Do You or Would You Miss 1 cm Off a Negative

[mark_farrell]

<p>I've had a Mamiya RB67 for a while and most of what I've shot I've just scanned the negatives. More recently I've purchased a Hasselblad kit which I've been pretty happy with and I now want to do some "real" B&W prints with my old Durst enlarger which has a maximum negative size of 6x6.<br>

I've come to a crossroads of sorts in that I either let go of the RB67 and if I want prints with the aspect ratio the 6x7 gives, simply crop the Hasselblads 6x6 negative accordingly.<br>

or......<br>

I've been looking for a used enlarger that is capable of 6x7, but I'm not sure if the additional 1 cm is worth investing in what might be an additional enlarger that primarily would be for the RB67. I've looked at a few used Beseler 23C's and most I found only come with a neg carrier for 35mm which would mean purchasing a neg carrier at additional expense. My Durst is pretty much in mint condition and I don't believe I want to sell that to "upgrade" for reasons of negative size.</p>

<p>The question most simply put is, if you've used a 6x7 format, have you missed not having the additional 1 cm by changing to a 6x6?</p>

 

[frank.schifano]

<p>I have used 6x7, though I don't currently own one. All I can tell you is that when you crop a 6x6 negative down to the 1.16:1 aspect ratio that is 6x7, you are giving up a lot of the negative's "real estate." Comes closer to shooting with 6x4.5, with an aspect ratio of 1.33:1 than anything, and that makes a big difference when you're making big enlargements. But don't get me wrong. If you keep to enlargements of 11x14 or so, there's not much difference; but it is visible upon close inspection. The choice is up to you of course. Negative carriers for Beseler 23C enlargers are fairly common and don't cost all that much. The other thing you already know is that shooting the square is a lot different from shooting a rectangle. You just see the image very differently.</p>

[ray .]

If you want 6x7 just crop it. I don't think it's that big of a deal.

[jon_porter2]

<p>I have both a Pentax 6x7 and a Bronica 6x6 and I don't see any difference in quality from my usual printing sizes of up to around 14" or so. Maybe for 24" or larger sizes you would. I'd suggest starting out with the 6x6 negs in the Durst to see if you want to continue darkroom printing, then if so looking for a new enlarger. Even if you don't see a difference in quality between the two sizes, it would still be nice to be able to make photo prints from the 6x7 negs.</p>

[christoph_sensen]

<p>In my opinion, it comes to the way you compose your pictures. If you frame for 6x7, then you logically would have a problem "cutting off" on each side. If have a Mamiya RZ 67, which I usually use with 6x7 backs. If I want square pictures, I use 6x6 backs with the appropriate format mask attached to the finder. That is usually only the case if I want to project the slides in the Hasselblad PCP 80, which is of course a 6x6 projector. In case you plan to stick to enlargements from a 6x6 enlarger, I would at least mark the boundaries in the finder somehow to allow for proper image composition in the field.<br /> Christoph</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>Yes the extra cm is worth preserving. The way you saw the image was 6x7, and you have to compromise that vision to print it. Further it is so easy to get a great price on an enlarger which handles 6x7. A Beselar 23C will handle 6x7. If patient you can pick up a 4x5 enlarger very cheap, sometimes they are given away. I am old school and never crop my 35mm negs and try not to crop my medium format images.</p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>I don't really miss the 1cm but I wouldn't crop the 6x6. When I have my 6x6 with me I usually see differently and take photos differently to when I shoot rectangles so cropping won't work so well for me. Quality wise I don't think you will notice a huge difference.<br>

If you really want to print 6x7, why don't you just make an enlarger? All they are is a source of diffuse light with a place to hold a neg and lens.</p>

[russ_britt3]

<p>Square prints rock...</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I shoot mostly 6x6 with my Hasselblad, but I do enjoy going the other way, and shooting 6x7 and 6x9 with backs for my view camera. I like the extra area when I have the time to use it.</p>

[polka]

<blockquote>

<p>"All I can tell you is that when you crop a 6x6 negative down to the 1.16:1 aspect ratio that is 6x7, you are giving up a lot of the negative's "real estate." Comes closer to shooting with 6x4.5, with an aspect ratio of 1.33:1 than anything, and that makes a big difference when you're making big enlargements."</p>

<p>Actually to comfort this argument, what is called 6x7 (at least in my Pentax) is in fact 56x72mm, thus with an aspect ratio of 1.29 : more or less the same as in the 645 format (depending also on the 645 camera - some give 42x56mm, others 43x56, etc.)</p>

<p>645 is fine, but 6x7 is better (a lot, indeed). But the last word would be "experiment !"</p>

<p>Paul</p>

</blockquote>

[mukul_dube]

