PDA

View Full Version : Actual image sizes - what size images you really get with various sizes of film



GPX
3-Oct-2017, 06:53
I noticed some misunderstanding out there on the internet about negative sizes (for instance, sofa experts insisting that 8x10" cameras absolutely definitely produce actual usable images of 8 inches by 10 inches). So I measured my negs to see what the actual image sizes really are:

Large format 10"x8" (Fidelity film holder): 246mm x 195mm (55.52x the area of 35mm)

Large format 5"x4" (Fidelity film holder): 120mm x 96mm (13.33x the area of 35mm)

Medium format 6x8 (Fujifilm GX680III): 76mm x 55mm (4.84x the area of 35mm)

Medium format 6x6 (Rolleiflex 6008af): 56mm x 56mm (3.63x the area of 35mm)

Medium format 6x4.5 (Pentax 645nII): 56mm x 41mm (2.66x the area of 35mm)

35mm (Leica M3): 36mm x 24mm

So there you have it. All formats except 35mm produce an image that is slightly smaller than their notional size. For example, an 8x10 camera produces an image that is 93% of the area of its notional size. It may not be quite 8"x10", but think of it this way: one 8x10 negative is bigger than 55 negatives from a 35mm camera!

If you have any other sizes of cameras perhaps you could post your findings here.

Sandro
3-Oct-2017, 13:21
6x17 on Fuji G617: 55.5mm x 168mm

6x9 on Plaubel, Fuji, Brooks: 56mm x 84mm

Delfi_r
3-Oct-2017, 14:22
The nominal size of large format films it’s from the glass negatives. They were exactly the nominal size. when Kodak introduced the film in large format sizes, they needed an adapter to fit film on a glass holder. This reduced the size of the film to acomodate them in the adapter, thus reducing the external dimensions. The film holders have some spacers, reducing more the image.

Vaughn
3-Oct-2017, 14:32
I print the film rebate as part of my image area.

Jac@stafford.net
3-Oct-2017, 15:41
6x17 on Fuji G617: 55.5mm x 168mm

6x9 on Plaubel, Fuji, Brooks: 55mm x 84mm

Plaubel Veriwide is close to published dimensions, 55x90mm.

170493

I measured these from cameras I own.

It is a joy to enlarge 6X9 in a Focomat IIa enlarger to use the whole negative.

Courtlux
8-Oct-2017, 23:30
Linhof 612 PC II 121x55 mm

= 7,7 the area of 35mm

LabRat
9-Oct-2017, 01:07
To complicate the matter even further, different FL's change the outside frame sizes on film, as long lenses have a less acute angle cone of light behind the lens that the frame mask leaves it's shadow with, but the UWA wider lenses (that sit closer to the film) have a more acute angle that goes a little past (under) the frame mask, leaving a slightly larger film image size...

You can see this more clearly with 35mm cameras, when the frame spacing on the film gets narrower when using UWA lenses due to a slightly larger image, and you probably noticed this when printing 35mm full frame/black borders with different camera FL's in enlarging...

Measuring all of your RF masks (and image size on your film) on all of your cameras will yield surprising different differences!!! And try measuring your GG to see how they compare with your film sizes...

Steve K

Willie
9-Oct-2017, 09:06
Now can you go back and go inches to inches rather than inches to metric? Some of us are metrically challenged.

xkaes
9-Oct-2017, 09:07
Even if sheet film were the size it says it is -- which it isn't -- the final size of the image will vary depending on how much of the film is covered by the edges of the film holder -- which also varies.

As a result, even though I know that my picture angle will always be a little different from the manufacturer's specs, I don't need to measure it -- let alone lose sleep over it. However, it might be a concern to some photographers under some circumstances.

Jac@stafford.net
9-Oct-2017, 09:15
Now can you go back and go inches to inches rather than inches to metric? Some of us are metrically challenged.

:) Would you like that in inches and fractions or a decimal, Sir?

Jac@stafford.net
9-Oct-2017, 09:33
Even if sheet film were the size it says it is -- which it isn't -- the final size of the image will vary depending on how much of the film is covered by the edges of the film holder -- which also varies.

Do you mean manufacturers do not follow ANSII standards?

Willie
9-Oct-2017, 11:57
:) Would you like that in inches and fractions or a decimal, Sir?

Inches and fractions is fine. If decimals is easier that will do.

Still wish Detroit would give us engines like a 350, 409, 289 and the like instead of 2.4, 3.8 and such.

xkaes
9-Oct-2017, 12:10
Do you mean manufacturers do not follow ANSII standards?

