6x9...LF?

[cobalt]

I have been shooting with a 6x9 Fuji rangefinder lately. I am amazed that the tonality, in my opinion, approaches that of large format (4x5). I know the film area is smaller, but I find the images I obtain have far greater depth, tonality and 3D quality (if you will) than those produced with, say a Hasselblad, for instance. Maybe it is a combination of the lens, the rangefinder type camera, and the film area...

Agree...disagree?

[Ben Syverson]

You'll definitely see more of that large format "look" with 6x9 when compared to a 6x6 Hassy -- 6x9 has 50% more picture area. When you're comparing a 6x4.5 section of the 6x6 frame, the 6x9 has a full 100% more picture area.

But can 6x9 be considered LF? I don't know... 6x9 is big, but 4x5 is more than twice as big. I'd consider 6x12 LF (because at least it is as wide as 4x5), but not 6x9... But it's all semantics really. :)

[Sylvester Graham]

Hmm, now I can't remember who it was exactly (of course) but I remember reading about a landscape photographer shooting somewhere in the UK who thought 6X9 was actually sharper than 4X5. Never shot 6X9, can't tell ya. There was also mention that other people believe this as well.

This photographer shot mountain terrain mostly, in the highlands or Scotland I think (is that the same thing?) if someone knows who I'm talking about.

[Ben Syverson]

Well, if you're shooting with an extremely sharp lens on 6x9, and a really busted old lens on 4x5, it would be relatively easy for your 6x9's to come out sharper than your 4x5's.

If you're shooting with good lenses on 4x5, there's no contest.

Also, keep in mind that even with a very soft lens on 4x5, the tonality will be different than 6x9, just by virtue of its larger image area. In other words, grain will be larger relative to the picture height in 6x9... Which may or may not be an issue, depending on how much you're enlarging.

[Sylvester Graham]

Well this guy was a professional, dare I say famous photographer with a new book and a museum exhibit. I think if he's ever used 4X5 it was with good lenses. I wish I could remember his name...

[Mattg]

I'm very happy with the results from 6x9 but I only print up 12x16". I have noticed a real difference in the look of images from the Rodenstock 65mm GrandagonN compared with the Mamiya 6 50mm lens that was my previous favourite. The Mamiya lens wins for sharpness but I prefer the tonal renderings of the Rodenstock lens.

I'm not sure about the tonal qualities of the format vs 4x5, if you're using the same films 4x5 would have to win in terms of smoothness. One of the reasons I enjoy using 6x9 is that I can use PanF+, a film with fairly special curve and smoothness that's not available in sheet film sizes.

I think it's a personal descision you can only make after using both yourself and considering how large you want to be able to print.

[Glenn Thoreson]

Just think, 60, 70 years ago 6X9 was considered miniature work and was scoffed at by many as unworthy. How times have changed. Recently, I made an 11X14 print from a 6X9 negative shot woth a very ugly, rusty Agfa Clack. While it certainly does have it's quirky look, it's actually quite a nice photo of a piece of history that no one will ever see again. I like the aspect ratio for some things. In the case of the photo mentioned, there was room at the bottom for a nice caption, as 6X9 uncropped does not fit "standard" paper sizes. :)

[John Schneider]

Barry Thornton was probably the photographer you're thinking of. However, he used a Rollei SL66, not even a 6x9. In his book Elements he did spend a bit of time discussing the benefits of MF relative to LF, as I recall having to do with film flatness and thickness, depth of field, and probably other things I've forgotten. I must admit I find his images spectacular.

[Bill_1856]

Large Format is mostly a state of mind, not just the size of the equipment.

[Oren Grad]

I used to own a Fuji GW690II. The 90mm f/3.5 Fujinon was perfectly competent, but I found its tonality a bit hard and didn't like the bokeh. (Then again, I'd say the same, on both counts, about Zeiss glass for the Hasselblad.) And no, it wasn't like 4x5.

[William Barnett-Lewis]

I use 2x3 Speed Graphics for both sheet & roll film. While they are real view cameras (and have at least some movements, forex) I can't really call them LF. But 90% of the time, they are more than good enough. Guess it just depends on which side of that line your shooting ends up falling on... ;)

William

[Oren Grad]

Afraid I'm going through a phase where I'm kinda down on medium format. On the one hand it's not nearly so good as 35mm for free-and-easy snapshooting, and on the other there's nothing like a contact print from a bigger negative. There just isn't anything that medium format does that's really compelling for me at the moment.

[Ben Syverson]

I think MF makes sense mostly for two things: studio work and travel work.

If you're doing studio, you want to be able to fire off images really quickly. The images have to be better than 35mm, but LF is probably overkill and too slow.

