With respect Steve, I disagree the negative area of 645 is around three times that of 135.
With respect Steve, I disagree the negative area of 645 is around three times that of 135.645 does not provide enough increase in negative size from 135 to warrant the bulkier and heavier camera. For that kind of mass, I would rather and do use 6x6. I find that for me the 6x7 cameras are bulkier than the 6x6 and not worth the effort. Rather than shoot 6x7 use one of the two 4"x5" cameras.
With respect can't agree Steve, a 6x4.5 negative is about three times the area of a 24x36 one.
I really like the fact that I can project 6x4.5 slides. My projector won't handle 6x7. I even use 6x4.5 backs some times on my RB67.
I just ran some numbers, a 6x4.5 or 4.5x6 has a 1:1.33 ratio.
This does not match the ratios of any of the standard size papers that I ran numbers on
- 5x7 = 1:1.4
- 8x10 = 1:1.25
- 11x14 = 1:1.273
- 16x20 = 1:1.25
So you still have to crop the film image to fit any of these standard size papers, you are not printing full frame.
Granted not as much as with a 6x6..
Formats? Preferences? Oh, dear. There's no disputing tastes.
That said, several centuries ago one of my friends moved up from 35 mm (Canon, I think) to 645 (Pentax, I think) and was absolutely delighted with his 645 results. Until, that is, he came by and I showed him 2x3 trannies shot with my humble Century Graphic. 645 is half frame 2x3. 645 trannies look pretty punk when compared with 2x3s. In truth, however, 2x3 trannies look pretty punk when compared with 4x5s.
645 does not provide enough increase in negative size from 135 to warrant the bulkier and heavier camera. For that kind of mass, I would rather and do use 6x6. I find that for me the 6x7 cameras are bulkier than the 6x6 and not worth the effort. Rather than shoot 6x7 use one of the two 4"x5" cameras.
I really like the fact that I can project 6x4.5 slides. My projector won't handle 6x7. I even use 6x4.5 backs some times on my RB67.
With the same projector you could project 6x6. So on that front, the playing field is level.
I went from 35mm to 6x6, for the larger negative image size. And 6x6 is the max film size my Durst M600 enlarger can handle.
Though, now that I have a 4x5 enlarger, I would rather go all the way to 6x9. This is to get the largest roll film image size, before going to 4x5 sheet film in a view camera.
Secondly, I don't have to turn a 6x6 camera to get a V or H format. Though I don't know how comfortable or clumsy it would be to turn a 6x4.5. Now I really wished that I tried the Mamiya 645, when I had access to one at the local community college, just to see just how comfortable or awkward rotating the 645 would be. After all I am used to turning a 35mm camera to get a V format. But I guess, having the 6x6, I wasn't interested in the smaller 6x4.5, which was rather short sighted of me.
Finally, for me it was cost and opportunity. I bought my Hasselblad 500c with 80mm lens, for LESS than I paid for my Nikon D70. That was sad for the camera, but good for me. In the past the Hasselblad was the dream camera that I figured I would NEVER be able to afford. So I went for the Hasselblad, rather than looking at a Mamiya 645.
Were I to start from scratch (no existing cameras), I might start with a 645, and skip 35mm completely. Now that makes sense.
...
But if I print a minority of my prints square I think I'd want an even smaller minority square when projected AND cropping would require custom mounts or masking each slide or something.
Hasselblads are deals now compared to new, for the body, back and 80mm lens. When you start trying to add more lenses the comparison to other brands starts to be a lot more spendy.
It just means that one has to wait a little longer to get the next lens. Waiting adds to the appreciation.
I also consider that before the Barnack invention all cameras probably had a square or quasi-square format. Barnack's had a rectangular format just because they used motion picture film. Maybe if 24 x 36 had never been, also 4.5 x 6 would have never been.
Interesting. Folding Pocket Kodaks as were sold in most of the world including Italy were offered well before Barnack started work on his exposure tester. Here's a list of sizes (Kodak's own scheme) and formats in inches:
0 1.625 x 2.5
1 2.25 x 3.25
1A 2.5 x 4.25
2 3.5 x 3.5
2C 2.875 x 4.875
3 3.25 x 4.25
3A 3.25 x 5.5
4 4 x 5
4A 4.25 x 6.5
You might want to recalibrate what you consider to be true.
Your aspect ratio calcs are a little odd. The normal way would be to have the larger value on left and then divide to get small divisor values.So-called 645, frame area is actually 41.5-43mm x 55-56mm. My ETRSi frame is 42.5 x 55.1 mm, or 1:2.9 and very little need be cropped off for 8x10
An RZ67 frame, at 56 x 69.5, is 1:1.24, and does not fit 8x10 perfectly either! Methinks your issue is a paper tiger ;-)
645 negatives have substantially better tonality than 35mm negatives. This is easily visible to me and to folks (with untrained eyes) who see my photographs. The "it's too close to 35mm" argument seems like a straw man.
Your aspect ratio calcs are a little odd. The normal way would be to have the larger value on left and then divide to get small divisor values.
Both of your 645 cameras end up being very close to producing 4:3 aspect ratio neg frames which is what you should expect from a 645 camera.
And from there it follows that if you are printing close to full frame then your display frame window mat should be using a 4:3 aspect ratio window cut out.
On a 5x7 display frame that means a 6x4.5 cutout so a mat border width of 1/2 inch on long side and 1/4 on short side. If you want equal mat border width all round (or none ) then yes you will need to crop image but only a tad. That's why you shouldn't crop too tightly in camera so you have a litlle wiggle room when printing to different paper formats.
You have to plan for these things at taking stage having first asked client what frame sizes they want to use. If they change their mind after the event then its their fault if it doesn't work that way. But only if you have warned them in advance of the event.
Again giving your composition in camera some space to breath gives you some flexibility down the line. I was taught that you should crop as tight as possible get maximum film area usage, especially with 35mm film but I think it really depends on what your final format will be and you need to think about that in advance othewise you're stuffed and forced to produce bad crops when printing.
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?