Graflex.org

mri_tech · Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Posts: 20 Location: Decatur, Ga.

Please forgive my ignorance. But is 6.5x9cm the same as the 2x3? If so, would it fit in a 2x3 sheet film holder? Thanks.
Tom

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

t.r.sanford · Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject:

Part of the problem here is that so many abbreviations have been used, over the years, that you can't always tell what size really is being described. In many cases, too, the formal sizes were approximate.

"23" and the like is shorthand for 2¼x3¼-in. film, which was a standard size in the United States. This is a bit less than 58x83mm.

I believe the British had a standard 2½x3½ size, a nice feature of which is that you could cut four sheets this size from a single 5x7 sheet.

6.5x9cm. was a European standard size, a little larger than 2½x3½ ins.(2.56x3.54 ins.) I can't say whether this, in practice, was interchangeable with 2½x3½-in. film, but a Briton would know.

To make matters worse, not all nominal 2¼x3¼-in. film really was that size. Sheetfilm was, but pack films were bigger. 120 rollfilm yielded yet a third size. This made life interesting for those with enlargers that used glassless negative carriers!