Is there a difference 6x6 ->6x9 cm?

[Deleted member 88956]

On my enlarger a Bessler 23Cll with a 90mm lens I can get a 16x20 print and still sharp with the Mamiya RB.
The 6x6 I cannot get it that big unless I project it on a wall. Problem is the wall better be perfectly straight. I can get a 16x16 print from it. I guess I could buy by another lens for it but if I’m going to print a 16x20 I would always use the 6x7. I hear the Hasselblad is a fantastic camera but if your going to print a big print like a 16x20 you would have to blow it up that much more and then your advantage with a super sharp lens would be nullified. But I have no doubt the Hassey could make a nice print that size. As far as the Mamiya 330 Pro S and

That is the point of composing to negative native size to avoid cropping. Can't jump over physical properties of a set up and be disappointed when apple does not taste like an orange.

 

[warden]

Final size matters. If your habit is to print on 8x10 paper (adjusting the image scale to fit) it's very unlikely you'd see a quality difference between different medium format negatives because medium format negatives (regardless of aspect ratio) already provide more than enough detail for prints of that size and the likely viewing distance that 8x10 paper suggests.

But if you print as big as a barn door then the more resolution the better, as the normal viewing distance of a barn door is all over the place.

 

[removed account4]

But I think your recommendation of Graphic SLRs is, um, mischievous.

Hi Dan ( and OP ):

Forgive my misinformation campaign ! I regularly use a 4x5 Graflex and I assumed ( wrongly of course ! ) that like the large format versions, the smaller format cameras were able to handle a variety of different lenses. So, in light of my utter cluelessness about the Mini-Graflex-Slr's strike them off your list of things to be interested in! I'm happy my Mini-Speed/Crown-Graphic suggestion was useful at least

J

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hi Dan ( and OP ):

Forgive my misinformation campaign ! I regularly use a 4x5 Graflex and I assumed ( wrongly of course ! ) that like the large format versions, the smaller format cameras were able to handle a variety of different lenses. So, in light of my utter cluelessness about the Mini-Graflex-Slr's strike them off your list of things to be interested in! I'm happy my Mini-Speed/Crown-Graphic suggestion was useful at least

J

Not to quarrel with you, but there are no normal for format lenses, let alone shorter, for any size of Graflex SLR. You're right, some of the larger ones have quite a lot of focusing travel so can be used with lenses much longer than normal. Berthas of all sizes can't be hand held. Too heavy, too cumbersome.

 

[John51]

The aspect ratio of 645, 69, and 35mm is the same.

With limited exceptions, the '6' is actually 56mm.

That makes 69 56mm x 84mm, aspect ratio of 2:3, same as 35mm.

645 has an aspect ratio of 5:4. 56mm x 45mm.

Biggest difference for me between 6x6 and 6x9 is whether or not I've got the camera with me. Can't fault my Medalist for image quality but it's heavy and I hardly ever take it out. Props to those who regularly go walkabout with an RB67.

I've just bought a Super Fujica 6 from Japan, am waiting for it to get through UK customs. After some research, I decided that this camera will give me the best image quality of anything that I am likely to tote around on the regular.

I'd probably think differently if I was a car owner. Then a heavy camera plus sturdy tripod can travel with me.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

With limited exceptions, the '6' is actually 56mm.

That makes 69 56mm x 84mm, aspect ratio of 2:3, same as 35mm.

645 has an aspect ratio of 5:4. 56mm x 45mm.

For above it isn't really worth trying to do the math and this is beyond splitting hairs. These 3 are close enough to be called as same aspect ratio.

 

[Dan Fromm]

For above it isn't really worth trying to do the math and this is beyond splitting hairs. These 3 are close enough to be called as same aspect ratio.

Hmm. Once upon a time I took arithmetic classes. When we did our fractions exercises, if I'd said that 4/5 = 0.666... or that 2/3 = 0.60 I'd have failed.

You're not talking splitting hairs, you're talking about splitting logs.

 

[TeeSquare]

50%

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Hmm. Once upon a time I took arithmetic classes. When we did our fractions exercises, if I'd said that 4/5 = 0.666... or that 2/3 = 0.60 I'd have failed.

You're not talking splitting hairs, you're talking about splitting logs.

When it comes to composition and then final cropping these differences, especially in the context of this thread, are indeed hair splitting and little else.

 

[MattKing]

For above it isn't really worth trying to do the math and this is beyond splitting hairs. These 3 are close enough to be called as same aspect ratio.

