Ebony format reducers

[mark liddell]

I have just got a RSW45 and intend to use it with roll film most of the time.

Can anyone give me a bit more info on the 4x5 to 6x9 format reducer? The ebony

site is pretty vague.

 

1) Is this mandatory for use with roll film backs or can you get backs that fit

Ebony cameras directly? It believe that it is necessary for use with RB67 backs

(useful since I already have 2) but it?s pretty damn expensive for what it is.

 

2) Does the extra 6mm distance make any difference to infinity or near focusing?

 

3) How easy is it using movements (esp tilt) with the small 6x9 groundglass?

 

4) Can you use finders/viewing bellows with the reducer?

 

Thanks!

[brucecahn]

You get a format reducing adapter. It should cost around $350. But then you have to take off the graflock back every time you make an exposure. It is a terrible nuisance. You are better off selling that camera and getting an SV23 which has the ground glass on a door that swings easily and quickly out of the way. If I may make a personal suggestion, I would keep the 4x5 and shoot 4x5. It is way ahead of 120 for results. It is not that hard or slow once you get used to it

[stu dall]

I disagree. The Graflock back takes a matter of seconds to remove and sit in the camera bag. The 6x9 roll film holder also takes seconds to attach to the back of the camera. I really can't see a terrible nuisance there. If you were to follow Bruce's suggestion Mark, you would be limited to shooting '120' film only. By keeping the RSW45, you have the luxury of shooting 4x5 sheet film too.

Using a 6x9 roll film holder, you focus in the normal way through the ground glass (I have a cardboard cutout to 6x9 to slip on the ground glass). Then remove the Graflock back, and slide the roll film holder in it's place. The film should be situated the same distance from the lens as a sheet of 5x4 film in a darkslide or quickload holder, so distances shouldn't be an issue. Movements are easier, because the image circle of the lens is covering an area quite a bit larger than the area of the '120' film.

[mark liddell]

The reason I went for the RSW was mostly cost (I bought used and the SW23/SW45 would have been not far off twice the price!) and that I wanted option of using 4x5. The limited movements are not a problem for me :)

 

Here is a screenshot of the format reducer:

 

<img src="http://www.liddellphoto.com/iw/ebony_format.jpg">

 

It does look like the mini groundglass swings out the way like the 2x3 ebonys.

 

I'm move from an RB67 and I'm not ready to ditch roll film just yet. The significantly lower cost and ease of developing is great, it gives me the freedom of trying things out instead of worrying about the cost. I'm not sure how lf lenses will cope with the enlargement but I'll find out soon enough. In time I sure I'll be shooting 4x5 :)

[mark liddell]

Sorry, here is the screenshot: <img src="http://www.liddellphoto.com/iw/ebony_format.jpg">

[friedemann_pistorius]

Mark,

 

<p>while I second Bruce's advice of thinking about 4x5, it is my belief that you can leave the 4x5/6x9 reducing adapter attached to the camera all the time. Once in place, the adapter works like a regular Ebony 6x9cm (2x3inch) back, where the ground glass can be swung out of the way to attach a Graphic standard roll film holder (Mamiya RB or Horseman holders, for example).

<p>You also can get roll film backs that fit 4x5 cameras directly, as long as the camera has a Graflock back (all Ebony 4x5 cameras have Graflock backs), but then indeed you'd have to remove the ground glass frame every time to attach the holder.

<p>The extra 6mm or so can make a difference to infinity focusing with wide angle lenses (shorter than 65mm, I think), but with the RW45 you shouldn't use shorter lenses anyway, or you'll seriously risk vignetting from the camera bed.

[friedemann_pistorius]

<i>"...but with the RW45 you shouldn't use shorter lenses anyway, or you'll seriously risk vignetting from the camera bed."</i>

<p>Sorry, I read RW45 instead of RSW45, so my last sentence is nonsense :)

[sumo_kun]

Yes, Friedemann is correct. The reducing back replaces the GG of the camera entirely. You can leave it on forever if you want. The GG of the reducing back can swing out of the way and you just attach your holder and off you go. You can get normal roll film holders from the likes of Toyo and Linhof etc but as mentioned earlier, you need to take the 4x5 GG off every time you take a shot.

 

The 6mm extra from the back will just mean you need to move the focus of the camera 6mm forward. Not a great deal but it will limit you long lens options a little more but it will maybe let you use slightly wider lenses/focus closer.

 

Movements on a 4x5 are easy to use. As for 6x9, I have no experience so I wouldn't know but I would be suspecting that it may be on the limit of ease of use.

 

Finders/viewing bellow? No idea... Sorry.

[abrepsom1]

There is an angle finder for the 2x3" Ebonys. It gives an upright image, but is a bit dark. I use one to adjust the composition and for a rough focusing. Especially with wide angle lenses (55 mm), it is difficult to judge the exact focus. That's why I finetune the focusing and the movements with a loupe directly on the groundglass, without the angle finder. With longer lenses (100-150 mm) you can even do all the focusing and movements using the angle finder.

I am not sure if they are still available as new items, but they turn up regularly on Ebay for around 200-250 USD.

[brian_ellis19]

You'll notice no difference in technical quality of your photographs between 4x5 and 6x7 until your prints get larger than 11x14. Even at 16x20 the difference between the two formats isn't usually real obvious. I used the two formats together for about 10 years and have made thousands of prints from both. Bruce Cahn's statement that 4x5 is "way ahead" of 6x7 is nonsense. A while back he was saying that 4x5 is a "compromise" and everyone really should be using 8x10. I guess if you said you had an 8x10 camera he'd be telling you to get an 11x14. Just use whatever equipment and format you feel comfortable using and enjoy using, that's the whole point of this for most of us.

[brucecahn]

To Brian Ellis: You referred to my suggestion that 4x5 gives better results than 6x7 as nonsense. You say you have shot a whole lot of both without seeing the difference. First of all it is very rude to say that about someone. A statement about which you disagree is not nonsense. It is a different opinion. Looking at the facts, virtually every expert would disagree with you. Looking at the pictures, because YOU CANNOT SEE THE DIFFERENCE does not mean that there is none. There are many people working as chefs who have no developed sense of taste. That is why there are so many bad restaurants. I have also noticed, looking at this forum, that there are many people with cameras who lack visual taste. If you cannot see the difference between 4x5 and 6x7, assuming that both are equally well processed and printed, you have poor vision. I am not referring to the capacity of your eyes but of your brain. You also commented that I had previosly recommended 8x10 over 4x5. Of course I did! And would recommend the largest negative which any photographer is able to use. There is nothing in the class of a silver or platinum print. Enlargements are a compromise. What I have just said is not a personal attack. It is a recommendation that you look more carefully.

[brucecahn]

Just remembered a quote from Ansel Adams. Someone asked him what size camera to use. The answer "the biggest one you can carry".