PDA

View Full Version : 6 X 9 Photographers



Greg Liscio
22-Nov-2006, 21:11
Can I please hear from the 6X9 format photographers? Is this format more difficult to work with than 4X5?
Thanks for the anticipated valuable input. This Forum is the best!!

Greg

Atul Mohidekar
23-Nov-2006, 00:56
I use a monorail view camera, a 6x9 Arca Swiss F-Metric, for mainly landscape and some flower photography. The handling of this camera is just like any other LF view camera. Off the top of my head, here are some pros and cons of 6x9 compared to 4x5 (of course, as I see them):

Advantages of 6x9:
1. The film handling is much easier and much less expensive than 4x5. One could easily carry multiple 120 or 220 rolls in the field without worrying about volume and weight compared to 4x5 film. A side effect of this is the ability to freely bracket photos without worrying about running out of film.
2. The camera, the lenses and the film pack more compact and weigh less due to smaller lens boards and usage of roll film.
3. Better DOF for a given aperture.
4. I like the more rectangular aspect ratio of 6x9 compared to 4x5. This is just a personal preference.

Advantages of 4x5:
1. Bigger area for focusing. So one does not have to be as much critical about the focus as 6x9.
2. The larger real estate of 4x5 film allows larger enlargements compared to 6x9. One could scan and enlarge a good 4x5 transparency to a 40”x50” print, but I would not go beyond 20”x30”with a good 6x9.
3. Ability to expose each frame differently so that it can be developed accordingly. This is important if you are doing B&W photography and/or using zone system.

I might have missed some in the above list.

Specifically, the 6x9 Arca Swiss is a delight to operate, very precise, rigid with all kinds of yaw-free geared movements with Micrometric Orbix. The binocular viewer obviates the usage of a dark cloth and a loupe for most applications.

Overall, I'm quite pleased with the 6x9 Arca Swiss camera and in general 6x9 photography.


// Atul

Paul Droluk
23-Nov-2006, 03:13
6x9 is alive and well, as far as I'm concerned. For several years I've been using a Horseman VH and VHR, with an assortment of lenses ranging from 47mm to 270mm... primarily landscape work. I also have an older Horseman CH-31 with a fixed 62mm lens that I play with on occasion. I shoot larger roll film, larger sheet film and digital as well. All have their merits.

George Hart
23-Nov-2006, 04:54
Here's another enthusiastic 6x9 shooter! I use an Ebony 45S with a wide range of lenses from 55 to 300 mm. I have marked the 6x9 outline on the gg screen and I enjoy being able to see more than the RF margins. I also have the WA fresnel which helps greatly, but makes it slightly more difficult to focus with the longest lenses. I haven't time to develop individual cut film sheets, and being able to fit 8 frames on a roll is excellent. I also prefer this aspect ratio. In answer to your question it is no more difficult to work with for me, but the smaller field of view, and more precise focussing needed for the widest lenses, mean that you have to be a bit more careful than with larger formats.

Walter Calahan
23-Nov-2006, 05:24
And 6x9 makes more sense if a digital back is thrown into the mix. Not that I can afford a digital back, but if I could, I'd go with 6x9 LF.

Ole Tjugen
23-Nov-2006, 05:56
I shoot a little 6x9, but with a 6.5x9cm plate camera (a Voigtländer Bergheil). So far I have only used it hand held, taking pleasure in the ease of use of such a tiny little LF camera. Yes, I do occasionally use rise and shift with it, too!

I've shot a few rolls of 6x7 with my 4x5" camera. None the last year, but I did use it quite a bit on the Linhof Color I had before. I may well do it more often now that I have a camera which can handle shorter lenses.

GPS
23-Nov-2006, 07:19
Using 6x9 is much more than just a question of a film format. It's a question of the speed of your photography, its ease, the weight of your paraphernalia, the possibilities given by all these specific issues. Taking the 6x9 as a simple geometrical reduction of the 4x5 won't tell you anything about it.

j.e.simmons
23-Nov-2006, 08:50
I shoot a lot of 6x9 (approximately) - and I shoot almost all of it on sheet film. I use my 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Speed Graphic both hand held and on a tripod like a view camera. I shoot it in my RB67 (image a little shorter than 6x9 but a little bigger than 6x7) on a tripod much like Brett Weston used his SL66. With sheet film, I have all the advantages of ZS or BTZS. Both cameras are lighter than 4x5, and I can see the screen on the RB67 better than I can see the ground glass on 4x5. I now shoot almost exclusively 6x9 and 8x10 - the 4x5 is in the closet.
juan

al olson
23-Nov-2006, 08:54
Good morning Greg,

In addition to three 4x5s and an 8x10, I have two 2 1/4 x 3 1/4s, (6x9s if you will). One is a Linhof Super Technika with three matched, cammed Schneider lenses at 65mm, 105mm, and 180mm. The other is a Speed Graphic with a Kodak Ektar 107mm.