Actually...
The 6x4.5 aspect ratio - essentially 4:3 - is different enough from the 3:2 aspect ratio of 9x6 to matter.
It is certainly a matter of preference, but if you like to print full frame to either 16x12, 14x11 or, to a certain extent, 7x5 then a 4:3 aspect ratio fits really well.
In comparison, an 18 x 12 print works perfectly with 9x6 negatives.
All sizes expressed with the largest dimension first, like the Brits do.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Actually...
The 6x4.5 aspect ratio - essentially 4:3 - is different enough from the 3:2 aspect ratio of 9x6 to matter.
It is certainly a matter of preference, but if you like to print full frame to either 16x12, 14x11 or, to a certain extent, 7x5 then a 4:3 aspect ratio fits really well.
In comparison, an 18 x 12 print works perfectly with 9x6 negatives.
All sizes expressed with the largest dimension first, like the Brits do.

This is all true, never meant to imply otherwise. But we're in a image quality discussion here and to get best out of any size is to compose closest to negative's coverage. For this I don't see that much importance between one rectangle over another, hence I called them close enough. Once we consider final ratio different from full coverage on negative, then it would be best to use as much of available real estate as possible, which may or may not be the longer leg of a negative. I'd say chose a negative size to allow most use of its area when final print size/shape is contemplated beforehand.

 

[MattKing]

I have one form of reference that many people here might not share - I have printed for others. This probably makes me more sensitive to some of the challenges inherent in the question of which format works best for you. It can be a real challenge to be faced with an order for an 8"x10" print and a 135 negative to be printed on it. You sometimes just don't have anything to tell you what should stay and what should be cropped out.
For fun, here are two examples. One (the black and white one, shot on 6"x4.5" film) fits naturally on to an 11"x14" sheet of paper. The other (the colour one, shot on 135 Ektachrome) really needs an 11"x16.5" sheet of paper.





I don't know whether you can necessarily "feel" the strength of the appropriateness of the print size, but if you had the prints before you, I would say you would.

 

[wiltw]

Let us start with the assumption that we shoot multiple formats, and regardless of aspect ratio our end goal is to produce a 32" x 40" print (for discussion purposes)

In order to do so, we start...

• with 93x120mm sheetfilm neg and crop to fit the 4:5 aspect ratio print...enlarge image by 10.9X
• with 56x68mm 6x7 neg and crop to fit the 4:5 aspect ratio print...enlarge image by 14.9X
• with 56x56mm 6x6 neg and crop to fit the 4:5 aspect ratio print...enlarge image by 18.9X
• with 43x56mm 645 neg and crop to fit the 4:5 aspect ratio print...enlarge image by 18.1X
• with 24x36mm 135 format neg and crop to fit the 4:5 aspect ratio print...enlarge the image by 33.9X

That is the REAL advantage that would be achieved in the same final print, from the apparent size differences!!!
The result is -- if we first assume the same line-pairs per millimeter of on-print detail resoluton can be delivered from the lenses of all formats!

Unfortunately we seldom/never see MTF tobjective numbers of testing of different format lenses all done by a single test agency...we only see tests by different agencies and we (wrongly) assume one can directly compare results and get truly valid comparisons.

We know, from past discussions in photography magazines about print sharpness that when the final print has 5 line-pairs per on-print-millimeter our eyes and brains perceive the print as 'sharp' (an eagle might know better, but our limited human eye+brain is fooled at that minimum! So

• the 4x5 format lens has to deliver 95 lines per millimeter to the negative
• the 6x7 format lens has to deliver 91 lines per millimeter to the negative
• the 6x6 format lens has to deliver 75 lines per millimeter to the negative
• the 645 format lens has to deliver 55 lines per millimeter to the negative
• the 135 format lens has to deliver 169 lines per millimeter to the negative

So we have to ask ourselves if each of the lenses can indeed meet such high standards. The specific lens MATTERS in whether or not a certain format is 'better'!

Lastly we assume that the same film is shot in all five of the different format cameras, and (assuming the lens is up to it an all cases) we can judge finally by the criteria of the higher/lower enlargement factor in the apparent visibility of grain when all five prints are viewed from the same distance,
the 4x5 grain is the standard against which we judge other prints, as it is magnified by the least amount.

• the 6x7 grain is 1.37X more apparent in size (single direction) or 1.9X larger (in area)
• the 6x6 grain is 1.66X more apparent in size (single direction) or 2.75X larger (in area)
• the 645 grain is 1.73X more apparent in size (single direction) or 3X larger (in area)
• the 135 grain is 3.1X more apparent in size (single direction) or 9.6X larger (in area)

 

[MattKing]

wiltw makes a persuasive case related to resolution and a 32"x40" print.
But resolution isn't everything, and 32"x40" prints aren't the "everyday" size for most.
I would expect that most who are interested in this question don't usually print that large - in most cases they never print that large.
In fact, most are probably more concerned with how much paper they "waste" when the image they seek to print doesn't fit the paper size they have available.
I don't know how to explain why, but it is somehow really satisfying when a negative prints full frame and fills nicely the standard size paper in the easel.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

wiltw makes a persuasive case related to resolution and a 32"x40" print.
But resolution isn't everything, and 32"x40" prints aren't the "everyday" size for most.
I would expect that most who are interested in this question don't usually print that large - in most cases they never print that large.
In fact, most are probably more concerned with how much paper they "waste" when the image they seek to print doesn't fit the paper size they have available.
I don't know how to explain why, but it is somehow really satisfying when a negative prints full frame and fills nicely the standard size paper in the easel.