I have no idea what standards manufacturers use, but when I measure my various 4x5" films they are about 1/8" smaller on each dimension -- and the image size is smaller still, of course.

But, then, my 2x4" lumber isn't even close to that!!! And how about the sizes of bricks? You want to talk about truth in advertising?

Jac@stafford.net
9-Oct-2017, 14:21
I have no idea what standards manufacturers use, but when I measure my various 4x5" films they are about 1/8" smaller on each dimension -- and the image size is smaller still, of course.

But, then, my 2x4" lumber isn't even close to that!!! And how about the sizes of bricks? You want to talk about truth in advertising?

Building stock dimensions changed a long time ago. We simply have to accept it, but I sense what you mean.

I lived on a agricultural research farm built in 1929 where they milled all the wood for their buildings on-site from the forest surrounding. The wood was not close to any standard, instead it was dimensioned to exactly what the contractor demanded. The outcome was stunning, and when it was taken down the timber went for insane $$$.

We can get back to the film holder dimensions, but in modern times they do follow ASCII standards - except for our outlier friends in ultra-large format.

EDIT: Not ASCII! ANSI. My error. Thanks to xkaes for pointing it out.

xkaes
9-Oct-2017, 16:51
but in modern times they do follow ASCII standards


You must be referring to, for example, how the film speed of Tri-X DOUBLED in one day. The film hadn't changed, but the way they measured the film speed did.

Jac@stafford.net
9-Oct-2017, 17:32
You must be referring to, for example, how the film speed of Tri-X DOUBLED in one day. The film hadn't changed, but the way they measured the film speed did.

No. I wrote about film holder sizes.

So tell us how "the fim speed of Tri-X DOUBLED in one day"
What day?

xkaes
10-Oct-2017, 06:33
No. I wrote about film holder sizes.

You were writing about ASCII photographic standards. While there are ISO and other standards for film speed (which have changed over time), I am ignorant of any industry standards for film holders.

LabRat
10-Oct-2017, 06:41
Now can you go back and go inches to inches rather than inches to metric? Some of us are metrically challenged.

EZ... Grab a calculator, and to convert inches (decimal) to mm, multiply inches times 25.4... To convert mm to inches, divide mm by 25.4...

Steve K

Jac@stafford.net
10-Oct-2017, 07:22
You were writing about ASCII photographic standards. While there are ISO and other standards for film speed (which have changed over time), I am ignorant of any industry standards for film holders.

ANSI standards for film holders. Sorry for the brain phart. I do not know if it is still being published.
EDIT: No longer published by ANSI. Government document. Not copyrighted.

Regarding your statement about Tri-X speed being doubled, it might be true.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed The ASA standard underwent a major revision in 1960 with ASA PH2.5-1960, when the method to determine film speed was refined and previously applied safety factors against under-exposure were abandoned, effectively doubling the nominal speed of many black-and-white negative films. For example, an Ilford HP3 that had been rated at 200 ASA before 1960 was labeled 400 ASA afterwards without any change to the emulsion. Similar changes were applied to the DIN system with DIN 4512:1961-10 and the BS system with BS 1380:1963 in the following years.

Thanks for your patience

xkaes
10-Oct-2017, 09:15
When I get through a day without a brain phart -- or two -- I will know I'm in trouble!

170689

Andy Eads
10-Oct-2017, 10:02
No. I wrote about film holder sizes.

So tell us how "the fim speed of Tri-X DOUBLED in one day"
What day?

My understanding is that the film speed for black and white films was published one full stop slower than the official ANSI standard to accommodate the sloppy shutters in cheaper cameras. B&W film had enough exposure range to handle the frequent over exposure. As shutters became more trustworthy, the industry decided to remove the one stop "safety factor". I did a cursory search but could not find a firm date. I recall it happening in the early 1970's. The manufacturers did not apply the safety factor to color materials because they had no exposure latitude to speak of.

xkaes
10-Oct-2017, 10:43
Instead of doing some "cursory searching" or "recall", I'd suggest some actual researching, such as reading Richard Henry's 10+ page history of film speed in "Control in Black & White Photography". It has nothing at all to do with "sloppy shutters". From my experience "sloppy shutters" tend to be slower, not faster -- thereby SOLVING the problem you suggest -- not creating it.

Perhaps ASA or ISO has a definition of "sloppy"?!?!?

Jac@stafford.net
10-Oct-2017, 10:51
[...] I did a cursory search but could not find a firm date I recall it happening in the early 1970's.

Look two posts before yours. See quoted part of article.

