Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-01-2019, 02:09 PM   #46
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Northants, England
Posts: 148
I am unsure why a 6x7 neg is easier to handle in an enlarger for wet printing. Yes it is larger but a 645 neg isn't exactly small in terms of handling. I have never used 6x7 negs but have wet printed 35, 645 and 6x6 negs and can't say that 6x6 negs were any easier to set up or focus in my enlarger. If truth be told I haven't found 35 mm negs any more or less difficult to handle than either 645 or 6x6 negs.

The crucial difference is in what size of an enlargement each is capable of. A 645 neg is capable of being enlarged to what I'd regard as a very large size, say 16x20, before grain becomes an issue. Resolution and grain is largely proportional to film speed but with D400 or TMY-2 film resolution is still very good

16 x20 might become an issue with D3200 but lower speed such as 400 then a 645 neg is fine.

Unless you need to do very big enlargements beyond 16x20 on a regular basis then 645 negs are fine in my experience.

asahijock

08-01-2019, 04:18 PM   #47
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,232
I agree. I'm a little confused on why 6x7 is easier to load into a negative carrier than a 6x4.5. The roll film is the same size. It's just the frame is smaller on the roll. Perhaps it's the negative carrier itself, Wheatfiled?
08-01-2019, 04:49 PM   #48
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,511
QuoteOriginally posted by asahijock Quote
I am unsure why a 6x7 neg is easier to handle in an enlarger for wet printing.
asahijock
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
I agree. I'm a little confused on why 6x7 is easier to load into a negative carrier than a 6x4.5. The roll film is the same size. It's just the frame is smaller on the roll. Perhaps it's the negative carrier itself, Wheatfiled?
It should also be noted that a 6x7 is more likely than 645 to curl in a glassless holder due to its size. Glass holders are problematic with more potential dust surfaces and Newton's rings. Every format has it's pros and cons and the user has to decide what they need and what they can compromise.
08-01-2019, 05:49 PM   #49
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,232
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
It should also be noted that a 6x7 is more likely than 645 to curl in a glassless holder due to its size. Glass holders are problematic with more potential dust surfaces and Newton's rings. Every format has it's pros and cons and the user has to decide what they need and what they can compromise.
Well, I don't use a glass carrier and I don't see 6x7 being any different than 645 in that regard either. I cut my film in strips of 2 frames for 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 to store in the archive sleeves and that's what is loaded up in the carrier. I also do 4x5 sheet without a glass carrier.

08-02-2019, 06:17 AM   #50
Banned




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,324
QuoteOriginally posted by asahijock Quote
I am unsure why a 6x7 neg is easier to handle in an enlarger for wet printing. Yes it is larger but a 645 neg isn't exactly small in terms of handling. I have never used 6x7 negs but have wet printed 35, 645 and 6x6 negs and can't say that 6x6 negs were any easier to set up or focus in my enlarger. If truth be told I haven't found 35 mm negs any more or less difficult to handle than either 645 or 6x6 negs.

The crucial difference is in what size of an enlargement each is capable of. A 645 neg is capable of being enlarged to what I'd regard as a very large size, say 16x20, before grain becomes an issue. Resolution and grain is largely proportional to film speed but with D400 or TMY-2 film resolution is still very good

16 x20 might become an issue with D3200 but lower speed such as 400 then a 645 neg is fine.

Unless you need to do very big enlargements beyond 16x20 on a regular basis then 645 negs are fine in my experience.

asahijock
The 645 neg in an enlarger is always a portrait orientation, or you are working with single negatives. Neither is especially desirable. Single negs are a bear to work with, and while I haven’t been in a darkroom for nearly 2 decades, I doubt if easels are any different now than they were then, and they were not handy for vertical oriented oriented negs as the easel needed to be turned 90 degrees, putting the hinge on the side rather than the back. I never found this to be good.
One could get around this by using an 11x14 easel for printing 8x10s, a 16x20 easel for 11x14s, or a 20x24 easel for 16x20s, but that has certain amount of unhappiness as well.

I never had curling problems with 6x7 negs. I did have one of those Zone VI 4x5 carriers that pulled the sheet flat, though even that was, for me, a solution to a problem that had never bothered me.
08-02-2019, 11:02 AM   #51
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,916
QuoteOriginally posted by asahijock Quote
I am unsure why a 6x7 neg is easier to handle in an enlarger for wet printing.
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
I agree. I'm a little confused on why 6x7 is easier to load into a negative carrier than a 6x4.5.
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
The 645 neg in an enlarger is always a portrait orientation, or you are working with single negatives.
I figured that the frame orientation to the strip was the likely reason. My enlarger allows for either orientation with adequate clearance for the end frames; though to be honest, my usual practice has been to simply rotate the easel or orient smaller-sized papers either way as needed for the crop (think 6x6).

FWIW, I tend to have the easel hinge towards me...go figure...


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 08-02-2019 at 11:24 AM. Reason: Removed dumb part.
09-07-2019, 03:56 AM - 1 Like   #52
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 290
Damn Ektachromes all fade with time and acquire a magenta tint all over. I still have 50 year-old kodachrome slides that look like they were taken yesterday. Now I only use Ektar 100 negative film and I keep my fingers crossed for color stability over time.
Regards, Richard
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
645d, 645z, 6x7, advantages, camera, format, frame, medium format, move, pentax 6x7 vs, system, systems, systems advantages, vs 645 systems
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
Pentax Medium Format Resources: 645 & 6x7 Cameras and Lenses, 645 & 6x7 Accessories Adam Pentax Medium Format 9 02-12-2017 03:38 AM
What are the advantages and dis-advantages of using a Focusing Screen? HoBykoYan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 10-06-2011 12:28 PM
What are the advantages and disadvantages of a 645 lens on K-X dslr? HoBykoYan Pentax Medium Format 5 04-19-2011 08:09 AM
advantages...disadvantages of buying a "not for digital" lens? slip Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 11-16-2006 06:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:34 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top