The 6x9 field (press) is a lot more convenient to carry around (although the small Linhof still weighs a ton). You have the option of using the view finder or the ground glass, and both cameras are equipped with rangefinders.

Until recently the availability of sheet film was problematic. Shortly after I bought the Linhof, color films were discontinued and the only b&w I could find available was Ilford's HP5 (ISO 400). When Ilford was getting restructured, this size disappeared.

In recent months films have become available again at least at Freestyle and J&C (these might be special orders???). In addition now Freestyle is stocking Efke (in ISOs 25, 50 and 100) and their Aristo.edu (ISO 100) house brand as well. I have recently collected a small hoard for testing.

As far as color films go, you will have to use a roll film which means that you will need a roll film back. I find this very inconvenient when using ground glass focusing because the ground glass must be removed to put the roll film holder on. Thus I seldom use color and, if I do, I use the viewfinder instead.

[I have two of the Calumet Roll Holder Model C2 holders that will slip in under the ground glass on my 4x5s but I know of nothing like this available for the 23s. In this case, the wide angle 90mm becomes my "normal" lens.]

I have numerous two-sided holders that I have found cheap on ebay. In addition I have two Grafmatics that are very handy. They hold 6 sheets in separate septums and are highly regarded as to their alignment in the film plane. These are available for around $30 on ebay.

Processing is very simple. You can process several sheets at a time in 8x10 trays and keep them separated to avoid scratches.

If you have a Jobo, you can put six sheets into the adjustable 2509 reel that goes into the 2521 drum (270 ml of chemicals). I also acquired on ebay a 3012 drum that holds 12 sheets and uses 330ml. I have never seen this drum shown in Jobo's literature, however.

If you have not already selected a camera, let me recommend the Linhof. The Super Technika 23 is a great camera, especially if it has the full suite of three matched, cammed lenses. The rear standard has the same movements as the 4x5s. The front standard has a 15 degree drop bed, 15 degree rear tilt as well as vertical rise.

Linhof did not put in swing and shift movements because this was intended as a press camera and if these were needed they felt the camera was so light (hah!) that they could be accomplished by tilting the tripod head 90 degrees and using the tilt for swing and the rise for shift.

This is a great format to work with especially with the b&w films now that we have a selection again. Hope you join us and help keep the format alive.

al

Stan. L-B
23-Nov-2006, 09:06
Hi Greg. My favouite roll film format is 6X9. I use this format regularly in my Super Wide 65mm Fuji cameras, on my Sinar 5X4 and 8X10 with roll film holders. Having these options I feel I am getting the best out of film types available, in both colour and black and white. Long may it be so! Good luck.

darr
23-Nov-2006, 09:19
I currently use a 6x9 Arca Swiss with a 50 cm rail and Rodenstock 120 macro lens setup solely for macro work. An additional 4x5 Arca Swiss w/orbix can be found close by in my studio for other commercial works. I recently sold my Ebony SV45U traveling camera that I occasionally used the 4x5 to 6x9 adapter with and a roll back for portraiture. Today I use 6x9 primarily for macro work and a Mamiya RB67 for portraiture.

Leonard Evens
23-Nov-2006, 09:46
I used a Horseman 980 with 6 x 7 roll film holders (occasionally 6 x 9 sheet film holders) over a period of some 30 years. About 6 years ago I switched to 4 x 5, but I occasionally still use my Horseman.

I agree with Atul's analysis, which pretty much covers the main points. I would add the following additional considerations.

If you plan to do darkroom work, equipment, from enlargers to film processing equipment, for medium format is less expensive, and, more important, takes up significantly less room. (For example, in my condo, I couldn't do 4 x 5 darkroom printing unless I sacrificed a bathroom.) On the other hand, if you scan film, as I do, then you can make do with lower quality flat bed scanners for 4 x 5. If you want the best scanning equipment, 4 x 5 equipment is of course considerably more expensive, but will also deliver better results.

For the same capablity in terms of rise/fall/shift and tilt/swing, you have to pay considerably more for the same capability in a 6 x 9 camera than in a 4 x 5 camera Medium format requires much more precision for tilt/swing, and to some extent also for rise/fall/shift. (But such tilts or swings are less neecessary because of increased depth of field.) Fewer wide angle lenses may be available for 6 x 9, but more for long focal lengths---this relative to the format. Generally, you want higher quality optics for the smaller format, so lenses may be more expensive.

Paul says he has been able to use a 47 mm lens with his Horseman VH. I once found a web site which listed the lenses that would work with Horseman Technical 6 x 9 cameras, and it showed no lens shorter than 65 mm. I can't find that web site with a google search now, so if anyone knows where it is, it would be helpful to let the rest of us know. I don't doubt Paul's report, but I would be curious to know what special arragements were necessary, if any.

I upgraded to 4 x 5 from my Horseman 980 because the latter had relatively limited movements, particularly rise, with my 65 mm lens. I used 6 x 7 format to conform with typical 4:5 aspect ratio for prints, and 65 mm for that format is roughly equivalent to 120 mm with 4 x 5. Even 47 mm is only equivalent to about 85 mm. I regularly use a 75 mm lens with my 4 x 5 system and could go lower if necessary. Also, I find it easier to compose on the larger gg. The only reasonable alternative to going to 4 x 5 was getting a much more expensive 6 x 9 monorail like the Arca Swiss that Atul uses. Because of the move to the condo, I planned to scan rather than print with an enlarger, so I was not limited by the darkroom considerations mentioned previously. My 4 x 5 is a toho FC-45x (not Toyo) which is actually lighter than and just as portable as my Horseman 980.

There is the alternative of gettinga 4 x 5 camera and using it with roll film backs, but you have to be very careful about which 4 x 5 camera you get. Such cameras are generally designed to be used with longer focal length lenses, and that can limit significnatly what you can do at what is the short focal length end of the range for medium format. Also, you will need finer and more precise control of movements than is adequate for 4 x 5. You may end up paying as much or more than a good 6 x 9 monorail would cost you, and the camera will probably be bulkier, heavier, and more difficult to transport.


If I were fantastically wealthy, and had time enough to devote to different formats, I would get an Arca-Swiss 6 x 9, rent space somewhere for a complete darkroom, and have the best of both worlds.

Joe Blaze
23-Nov-2006, 11:05
I use a Linhof M679 both in the studio and in the field, with a roll film back. The precision of the movements and rigidity of the setup is terrific, mitigated only by the weight of the camera. All accessories are smaller too. The outfit is housed in a relatively small rigid fitted box which is very protective, but not waterproof. The necessary tripod is smaller and lighter than that required for my 8x10 Sinar P.

Focusing has to be done carefully since the screen is relatively small and front or back movements are not as obvious as with 8x10.

Because I still want to make extreme enlargements, the selection of lenses must be made carefully. I generally stick to modern lenses made for 6x9. Using older lenses made for 4x5 does not always work out well. Their greater coverage sometimes means that there can be internal reflections on the bellows from the 'unused' coverage. Their reduced resolution, compared to say Mamiya 6x8 or Zeiss/Hasselblad 6x6 lenses, did not always result in sufficient quality for extreme enlargements.

For a while I had access to a Kodak digital back which was adapted to the 679 using a 'wechelschlitten/sliding back' sized to a Hasselblad back. I never tried it with a 6x6 film back, but the operation of a sliding back made switching between the focus magnifier and the chip back really easy.

One really nice feature of the Linhof 679 ground glass back is that the fresnel can be separately shifted to put the 'sweet spot' closer to the focus point to improve the light distribution.

The camera uses on-axis tilts and swings, which is not as nice as the Sinar P with asymmetric action, but using that 8x10 'monster' in the field requires friendly 'bearers' to carry-out the expedition.

GPS
23-Nov-2006, 12:09
Their greater coverage sometimes means that there can be internal reflections on the bellows from the 'unused' coverage.

