Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,957   Posts: 1,586,085   Online: 976
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,564
    Images
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by jeroldharter View Post
    I just bought a baby stroller at the advice of some here but have not received it yet. I recall those pictures of India showing a family of 5 and a refrigerator on a moped. That is the direction I am heading with camera gear.
    I guess I am cornfused. You want to add a family of 5 and a fridge to your LF toting baby stroller? Then haul it with a moped? Are you crazy?

    tim in san jose
    Where ever you are, there you be.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Sure, the difference between 6x7 and 645 printed to 20x16 is not epic, but it is there, especially with faster films. ...and depending on print size, film speed dev etc, you do get a point where the 645 image starts to break down tonality wise and the 6x7 image is still creamy. To say there is no real difference is to say that there is no real difference between a 16x12 and a 16x20 print on the wall. I find there to be a huge difference in 'presence' between these two print sizes and a 6x7 neg will give the same tonality at 20x16 as a 645 neg at 12x16 and with some images enlarging by a few extra inches makes the image somehow break down tonally. This might not matter a bit for some subjects, but it matters for others, depending on goals. If shooting street/gritty stuff, I would not bother with 6x7 particularly as I am happy to see some crisp grain, but for smooth landscapes that extra inch on the 6x7 neg is very welcome! I would still reach for the 35mm or RF645 for street work though....

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    79
    All I can attest to is that side by side, with all my variables, it is virtually impossible to tell the 645 from the 67 prints. I have to jump to 4x5 to see any appreciable difference.

  4. #14
    jp80874's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bath, OH 44210 USA
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,445
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by k_jupiter View Post
    I guess I am cornfused. You want to add a family of 5 and a fridge to your LF toting baby stroller? Then haul it with a moped? Are you crazy?

    tim in san jose
    Crazy is a given. He is in LF afterall. The fridge is new though.

    John

  5. #15
    eclarke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Berlin, Wi
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    71
    I shoot way less roll film than sheet film but I wouldn't trade my RZs for anything else and I have 4 645s. I couldn't give up the rotating back and it handholds steady as a rock...EC

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by eclarke View Post
    I shoot way less roll film than sheet film but I wouldn't trade my RZs for anything else and I have 4 645s. I couldn't give up the rotating back and it handholds steady as a rock...EC
    I can understand why you would like the RZ; but objectively, is the image quality that much better than the 645? Or is it other things about the camera you prefer?

  7. #17
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,784
    All else being equal, a bigger negative is always better. But your question is if it's worth it, and that's where the devil is. Nobody really knows except you.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    79
    But all never is equal, and there in lies the rub; I would argue that it is not correct to say a bigger negative is always better.
    Example- I shoot a fair amount of 4x5. I have a sharp lens on the camera, a sharp enlarger lens, in an enlarger that is properly aligned, using a big, solid tripod. I am shooting a modern emulsion, properly processed.
    Are my negatives going to be sharper than my 645?
    Quite possibly not. I am likely to be using smaller f stops to get the depth of field I desire, bringing diffraction issues to play; because I am using smaller f stops, I am likely using slower shutter speeds that bring subject movement to the fore front; film flatness in the holder is much more likely to be poor with a big negative than a smaller one.
    Shooting the same scene with a smaller format camera, I can use bigger f stops, limiting diffraction; because I am using bigger f stops I can use faster shutter speeds limiting subject movement; the pressure plate on my smaller negative is likely to be holding the film flatter than in a 4x5 holder.
    I don't know this to be fact, but I suspect that the resolving power of most modern emulsions is higher than most lenses power to resolve, making factors other than the film the limiting factor in sharpness.
    Now, if you are going to consider tonality, I think a better argument could be made for the bigger negative; and if you are talking about the need for camera movements, than yes the bigger camera is going to win.
    But that was not the original question- the question was is a 50% increase in negative size going from 645 to 67 worth the extra weight, size and general hassle? Do you get a 50% increase in image quality? In my experience no, you do not.

  9. #19
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,784
    Quote Originally Posted by weasel View Post
    But all never is equal, and there in lies the rub; I would argue that it is not correct to say a bigger negative is always better.
    Example- I shoot a fair amount of 4x5. I have a sharp lens on the camera, a sharp enlarger lens, in an enlarger that is properly aligned, using a big, solid tripod. I am shooting a modern emulsion, properly processed.
    Are my negatives going to be sharper than my 645?
    Quite possibly not. I am likely to be using smaller f stops to get the depth of field I desire, bringing diffraction issues to play; because I am using smaller f stops, I am likely using slower shutter speeds that bring subject movement to the fore front; film flatness in the holder is much more likely to be poor with a big negative than a smaller one.
    Shooting the same scene with a smaller format camera, I can use bigger f stops, limiting diffraction; because I am using bigger f stops I can use faster shutter speeds limiting subject movement; the pressure plate on my smaller negative is likely to be holding the film flatter than in a 4x5 holder.
    I don't know this to be fact, but I suspect that the resolving power of most modern emulsions is higher than most lenses power to resolve, making factors other than the film the limiting factor in sharpness.
    Now, if you are going to consider tonality, I think a better argument could be made for the bigger negative; and if you are talking about the need for camera movements, than yes the bigger camera is going to win.
    But that was not the original question- the question was is a 50% increase in negative size going from 645 to 67 worth the extra weight, size and general hassle? Do you get a 50% increase in image quality? In my experience no, you do not.
    I was not speaking of comparing sheet film to roll film. ( The points you raise are valid, but usually made up for or exceeded by the sheer increase in negative size. As you point out there are indeed many factors.)

    I was speaking directly to 645 vs 67, and in that context, with equal film, lens, and technical execution, the larger negative will have more information. If that increase is enough to make a viewable difference is purely subjective at smaller print sizes. I'm certainly not a print sniffer, and would be the first to point out that the skill of the photographer is paramount over equipment, and also would defer that 645 is certainly capable of fine results, and there isn't any difference to my eye in 8x10 prints from either format. However, and again, by my eye, there is a visible difference at 20x24. YMMV. My advice to the OP would be to choose the system that fits his needs as a photographer in the field first, unless he truly intends to print 16x20 or larger on a regular basis.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,564
    Images
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    Rickety Speed Graphic with some old projection lens/Wiggly 2D with a stripped gear/ 1955 Exakta with pin holes in the shutter/ Holga/ Really nice Crown G I got from Brad.
    Who is Brad?

    tim in san jose
    Where ever you are, there you be.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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