Andy Eads
10-Oct-2017, 11:25
Instead of doing some "cursory searching" or "recall", I'd suggest some actual researching, such as reading Richard Henry's 10+ page history of film speed in "Control in Black & White Photography". It has nothing at all to do with "sloppy shutters". From my experience "sloppy shutters" tend to be slower, not faster -- thereby SOLVING the problem you suggest -- not creating it.

Perhaps ASA or ISO has a definition of "sloppy"?!?!?

Thank you for your comment.

Andy Eads
10-Oct-2017, 11:26
Look two posts before yours. See quoted part of article.

Thank you for your comment.

Pere Casals
10-Oct-2017, 12:33
My understanding is that the film speed for black and white films was published one full stop slower than the official ANSI standard to accommodate the sloppy shutters in cheaper cameras. B&W film had enough exposure range to handle the frequent over exposure. As shutters became more trustworthy, the industry decided to remove the one stop "safety factor". I did a cursory search but could not find a firm date. I recall it happening in the early 1970's. The manufacturers did not apply the safety factor to color materials because they had no exposure latitude to speak of.

It happened in 1960, with norm ASA PH2.5-1960

"The method to determine film speed was refined and previously applied safety factors against under-exposure were abandoned, effectively doubling the nominal speed of many black-and-white negative films." (Film Speed, wikipedia)

Since 1960 you have some 3.3 stops form spot photometer recommended exposure to the toe, this is areas underexposed by 3.3 stops are recorded in the film toe (as toe position is defined by ISO, and with "normal" development). Before 1960 there were 4.3 stops. For this reason some classic photography books are teaching different recommendations.

Also it has to be noted that photometers are not very well specified by norms, 1/6 stop difference can be found. Also different photometers may have different spectral sensitivity, so different models may differ depending on subject color. And to add some confusion, this effect also depends on particular film spectral sensitivity and filtering.

Jac@stafford.net
10-Oct-2017, 13:01
All this accurate information should alert some of diehards using old Weston meters to second-think.
I have over a dozen. Three are responsive. And wrong!]

xkaes
10-Oct-2017, 13:12
But many old &/or inaccurate, non-adjustable meters can be used by changing the film speed, and then testing it on a gray card in the sun -- or the coffee cup test -- or the f-16 rule -- or even a northern sunny sky.

And any meter -- even TTL meters -- should be tested once in a while against one of these, or another meter.

Pere Casals
10-Oct-2017, 14:50
All this accurate information should alert some of diehards using old Weston meters to second-think.
I have over a dozen. Three are responsive. And wrong!]

Well, today it is easy to check a meter... I've a W Euro-Master that is pretty wrong, but a friend has another one that nails the same than a Nikon F5 does.

Anyway some of those diehards don't event need a photometer :) AA adjusted his most iconic shot by just smelling the moon !

bloodhoundbob
10-Oct-2017, 15:49
Well, today it is easy to check a meter... I've a W Euro-Master that is pretty wrong, but a friend has another one that nails the same than a Nikon F5 does.

Anyway some of those diehards don't event need a photometer :) AA adjusted his most iconic shot by just smelling the moon !

Dang, AA musta had a better sniffer than my bloodhounds!

Pere Casals
11-Oct-2017, 05:20
Dang, AA musta had a better sniffer than my bloodhounds!

He was returning from a funeral, the sniffer made him stop the car, to shot the Moonrise.

Learners like me we talk about lp/mm or pixels, masters talk about light hitting a subject.


He didn't find the meter, sure he would have used it, but not having it was no obstacle.

cowanw
11-Oct-2017, 09:14
The Moonrise negative was, in fact, rather unsatisfactory and the exposure was not right. Prints are nice, but the historic exposure story is diminished in awesomeness if you see the negative, which was intensified later. Everyone retells the Genesis story like he got a perfect negative, still it was good enough to get a good print (or several good prints if you see the different versions)
According to Sotheby's
"Adams did produce a couple of prints of Moonrise, Hernandez after returning to his studio in San Francisco, “but he found getting the image he wanted was incredibly difficult,”. “The exposure wasn’t exactly right, the contrast level was off. It was a huge amount of hand work, burning and dodging to getting things looking right,”

cowanw
11-Oct-2017, 09:17
As to actual size of prints, the standard size of a Full Plate of silver clad copper was different in each country in 1840. Things started off odd and stayed that way.

MAubrey
11-Oct-2017, 10:28
Things started off odd and stayed that way.

I think odd is more fun anyway.