The discussion has partly moved into a pixel peeping territory. Fully agree resolution isn't everything and 32x40 inch print is plain huge and out of consideration for majority. Ultimately isn't this more about what is the particular subject matter we shoot rather than even the final print size? Subject may kill some negative sizes due to shear gear size needed, or it may require best possible detail rendition which may force cumbersome gear to be used regardless of its challenges for a particular case.

If we agree that the larger the negative the easier it is to print, no matter the print size, then subject / gear considerations may just as well be the determining factor. I still am in a camp where 645 is just about as universal as it can get for all above to be covered in most cases and deliver high quality final image.

Looking at my own gear: I love how RB67 works in spite of its brute size and weight, it affords complete system flexibility yet it is not for everyday lunch, Fujica 690 gives a huge negative, dumps the need to think of a what lens to take out, yet still is large and not light either. Then I go down to Pentax 645 with its basic compactness, fast operation and still delivering a rather large negative. A 6x6 TLR makes all before it go away when light and cute is called for, but brings on challenges for some subjects and as everything else, isn't a go to on any given day. What does work in the end is a pleasure of using reliable gear even if the day did not bring the results one had hoped for. I know this is not what those making a living from photography are often concerned with. Just saying, negative size to use has more to consider than densitometric results.

 

[wiltw]

I am well aware that 32" X 40" is seldom needed by the average Joe. OTOH, I have actually seen display prints by professionals on speaking tours for their corporate sponsor (like Hasselblad) and watched other pros view the prints from unrealistic distances (a couple feet away) and commenting about grain, detail, etc. So it happens!

The point of my prior post, however, was that one mst equalize the comparison of different formats to determine the relative advantages of 'larger' neg when the issue of actual neg dimensions is then fit within the same size print from all formats. Sometimes you crop horizontally with some formats, but sometimes you crop vertically for other formats. The relative sizes relate, even at 16" x 20" print dimension, and the relative amount of detail resolution from the lens shrinks down from an unachievable 169 line-pairs to an achievable 84 line pairs per millimeter, from the 135 format lens.

The other point is that the 645 is NOT all that 'disadvantaged' compared to 6x6 when you print a rectangular print (and make the client less reliant on high framing costs) And there is virtually ZERO advantage of 6x9 over 6x7 format.

 

[sixby45]

The discussion has partly moved into a pixel peeping territory. Fully agree resolution isn't everything and 32x40 inch print is plain huge and out of consideration for majority. Ultimately isn't this more about what is the particular subject matter we shoot rather than even the final print size? Subject may kill some negative sizes due to shear gear size needed, or it may require best possible detail rendition which may force cumbersome gear to be used regardless of its challenges for a particular case.

If we agree that the larger the negative the easier it is to print, no matter the print size, then subject / gear considerations may just as well be the determining factor. I still am in a camp where 645 is just about as universal as it can get for all above to be covered in most cases and deliver high quality final image.

Looking at my own gear: I love how RB67 works in spite of its brute size and weight, it affords complete system flexibility yet it is not for everyday lunch, Fujica 690 gives a huge negative, dumps the need to think of a what lens to take out, yet still is large and not light either. Then I go down to Pentax 645 with its basic compactness, fast operation and still delivering a rather large negative. A 6x6 TLR makes all before it go away when light and cute is called for, but brings on challenges for some subjects and as everything else, isn't a go to on any given day. What does work in the end is a pleasure of using reliable gear even if the day did not bring the results one had hoped for. I know this is not what those making a living from photography are often concerned with. Just saying, negative size to use has more to consider than densitometric results.

I think this about sums it up and it's one of the reasons why my recently reacquired Fuji Gw690 is a favorite tool for medium format.

Typically I dcany own work and send out for drum scans selectively. The large negative size is fun - but it is the user experience that makes more sense. I've worked with many cameras from 135-medium format and the only ones who I have actually purchased are those that fit my shooting experience fun factor like the RB or Gw690 among others.

Thanks for the weighing in - it's been fun to see where the thread has grown though it does seem that lots of these arguments and up with arithmetic at some point