Best bet the 150mm lens for the 4x5 will be the best. And be patient, you can find a 6x9 holder cheaper than that. If you want to see how the coverage compares draw a 4x5 rectangle on paper, then with a compass draw a circle just clearing the corners. the take a 6x17 sized cutout and place it over the circle. It'll probably fit inside the circle. Most 4x5 enlargers have 6" or larger condensors or diffusion plates so your circle should be no larger than your equipment will cover.
For a quick fix just use a glass plate to hold the neg (if the saunders will accept it) and mask it to fit with black paper. This would be a quick way of checking to see if your system will handle the coverage as well by doing a grey non image print with the masked glass installed. Any falloff will be obvious. You could also try using a multiple image strip of a smaller frame size and see how the densitys look at the corners.
To make traditional enlargements from 6x17, you need a 5x7" enlarger or bigger (without making something like the equivalent of an extension back for a 4x5" enlarger). A glass neg carrier and a mask would be the easiest way to go about it.
I haven't decided how I'll print yet. I contact print 5x7", so I may contact print these, at least for B&W, but maybe I'll scan color. If I want to enlarge traditionally, I may rent some time on an 8x10" enlarger occasionally.
For those who have these--what's the longest lens you've found that works with this back without vignetting on 6x17, out of curiosity? I'm thinking of trying some Whistler-style full length portraits.
PS: Negs are drying. These lenses work--
135/5.6 Symmar convertible
These lenses don't cover the format at infinity, but might be okay for relatively near subjects--
75/8.0 Super-Angulon (a more modern 75mm lens should cover)
(I didn't test my 90/6.8 Angulon, but I'm fairly sure image quality will drop off drastically at the edges)
Longer lenses start to show some mechanical vignetting from the camera back irrespective of subject distance--
168mm ser. III Dagor--covers about 6x16.5mm--close enough for me.
210/5.6 Symmar--covers about 6x15 cm
235mm rear cell of the 135/5.6 Symmar--covers about 6x14.5 cm
(anything longer will show more vignetting)
Last edited by David A. Goldfarb; 01-24-2005 at 12:34 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: New test info added
Okay, this shot is nothing special, but just a quick scan of the negs with the lenses that work for me. From top to bottom those are-
90/8.0 Super-Angulon (a center filter wouldn't hurt)
135/5.6 Symmar convertible
168 ser. iii Berlin Dagor
All at about f:22, 1/60 sec, K2 filter, TX at EI 800, Acufine
Are you happy with the back, now that you have used it?
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
Yes. It holds the film flat enough for the apertures I'm likely to use with the lenses I have, operates smoothly, is in good registration with the groundglass viewer, and doesn't show any light leaks. It's not a substitute for a 617 back on a 5x7" camera or even the half-darkslide trick that I use on the 8x10" camera, but it extends the range of what I can do with a 4x5" camera (which is what I've been carrying lately for travel), so it looks like something I'll use. I don't own any other 6x9 or 6x12 back for 4x5" (though I do have 6x6 and 6x7), so I might use it occasionally for those formats, say, if I'm shooting mainly 4x5" B&W and want the option to shoot some color rollfilm. For the amount of 6x17 I think I'll be shooting, a simple $500 back is fine for me. If I decide that I REALLY like panoramic formats, I'd look into a 7x17" camera before looking into one of the more costly 617cm options.
I think I'll get a 75mm lens with more coverage than the one I have, so I'll be able to use it with this back, and maybe I'll see if I can find one that can share a center filter, at least for the time being, with the 90/8.0 Super-Angulon.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Hi. I've just had the first few rolls of transparencies back from the lab that I've put through my recently acquired Art Panorama 6x17 film back (made by Shen Hao). Results are great!! This back would appear to differ from the DAYI version in that it has a single (one piece) film pressure plate rather than 2 smaller plates. For the outlay I'm VERY pleased!!
Update--I just got a 75/4.5 Grandagon-N, and it does indeed cover the format, if the groundglass is to be believed. I'll shoot some tests in the next week or two and see how it really looks.
6 x 17 ?
This has a thread somewhere but I cant find it....the questions are:
1. Will the Shen H. 6 x 17 roll film back fit right on to my Crown graphic?
2. Any one in Apug land using one of these?
I know David Goldfarb has one. Would love to try one out, but it's too pricey for me right now Anybody in the Texas area have one and wouldn't mind letting me run a few rolls through it?
Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!
thanks Jeremy, it must have one of Dave G"s posts..I'll check
btw is the One O clock Band still in existence at NTSU?