 

[thegman]

11x14, I doubt you'd see a difference, but I guess if you've got your nose up against the print, or using fast/grainy film, you might.

If you did consider using 4x5, you could look at the Fotoman 45SPS, that was my second 4x5 camera after a Wista 45DX. The Wista is a work of art, it's beautiful just to have in the room, but in reality, I wasn't going to take it out and use it as much as I wanted, just too much hassle. The Fotoman is hardly any different to a big medium format camera, you load film, focus, set aperture/shutter etc. and shoot.

I would imagine those Polaroid Conversions would be a similarly easy experience.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I've done 4x5 and its not for me. For the -135 negs I used a Leica with a clean late 50s Summicron. No tripod but shot at 1/250th and f/5.6. I have good negs of raking light on grass with shimmering seed heads, silhouetted trees with stone ruins in the background. I used 35mm for the aspect ratio and DOF. The 8x12 prints are very nice. I'm using graded paper printed with a condensor for added contrast and sharpness. Its sharp at viewing distance and the image is more about tree shapes and light than bark detail. I mentioned I miss detail but its more the creamy, rich tonal detail of MF. I look at stuff too close. Crap, just bring a step ladder (counter the waist finder driven camera position) and reshoot this spring.

6x9 has the same ratio as small format which I prefer to compose in vs a square. I was just over thinking.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The whole point of using 4x5 is not only for the larger neg, but for the availability of various movements, esp tilts. It's hard to handhold something like that and get crisp results, though millions of images in the golden age of press and technical cameras were made that way.
But today, you're more likely to be looking at an upside-down image under a darkcloth. If you attach a high-quality 6x9 roll film back, you'll
still have the same working method, with the same advantage of camera movements, but obviously using a smaller film area which is harder to
focus upon and more nitpicky with regard to acceptable film choice, since it will have to be enlarged more. But if you can achieve a sharper
print than when working with any conventional med format camera, where you're only option for depth of field is either stopping way down
or resorting to ever shorter focal lengths lenses, which will change perspective to a wider field. I can easily spot the difference in my own
prints between 6x7, 6x9, 4x5, and 8x10 negs. But in any print as small as 11x14, I doubt the general public could detect the difference.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

With consideration especially to the skill of the photographer and his understanding of the lens that is doing the work, the jump from medium format to large format will at best offer only modest gains in resolution and certainly not in my opinion and comparative observations enough to warrant the time, effort and expense. True, LF negs can be enlarged to quite huge sizes, not that many people really do this (I have observed people spending many thousands on 4x5 equipment only to print tiny 'postcard' prints because anything bigger is financially out of reach! ). The 6x9 format is uncommon; a lot of commercially made pinhole cameras offer this among other formats in multiples.

The end consideration for you is to shoot the scene with the equipment you know and are experienced best with. Using new equipment requires new skills and errors will be made, potentially quite wasteful and expensive with LF in sheet film form. Go with gut instinct and use the Fuji and surprise yourself.

 

[bdial]

Much depends on the camera and lens. I've seen prints from a Mamiya 7 that rival anything I've seen produced by a 4x5. I doubt that most people could tell the difference in an 11x14.

Assuming you don't already have the Fuji, and that you'd want movements, you could consider something like a Linhof baby Technica that would give you limited movements and still work with roll film.

 

[erikg]

As you allude to making the move to a 4x5 means more than just a change in the camera. I made exactly the switch you describe from 4x5 to 6x9 Fujis. They will give you a workflow much more like you have with the Rolleiflex and excellent image quality. I don't agree that you will sacrifice tonality vs 4x5. I routinely print to 20 inches wide.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Drew you make excellent points. I long have thought about a back on a baby Century or a Horseman. But I know myself and prefer more fluid camera handling. Of course, a small step ladder (for a few shots) takes away TLR portability.

The question should have been can you see a difference between a 9x12 from 6x6 vs a 8x12 from 6x9. I suspect you could detect a difference in tonality but it would not be meaningful. I'm not going to enlarge on paper larger than 11x14; and I prefer one inch white borders.



My DR.

