Proofing 6x8 negatives on 8x10 paper, any issues?

Discussion in 'Darkroom Equipment' started by DanielStone, Apr 24, 2013.

  1. DanielStone

    DanielStone Member

    Messages:
    3,107
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    quick question:

    Can you proof a roll of 6x8cm negatives onto an 8x10 sheet of paper w/o any hassle(entire roll of negatives not fitting onto the paper)?

    I currently use Hasselblad, and all (12) 6x6 negatives proof onto 8x10 paper no problem.
    What about (9) 6x8 negatives from a 120 roll, in the same sleeves(3 strips of 3, instead of 3 strips of 4-6x6 negatives/strip)

    Only asking b/c I really dislike buying multiple sizes of paper(one of the reasons I sold my RZ kit, great camera, but prefer 3x4(6x8) proportions to the 4x5(6x7) ratios).

    Edit(addition):I'm asking because I'm considering a Fuji 680 system, and not sure of negative spacing.

    thx,
    Dan
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2013
  2. HTF III

    HTF III Member

    Messages:
    133
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Sit down and do the math--there's your answer.
     
  3. DanielStone

    DanielStone Member

    Messages:
    3,107
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    thanks for the charming answer :wink:

    I don't know what negative spacing is like on the Fuji 6x8, hence my question.
     
  4. HTF III

    HTF III Member

    Messages:
    133
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Pardon. It was not meant in a smart-a** spirit. I would suppose the spacing would be the same 1/8 to 3/16 of any other 120 camera. So what's that--9 exposures on a roll? I just don't think it's going to work on 8x10. But maybe doing the math will give a clue.
     
  5. DanielStone

    DanielStone Member

    Messages:
    3,107
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    no worries HTF, I had a feeling we were on the same page here :smile:

    10" = 254mm, so if neg spacing is ~6-8mm between frames, it might work, barely...
     
  6. polyglot

    polyglot Member

    Messages:
    3,470
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    South Austra
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The frames are only 76mm long so unless the spacing is whack, it should just fit. I figure the spacing has to be reasonably tight or the 9 frames won't fit on a roll of 120; at 10mm spacing there is no head/tail left to grip during developing!

    I'd be interested to hear how you go with the GX680. I too have an RZ and use it 95% of the time, I like the idea of 6x8 but can't see myself lugging the GX680 everywhere or handholding it.
     
  7. HTF III

    HTF III Member

    Messages:
    133
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'd listen to polyglot. Seems I've seen his name on here with some credibility. As for me, my brain doesn't do metric. Metric people seem to figure out things pretty well. You just can't understand what they're saying.:tongue:
     
  8. DanielStone

    DanielStone Member

    Messages:
    3,107
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks Polyglot,
    Well 76mm or 80mm, whatever, I still like the camera/system/format :wink:.
    I don't really plan on "walking around with it", more of a tripod/monopod-based system. LF-esque techniques but with the convenience/speed or rollfilm :smile:
    It might be a while before I post anything about it, work's been really slow this year, so extra spending cash has been quite a bit less than last year! But I'll probably drop on a body/single lens kit sooner or later.

    thx for the tip, anyone else by chance have actual experience with this "issue"(original topic) of proofing on 8x10 paper?
    I know its a somewhat trivial matter, but I don't like having to stock ANOTHER size of paper in the d/r unless I have to....

    cheers,
    Dan
     
  9. DanielStone

    DanielStone Member

    Messages:
    3,107
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    came across this just now on flickr(not mine, just linked for reference):

    [​IMG]

    looks like 6x8 on 8x10 might just work :smile:

    -Dan
     
  10. polyglot

    polyglot Member

    Messages:
    3,470
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    South Austra
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
  11. wildbill

    wildbill Member

    Messages:
    2,848
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Keep the hassy, buy an anchor and throw that in your bag. It'll weigh the same and its a great workout!
    Let me know if you're serious about the fuji, I had the chance to get one last time I was in l.a for cheap.
     
  12. Doremus Scudder

    Doremus Scudder Member

    Messages:
    1,318
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Location:
    Oregon and Austria
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I used to proof a 120-roll's-worth of 6x9cm negs on one sheet of 8x10-inch paper regularly. Should be no problem with the Fuji 6x8 (which is basically the same).

    FWIW, 6x9 (or 6x8 in your case) gives you a whole lot more negative area than 6x6 unless you plan on printing square. Cropping 6x6 gives you 6x4.5 or something similar for that aspect ratio; cropping 6x9 to the same aspect ratio is your 6x8: 27 vs 48 sq. cm. That's a major difference if you are planning on enlarging much.

    Best,

    Doremus
     
  13. DanielStone

    DanielStone Member

    Messages:
    3,107
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks Vinny,
    I know I can always rely on you for a witty comment :wink:
    Yes, I'm serious about the Fuji. The HB is great, and I DO plan on keeping it, but Doremus brings up a good point; if cropping 6x6, I'm basically getting 1/2 the negative size-wise after that crop vs. shooting 6x8 right off the bat.
    I plan to drum scan the majority of film, like what I already do with 6x6, but making optical enlargements is on the agenda as well for those shots where I feel that a better option, or if I just want to :D

    -Dan
     
  14. redrockcoulee

    redrockcoulee Member

    Messages:
    144
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Location:
    Medicine Hat
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    It would have to be a pretty large anchor though.

    I think it was on PhotoNet a couple of years ago when I was researching the GX680 that a guy took his backpacking
     
  15. HTF III

    HTF III Member

    Messages:
    133
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I just googled up one of these Fuji things. GOOD LORD! What do you tote it around with?--a hand truck? Maybe a pack mule. I believe I'd get a Crown Graphic and a 6x9 roll film back and live with 8 negatives per roll than 9. Seems like it would be a ton cheaper too. Or a view camera with roll film back if you've got to have the movements. On top of that, I don't have a very high personal opinion of Fuji lenses. I'd be afraid of light falloff from doing too much movement.
     
  16. DanielStone

    DanielStone Member

    Messages:
    3,107
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    ya, they're not small by any margin :smile:

    But I don't plan on backpacking this thing around, it'll be mostly local/from the car shooting.

    -Dan
     
  17. ph.otographer.com

    ph.otographer.com Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Unfortunately I don't have my negatives handy - the only shot I have of one that shows the edges is this: http://ph.otographer.com/landscape-photography/87-bryce-canyon ... and it's a bit fuzzy.

    As far as traveling with it - there's a shot here in use out near the Mojave desert with the case that I carried everything in: http://ph.otographer.com/the-photographer

    It wasn't that bad carrying it around outside without the case, I did some walk abouts in San Francisco with it and the monopod, and also some just carrying it around.