Actual negative size 6x6

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Thomas Bertilsson, Sep 8, 2004.

  1. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    15,206
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hello,

    I recently had the pleasure of using a Hasselblad 500C/M with a Planar 2.8 lens. Wonderful camera indeed. I used it alongside my own older Rolleiflex, and was surprised to see after I developed the negs that the actual area of the 6x6 negatives were smaller while exposed in the Hasselblad.
    Is this a commonly known thing, and if so, is there a reason for it? It seems to me that the larger the negative, the better the quality.
    The difference is only a couple of millimeters in all four directions, but nonetheless surprising!

    Thankful for enlightenment,

    - Thomas
    Saint Paul, Minnesota
     
  2. Snapper

    Snapper Member

    Messages:
    224
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Location:
    Brighton, En
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    In my experience, 6x6 is actually 5.6x5.6, which is a lot harder to say.

    I'm guessing that maybe it's a conversion thing - were original '6x6's actually 2 1/4" x 2 1/4" and that converts to 5.6cm and not 6cm.
     
  3. noseoil

    noseoil Member

    Messages:
    2,898
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Out of my old Mamiya C330 the actual film image is very close to 2" x 2".
     
  4. papagene

    papagene Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    5,302
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The image area will vary depending on what camera the film was run through. A couple of mm's won't lessen the quality noticable at all.
    gene
     
  5. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    15,206
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yes,

    I suppose the image area could vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. In another thread I brought up a problem with light leaks in 120 film rolls, and with the Hasselblad, it was less of a problem, since the edge of the image was farther from the edge of the film.

    Gene, you're probably right, that a couple of mm's here and there probably won't make much of a difference. Especially when the camera is handled by such a master artist as myself... hehe

    Thanks,

    - Thomas
    Saint Paul, Minnesota
     
  6. mark

    mark Member

    Messages:
    5,264
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    I think it is the poor quality control and false advertisment by those lazy swedes. Anyone who owns a Hassy needs to just ditch it. In fact I will take it off your hands so you won't have to deal with getting less negative space....oh yeah you better send those crappy lenses too. For all we know the 150 mm might be 148mm. I can't let people continue to use substandard equipment. :wink:
     
  7. Ed Sukach

    Ed Sukach Member

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2002
    Location:
    Ipswich, Mas
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Get in line!! I was here first!!
     
  8. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    15,206
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hey now,

    I spent the first 29 years of my life living in Sweden. It's a good thing I have a good sense of humor about these things... :wink:
    You know, if there are any leftovers, I'll gladly take a Hasselblad as well. I will even be happy to trade my Rolleiflex, which is superior, at least negative size wise...

    Seriously, it was such a pleasure to work with the Hasselblad, that I have decided to put everything else on halt, and just save every nickle and dime I can scrape up until I can afford one on my own. What a beautiful camera!

    - Thomas
    Saint Paul, Minnesota