6x9 Why?

[Cor]

Somewhere on this forum this article by Ctein was mentioned, it looked pretty alarming when you are into scanning medium format film..

best,

Cor

[genotypewriter]

I've been offered a nice Linhof kit (3 lenses & misc.) in 6x9. I'm having serious GAS, but don't really understand the rational behind 6x9. It seems as though it would be easier just to use 4x5 since the frame-count w/roll film is so low you'd probably be changing film incessantly. Anybody use this format & what are the advantages? Thanks for any help or advice.

It's difficult to talk about 4x5 vs. 6x9 without the reasoning generalising ultimately to larger vs. smaller format film.

For me the rest comes down to: sheet vs. roll, film emulsion availability, availability of labs, etc.

Roll films are thinner and there's much talk about film flatness. Personally, I haven't had any such issues with film flatness on my Fuji GW690III (6x9, 90 f/3.5, 120/220 film, fixed-lens rangefinder). But there are people go as far as getting vacuum backs for 645 cameras.

We all know about the availability of film emulsions so there's not much to be said there. Would be nice to see Delta 3200 on 4x5 and 8x10.

Where I come from, Melbourne (Australia), there are only two labs that I know of that process large format. And only one of them does 8x10. It's a scary thought. Can't see how it's a bad idea to have a 120/220 back for the LF gear.

At the end of the day, if it's a particular large format "look" that you're after from your images, it's easier to get it from... large format. You need to go through much trouble and expenses to say get the DOF of a f/5.6 lens on 8x10. On the plus side, the equipment will most likely be more portable... especially as the fields of view get narrower.

YMMV