6X10 Format

[Jim Galli]

It's been about 5 years ago that I bought a Rittreck 6X10 back with 2 film holders. Soon 2 more holders came along. I figured a camera would follow, but 5 years went by. Then last month a decent Rittreck happened by so we got to see if we like 6X10.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/6X10/NoDogs/NoDogs_3s.jpg
no dogs #3

We do! More images here (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/6X10/NoDogs/NoDogs6X10.html). This'll be fun.

[David Karp]

Very nice. 6 x 10 looks great!

[evan clarke]

It's been about 5 years ago that I bought a Rittreck 6X10 back with 2 film holders. Soon 2 more holders came along. I figured a camera would follow, but 5 years went by. Then last month a decent Rittreck happened by so we got to see if we like 6X10.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/6X10/NoDogs/NoDogs_3s.jpg
no dogs #3

We do! More images here (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/6X10/NoDogs/NoDogs6X10.html). This'll be fun.

I stole a great Rittreck with 4x5 back,5x7 back with 6 holders,6x10 back with 6 holders, WP back with 6 holders, technika adapter, compendium and three lensboards..thing is almost new..$675 ;)
What film are you cutting?

[imagedowser]

Jim, The format looks like a natural for you... fine work.

[Jim Galli]

Thanks guys. Bet you were surprised. I took a picture with a Model A in it.

Evan, the film was some Efke stuff that some re-sellers had rolled up in 10" rolls supposedly for Cirkut cameras. Efke 100. It started getting long in the tooth on the date and the price kept going down. When It got to $85 I bought 10 rolls and put them in the freezer. Even so it's starting to get some film base plus fog. Still very usable though.

[Dave Wooten]

1:6 ratio? I dont think that ratio ever caught on. Jim you are probably kicking a dead horse here. I'd be willing to help you out and archive those holders here in Vegas:).

[Jim Galli]

1:6 ratio? I dont think that ratio ever caught on. Jim you are probably kicking a dead horse here. I'd be willing to help you out and archive those holders here in Vegas:).

3:5 ratio Dave. It's the poor man's 12X20 and it only weighs 9 pounds ;)

[Dave Wooten]

Got it!
Fold a 12 x 20 2 times and cut on the line-4 sheets of 6 x 10!
I am thinking there are
Some 6 x 10 Wisner cameras out there?

[Jim Galli]

Got it!
Fold a 12 x 20 2 times and cut on the line-4 sheets of 6 x 10!
I am thinking there are
Some 6 x 10 Wisner cameras out there?

I forgot about the Wisner's. I remember when he was making those. Wonder if the holders are interchageable. I had a friend who was going to order the wisner back outfit for his 4X5 Wis. Never got around to it though.

[Michael Jones]

It's the Golden mean. Almost anything that fills the frame looks wonderful.

Ron made six 6x10s at the request of Clyde Butcher in the mid 1990s. Except for feeling like you were a beta tester for the Mido II film holders we used, it is a great format. Then again, 8x0 Agfapan was only $1 a sheet then, so we just sliced it and tossed the rest away... Go to 5x8 now.

I'll have to root around for some of my 6x8 images.

mj

[Michael Jones]

Yes; it was on a 4x5 Wisner base with new back & bellows. Reversible for portrait & landscape.

mj

[William Whitaker]

I had one of those Wisner 6x10 cameras back around 2009. Had Alan Brubaker make six brand new walnut holders for it, then sold it, lock, stock and barrel to an infamous Ebay personality. Still kick myself for that one. Never even got to use those nice new holders. But whatever... Neat format. Just like a baby 12x20, but without quite all the grief of the big camera. And lenses are plentiful since the coverage requirement is less than 8x10.

[Michael Roberts]

Jim,
How about a pic or two of the camera?

Seems like 6x10 would be a natural for a reducing back on 8x10 as well....

Format looks great--have fun!

[Brian C. Miller]

Seems like 6x10 would be a natural for a reducing back on 8x10 as well....

Why not just crop? An inch off either side is no big deal.

[Michael Roberts]

Right. For those of us w/o 6x10 holders, I agree. But if you've made the investment in 6x10 holders, or want to....

I quite like the 3:5 ratio. I use 5x8 splitters on 8x10 for that reason.

[Oren Grad]

Jim, what cut(s) are you making to fit film to the holders? When I had the Rittreck with the "6x10" back and holders, I found that the holders were just enough smaller in both dimensions that I couldn't get away with a single cut from 8x10 film - I needed to trim the 10" dimension slightly as well, or the film wouldn't fit the holders.

That aside, the proportions are lovely. 7x11 gets you there too, more or less.

[Jim Galli]

Jim,
How about a pic or two of the camera?

Seems like 6x10 would be a natural for a reducing back on 8x10 as well....

Format looks great--have fun!

Thanks. I'll do this on Friday when I get back home.


Jim, what cut(s) are you making to fit film to the holders? When I had the Rittreck with the "6x10" back and holders, I found that the holders were just enough smaller in both dimensions that I couldn't get away with a single cut from 8x10 film - I needed to trim the 10" dimension slightly as well, or the film wouldn't fit the holders.

That aside, the proportions are lovely. 7x11 gets you there too, more or less.

Well the draw for me was that I have long rolls of 10" Efke 100, so zero waste. I just roll out 6" and chop. But you're right, the 10" side needs a micro chop, which I didn't do. I just mashed the ends closed.

[ImSoNegative]

I really like the 6x10 format

[Dave Wooten]

1.6666667

[e]

I have the same Rittreck 6x10 outfit..
Been out of photography for awhile now..
Maybe take it for a spin soon..

[Michael Roberts]

I came across this link to Clyde Butcher's discussion of his 6x10 Wisner. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.431916947006.239364.183693607006&type=3

Jim, are you still rocking this format? How's it going?

[Jim Galli]

I came across this link to Clyde Butcher's discussion of his 6x10 Wisner. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.431916947006.239364.183693607006&type=3

Jim, are you still rocking this format? How's it going?

Film holders loaded and ready, and the camera even made it on board for a trip recently, but was not used. Full plate used instead on that go-around. The reason is the lens boards for the rittreck only allows a couple choices, while the Kodak 2D has multiples available and ready to rock. So, no, haven't done much with it.

So many cameras and lenses, so little time. I did shoot in Goldfield NV. again this Saturday last. 5 new full plate films to scan.

[William Whitaker]

I"d be curious to know when Clyde wrote that entry. I had a Wisner 6x10 for a few years. Purchased on Ebay around 2006-07. Finally became frustrated enough with the film holders to contact Alan Brubaker. I sent him my original Wisner film holders plus the camera back so that he could make new holders for the 6x10. Those came in and were simply lovely. Before I even gave myself a chance to use the camera, I sold it to a[n] [in]famous Ebay personage who is also a member of this forum. He, in turn, sold it on Ebay last November, but not to me, unfortunately.

Sweet little camera and a great format. Really very much like 12x20, but without the weight and portability issues. I have thought that if I had the money (not likely), I would perhaps approach Keith Canham about doing the same thing, but on his 5x7/4x5 platform. In fact, the film holders I had Alan make were of walnut, with that very idea in mind.

But unless I come into a bunch of money or a very good job (about equally likely, I think), that just ain't gonna happen!

[Old-N-Feeble]

If not for the cost of the holders I think 6x10 is a wonderful format and (I think) the trimmed piece of film (from 8x10) should fit 4x10 film holders. So with a 4x10 reduction back you could have two very nice formats. Had I the money and could carry all that equipment then I'd have an 8x10 field camera with 6x10 and 4x10 backs... three very nice formats with one camera.

[StoneNYC]

If not for the cost of the holders I think 6x10 is a wonderful format and (I think) the trimmed piece of film (from 8x10) should fit 4x10 film holders. So with a 4x10 reduction back you could have two very nice formats. Had I the money and could carry all that equipment then I'd have an 8x10 field camera with 6x10 and 4x10 backs... three very nice formats with one camera.

You need to check your math.

[Old-N-Feeble]

You need to check your math.

Ha... you're right. :)

[Michael Jones]

I"d be curious to know when Clyde wrote that entry.

Will:

From the two dates mentioned, it looks like the post was written about 2010 and that seems about right given Cylde said he was headed to his 50th HS reunion. But I never saw any photos he took posted.

Like you, I had one of those original 6 cameras Ron made and a set of Mido holders. Thank heavens Agfa film was less than $1 a sheet for all that I wasted until Shin Mido finally fixed the holders.

Rather than repeat that format after selling the camera, I tried 5x8 since it maintained the ratio and used all the 8x10 film. I found the Chaminox holders and camera great with no issues. Quite a change!

These formats are great alternatives when you just don't want to hoist the ULF camera up to the tripod for the umpteenth time in a day!

Mike

[William Whitaker]

...I tried 5x8 since it maintained the ratio...

That's an interesting point I had never realized



These formats are great alternatives when you just don't want to hoist the ULF camera up to the tripod for the umpteenth time in a day!

Or an 8x10. The 6x10 seemed remarkably compact and light. But there's a lot to be said for a pair of scissors or a straight edge and razor blade. Much cheaper than a format-dedicated system.[/QUOTE]