How useful is 6x12 for Landscape Photography

I am considering the purchase of a view camera with a 6x12 roll-film

back. I am not interested in the expense or inconvenience of

4x5 sheet film. Recently I read the results of a Photo.Net survey:

http://www.photo.net/poll/poll-results.tcl?poll_id=261

that gave me the impression that 6x12 is not very popular. I would

think that landscape photography would be a good application for 6x12.

Any information about the pros and cons of the 6x12 format would be

greatly appreciated.

Don't worry about the poll. 6x12 is used pretty much exclusively by LF users with rollfilm backs, which is a relatively small group, and most people who work in the format wouldn't think of responding to a "MF users" poll unless they also happened to use another MF format a good deal of the time. Landscapes and group portraits would be fine uses of 6x12.

 

Reasons not to use 6x12: Good panoramic compositions can be hard to come by, so one might as well shoot 4x5" and crop for the occasional panorama, if one is going to the trouble of carrying a 4x5" camera into the field. Sheet film might be less convenient to load than rollfilm, but it's easier to control the processing of each exposure with sheet film, and the Quickload and Readyload systems make 4x5" sheet film more convenient to handle. If one takes advantage of the features of a view camera, one works slowly and makes fewer exposures, generally compensating for the higher cost per exposure.

<p>If the 6x12 camera helps you attain your artistic vision, then use it. Whether or not a survey of 800+ individuals deems it popular makes no difference whatsoever. Employ whatever tools you desire to obtain your final result, whether it be a pinhole camera, Fujichrome Velvia, an Arca-Swiss B1, or a Canham DLC.

 

<p>That said, a 6x12 sounds okay for landscape photography.

 

<p>Discussing this poll is pointless. It's just a popularity survey and has nothing to do with specific photographic objectives.

I guess everyone has their own opinion on what constitutes a satisfying shape. To me, a 6 x 12 format is neither fish nor fowl- not wide enough to be a panoramic, yet too angular to be elegant. A compromise.

I agree with David...6x12 is a compromise and in my opinion not a true panoramic. Although you hesitate using 4x5 sheet film I feel that the best choice would be to get a 5x7 camera, cut a holder in half and get a true panoramic shot. A 2.5 x 7 shot is almost identical to a 6x17. Then use a reducing back to go down to 4x5 when needed. The problem with 5x7 is the availability of film is limited.

If your 35 mm camera has got an interchangeable focusing screen, you could mask out 18x36 mm with a self-adhesive something to find out if the 1:2 ratio suits your photographic vision.

Hi Charles;

 

Strctly my own opinion, but the only reason I'd ever use 6x12 is if I had an ultra-wide lens like the 35 mm Rodenstock Grandagon that covered 6x12 but not 4x5. Even then, I'd think long and hard about shooting 4x5 sheet film and simnply cropping out the vignetted parts...