Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,649   Posts: 1,623,496   Online: 961
      
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 115
  1. #71
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,827
    Quote Originally Posted by vpwphoto View Post
    Fearing to offend or re offend I read thought the post and in the end no matter what anyone says the area of a 645 is nearly 4x 35mm.
    Actually, it is about 2.7X the area of 135 format.

    135= 24 X 36 = 864 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56 = 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 2.69 ---- 2.69 X 864 = 2324 sq.mm


    And for the heck of it, 6X7 relative to 135 and 645:

    6X7= 56 X 67 = 3752 sq.mm (6X7, slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 645 to 6X7: 1.61. ---- 1.61 X 2324 = 3741 sq.mm
    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 6X7: 4.35. ---- 4.35 X 864 = 3758 sq.mm
    Last edited by lxdude; 03-08-2014 at 01:49 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  2. #72
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,377
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Actually, it is about 2.7X the area of 135 format.

    135= 24 X 36 = 864 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56= 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 2.69 ---- 2.69 X 864 = 2324 sq.mm
    This is correct, unless you crop the 35mm to the same aspect ratio as the 645.

    In which case, the numbers are:

    135= 24 X 32 = 768 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56= 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 3.03 ---- 3.03 X 768 = 2327 sq.mm
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  3. #73
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,827
    A good point, Matt. Thanks for adding that.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #74
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,849
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    This is correct, unless you crop the 35mm to the same aspect ratio as the 645.

    In which case, the numbers are:

    135= 24 X 32 = 768 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56= 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 3.03 ---- 3.03 X 768 = 2327 sq.mm
    Or more practical yet 8x10, 16x20

    135: 24x30=720 vs 645 (720/2152=0.334 or 1/3rd) vs 6x7 (720/3591=0.200 or 1/5th)
    645: 41.5x51.875=2152 vs 135 (2152/720=2.988 or 3/1) vs 6x7 (2152/3591=0.599 or 6/10ths)
    6X7: 53.6 X 67 = 3591 vs 135 (3591/720=4.9875) vs 645 (3591/2152=1.66868 or 1-2/3rds)
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  5. #75
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,721
    Images
    291

    Should I go for a 6x4.5 system?

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    This is correct, unless you crop the 35mm to the same aspect ratio as the 645.

    In which case, the numbers are:

    135= 24 X 32 = 768 sq.mm (nominal size)
    645= 41.5 X 56= 2324 sq.mm (Bronica ETR series size-slight variation between makers)

    Approximate area multiple, 135 to 645: 3.03 ---- 3.03 X 768 = 2327 sq.mm
    Or, you like the aspect ratio of 35mm and crop you 645 negs... Goes both ways.

    I print panoramic pictures from both 35mm and medium format negatives. Here only the long dimension needs to be considered.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  6. #76
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    887
    Odd, the perpetual sniggling about 645 frame relative area vs. 135 format. 2.7x vs. 3.0x debates.

    Yet the world turned up its nose to the APS film format, because it was 'too small' and the quality suffered compared to 135 format which is 'merely 2.5x larger than APS'!

    So why does 2.7x area of 645 make it 'not enough of a jump in quality', while 135 reigned supreme over its 2.6x smaller cousin

  7. #77
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,721
    Images
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
    Odd, the perpetual sniggling about 645 frame relative area vs. 135 format. 2.7x vs. 3.0x debates.

    Yet the world turned up its nose to the APS film format, because it was 'too small' and the quality suffered compared to 135 format which is 'merely 2.5x larger than APS'!

    So why does 2.7x area of 645 make it 'not enough of a jump in quality', while 135 reigned supreme over its 2.6x smaller cousin
    Possibly it has to with what different people call good enough. To me 35mm is good enough for any size print I care to make.

    My friend Steve uses a Minox, and out of that tiny little frame he makes some of the most wonderful prints.

    Don't be so hung up on format. Get a camera that suits how you work, and then work on your print making skills to become better and better and better.
    I just went to see a photo exhibition at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, where large format, digital, 6x6, and 35mm hung side by side. Print quality on all was superb, and it wasn't the freaking camera that got them into the show; it was their skill, vision, and ability to produce interesting and important photographs.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  8. #78
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,180
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
    Odd, the perpetual sniggling about 645 frame relative area vs. 135 format. 2.7x vs. 3.0x debates.

    Yet the world turned up its nose to the APS film format, because it was 'too small' and the quality suffered compared to 135 format which is 'merely 2.5x larger than APS'!

    So why does 2.7x area of 645 make it 'not enough of a jump in quality', while 135 reigned supreme over its 2.6x smaller cousin

    Exactly... my point above ^^^ thanks to the rest for rubbing my nose in a numbers game.

    I have been making published images by the thousand. In the pre-digital world. 35mm was fine for newsprint and offset reproduction below 6x9". Glossy large reproduction was the stuff of MF. There is a reason Natl Geographic was photographed exclusively on Kodachrome 25 and 64 for soooo many years. This is a fact. Other coffee table book publishers specified that 35mm was done on Kodachrome, or if faster stock was used you stepped up to a larger format. Do what you want guys... but TO THE OP, 645 is a near quantum leap in "qualities" than 35mm.

    Tom B. I respect your technical abilities... BUT... anything you can do with 35mm will look all the better on 645... not saying in your case 35mm in inferior. <<< not at all. But OP was asking legit question. Cheers.

  9. #79
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,721
    Images
    291
    Tom B. I respect your technical abilities... BUT... anything you can do with 35mm will look all the better on 645... not saying in your case 35mm in inferior. <<< not at all. But OP was asking legit question. Cheers.
    I know very well that surface area has an impact.

    That isn't my point, however.
    If Henri Cartier-Bresson can have 20x24 prints from 35mm negatives hanging in museum and private collections all over the world, then how come it isn't good enough for us?

    I realize 35mm isn't for everything. And I'm not trying to convince the OP to not get a 645. I just get tired of all the tedious norms about not printing bigger than 6x9 from 35mm, when you can see prints much bigger than that, mural size in fact, of Salgado for example, in museums. It just vehemently contradicts the 'norms'.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  10. #80
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,180
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    7
    Bresson, and Salgado, photograph "journalism".... it is what it is.
    I have a 20x30 from 35mm of a football coach... but it is crunchy looking, and I'd rather it not be so crunchy for that purpose.

    For a fine portrait, still life, landscapes... sometimes ... I like to move on to a larger media.
    And in the pre-digital age the client (right or wrong) REQUIRED IT!!! 35mm need not apply for many jobs.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin