[tuco]

As already noted a Pentax 645 makes sense if you have a Z. Are you going to make conventional wet prints? Size can matter with film and a 6x4.5 negative is a very small negative in the world of fine art landscapes done on film.

[asahijock]

Are you going to make conventional wet prints? Size can matter with film and a 6x4.5 negative is a very small negative in the world of fine art landscapes done on film.

As has already been said it depends on the size of the print. A 645 negative will give you enough resolution for a pretty big print. One poster mentioned 16 x20 prints and while I cannot say you can go bigger I'd be very surprised if you couldn't and still have great prints. 16x20 is pretty big. How many prints are you likely to make above that size?

asahijock

[Silent Street]

As has already been said it depends on the size of the print. A 645 negative will give you enough resolution for a pretty big print. One poster mentioned 16 x20 prints and while I cannot say you can go bigger I'd be very surprised if you couldn't and still have great prints. 16x20 is pretty big. How many prints are you likely to make above that size?

asahijock

The potential size of prints is just one, minot thing to consider. How much is it going to cost to frame it? And then, where are you going to put it?
I have plastered just about every wall in my studio with prints that have gone up to 1 metre across (giclée prints: RA-4 printers can't go up to that size).
From experience I can tell you the cost of finishing a huge print really does require advance planning or you'll be living of a boiled egg for a month!!

[rdenney]

But Tuco is right that in the art world, go big or go home. And 16x20 is not big in that calculus.

On the other hand, most of us aren’t pursuing that world, and our prints have to scaled to our own walls. But even if I only print 16x20, I want it to maintain the illusion of endless detail even when viewed nose to print. That is a demanding standard.

Rick “who uses a 67, and also 4x5” Denney

[rdenney]

But Tuco is right that in the art world, go big or go home. And 16x20 is not big in that calculus.

As it happens, I was at a crafts gallery in Seward, Alaska today, and they had the work of local photographers on the wall. The metal prints were striking from ten feet. They were large, the subject was grand, the colors bold. Very attention-getting, and all were 24-30” wide or tall at the very least. Everyone in my group oohed and aahed over them from where we were standing. But when I approached them, detail did not increase, and sharpening artifacts glowed in the dark. The best of them might have made a passable 16x20, but most of them would have reached their limit on a 13” printer.

The claim those prints made from 10 feet was refuted at 10”. 645 film can go big, but it takes skill and technique to achieve it. It’s easier with 6x7, and easier still with large format, though those larger cameras and longer lenses impose a different set of skill and technique requirements.

A 24x30” print requires a 15x enlargement from 645 film. 6x7 requires 11x, and 4x5 requires 6x. 15x requires delivering at least 75 line pairs/mm on the film to meet my endless detail requirement. That requires good lenses and careful technique (in the darkroom, especially). But it’s doable. With 67, I’d need to deliver 55 lp/mm—much easier. With 4x5, 30 lp/mm will do it, but even that can be challenging, depending on the scene. Skill and technique will be required, but the stuff available for 645 will do it.

Rick “and that’s 3-dimensional resolution, not just test-chart resolution” Denney

[tuco]

As has already been said it depends on the size of the print. A 645 negative will give you enough resolution for a pretty big print. One poster mentioned 16 x20 prints and while I cannot say you can go bigger I'd be very surprised if you couldn't and still have great prints. 16x20 is pretty big. How many prints are you likely to make above that size?

asahijock

You said fine art and while a good image is independent of format the print quality and tonal scale of conventional wet print is a function of how far you pull the grain apart from an enlargement. You have a medium format digital camera. Why do you have that instead of an APSC size sensor to make your prints? If it is for the better quality then that is much the same as the 4x5 or 8x10 sheet film vs a 645 projection on 120 roll film.

[SeBEx]

Thank you for all your comments, I am currently looking at getting the 75mm, 120mm or 150mm, as I dont thing I will be able to find a good priced 135 LS at the moment.

Regarding print sizes I plan just to get into ilm first and have a play and procude some prints around 16x20.. but maybe lower so I just want to get a feel of film before I really get into it seriously with 6x7 etc...

[asahijock]

You said fine art and while a good image is independent of format the print quality and tonal scale of conventional wet print is a function of how far you pull the grain apart from an enlargement. You have a medium format digital camera. Why do you have that instead of an APSC size sensor to make your prints? If it is for the better quality then that is much the same as the 4x5 or 8x10 sheet film vs a 645 projection on 120 roll film.

You gave my quote but then your reply seems to be unrelated to that quote. Were you confusing me with someone else? I don't have a digital camera. I was unsure of the comparison with an APSC sensor of which I know nothing, being a 24 carat dyed-in-the-wool film person. I have in fact a P645N film camera.

My post was simply to say that the size of a "good, high resolution print is related to the size of the negative and on that we are agreed. A 645 negative will produce in my opinion a pretty good 16x20 print so the real question which only the original poster can answer is how big does he intend to print.

He appears to have answered that question in his latest post.

asahijock

[drmoss_ca]

Very happy with my 645N, and I have a 645NII bought simply as a backup. The controls of the 645N are just a bit simpler and suit me better. Just about perfect if you enjoy cameras from the era where film met automation. My two favourite lenses would be the 45mm (not sure if there was a manual focus equivalent for the original 645, but the FA lens can be used manually with a quick push or pull on the focus ring) and the 120mm Macro. I also have the 75mm, the 150-300mm zoom and a 2x teleconverter, none of which see very much use.

[tuco]

You gave my quote but then your reply seems to be unrelated to that quote. Were you confusing me with someone else? I don't have a digital camera. I was unsure of the comparison with an APSC sensor of which I know nothing, being a 24 carat dyed-in-the-wool film person. I have in fact a P645N film camera.

My post was simply to say that the size of a "good, high resolution print is related to the size of the negative and on that we are agreed. A 645 negative will produce in my opinion a pretty good 16x20 print so the real question which only the original poster can answer is how big does he intend to print.

He appears to have answered that question in his latest post.

asahijock

Sorry about that. I did mix up your comment with another one. My bad.

[asahijock]

Sorry about that. I did mix up your comment with another one. My bad.

No problem I thought that was probably the case

asahijock