rb67 back in 6x6?

[bicycletricycle]

did they ever make a 6x6 rb67 back?

 

[Drew B.]

IF my mind serves me right...yes they did. ...along with a couple other formats. I've never had one but I've owned both the RB and the RZ. I'm sure you will get the correct answer shortly from this community.

 

[Drew B.]

IF my mind serves me right...yes they did. ...along with a couple other formats. I think the Rb was brought into production to compete with the Hassleblad which is a square format. I've never had one but I've owned both the RB and the RZ. I'm sure you will get the correct answer shortly from this community.

 

[WilliamMarkey]

Actually, I think the RB only has a 645 back. The RZ has the 6x6 back.

 

[bicycletricycle]

do you think you could make one?

I have not owned a rb67 thus i have not really held a back in my hand but has anyone ever made a 6x7 into a 6x6? I like square but the rb has a lot of cool features and they are sooooo cheap!

 

[Changeling1]

did they ever make a 6x6 rb67 back?

I don't know if they did or not but it wouldn't be a very good idea if they did because to fit the image from a 6x6cm onto a standard sheet of 8x10 photo paper, you end up "wasting" a third or more of your negative real estate negating the advantages of shooting medium format.

The 6x7cm format is considered "the ideal format" as you can enlarge the negative directly onto a sheet of 8x10 paper without cropping the neg.

Considering how large and cumbersome the RB is, I would stick to the 6x7 format as it is perhaps the best thing about the RB 67- second only to its revolving back which would go unused with the square format.

Having said that, I've always been amazed that Ann Lebowitz used to hand hold her RB 67 (strobe lit studio) in the making of her many interesting portraits.

 

[gnashings]

I don't know if they did or not but it wouldn't be a very good idea if they did because to fit the image from a 6x6cm onto a standard sheet of 8x10 photo paper, you end up "wasting" a third or more of your negative real estate negating the advantages of shooting medium format.

The 6x7cm format is considered "the ideal format" as you can enlarge the negative directly onto a sheet of 8x10 paper without cropping the neg.

Wow! I don't know where to start...
So, 6x6 is a "waste"? Gald you told me, I am sure every 6x6 shooter out there will be grateful to be spared further wastefulness... Come on - you have to be kidding! You know, you don't have to print 8x10 or event that aspect ratio - some wonderful square images have been made by some pretty prominent "wasters"...
Having said that, I am a huge fan of 6x7 - personally, I think I prefer it to 6x6 - but not enough not have a camera that shoots the classic square! Its a wonderful composition option to have.

Considering how large and cumbersome the RB is, I would stick to the 6x7 format as it is perhaps the best thing about the RB 67- second only to its revolving back which would go unused with the square format.

Having said that, I've always been amazed that Ann Lebowitz used to hand hold her RB 67 (strobe lit studio) in the making of her many interesting portraits.

That camera is NOT THAT BIG. Give me a break! Eat some spinach. Unless you have some physical handicap, this is a large, substantial tool - but the size and weight issue is one of the most ridiculously overblown myths about this camera. You can hand hold it, quite easily. You can walk with it. You can even hike with it.

Now, as to the "best thing about it" part... Well, I think that I for one, would love to have the option of a 6x6 format with that camera. It is incerdibly flexible - with its bellows, it can do great close up work even without specialized macro glass (add that and wow!). It has a line up of glass that is by all educated opinion second to none, extensive, and further more - inexpensive. It is a full and extensive system, with all the tools any pro can want in this type of camera (including a motorized back, which I think was a 6x8 format, just so that option is out there).

And last but not least - at todays prices, I can't think of any place you can get more for so little.

Oh, and did they make a 6x6 back? I would like to know - if they did, I will definitely own one.

Peter.

 

[rogueish]

to fit the image from a 6x6cm onto a standard sheet of 8x10 photo paper, you end up "wasting" a third or more of your negative real estate.

If you print "square" the extra paper becomes test strips.

The 6x7cm format is considered "the ideal format" as you can enlarge the negative directly onto a sheet of 8x10 paper without cropping the neg.

I did not know this, thanks. Can you print with no border without a vacumn easel?

Considering how large and cumbersome the RB is...

As an owner of an RB I'll have to agree. But it has never been a problem for me and I do a fair amount of hiking with this strapped to my back and a tripod over my shoulder. I'm now considering a LF which means even more wieght and bulk. (do I suffer from G.A.S.?)

Having said that, I've always been amazed that Ann Lebowitz used to hand hold her RB 67 (strobe lit studio) in the making of her many interesting portraits.

Didn't know this either. I have hand held but only under less than ideal tripod conditions. Like the time I climbed up a steel RR tressel bridge, or shot at water level waist deep in a swamp. This is not a camera designed with hand holding in mind, but eat your wheaties and it can be done.

Personally I'd keep the 6x7. You can always make your print square in the darkroom.

 

[Woolliscroft]

Yes they did. I use one now and then when making copy negs from existing square prints: it gets another two frames on the film, so is rather the opposite of the waste someone said it was. I actually etched the square format into one of my viewfinder screens (easy enough: rotate the back to vertical format, trace the red lines, then turn it back again).

David.

 

[bicycletricycle]

square is bad ass!

Square compositions are amazing and are not a waste!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why does everyone go around spouting out that mamiya, ideal format antisquare noise. If you dont like square dont use it but tell everyone else not too. I only shoot square and i never crop, ever! so Wooliscroft say that they have an rb67 6x6 back. are you sure it is not an rz back?

 

[waynecrider]

According to my catalogs there was no 6x6 back for the RB or the RZ. The only RB/RZ square type of backs available were a Quadra 72 film back which used Polaroid instant 4x5 film and provided 72mm x 72mm images or the 68mm x 68mm Polaroid back that uses 3.25 x 4.25 pack film. The other backs were the 6x4.5 and the 6x8 power drive back although it wasn't 80mm wide. There's also a 6x9 cut film back for the RB that I have, again not near 90mm wide.

If you wish a square image, crop.

 

[gnashings]

Yes they did. I use one now and then when making copy negs from existing square prints: it gets another two frames on the film, so is rather the opposite of the waste someone said it was. I actually etched the square format into one of my viewfinder screens (easy enough: rotate the back to vertical format, trace the red lines, then turn it back again).

David.

Precisely.


(bold type added by myself)

 

[bicycletricycle]

i know thwy made rz 6x6, i seen it on ebay

i dont like to crop, I like the pressure of having to frame it right the first time, the extra 2 shots are nice.

 

[aoresteen]

Guys, an old Graphic "22" knob or lever wind back will fit the rB and it gives 12 6x6 frames. They are cheap on ebay!

http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/accessories.html#RollFilmBacks

 

[Woolliscroft]

so Wooliscroft say that they have an rb67 6x6 back. are you sure it is not an rz back?

If it is, it fits the RB. I got it 2nd hand in the 1980s, so don't know much about it, other than that it works.

David