Pere Casals
11-Oct-2017, 12:02
The Moonrise negative was, in fact, rather unsatisfactory and the exposure was not right. Prints are nice, but the historic exposure story is diminished in awesomeness if you see the negative, which was intensified later. Everyone retells the Genesis story like he got a perfect negative, still it was good enough to get a good print (or several good prints if you see the different versions)
According to Sotheby's
"Adams did produce a couple of prints of Moonrise, Hernandez after returning to his studio in San Francisco, “but he found getting the image he wanted was incredibly difficult,”. “The exposure wasn’t exactly right, the contrast level was off. It was a huge amount of hand work, burning and dodging to getting things looking right,”

Crepuscular negatives are not straight to print, sky, ground and moon in the same scene may contain a very wide dynamic range, this is the 1980 last printing version:

170776


As the scene had to be shot without metering perhaps development was done in the safe side, renouncing to some N compression, so a higher than usual contrast may be guessed.

Anyway 1980 notes for printing show a relatively straight cooking for what's a master print.

Jac@stafford.net
11-Oct-2017, 12:49
Is it true that he dodged the moon using a spinning button suspended by a string stretched across the projected image?

xkaes
11-Oct-2017, 12:52
Where is Jean-François Champollion when you need him?

Michael R
11-Oct-2017, 14:13
As the scene had to be shot without metering...

Pere, I don't believe we can be certain he didn't use a meter for Moonrise. While the "couldn't find meter, luminance of the moon..." story is in most of his later writings, there is at least one earlier version of the story in which he used a meter. Just thought I'd mention this for some AA trivia.

xkaes
11-Oct-2017, 16:15
Any meter he had in that era was incapable of accurately reading light at that low a level.

He would know that.

As to the moon? He knew that - f16 rule.

The landscape? He knew his meter would be a complete waste of time.

But, in this case, you expose (AKA, GUESS) for the shadows -- and then develop for the highlights.

Who needs a meter? Just correct it in the darkroom.

He knew that too.

Pere Casals
14-Oct-2017, 06:50
Pere, I don't believe we can be certain he didn't use a meter for Moonrise. While the "couldn't find meter, luminance of the moon..." story is in most of his later writings, there is at least one earlier version of the story in which he used a meter. Just thought I'd mention this for some AA trivia.

In this video at 0:35 he clearly says he could not find the meter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pe9gsbSqLI


Wikipedia tells 2 versions of what happened ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico )

1) He is quoted saying "The average light values of the foreground were placed on the "U" of the Weston Master meter;" ,

2) But he also is quoted saying: "I could not find my Weston exposure meter! The situation was desperate: the low sun was trailing the edge of clouds"


My guess is the first version is not talking about if he used the Weston or not, but about the scene brightness, just my guess...

tonyowen
14-Oct-2017, 08:44
[QUOTE 2) But he also is quoted saying: "I could not find my Weston exposure meter! The situation was desperate: the low sun was trailing the edge of clouds" QUOTE]

Without being pedantic, the full quote according to p231 of Ansel Adams - An Autobiolgraphy is "....... I could not find my Weston exposure meter! Behind me the sun was about to disappear behind the clouds and I was desperate. I suddenly recalled that the luminance of the moon was 250 candles per square foot. I placed this value on Zone VII of the exposure scale, with the Wratten G (No. 15) deep yellow filter, the exposure was one second at f/32."
The account of [I]Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico continues for another page in the cited book.

regards
Tony

LabRat
14-Oct-2017, 09:28
So, what happened to the sizes of negs??? Inquiring minds want to know...

Seemed like a useful discussion...

Steve K

Dan O'Farrell
14-Oct-2017, 09:56
Inches and fractions is fine. If decimals is easier that will do.

Still wish Detroit would give us engines like a 350, 409, 289 and the like instead of 2.4, 3.8 and such.

You do realize that the U.S. is the only country in America that isn't on the metric standard, don't you?:rolleyes:

Willie
14-Oct-2017, 10:06
You do realize that the U.S. is the only country in America that isn't on the metric standard, don't you?:rolleyes:

Does not make my request any less valid.

The film sizes quoted are all in inches - why not the image size also? After all - 10x8 and 5x4 is not millimeters.

xkaes
14-Oct-2017, 12:18
The film sizes quoted are all in inches - why not the image size also? After all - 10x8 and 5x4 is not millimeters.

That's correct. And 35mm film is REALLY NOT 35mm film. But try to convince an avid metrophile about that. It makes their blood boil for some odd reason.

35mm film is NOT 35mm wide. It is 1 3/8" wide film -- as created by the Edison and Eastman labs, working together, in the late 1880's. WKL Dickson wrote about this in 1933 (JSMPE) -- he was the guy who actually created it. The original format for the film was 1" wide -- NOT 24mm.

But the metrophiles simply dismiss it as irrelevant, impertinent, immaterial, and irresponsible.