Sorry folks for beating this to death. I really do actually go out and take pictures. If i jump to 6x9 will I see much of a difference between 645 at 12x18? I understand that sharpness is not the only reason to switch formats. I'm just trying to weigh the advantages and disadvantages before making the jump to a view camera.
With roughly double the negative available, yes you will see the difference. Whether it is "worth" it or not is purely subjective. A view camera is a totally different beast than your typical medium format setup. If in doubt, borrow rent a 4x5 for a week or two. Cheers,
As Moe said, it is likely that you'll see a difference between 645 and 6x9, even at moderate inlargements. However, if you make the jump to a view camera, I think there is little advantage to 6x9 rollfilm. If one takes the view camera plunge, why not use 4x5 sheet film, so one takes full advantage of the system? Remember, you can always crop the 4x5 negative to any aspect ratio you wish when enlarging - 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, or the full 4x5.
Hugh, I would second Ralph in his advice: don't get into the trouble of using a view camera just for 6x9. Get a 4x5 camera and a 6x9 rollfilm back as well as plain sheets. So you can choose either film investment depending on the subject. But yes, 6x9 will definitely give you more than 4,5x6!
I'm looking at 6x9 so that I can scan using a minolta multi pro that I presently use for 6x6 and 35mm.
I disagree that you'll see appreciable difference from a good negative in a 12x18 print.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
Um, Hugh, can you tell the difference between normal regular 35 mm still and half frame 35 mm? 645 is half frame 6x9.
FWIW, when I showed some 2x3 transparencies taken with my humble Speed Graphic to a friend who shoots a Pentax 645, he nearly fainted. I fear that the parallel experience with 4x5 would have killed him. Literally.
Cheers,
Dan
Long ago, I went from mainly using a Rollei TLR to also using a Horseman Technical Camera. The Rolei was effectively 6 x 4.5 because I almost always cropped to 8 x 10 aspect ratio. With the Horseman I did 6 x 7 roll film and 6 x 9 sheet film. Using conventional darkroom techniques, I would say that I hasd slightly better resolution with the larger format, but not enormously so. In a 12 x 18 inch or similar print, I don't think I would have noticed much difference. Several years ago I switched to digital using Epson flatbed printers. I've scanned many of my old negatives, both the 6 x 6 (but then cropped), and the 6 x 7 and 6 x 9, usually uncropped. Again, I would say there is a difference, but you have to look closely. The kind of results you can get by scanning 6 x 7 with an earlier Epson scanner you can see at www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html. I'm not sure which Minolta you are using, but if it is the 4000+ ppi one, you should get significantly better results than you see there. On the other hand, if you scanned 4 x 5 with the Epson 4870 or a similar scanner (approximately at $400 investment), you would probably do better than scanning 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 with your scanner. See the last example on my web page for a comparison. The Epson 4870 should do an even better job.
I've never used 645 or 6x9 but then it doesn't look like anyone else who's responded has either so I'll give you my guess. I don't think you'll see much if any difference at that size print. I seldom see a noticeable difference between 6x7 and 4x5 (both of which I use) with 11x14 prints. I haven't done the math (Leonard can probably do it in his sleep, I don't have enough fingers : - )) but it strikes me that the difference between 645 and 6x9 is probably less than the difference between 6x7 and 4x5.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
I suoopse it all depends on your goals and end use. I use formats ranging from 6x6 through 8x10 and generally try to use the largest that is practical for the situation.
The bottom line is that, whether or not you see it, there IS a difference in the resolution of a 12x18 print from any size negative/chrome and another negative/chrome that is twice the size (or even a third or a fourth larger) .. this , of course, assumes that everything else is the same (same film, same development, same enlarging lens or same quality, same paper, etc.).
Many will say "well the viewer can;t see the difference from a normal viewing distance" and while that may be correct (may not too) thye will at least register it on a subconscious level. I simply mean that with all else equal if you put two 12x18 prints side-by-side that are exactly the same other than the fact that one was printed from a 6x4.5 and the other from 6x9 (or one from a 6x9 and the other from a 4x5, etc.) negative or chrome the viewers will almost always pick the one printed from the larger original as the one they like best. Moral. it will sell better/impress more, etc. if the original is larger assuming all else is equal (which I freely admit is a tough call)>
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks