Graflex.org

blaised · Joined: 09 May 2005 Posts: 18 Location: New York

What is 6 1/2 * 9 cm. film considered (MF or LF)? I have a camera that takes this sheet film, and I am wondering if this film size will last or is it a dinosaur ready for extinction?

Thank you in advance.

Rangemaster · Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:53 pm Post subject:

normally 6 x 9 is considered medium format sizes, I don't know of any major manufacture who is producing it still, but I know it is available from many of the niche market companies.

Dave

_________________
Focus on the Picture, Not on the Glass.
Satin Snow(TM) Ground Glass

glennfromwy · Joined: 29 Nov 2001 Posts: 903 Location: S.W. Wyoming

Medium format? Doesn't matter much. There should be film available in B&W. Try J&C Photo, Freestyle Sales, Frugal Photographer and there are others that I can't remember right now. You may have better luck looking at some German sources, as 6.5 X 9 is a European size, historically. You might do a search on Photo.net, in the classic cameras forum. Seems to me that a source was named not too long ago. Worst case, you can cut your own.

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

t.r.sanford · Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject:

Right; the format is known in English-speaking lands as 2½x3½, and you can cut four sheets that size from one sheet of 5x7.

The whole question of "medium format" has to be viewed in a historical context. In the memory of men still living, you had "miniature" formats on 35mm. and 120 rollfilm, and "large" formats on filmpack and sheetfilms (and plates), 3¼x4¼ and larger.

The 2¼x3¼ format of the "Miniature Speed Graphic" (et al.) was sort of suspended midway between the two!

At that time, anything smaller than 35mm. (Minox 9.5mm. and the various 16mm. formats) was "subminiature..."

Henry · Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:19 am Post subject:

When I first obtained my Century, which came with some cut film holders, I bought a box of Tri-X 2x3 and quickly found that handling those little pieces of film was a major you-know-what. To me the beauty of 2x3 is the availability of numerous brands and emulsions in 120 roll film format, and thus I can use the Century with roll film holders as a miniature view camera without the hassle of handling cut film. Sorry if this is not relevant to "blaised"'s query; just my 2¢-worth.

t.r.sanford · Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:01 pm Post subject:

Yes, indeed! The whole business of developing 2¼x3¼-in. sheetfilm has a certain miniature charm, like engraving the Declaration of Independence on the head of a pin, but I can see nothing else to recommend it.

I think it made sense, to a degree, when you could get emulsions in sheetfilm that were unavailable in rolls (Ansco "Versapan" comes to mind); and you could do it in a nifty little corrugated cage that fit into a 16-fl.oz. Nikor invertible tank.

disemjg · Joined: 10 Jan 2002 Posts: 474 Location: Washington, DC

I laugh these days when I see a piece of 2X3 sheet film; for the same amount of handling effort that you expend for bigger formats you get this little receipt sized negative. Roll film for a 2X3 camera is the way to go.

But I do have a few boxes of Ilford 2X3 in the fridge, in case I decide to remind myself why I dislike the stuff.

RichS · Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 3:23 am Post subject:

Okay, I don't shoot 2x3 anything let alone sheet film. But maybe I just get upset when people make fun of things...

2x3 sheet film has the same advantages over roll film as any other LF sheet size!

You can choose which film to shoot on a shot-by-shot basis instead of a whole roll!

You can 'zone' it to develope individual sheets differently by exposures. Can't do that with roll film!

Sure, roll film is easier than sheet. But that doesn't help when you've got color loaded and decide this is a perfect shot for B&W IR film...

I have the same problems with my C330. Better be happy with what's in the camera....

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey

RichS · Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:53 pm Post subject:

Henry · Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 5:23 pm Post subject:

Rich, as I re-read this thread, the only "knock," as you call it, on sheet film has to do specifically with 2x3, not the larger sizes! Several of us who have tried it don't prefer it to 120 roll film, that's all. As Dan indicates, the use of multiple rollholders/emulsions is quite the practical way to overcome any limitation of flexibility.

Speaking only for myself, I came to the Graflex Graphic world from 35mm, which I have now largely abandoned. But I don't for a minute disparage the millions of folks who shoot 35; it's a great format. It's just that, for my purposes, that big 2x3 neg gives such better results! And I'm sure the 3x4 guys (if any!) could say the same about 2x3, and the 4x5 guys about 3x4 and 2x3, and the 5x7 guys.....you get the idea, right on up the food chain.

And coming from 35mm, as I do, means that I'm much more comfortable handling strips of film rather than individual small rectangles of it.

There's also the question of end result. My good buddy who shoots all 4x5 produces some wonderful 40x50 inch b/w prints. I sure wouldn't try that with 2x3! But I'm real happy with my 12x15 inch prints. Don't think I would be with 35mm. And the 4x5 guy wouldn't even think of trying this with 2x3.

I admire tremendously the large format folks. It takes a lot of skill and patience to work with sheet film, and the results can be stunning, but it's not for me (in any size). And that's just a comment about me, not them!

RichS · Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:40 pm Post subject:

Dan & Henry...

Sorry... Maybe I should have put some 'smileys' in?

Lighten up... I was just presenting some of the virtues of sheet film since everyone seemed to be on the roll film side. I wasn't knocking roll film. Just no reason to extol it because it was already done...

I've shot everything from 8mm Minox through 8x10. 35mm was always my main film until recently and I still shoot it. I'm hoping to shoot a few rolls of 120 this weekend with my C330. Each has it's place. And the whole idea of roll film back is to be able to choose what you feel like or prefer to shoot. Someday, I'll shoot a roll of 120 through my 8x10 camera, just because I can... And if I ever find the money for a full RB67Pro-SD system, I would probably shoot a whole lot more roll film...

Roll film is fine and good. I just bought a dozens rolls myself. Sheet film is fine and good. They fit a purpose, need or want. It's all fun!

(and there's a smiley)...

glennfromwy · Joined: 29 Nov 2001 Posts: 903 Location: S.W. Wyoming

I have Mini Speeds and Busch Pressmen (more than one), among lots of others and some are equipped with roll holder capability, others are not. I have to agree with Rich on one point. If I want to play with each individual shot, sheet film is the way to go. Sometimes, I only WANT to take one shot. Sometimes, I just take a nap and forget it.

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey

45PSS · Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:50 pm Post subject:

[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2005-12-24 21:33 ]