Enlargement difference 6x4.5 vs. 6x7

[stephen_w.]

Keyword: Tripod.

 

I have 8"x12" from my Leica (21 and 35) and Hassy SWC 38 (Russian processor only had a 4.5x6 mask). They look quite similar, as I shot hand held at 1/500, Reala, daylight.

[paul ron]

The real difference is in the price of the cameras and lenses. I have both and the results are spectacular and almost undetectable at 11x14, slight difference at 16x20 but you wouldn't know unless I told you which was which then you'd inspect it closer.

 

I enjoy my ETRS just as much as my RBs. As for carrying em around, I prefer the ETRS anyday.

[troyammons]

In general I use from 10-12x for MF and LF

 

lp/mm on film divided by desired lp/mm in print.

 

4lp/mm is good for a 20" view distance and that is also where

a lightjet prints at 204 dpi.

 

So if you are using velvia, a super sharp lens and a drum scan you might be resolving 64 lp/mm, but everything has to be perfect.

 

If you are using average film, average lens and an average film scanner, maybe 40lp/mm.

 

If you are scanning with an Epson maybe 28lp/mm is all you will get.

 

If you divide that out you get 16x, 10x and 7x.

 

Obviously if your 645 is a contax with a vacuum back and velvia you would be in the 15x area.

 

If your camera is an RB with a non C lens maybe 10X.

In that case a 645 scan should show slightly more detail than the above 67 scan but scanning larger film has benifits like less grain and the ability to scan at a lower dpi to get the same file size.

 

I dont have a contax, but I do have a Rollei and a RZ. More often than not shooting E100G I get probably around 48+ in average conditions or good for a 12x enlargement.

 

Scanning on an Epson is almost like dropping a format compared to a drum scan.

[mamessner]

<i>"There is a dramatic difference between 35mm and 645. It's almost twice as large, how can there not be." </i>

<p>

...

<i>"Hi Jonathan, First, the arithmetic: 35 > 645 = 2.66 greater area; 645 > 67 = 0.66 greater area." </i>

<p>

I think there's some incorrect math going on in this thread. The area of a 35mm frame is 36mm x 24mm = 864mm^2. The area of a 645 frame is 60mm x 45mm = 2700 mm^2. 2700/864=3.125. 645 is more than three times larger than 35mm, not "almost twice" or 2.66 times larger. 67/645=4200/2700=1.55, or 55% larger than 645. The difference between 35mm and 645 is huge. The difference between 67 and 645 is relatively small.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"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."

 

Indeed, an opinion. And completely unsupported by any facts. Look at this link if you'd prefer to form your opinions based on facts:

 

http://nealcurrie.com/t-comp0.html

[rich815]

Present me all the technical and mathematical facts you want I'll base my opinion on my own experience. I've shot all the formats. The difference I see in the results from using 35mm to 645 vs. 35mm to 67 or 69 is significant. I just see SO much more of a difference that I think the jumping past 645 is vastly worth it. Sure, I will not dispute or deny the jump from 35mm to 645 is significant, heck, how can I in the face of such FACTS. I just know that when I look at the scans or prints from 645 negs and compare them to what I get from 67 and 69 negs the latter does it for me. The former no. And if the former does not get there I might as well shoot 35mm for when I want the convenience and compactness it provides. When I decide to forgo that aspect of 35mm and am willing to use a bulkier, bigger camera I jump on up to 67 and 69. I simply feel it's necessary as 645 does not get the increase in results I want to be worth it.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I'd always prefer to have the largest negative possible - and practical. For me, 645 is practical and a huge improvement over 35mm. Besides, 645 gear is quite compact - particularly rangefinders. And enlargements to 11x14 are superb with slower films. When I need to print larger, I reach for large format.