 

[Bill Burk]

Richard Jepson,

I agree with a couple ideas given so far: Hatchetman points out that the camera you are already using is capable of making fine prints.

And Ralph Lambrecht and Poisson Du Jour point out that the leap in quality from MF to LF is not as impressive as the leap that you already achieved when you went from 35mm to MF.

I've commented before, that I sometimes get 4x5 quality prints from 35mm (when everything falls into place). I often get 4x5 quality with 6x9. But I always get 4x5 quality with 4x5. I almost always print on 11x14 paper with a wide border.

One of my prints... I printed with an easel border and I can't remember what format it was shot on. Probably a 35mm negative because after searching, I can't find the 4x5 negative that I always thought it would be a print from. Just saying sometimes you can't really tell. As far as the successful prints from 6x9, I really can't tell the difference. I'll repeat that... I really can't tell the difference.

 

[TheMissingLink]

As above said going from MF to 4x5 isn't such a jump ...

One advantage with 4x5 would be individual exposure and development for every single shot.


Horst

 

[jp80874]

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.

I would suggest that the leap from MF to LF and ULF is very rewarding if you go to a negative large enough for good size contact prints, say 11x14 or larger.

John Powers

 

[Paul Howell]

The question should have been can you see a difference between a 9x12 from 6x6 vs a 8x12 from 6x9. I suspect you could detect a difference in tonality but it would not be meaningful. I'm not going to enlarge on paper larger than 11x14; and I prefer one inch white borders.

I have prints on my office walls, 8X10 and 11X14 from 35mm, 6X6, 6X9 and 4X5, most folks commment on the detail in the prints made from 4X5. On the other hand I dont see how you can fit a 4X5 enlarger into your workspace. As you already have a 6X6 enlarger you might consider an SLR with a 6X6 or 6.45 back, or move a C700 with 6X7 system, SLR or rangefinder such as Konica Omega 100 or 200 with a normal and wide lens. On the other hand a 2X3 Speed or Crown with a 6X7 basck will provide some movement, but if you want to use a couple of differnt lens you will need to move from the ground glass back to focus and then back to the roll back as the rangefinde is only set up for 1 focal length. A Horseman has differnt cams for differnt lens, but are still pricy.

 

[fotch]

If just considering negative quality, not a huge difference. The choice of camera or style of camera may make a difference. Cost, 6x9 on roll film is more economical. My take would be what camera/lens I want to shoot with first. Often, when shooting on a 4x5 camera, (view, press, SLR), I will use a roll film back. You make the rules or choices. Good Luck.

 

[PKM-25]

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.

 

[jeffreyg]

I use both 6x6 and 4x5 and would suggest using the equipment that achieves your goal depending on the subject and conditions that present. I have taken a few trips with the 4x5 but with the current state of air travel find the MF to be much easier. I can use a smaller and lighter tripod than the one I use with the 4x5 (although I use the larger one with MF when out locally). It is easy to have roll film hand-checked at the airport. I don't know how you can do that with sheet film. Photographing in city settings is generally easier with MF especially when a tripod might be out of the question. As for detail I see no reason to think that if properly used MF won't give exquisite detail. Just as a test I recently photographed a building that is part of a public park from across a bay at least a half mile plus away with a Hasselblad 350mm and 2x extender and can see the lights on a pole in the parking lot in the background.

I do use the 4x5 with both a bellows camera and pinhole. Often making small platinum/palladium contact prints as well as enlargements. If you can handle it why not use both formats.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[David Brown]

Its unlikely I would ever move to LF.

Perhaps you've already made your choice.

Asking if one format is better than another always involves subjectivity, as you've seen from the spectrum of answers already. So, look at some objective variables.

Do you do your own processing and printing? If yes, then you already have gear to process 120 roll film. 4x5 (or any sheet film) is another ball game, and will likely require investment in more than the camera.

Printing? Will your current enlarger take a 6x7 or 6x9 negative. Even so, will it take a 4x5? If you do have a 4x5 capable enlarger, do you have the enlarging lens for the format (also true for 6x9).

Of, course, if you have a lab do everything, this doesn't matter.