Size Variations in 6X9?

[Ricochetrider]

Hello, all.

Recently I've been shooting my old Voigtlander 6x9 and posted one of,my latest shots on a F B vintage camera

group. Anyway, another group member piped up questioning whether my. image was really 6X9. He posted one that was markedly wider than my own, for comparison.

 

SO, first off, I'm not entirely certain when my camera was made but I believe it was around 1935.I looked around the web and found that the Voigtlander Bessa model with the shutter release in the folding door wasn't made for long, and on that basis, I think I have it narrowed down. I believe I've found something saying these cameras were offered in various format: 6x9, 4x6.... but it's really tough to tell exactly, because, um you know... the internet. Maybe my search skills aren't e best? Meanwhile, just when I'm thinking OK maybe I have something that is not 6x9, back in this F B thread, one other person posted a shot exactly sized like my own, saying his 6x9 was the same in appearance as mine! I admit to my confusion on the matter!

 

In the end, all I really have to go on is that my camera was sold as being 6x9, so I am asking you all if a "6x9" really has varied so much over the ages? I mean 6cm by 9cm is a size, and that is the size, yes? I don't see how that could possibly vary, so perhaps my camera is not 6x9 after all?

 

Any clarification on this would be greatly appreciated, and thank you very much.

Tom

[James G. Dainis]

Get a ruler and see if the film frames measure about 6 cm x 9 cm.

[AJG]

Camera sizes quoted in centimeters are some times more aspirational than accurate--my Rolleiflex 3.5 E measures 56 mm x 56 mm at the film plane, not 6 x 6 cm. My Calumet 6 x 7 roll film back for my 4x5 measures 58 mm x 70 mm, my Zeiss Ikonta 521/16 measures 57 mm x 57 mm, you get the idea. If you have the manufacturer's name and the exact model number you should be able to find out what the manufacturer said it was. I would be very surprised if the film plane is exactly 6 x 9 cm, although I could be wrong.

[JDMvW]

Like a "two by four" piece of lumber, the measurement of film size is "notational" not actual.

[orsetto]

Vengeful twits with no life ambition other than to ambush innocent contributors is one of the reasons I cannot fathom how FB groups have decimated good dedicated photography, electronics and other forums like ours here at p-net. Bet this guy practically soiled himself with glee when he "caught" you with a not-quite-6x9 image posting. :rolleyes:

 

As others have already replied, medium format cameras have traditionally only nominally provided the format size they claim. To date, nobody has produced a 6x6, 6x7 or 6x9 camera that actually made film frames in those sizes: its always a bit smaller. 6x9 could be especially variable, particularly during the press camera era when some popular "6x9" roll film backs barely delivered 6x8. In your case, you might have a 6x7 variation of a camera that was more typically available in 6x9 format, or it may have been modified, or it simply makes smaller-than-average 6x9 frames. The other person in that FB group posting similar-size images allegedly from the same camera model may or may not help identify it as a 6x9.

 

Measuring the camera film gate (or one of your images) with a ruler as suggested above would help you narrow down an answer. If you get somewhere in the vicinity of 56mm x79mm or larger, technically the camera is slotted as 6x9 (despite armchair critics claiming otherwise). If you measure 56mm x 72mm or less, its technically a 6x7 camera. Few (if any) folding cameras were intentionally made and sold as 6x8.

Edited February 11, 2020 by orsetto

[Jochen_S]

markedly wider

Do you mean the aspect ratio being more or less 2:3?

I suppose you have a frame exposed by your camera and something ruler?

The biggest 6x9 variation I am aware off is / "could be" on the short side between nominally 6.5x9 sheet film / plates & 120 film negs.

[dave_thomas8]

I have an Ercona II which is nominally 6x9. The negative image area is 56 x 86 mm. 120 film is only about 60.5 mm wide, so 56 to 57 mm is a typical image dimension across the width of the film. My understanding is there is substantial variation in the long dimension between assorted makes and models. One might think of the nominal dimensions as actual measurement rounded to the nearest centimeter, just as a handy label. (Heck "4x5" cut film is more like 3.93 x 4.93 inches overall, so the negative image will be smaller than that.)

 

That 86 mm on the Ercona seems to be longer than several negative carriers I have for my Omega B-8, but as the carriers came loose in a box of stuff, I have no idea what they were claimed to be, and they're not marked. I also noticed that while the B-8 is claimed to cover 6x9, there is some shading at the corners on the Ercona negatives.

[glen_h]

It was 126 that first figured out that this was a problem, and fixed it by pre-exposing around the frame.

 

For 120, using the numbers on the back will give you a fixed frame distance, but most that I know

give a large gap between frames. If you don't use the numbers, you can have any spacing

that you want. (That is, that the camera designer wants.)

 

Otherwise, sometimes I forget which camera I took a picture with, and by matching up details

of the frame, such as round or square corners, I might be able to figure it out. The exact image

width and height would also help.

[Bill Bowes]

Look at your lens barrel. If it is 105mm, plus or minus a few, it most likely is in the 6x9 family. All of my 6x9's have that size lens. I have never been bugged that "size matters" with these cameras. The negatives are super ! Aloha, Bill

[glen_h]

I am not sure how important it is, but I believe some are designed such that the rollers on the frame ends, especially the small radius ones, are in between frames.

 

Well, I have a Brownie 2F, and some other 120 box cameras, and the usual design has the roller very close, and maybe 1cm between frames.

 

Maybe less important where the rollers are behind the film.

[rick_drawbridge]

I've just checked the film gate size of 3 random folding cameras, all ostensibly "6x9", and there's quite a difference, as expected.

 

Zeiss Icon Icarette (1920's) 54mm x 83mm

Voigtlander Bessa (1930's) 57mm x 87mm

Agfa Billy Compur (1940's) 55mm x 87mm

 

I think we can conclude that "6x9" is loose, generic title that distinguishes the cameras from, say, "6x6 " or "6x7" format cameras, that doubtless share the same kind of variations in frame size.

[rodeo_joe1]

Just crop the '6cm' side a bit... or post a scan from a 35mm frame. Nobody will notice the difference at online picture sizes.

[dan_fromm2]

Hmm. Nominal 6x9 uses 120 roll film. This limits the frame's height to 2.25 inches = 57 mm. In practice, 56 mm is the most common height but as mentioned above there are others.

 

There is no ANSI (or successor standards organization) standard for the frame's length. EKCo understood it to be 3.25 inches = 82.6 mm. In practice and as mentioned above, although most nominal 2.25 x 3.25 and 6x9 roll holders' gates are ~ 82 mm some are longer.

 

Orsetto mentioned in post #5 above that some roll holders have short gates. He wasn't very specific. Graflex RH-8 roll holders and late Graphic 23 roll holders have shells with a pin roller at each end of the gate to improve film flatness. Their gates are shorter than 2.25 inches because of the space the pin rollers occupy.

 

I've always seen 6x9 as a poor and misleading metric approximation to 2.25 x 3.25 inches, an EKCo format. Similarly for 6x6 (2.25 x 2.25) and 6x7 (2.25 x 2.75).

 

In post #6 above Jochen mentioned 6.5x9. This is a metric plate -- later cut film -- size that's often confused with 6x9, a roll film format.