Enlargement difference 6x4.5 vs. 6x7

Hello, the five prior factors are: 1) Intended viewing distance, 2) Film Type, 3) Scanning Method, 4) None or minimun cropping, and 5) Nature of the Subject...

That said, if you want a print to holdup to very close inspection, shoot with Provia 100F, scan with Nikon 9000, full frame, highly Detailed/Contrasty Subject, then I find 6x4.5 yields 17x22 prints, sometimes up to 22x30. And, 6x7 yields 24x28 prints, somtimes up to 40x46. High-end drum scanning or very professional pixel interpolation can boost print size another 50% to 200%. Hope this helps...

How large is large? What film stocks do you plan on using? Do you use a tripod and a cable

release? If they are to be scanned, how will they be scanned? How will they be printed?

The precise answer for normal viewing distance is an enlargement factor of 8.14159

 

Now you know.

 

:)

Ellis: Judging by the timestamps of your posts, you've managed to find a way to turn back time! Always knew you were a magician of sorts ...

I am interested in buying my first medium format camera. I would like to be

able to make large prints and I was wondering what the max enlargement size

(Aprox. under perfect conditions)was for both 6x4.5 and the 6x7

How large is large? What film stocks do you plan on using? Do you use a tripod and a cable

release? if they are to be scanned, how wil lthey be scanned? How will they be printed?

Many people love their 6x4.5 cameras (I have a Fuji GA645, but got it for so cheap I could not ignore it), but I always felt that if you're going to go MF the jump from 35mm to 6x4.5 is so minimal compared to going up to 6x7 or 6x9, or even 6x6 to hardly be worth it. So, I say go 6x7 or 6x9. Just my opinion of course.

I'm beta testing a new program from Adobe and Apple that makes that possible.

 

:~)

There is a dramatic difference between 35mm and 645. It's almost twice as large, how can there not be. Where the difference narrows is from 645 to 6x6 and 6x6 to 6x7 ect.

I cannot comment on 6x7 enlargements, but I can tell you there is a huge difference between 35mm and 645. I have one 35mm Reala 100 shot at 10x15" and a 645 Kodak 400UC shot at 12x16" in my office. The sky in the 645 is absolutely smooth, whereas the grain in the 35mm shot is quite noticeable. The detail is also so much more crisp and rich in tonality.

I'm planning on doing a side by side test (using Pentax Gear) next week of:

 

1) 35mm Tech Pan

2) 35mm TMX

3) 6x4.5 TMX

3) 6x7 TMX

 

If you're interested in the results, email me through my photo.net email and I'll send some to you after I get them developed & printed.

67 has aprox. twice the surface area of 645, so judge from there. You can tell the difference on anything from 8x10 on up, at least when your printing in a darkroom.

As mentioned I do not dispute that 645 vs 35mm is a big diff, I just personally find the quality gain over 35mm from 645 is not enough for the greater equipment size and expense. As mike mentions the 67 is almost TWICE already again from the 645, the incremental benefit and ability to enlarge further without sharpness and grain breaking down is huge, and the equipment not that much bigger. 645 is good, 67 or 69 amazing. If you're going to go the expense, bulk and bother, then really go for it. Only reason to go 645 in my opinion is if you need the absolute most compactness you can get in MF or, someone practically gives you one (in my case with my Fuji 645). But when I compare enlargements from my Fuji GA645 to my Fuji GW690III or my Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes (both 66, of course), the limits of the 645 come into play much sooner than I'd like and I can see significant difference in terms of smoothness of tonality and sharpness.

Jonathon,

 

The question "...what the max enlargement size" cannot be answered. Taste, equipment and skill play a significant role, which only you can answer. Personally, I don't care for 35mm film enlarged beyond 12x18 inches, but that's just an opinion (to which I don't always adhere either).

 

Perhaps the simplest answer is "How large can you print from your current format (35mm)?", then apply a simple multiplier. Or is it not so simple. The aspect ratios are different - so which dimension would you choose to compare? You might first crop the larger to the aspect ratio of the smaller. Alternately, you might crop all to some common aspect ratio, like 8x10 for comparison. For every answer there is a "yes, but..." counter.

If you're printing very large, 6x7 will likely do a better job for you than 645 under most conditions. You can't argue with the laws of physics and win. On the other hand, 645 cameras can be quite small and light and easier to handle and carry compared to many 6x7 cameras. If size, weight and ease of use are not concerns, you probably should consider a 4x5 or larger and get an even more substantial gain in print quality. You have to give up something to get something when considering formats.

There is a difference in look between 35mm and 645 that can be seen at 8x10. Not necessarily sharpness, but the smoothness, gradation, lack of grain...whatever.

 

The idea that 'there isn't a big difference between 35mm and 645' isn't totally true, if you go for the 'look', rather than some thing about 'sharpness'. It is a qualitative thing, in part.

 

There is an ongoing diff. between 645 and 67, which was the question. You will see it in sharpness, lack of grain on big enlargements.

 

If you can handle the greater weight and film use, then 67 is a better bet.

Why not go as large as possible with 120 film. Try 6X12, 6X17 and even 6X24.

 

Fotoman and Gaeorsi cameras are reasonably priced; and also, LF lenses can be found on

Ebay at reasonable prices as well.

<i>There is a dramatic difference between 35mm and 645. It's almost twice as large, how

can there not be. Where the difference narrows is from 645 to 6x6 and 6x6 to 6x7 ect.