A good point, Joe! Yet there is a simple and efficient means to prevent it. You can make a paper cone collar, put on the rear lens diameter, with a limiting collar at its other end. The cone, made bigger than the light cone coming out of the lens, covered with flocked paper, and having the end baffle at its end works perfectly. It can stay on the lens, as it is not longer than bellows draw. Just make sure it's made of paper that doesn't pulverize - because of the dust.

neil poulsen
23-Nov-2006, 23:46
I enjoy using 6x9 on a 4x5 camera. I like the larger bellows, that has less likelihodd of reflecting light off the bellows onto the film. Lenses are lighter, if one purchases for the format. (Versus using a 90mm S.A. f5.6 as a medium lense.) Film is less expensive, too. I use about three 6x9 roll film backs, which let's me easily change from one development to another. (e.g. N, N-1, N+1, or whatever.) I also like the way 6x9 enlarges to about a 6"x9" print size. On my system, I can do all my lenses for 6x9 on a leather bag bellows. So, it's easier in that sense,. too.

Paul Droluk
24-Nov-2006, 01:14
Leonard... I think this might be the web page you are looking for... (http://www.horsemanusa.com/lens_list.html) It appears hidden away on the Horseman USA website.

I assume all of the data published refers to using lens boards available from Horseman. There was someone (once upon a time) in the USA who made special recessed lensboards for the VH that allowed lenses down to a 58XL to be used. I managed to find one of these, and subsequently had a deeper recessed board made for the 47XL by a machinest. I had to also have extended levers made to adjust aperture and shutter speed, because I couldn't get my finger inside the recessed board. I use a stylus pen to cock the shutter.

The front standard sits just barely on the bed rail (dropped), and only the tiniest amount of rise is avaialble... about 3mm. Tilt of about 3-4mm is available as well. I use this lens infrequently because of the limitations, but when I need it... I need it.

gary mulder
24-Nov-2006, 01:56
The last 5 years I have been using a Linhof TK23 for my landscapes. The setup consists of TK23 (non S version because the latter is about 700 gr heavier) with 38, 58, 150, 300 mm lenses and a rapid rolex 6X7 film holder. I have published a small expose on the internet www.roosnoreengary.demon.nl

For most of the previous posts I can certainly agree exept for using a 4X5 for medium format. I possess a Sinar and Master technika but there is no way I would be using these for 6X9. Simply because why hauling around heavier equipment then that you are planning to use. Also I think TK45 when folded the bellows are far too exposed and vulnerable. And the Master Technika cannot handle the shorter lenses with ease that are necessary for the smaller format.

Lately I have started to use more 4X5 for my landscapes simply because I like to go bigger than the maximum (quality) print of the 6X7.

I hope this brings you further towards your decision.

GPS
24-Nov-2006, 02:29
Lovely pictures, Gary! Between 6x7 and 4x5 there is the -6x9! My Arca Swiss wants to go to Island badly... I tell her to first earn for the car rental there!

Dan Fromm
24-Nov-2006, 04:52
Hmm. I shoot 2x3 with little Graphics. Landscape and closeup of static subjects, one of this winter's projects is a small set of focusing frames to facilitate shooting more mobile subjects closeup. I use a variety of lenses, for a partial list see my post in this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=21170 .

2x3 is manageable, usefully larger than 35 mm. I went up to 2x3 from 35 mm not to gain movements but to be able to shoot closeup and put my subjects in their settings without having to give up fine detail in the subjects.

Many of the lenses I shoot -- all of the ones longer than 160 mm -- are in barrel and have adapters for mounting in front of a #1 shutter. All of my lenses longer than 120 mm cover considerably more than 2x3. Perhaps because of front mounting, perhaps because the interiors of my cameras bellows aren't very reflective, I haven't encountered the bellows flare at least one poster has mentioned.

Cheers,

Dan

Leonard Evens
24-Nov-2006, 07:28
Leonard... I think this might be the web page you are looking for... (http://www.horsemanusa.com/lens_list.html) It appears hidden away on the Horseman USA website.

I assume all of the data published refers to using lens boards available from Horseman. There was someone (once upon a time) in the USA who made special recessed lensboards for the VH that allowed lenses down to a 58XL to be used. I managed to find one of these, and subsequently had a deeper recessed board made for the 47XL by a machinest. I had to also have extended levers made to adjust aperture and shutter speed, because I couldn't get my finger inside the recessed board. I use a stylus pen to cock the shutter.

The front standard sits just barely on the bed rail (dropped), and only the tiniest amount of rise is avaialble... about 3mm. Tilt of about 3-4mm is available as well. I use this lens infrequently because of the limitations, but when I need it... I need it.