If you're traveling, you might want to bring back images bigger than 35mm, but LF is too heavy and slow to be all-purpose.

Outside of those situations, I think Oren is right. You're probably better off with a much smaller, faster camera (35mm or -- dare I say -- digital) or the higher quality of LF.

[archivue]

mind you, once i've shoot twice the same urban lanscape using an arca swiss, super symmar XL.
i was using the same type of film portra 100T, but one shoot was made with a 4x5 holder, and the other one with a technorollex 6x12....
the 6x12 made on roll film was a little bit sharper than the 6x12 cropping made out of the 4x5.
but if you compare a 6x7 to a 4x5", then the 4x5 is sharper... and can be use for bigger prints.

[Walter Calahan]

Base thickness difference between 120 roll film and sheet film usually accounts for the appearance of 'sharpness' in the 6x9 image. As mentioned above, that appearance disappears because 4x5 has so much more image area that a 6x9.

So if you put a 6x9 and a 4x5 chrome next to each other, the 6x9 'appears' to be sharper due to the thinner base. Once enlarged to the same size final image, the 4x5 trumps the 6x9.

The best test is to shoot a scene on 4x5 and then shoot the same with a 6x9 roll film back.

Anyway, never used th Fuji system or glass. I'm sure it is good.

[ic-racer]

I have considered calling my Horseman 6x9 VH-R a small 'large format' camera (if I can say that while eating some pretty ugly fresh frozen jumbo shrimp, playing my baby grand piano in a dry rain)

Certainly the Horseman 6x9 is a 'view camera' and is not that much different than the Horseman FA 4x5 camera.

I think most people consider 6x9 to be medium format. I guess the only importance of giving something a name is to communicate with others. If one said they were shooting with 'large format,' not many would understand this to mean a 6x9 rangefinder.

[false_Aesthetic]

Base thickness difference between 120 roll film and sheet film usually accounts for the appearance of 'sharpness' in the 6x9 image. . . .

So if you put a 6x9 and a 4x5 chrome next to each other, the 6x9 'appears' to be sharper due to the thinner base. Once enlarged to the same size final image, the 4x5 trumps the 6x9.


I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying. Would you be willing to elaborate?


Thanks

T

[Ernest Purdum]

To me, a camera with view camera movements qualifies even if there is a rollfilm holder on the back.

Being an old person who still enjoys travel, I have been working toward a travel kit consisting of an ancient quarter-plate camera, a 6 X 9 Graflok back, a couple of dinky lenses and the lightest carbon fiber tripod I can get away with. So far, I've got the camera (two actually, I can't make up my mind), the back, the lenses but not the tripod and I haven't found a good woodworker to join the back to the camera. When I am done I think I'll have many of the benefits of large format even if the film size is a little short on acreage.

[Ben Syverson]

mind you, once i've shoot twice the same urban lanscape using an arca swiss, super symmar XL.
i was using the same type of film portra 100T, but one shoot was made with a 4x5 holder, and the other one with a technorollex 6x12....
the 6x12 made on roll film was a little bit sharper than the 6x12 cropping made out of the 4x5.
but if you compare a 6x7 to a 4x5", then the 4x5 is sharper... and can be use for bigger prints.

That would immediately make me question my 4x5 holder. Odds are, it's not putting the film in exactly the right position, but your rollfilm holder is. There's no reason for a 6x12 crop of 4x5 to be appreciably different from a 6x12 shot when taken with the same lens, camera and film stock. If you're seeing a difference, it's most likely due to equipment problems, operator error, or film differences (were they both dated closely?).

[Ole Tjugen]

...
Certainly the Horseman 6x9 is a 'view camera' and is not that much different than the Horseman FA 4x5 camera. ...
If you use 6.5x9cm sheet film in proper holders, it's a 'view camera'. With rollfilm it's an extremely flexible MF camera. :):p

[Bob Salomon]

"There's no reason for a 6x12 crop of 4x5 to be appreciably different from a 6x12 shot when taken with the same lens, camera and film stock."

Except for the addition of film rails and a pressure plate and rollers to take the curl out of roll film when used in a properly made roll back. A sheet of 45 film "floats" more in its holder and has no pressure plate system.

[Wayne Crider]

I consider cut film or plate cameras with bellows or movements to be large format and roll film to be medium or small format.

[Don Hutton]

"There's no reason for a 6x12 crop of 4x5 to be appreciably different from a 6x12 shot when taken with the same lens, camera and film stock."

Except for the addition of film rails and a pressure plate and rollers to take the curl out of roll film when used in a properly made roll back. A sheet of 45 film "floats" more in its holder and has no pressure plate system.Inaccurate - my Kodak Readyload holder has a pressure plate. 4x5 sheet film has no curl so rollers to remove curl are unnecessary.

[Sylvester Graham]

Barry Thornton was probably the photographer you're thinking of.

I checked some of his stuff on the web, and I'm fairly sure that's not who I was thinking of.

[George Hart]

As an enthusiastic 6x9 fan I agree with the OP's sentiments! I suspect that the UK photographer another poster referred to may be Trevor Crone, who comments on the relative sharpness of 6x12 and 5x4 in this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=5916. A good RFH pressure plate can potentially ensure a sharper result, other things being equal of course, than a double darkslide without such a feature.

Whether 6x9 on a view camera is LF or not is clearly a matter of opinion! But with an excellent aspect ratio, lighter kit, lots of superb lenses, and roll-film convenience, it's got a lot going for it. Screen size isn't a patch on my 5x7 though, but that's down to what you choose to get accustomed to!

[Ernest Purdum]

Screen size certainly helps. It's great to look at an 8 X 10 groundglass, particularly looking through the cataracts in both my eyes. Still, with all the help I can get through viewing aids, I think I can make do with the small screen. Maybe by the time I go travelling the cataracts will be gone.

[Alan Davenport]

Where I started in photography, under the tutelage of a couple of old press fotogs, the difference between "large" format and "medium" format was, as the names might imply, simply one of size. Never mind films, lenses, tonality or whatever. And 4x5 was the lower limit of large format. Smaller than 4x5, and larger than 35mm, it must be medium format.

I don't understand why photographers who use medium format cameras, continually pound on the door to be admitted into the large format club.

[George Hart]

I don't understand why photographers who use medium format cameras, continually pound on the door to be admitted into the large format club.

If they do, and I must say that I, for one, haven't heard the noise, then it may be because they are using view cameras…

[Ben Syverson]

If they do, and I must say that I, for one, haven't heard the noise, then it may be because they are using view cameras…
In that case, I'm going to make a monorail view camera that fits in your pocket and takes 110 film. Can we all agree to call it large format? ;)

I think, as the name implies, "large format" has more to do with the size of the film than the type of camera you're using. There are fixed-focus LF cameras and there are MF view cameras -- that doesn't change the size of the film.

6x9 may be great, but if the goal is to communicate with other humans, you'll have better luck calling it "medium format" than "large format." If it's an ego thing, and the goal is just to look yourself in the mirror and say "I shoot large format," then don't drag 6x9 into the equation -- just buy a Crown Graphic and stick it in your closet. ;)

[cobalt]

Where I started in photography, under the tutelage of a couple of old press fotogs, the difference between "large" format and "medium" format was, as the names might imply, simply one of size. Never mind films, lenses, tonality or whatever. And 4x5 was the lower limit of large format. Smaller than 4x5, and larger than 35mm, it must be medium format.

I don't understand why photographers who use medium format cameras, continually pound on the door to be admitted into the large format club.

I think the point of the original post has been...misplaced, shall we say. I was simply suggesting how, to my eyes, which are at this point sans cataract, the tonality I achieve with my rangefinder approaches large format quality.

Oh, and if I were to pound on the door for admittance, I'd likely do so with my 17 lb. B and J Orbit 8x10 camera. The Fuji is far too precious a thing for that. :-)

[Ole Tjugen]

I like the "area definition" - that large Format starts at 100 square centimeters.

On the other hand I could argue that the real limit is where you can see the GG image with both eyes at the same time - and that's from 5x7" and up. :)

[archivue]

the real limit is where you can see the GG image with both eyes at the same time - and that's from 5x7" and up...
you should try an arca Fline 69 with is binocular viewer !!!

[Sandeha]

It's not large at all, but I think 6x9 has a cute factor that can't be beat ...

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/medium_format/th_IMGP3478_copy.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/medium_format/IMGP3478_copy.jpg)

[ic-racer]

Inaccurate - my Kodak Readyload holder has a pressure plate. 4x5 sheet film has no curl so rollers to remove curl are unnecessary.

Yes, the pressure plate does not exert any pressure on the film. It just forms a channel for the film by pressing on the raised set of rails. The end result is the SAME as a 4x5 holder (though the film channel depth is less with rollfilm). (Exceptions to everything; the MINOX and MINOLTA 16 plates DO press on the film but this is the Large Format forum and those cameras don't exist here)

What the good roolfilm holders and cameras have is a mechanism to TIGHTEN the film as it passes through the channel (frequently springs that 'bind' on the film spool edge).

[j.e.simmons]

I shoot sheet film in a Mamiya RB67 using Grafmatics. The camera thus takes sheet film and has a bellows - large format? Ha. I was out shooting with a friend once. I had set up the camera on a tripod and had just pressed the shutter release. She asked, "Why don't you look through your camera when you take the picture?"

I realized that, just as with 8x10, I was standing to the side of the camera watching the scene rather than looking through the SLR's viewfinder. I guess I still think in large format regardless of which camera I use.
juan

[Frank Petronio]

That Fuji RF is pretty darn sharp, I used one for ten years and the prints are nearly indistinguishable from most of the 4x5s, at least at 11x14. Better than the Hasselblad for a fraction of the cost. I once had to do a large group portrait and used a 6x17 and a 4x5 - the 6x17 smoked the 4x5 at the same cropping. So use what works and enjoy.

[Kevin Crisp]

When I shoot 6X9 it is with a Kodak Medalist II. Its lens is superb. I pretty much agree with you, up to a point. If I am using a medium speed film the prints can pass for 4X5 Tri-X results, up to about 11X14. If I shoot the same film in each I think there is a noticeable difference in 11X14 prints, depending on the subject. Some subjects can really mask grain.

[cobalt]

Frank, Kevin, thank you for speaking to the original topic.
The question was not one of what TYPE of camera qualifies as LF.

Frank: best response yet.
I had been looking for a LF point and shoot solution, if you will, and find that, for most purposes, the 6x9 rangefider fits the bill. I might add that, being a rangefinder and sporting a stupendous lens, the Fuji's punch above their weight, in a manner of speaking, i.e. the images obtainable are superior to what one might reasonably expect from MF.

[Sylvester Graham]

Trevor Crone definately not it either. Now I'm just being a pain, but this is bugging me. Scottish, or British Highland photography, B&W, Landscape, and I think 6X9. Lots of sky in his pictures if I remember. Anyone?

[Los]

i've had the same feeling at one time that the roll film (67 fuji rangefinder in my case) looks sharper than my 4x5. however, i've only printed up to 8x10. i reasoned that it was due to operator error since the 45 image had movements applied and a fairly wide stop. still, i do notice much finer tonal renderings with the 4x5, and with contrasty scenes the apparent sharpness of the 4x5 is equal or better than the roll film. i also feel at this time that i'd rather use 135 if i need speed and portability, and 45 for everything where there's a tripod involved. Before i started shooting 45, the 67 camera was always with me and i found that the size of the camera had some effect on the subjects (people) that i don't get with the 135 camera. for those who are interested, the 67 is a 90/3.5 fujinon EBC glass (used usually around f4-f5.6) and the 45 is fujinon w/nw 135/5.6 also EBC (used usually around f8-f11).

[Mike Weston]

Hmm, now I can't remember who it was exactly (of course) but I remember reading about a landscape photographer shooting somewhere in the UK who thought 6X9 was actually sharper than 4X5. Never shot 6X9, can't tell ya. There was also mention that other people believe this as well.

This photographer shot mountain terrain mostly, in the highlands or Scotland I think (is that the same thing?) if someone knows who I'm talking about.



You may be thinking of Colin Prior, a Scottish photographer who has used a 6x9 Arca Swiss monorail as well as a range of other MF, LF and Panoramic cameras and a Canon EOS 1DSMk11 Digital SLR for his landscapes. Books include 'Scotland, The Wild Places' and 'Highland Wilderness

[Peter Collins]

Large Format is mostly a state of mind, not just the size of the equipment.

...but the real question is: is photographer's ego size directly related to photographer's negative size? :rolleyes:

[Lightbender]

UGH! i cant beleive anyone is arguing about this post.

6x9 is not really considered to be large format. But there is quite alot of equipment available that lets you shoot 6x9 in view cameras. And their are dedicated view cameras for 6x9. Thus there is alot of equipment which is relative to the discussions we have on this forum. Bellows, lenses, shutters, techniques, etc.

The Fuji 6x9 rangefinder is not in the scope of this forum, since it has its own lenses and does not use any equipment that is interchangeable with other large format cameras/lenses. However if you had questions about meters, heavy tripods, 4x5 enlargers for 6x9, etc, many people here would be able to offer good advice.

[cobalt]

UGH! i cant beleive anyone is arguing about this post.

6x9 is not really considered to be large format. But there is quite alot of equipment available that lets you shoot 6x9 in view cameras. And their are dedicated view cameras for 6x9. Thus there is alot of equipment which is relative to the discussions we have on this forum. Bellows, lenses, shutters, techniques, etc.

The Fuji 6x9 rangefinder is not in the scope of this forum, since it has its own lenses and does not use any equipment that is interchangeable with other large format cameras/lenses. However if you had questions about meters, heavy tripods, 4x5 enlargers for 6x9, etc, many people here would be able to offer good advice.

Nobody asked for advice.
Just a question, asking for opinions.