</i><p>

It is "etc."<p>

Anyway, you already know the answer. If you have a feel for the difference between 35mm

and 645, then you can do the math. Figure the total area of each. The multiplier to make a

print is the clue.<p>

Area = base * height <p>

Ome wonders if on "cooking.net" folks are confused about howe much stew 5 lbs versus 10 Lbs of potatos will make.

I'm using an RZ67 and have made numerous 16X20 (B&W) prints using Pan F (50 iso) and FP4 and apx 100. Even developing in Rodinal the pan F prints are grainless even close up. A little grain shows up in the medium speed films but only in the mid tones and it's also hard to see unless you put your nose to it. Some of these 16x20's made some people think they were printed from 4x5 negs so it is possible to get a pretty high degree of enlargment from 6x7.

 

One important factor not often considered is the enlarging lens. If you do your own printing get a six element lens from Schnider (I have the 100mm Componon-S), Rodenstock, or Nikkor. After all the care you put into creating a good negative, using a cheap lens on the enlarger is just plain dumb. If you have to have prints done at a lab, well, then you are at their mercy but I hope you will do some research into how they will make your prints.

Oh and one more thing. There is not such thing as perfect conditions in photography. Ansel Adams once said that if he waited for everything in a scene to be perfect, he'd never take a picture.

Yikes! This place even has syntax police.

Sorry Pico. Won?t happen argain.

Dohh!!

Hi Jonathan, First, the arithmetic: 35 > 645 = 2.66 greater area; 645 > 67 = 0.66 greater area. Second, the threshold value for a high quality print, which depends on everything mentioned above. With best practice [tripod, slow film, technique, equipment] and a demanding subject [e.g. a detailed landscape] 645 clearly qualifies as medium format; results from a digital workflow will be indistinguishable from larger MF at medium print sizes (say 11x14) and still very good at 16x12.

 

Larger formats buy better grain rendition, tonal separation, and cropping ability. If you want to print very large, say 20x16 and over, with still outstanding quality, 67 or 69 are better, by a significant margin - the detail just keeps on going as you enlarge.

 

It comes down to the enlargement factor, essentially; and I feel Pico has it about right for the max quality, minus the decimal point content. 8x rounds to 18x13 for 645, and 21x18 for 6x7...perhaps a little more for drum scans and perfect exposure.

 

Next factor is aspect ratio: for many or most shots 645 = 66. 67 is a squarish rectangle at 1.21, 645 is more ideal to my eyes at 1.36; I find 69 too wide at 1.5. You may crop a fair bit from 645 and still stay above 35mm quality for small prints.

 

Pano film cameras are another step up in size/hassle: difficult to scan, few shots per roll, heavy and large, few niceties, special purpose...they can produce wonderful work, but are now threatened by ever-improving mainstream digital stitching software [CS3] which gives DSLR output a leg up in the sensor real estate stakes.

 

Finally, not all MF cameras are SLRs - perhaps the lightest 67 cameras are about 1200g-1500g [mamiya 7 with lens], and one of the lightest 645 is the Fuji GA645 at around 700g - try finding a DSLR/lens with a 'power to weight' ratio anything like it...not to mention bulk/size.

 

Last comment is that grain actually looks good for many compositions; hence 35mm. But not landscape, the province of big cameras.

Jonathan, from my personal experience, if you WANT the hassle of a MF camera, with all the slowness, extra weight, etc, I would go directly to 6x7, and top quality 6X7 like a Mamiya 7 for example, and would concentrate on B&W or negative colour film. Almost anything less than that is a hard proposition against a fast improving 35mm DSLR sector. Some highly acclaimed photogs like Michael Seewald or Charlie Waite would sell their prints from a drum scanned 6x6 neg up to 40x40, but you can find many others, like Michael Kenna, who would not go beyond 8.5x8.5 ! A 6x4,5 camera makes sense if you want to print normally max 20X24, otherwise it can be a good starting point if you aim at getting into a digital back.

You use the same film so assuming similar quality lenses ( not a difficult assumption in medium format I think)and enlarger( a more difficult assumption) the print sizes you can make reflect the difference in size of the originals. So a print from a 645 could be a third smaller than an equivalent from a 67. Whether this is important depends on what you call big. Using conventional enlargement I wouldn't debate an expectation of 18" x 13" on 645 and 21" x 18" for the 67 from excellent originals.

 

But all this is old-speak. The best way to get large prints made is to get a drum scan and print from a digital printer such as a LightJet or Chromira or an inkjet if you prefer them. Using this route the traditional bets are off and even your 645 -from a decent transparency or negative- can be expected to make a print about 27" x 36" or more which will stand close scrutiny. You can go bigger if the viewing distance is longer.

 

So I'm not sure that enlargeability governs your choice between these formats any more, unless you're right on the edge of some of the numbers being talked of here. The format (shape) is in my view important. Personally I much prefer the squarer shape of a 67 to the more angular proportions of 645. The camera functionality and ergonomics are important- for example you can buy a 645 that works and feels pretty much like a 35mm/dslr with auto this and that, zoom lenses and so-on. You'll struggle on that score with a 67.

 

Finally just to join in with those people that suggest that at three times the size, 645 is a very large step indeed from 35mm- far bigger thabn the step thats consuming you here.