Thanks for the information. It tells me what I would have to do should I ever decide to adapt my Horseman 980 to use with a lens shorter than 65 mm. I think it is fair to say from your description that one can't routinely assume it is possible to use lenses shorter than 65 mm with Horseman 6 x 9 technical cameras. I'm not completely sure what the problem is. When the front standard is close to the back, it comes off the front focusing track and starts to engage the storage track. In that position, the normal focusing mechanism wouldn't work, so you would have to slide the standard on the tracks, which would difficult to do precisely, and you couldn't be sure the front standard was parallel to the film plane. But it should be possible to rig something up to deal with that. Another possible problem is that the back of the lens can't be too wide, or it won't fit in the bellows. Perhaps there is some other problem I'm not aware of.

Dan Fromm
24-Nov-2006, 09:29
Leonard, have you ever tried a 58 Grandagon, 47 Super Angulon, or any other lens in that class? I ask because these lenses' flange-to-film distances at infinity are rather longer than one would expect.

If you're willing to give up much in the way of movements but front rise and can live with not much of that and want to use lenses shorter than 65 mm, you might consider getting a Century Graphic. They're not too expensive, their minimum flange-to-film distance is 35 mm, and because the inner and outer bed rails are linked they're easy to focus with the front standard on the inner rails. Same goes for the 2x3 Crown Graphic. FWIW, a poster on www.graflex.org reported using a 35 Apo Grandagon on his Century.

Cheers,

Dan

Oren Grad
24-Nov-2006, 09:44
Dan, do you know whether 2x3 Graphics (with Graflok rather than spring back, of course) can accept the current Horseman 2x3 rollholders? I have a baby Gowland with Graphic back hardware that can, but from prior unpleasant surprises with other camera/rollholder combinations I always worry about whether there's something about the camera body that will get in the way.

Dan Fromm
24-Nov-2006, 11:50
Oren, I honestly don't know. B&H offers them and says:

"Note: These backs are based on the standard 2x3" type Graflok camera backs but will NOT fit all cameras equipped with a 2x3 Graflok back. These backs will fit all Horseman 6x9 cameras (VH, VH-R, 980 etc.), Arca-Swiss 6x9 cameras, the early Graflex Crown/Speed Graphic 2x3 cameras with a Graflok back and the Graflex XL cameras. They will NOT fit the Graflex 2x3 Century Graphic cameras or Mamiya Press cameras with a Graflok back."

This puzzles the living daylights out of me. A Century Graphic is a plastic-bodied 2x3 Crown Graphic with the front shutter release deleted, what fits one fits the other.

If I couldn't try before buying I'd look on www.graflex.org. If looking failed, I'd ask there.

Cheers,

Dan

GPS
24-Nov-2006, 12:38
The Mamyia press cameras with a Graflok back do not accept a Horseman (aka Arca) RF backs because of a slightly different dimension of the groove on it. But the camera Graflok back can be easily modified (with a file and some washers) to accept the H/A RF backs! Of course, then it doesn't accept the original RFH with its Graflok back...

Oren Grad
8-Dec-2006, 23:00
Oren, I honestly don't know. B&H offers them and says:

"Note: These backs are based on the standard 2x3" type Graflok camera backs but will NOT fit all cameras equipped with a 2x3 Graflok back. These backs will fit all Horseman 6x9 cameras (VH, VH-R, 980 etc.), Arca-Swiss 6x9 cameras, the early Graflex Crown/Speed Graphic 2x3 cameras with a Graflok back and the Graflex XL cameras. They will NOT fit the Graflex 2x3 Century Graphic cameras or Mamiya Press cameras with a Graflok back."

This puzzles the living daylights out of me. A Century Graphic is a plastic-bodied 2x3 Crown Graphic with the front shutter release deleted, what fits one fits the other.

If I couldn't try before buying I'd look on www.graflex.org. If looking failed, I'd ask there.

Cheers,

Dan

Thanks, Dan. This (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00J5Y9&tag=) may be the answer.

hubercraft
18-Jan-2007, 00:53
I just bought a Mamiya RB67 I wondering what's the best way to learn this baby.
Also how do these photo's compare to digital photo's

Ron Marshall
18-Jan-2007, 01:01
I just bought a Mamiya RB67 I wondering what's the best way to learn this baby.
Also how do these photo's compare to digital photo's

This is a site for Large format photography. You can get more info on medium format at apug.org.

Here is a link to a digital 6x7 comparison:

http://www.diax.nl/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html