[asahijock]

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

[tuco]

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?

[Alex645]

I am unsure why a 6x7 neg is easier to handle in an enlarger for wet printing.
asahijock

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.

[tuco]

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.

[Wheatfield]

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.

[stevebrot]

I am unsure why a 6x7 neg is easier to handle in an enlarger for wet printing.

I agree. I'm a little confused on why 6x7 is easier to load into a negative carrier than a 6x4.5.

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

[RICHARD L.]

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

[cobbu2]

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

That was true of the earlier Ektachrome products, such as those from the E-2 through E-4 process days. Later E-6 products (those made 1988 and later) are now predicted to outlast Kodachrome products in archival storage (220 years for later E-6,185 years for Kodachrome films).

http://wilhelm-research.com/pdf/HW_Book_05_of_20_HiRes_v1c.pdf
See page 203, table 5.13

From the same source, Ektar 100 is “not disclosed,” but no Kodak (or any other manufacturer unless I missed something) color negative product exceeded 100 years projected permanence.

---------- Post added 11-11-19 at 08:06 PM ----------

As for the original question, I use both 6x4.5 and 6x7 depending on films used and other factors such as travel convenience, desired lenses, etc.

[Silent Street]

That was true of the earlier Ektachrome products, such as those from the E-2 through E-4 process days. Later E-6 products (those made 1988 and later) are now predicted to outlast Kodachrome products in archival storage (220 years for later E-6,185 years for Kodachrome films).

All processes of Ektachrome from E2 to E6, were in the affected epoch of fading in less than optimum storage conditions; most people did not project Ektachrome often enough to preserve the palette, instead leaving them in boxes and folders, long forgotten. My own Ektachrome 100 slides from 1989 are virtually not there now compared to Kodachrome slides from the 1970s (my aunties'), but my own Kodachromes from 1982 to 1991 are true troopers, something of an amazement to look at, especially the many 'snaps' of bright red MG cars -- any pics where the primaries take centre-stage. Unfortunately and as is well known, Kodachrome skies were 'not quite there' in the blue spectrum.

[gofour3]

I have the Kodak datasheets for all the Ektachrome versions from the 2000's and the E100G & E100GX (warm) versions were the ones that had the longest archival life of 80 years. The E100VS version (vivid/saturated colours) had no archival info listed in its datasheet, so it may not last as long.

I've shoot all three of the older E100 versions over the years, so will see how they compare to the new E100 and the older Kodachrome 64 slides I have. My oldest Kodachrome slides date back to 1972 and they are fine. Museum gift shop slides bough during that period have all faded badly, so I had to chuck them.

Phil.

[Silent Street]

In my bicycle touring days (1970s to 1997), Ektachrome 64 and Kodachrome 64 shared riding space in our tattered handlebar bags, ready to load into anything from an Olympus XA to a Canon T90 (the last of the cameras I used for touring). A lot even found their way into published books spanning the years 1979 to 1995. There isn't much left of my friend's copious number of boxes of Ektachrome 64; they had faded a long time ago. Attempts were made at scanning and colour boosting, but this apparently didn't prove too promising. I do not know if he still has the Kodachrome 64 slides.

E100S and VS had a short and unpopular life here in Australia. Among professionals who used this film, problems were very widely reported gaining colour fidelity in the Ilfochrome Classic process, irrespective of contrast grade. The red channel was frequently singled out as problematic, coming up as either a beetroot-red or muddy brown. There was a lot of to-and-fro with Kodak and Harman Tech about this. The recommendation for getting around this was to use Kodachrome, which did not present any problems in the printing process. There is a half-used roll of E100VS here sharing room in the deep freeze with the chickens and chops; it was last run through a camera (itself, long gone) in August 2004.

I do not now of anybody here actively printing off the new E100 slides; the format, though does not appear to be a red-hot seller at the moment. That should change when the 120 spools roll out!

[gofour3]

I do not now of anybody here actively printing off the new E100 slides; the format, though does not appear to be a red-hot seller at the moment. That should change when the 120 spools roll out!

I had a bunch of E100G, E100GX & E100VS developed/mounted in Melbourne in 2009, but I've forgotten the name of the place. (It was across the river from downtown near the beach, as I remember walking on the beach with the bag of boxed slides)

As for the new E100 in 120, the news is still late 2019, but I'm not holding my breath!

Phil.

[Silent Street]

I had a bunch of E100G, E100GX & E100VS developed/mounted in Melbourne in 2009, but I've forgotten the name of the place. (It was across the river from downtown near the beach, as I remember walking on the beach with the bag of boxed slides)

As for the new E100 in 120, the news is still late 2019, but I'm not holding my breath!

Phil.

Phil,
Possibly CPL, but sounds more like you were at Bond Imaging, which was close to the Yarra's edge in Richmond, where I live, at that time -- the beach is quite some distance from either! Bond are now in Port Melbourne (a lovely, long beach!), which is quite a hike on a bike from the city, though tram and train options available. They do not provide E6 processing now (only two that I actively use: Vanbar in Fitzroy and Michaels Camera House in the CBD).

What is the hold up with E100 in 120? Kodak appear to have said nothing about this.

[gofour3]

Phil,
Possibly CPL, but sounds more like you were at Bond Imaging, which was close to the Yarra's edge in Richmond, where I live, at that time -- the beach is quite some distance from either! Bond are now in Port Melbourne (a lovely, long beach!), which is quite a hike on a bike from the city, though tram and train options available. They do not provide E6 processing now (only two that I actively use: Vanbar in Fitzroy and Michaels Camera House in the CBD).

What is the hold up with E100 in 120? Kodak appear to have said nothing about this.

I looked at a map and remember the lab was near St. Kilda, I think. We also went to the F1 site at Albert Park the day I took the film in for processing. (They we setting up for the race for the following week)

Ektachrome (in 120) is still in Beta testing the last I heard. I'm out of 120 colour film, so I'm waiting patiently!

Phil.
.

[Silent Street]

I looked at a map and remember the lab was near St. Kilda, I think. We also went to the F1 site at Albert Park the day I took the film in for processing. (They we setting up for the race for the following week)

Ektachrome (in 120) is still in Beta testing the last I heard. I'm out of 120 colour film, so I'm waiting patiently!

Phil.
.

I wouldn't expect you to remember all the minutae of a visit to the Big Smoke here almost 10 years ago, but CPL (in South Melbourne, which in turn is adjacent to Albert Park) is the closest to St Kilda and not all that far from Beaconsfield Parade and the long beach that stretches from St Kilda proper to Port Melbourne.

I have finished work for this year so I can have a stickybeak as to how much 120 film I have left and plan for latching onto some of the Ektachrome 100 in that format next year, whenever it touches down. For this weekend, I'm just going to get my little Olympus XA for walkabouts, and poke and prod and behave like a bloody idiot who has never handled a camera!