Am I going to see much difference between 645 and 6x9 at 12x18?

[Danny Burk]

Yes, you can tell the difference. I drum scan and print from a number of format sizes, and a practiced eye can distinguish the source material. Some time ago, I used to shoot 645, but changed to 6x8 for my basic MF setup a couple of years ago. The difference in an 11x14 print from 645 vs 6x8 is roughly equivalent to the difference in a 16x20 print from 6x8 vs 4x5: sharpness is similar, especially with good sharpening technique in PS, but in each case, grain is more distinct in the print from the smaller format. In a 16x20, for example, I can see a small amount of grain from 6x8, whereas it's virtually invisible from a 4x5 original. The 6x8 results are excellent, mind you, and most viewers would probably never see a difference, but I can if I look from close range. It's a comparable difference in 11x14 from 645 vs 6x8 (or 6x9).

Regards, Danny www.dannyburk.com

[Guy Tal]

A couple of facts:
1) A full frame 6x4.5 will not enlarge to 12x18. You will need to crop to get the same aspect ratio, leaving you with even less than 1/2 the 6x9 frame to work with.
2) Stretching the smaller frame to 12x18 will require you to resolve over 2200ppi. With the 6x9 frame you're at around 1500ppi. At that enlargement ratio film grain will start to become visible.

Guy
Scenic Wild Photography

[Ken Lee]

"I'm looking at 6x9 so that I can scan using a minolta multi pro that I presently use for 6x6 and 35mm"



Since you have a great medium format dedicated scanner, you can easily test this for yourself.



A 6x6 requires the same enlargement to make a 12x12, as a 6x9 needs to become a 12x18. A 645 negative, on the other hand, requires more enlargement. Hence the corresponding degradation of quality, which you would like to see for yourself.



Try this: Scan a 6x6 image, and print it out at 12 x 12. Think of it as a 12x18 which has been chopped off. Now scan a 645 negative, and enlarge it to 12x12. Think of it as another 12x18 image which got chopped.



Now compare the quality - whatever that means to you. Print the results and frame them. Compare at the final print image quality - not under a loupe, or on the monitor, etc.



Keep in mind that often, we don't always get the composition exactly right, so we have to crop. That 645 starts to get pretty small when you crop it.



One other thing to keep in mind is that as the format gets bigger, you are more likely to use a tripod, and take more time composing and contemplating the image. "Quality" may go up, or it may go down, as the nature of your images changes.

[Neil Miller]

Hello Hugh,

I use a Mamiya 645, a Mamiya RB67 and a Voigtlander 6x9 and although I usually print no larger than 11x14 I can see a difference between all of these formats. Love the 645 for chromes, though - picture libraries used to like the trannies, too. There is not a quantum jump between 6x7 and 6x9 as far as I am concerned (one is too 'square' the other is too 'wide' - 6x8 in a portable folder would suit me fine!) although I frequently either crop or use a smaller part of the paper, but there is a definite difference. And there is a very appreciable difference between 6x9 and 6x4.5. I'm not a great methodical printer/developer or exponent of the zone system, and I find that the larger the format the more latitude I have. Like you pointed out, it isn't just the sharpness that's an issue. For me its the ability to squeeze a bit more out of the negative. I also use 4x5 and 5x7, which allows me to take many more "liberties" with film than the smaller formats do. Sometimes that's a great plus, sometimes not. I agree with Ralph - use each format for its own intrinsic benefits - I wouldn't use a larger format, say, with a rollfilm back - I'd far rather use a smaller camera and do without the movements. It's a trade-off - up to 6x9 can be used as point-and-shoot, reportage style, while above that you are forced to be more contemplative. Might not add up to a better photo, though! In practice I usually pack a field camera along with a folding 6x9 camera - best of both worlds and great training for back and biceps. Moe's practical advice seems sound, though - borrow or rent and find out for yourself if the difference is worth it!

Regards, Neil.

[Jim Ewins]

"...so I can scan using my...". Your may use your new camera for a lifetime, but scanners become obsolete almost in a manner of weeks. I think I get great 4x5 scans from a Epson 3200, but there will be a better scanner out next week. Jim

[Al Seyle]

I shoot furniture for a living. Started out with the 100mm Zeiss on Hasselblad because thats what I had. After a few months I bought a Technikardan S and 180 Schneider which I shoot on 6x9. I scan with Imacon. Subjects are furniture so for me camera movements were important in the decision. In my experience after shooting thousands of 6x9s, the difference still amazes me. When I make display prints for shows the quality difference is greater than I expected. It was definitely a worthwhile upgrade for me.

[Julian_3496]

Hi Hugh, I'll say the opposite to what a lot of folk here seem to be saying. I recently had the choice of either going 5x4 with an epson or microtek flatbed, or staying with MF and scanning with the minolta scan multi pro. I did a lot of tests and for me you get better results at bigger sizes with MF scanned with the sharpness of the optics in the scanmulti to 5x4 on a cheapish (under 1k euros) flatbed. In the past I've used a horseman 6x9 field camera and it isn't as versatile as 5x4 by any means, but if you don't go wide its ok. If you have the bucks, an arca swiss 5x4 with a roll film back would be ideal

Julian