<p>I suppose I would be called old school. Whether using a Rolleicord or a camera with a larger negative, I have almost always found it necessary to crop photographs. I have got <em>acceptable</em> enlargements from cropped or whole 6x6 negatives. Results from larger formats were better in an <em>absolute</em> way, of course, but that was seldom of any practical use.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>The difference between 6x6 cropped (or 6x4.5) and 6x7, though there, is really very small.<br>

Small enough to let other considerations weigh in (pun intended) more. Like the bulk of larger and heavier cameras with larger and heavier lenses.</p>

<p>If you can live with that extra size, there is no reason not to get a RB or RZ.<br>

If not, don't be afraid that by stepping down to cropped 6x6 you will be giving up anything. People will not be able to tell your cropped 6x6 from full frame 6x7 photos.</p>

[seth_.]

<p>I tend to shoot what I see in the viewfinder, so I end up composing a 6x6,6x4.5 or 6x9 image, depending on what camera I'm using.<br>

If it was me, I'd probably modify my enlarger or make a new neg carrier if it wasn't a lot of hassle.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>IMO the main difference and best of 6x6 is that one 120 roll fit one archival file (4 strips of three shots each). One 6x7 roll is ten shots, then five strips, you need one extra file for just one strip of two shots. This silly thing makes me mad... Better to shoot 6x9!</p>

<p>I don`t know which Durst do you have, but I can say that the 23C is a very good but also basic enlarger, very difficult to be aligned. You will notice a huge difference from a good (if so) minty Durst to a used 23C.</p>

<p>Just for the reason Q.G. states, I`d stay with the best of 6x6. My 6x6 cameras love outdoor life, while my RZ is extremely reluctant to leave the studio... </p>

[gerber_van_der_graaf]

<p>While I mainly shoot 6x6 for landscapes and like this format very much, I also missed some panoramic format and the possibilities of a view camera. So I extended my equipment with a used Arca Swiss 6x9, which came with a 6x8 filmholder. I found the difference between 6x6 and 6x8 a bit too small and wanted even a bit more panoramic view. Also, I already owned a Durst 805 enlarger and wanted to exploit the maximum size 6x9 of the enlarger and the camera. So, I added a 6x9 filmholder (actually, two) and think it really was worth the money and efford.</p>

<p>I agree with previous posts: another enlarger up to this format can be obtained for a very reasonable prize. The only problem is to get rid of the old one, because they occupy quite a lot of space.</p>

<p>Hope this helped you a bit.</p>

[mark_farrell]

<p>Well thanks to Craigslist, I now own a Beseler 23C II enlarger for the mere sum of $20(US), which included a 35mm neg carrier and darkroom timer. And from Ebay I have a 6x7 negative carrier for $25(US) with shipping included on its way in the mail. So problem solved - cheaply!!!!</p>

<p>Originally the seller of the 23C II had asked $85 for the enlarger, but somewhere in the process of moving it around the baseboard became detached from the enlarger frame and at this point he simply wanted to be rid of it for $20. I was more than happy to lend a hand. Evidently when the unit was originally assembled the tee-nuts were on the top side of the baseboard rather than the bottom. They had simply pulled out when the enlarger was lifted. I'm surprised it hadn't toppled over at some point. Fixed it in about 20 minutes.<br /> Next step is checking out the alignment........</p>

<p>Thanks for all the comments!!</p>

<p>Below is the picture the seller had put in Craigslist<br>

(image may disappear sometime in the future due to where it's hosted)</p>

<p><img src="http://webpages.charter.net/markf_48/23C/23C.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="225" /></p>

<p> </p>

[mark_farrell]

<p>Forgot to mention the enlarger came with a Nikkor 50mm f2.8 Lens - clean as a whistle.....</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Well, I have payed "a bit more" when I bought many years ago a new one! Congrats, that`s a good buy.<br>

About alignments; don`t get crazy trying to use the built-in alignment mechanisms; I`d go for an adjustable lens plate and try to level the easel. Far easier. A good laser device will help (Versalab).</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>Great deal!</p>

<p>I think you made the right decision.</p>

[denniswms]

<p>Congrats on the new enlarger. All you need now is access to a metal file for that new 67 neg carrier.</p>

<p>Any crop from a 67 negative eliminates the option for verification borders for the finished image. The optimum way to present a B&W image for my 2cents.</p>

[mike_rosenlof2]

<p>Enlargers are pretty cheap these days. It's not hard to find a 4x5 enlarger or a Bessler 23C for next to nothing. I'm mostly a 6x6 shooter, and I print square mostly, but you eventually _will_ have some negative that you want to print something close to full frame.</p>