Deleted member 88956
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.
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.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
But I think your recommendation of Graphic SLRs is, um, mischievous.
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.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
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.
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.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.
Actually...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.
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.
I think this about sums it upThe 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?