E-6 in 120 format - worth it?

CuS

CuS

Established
Local time
11:14 AM
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
73
Okay, here is a brief descrption of my descent into GAS hell. Got an R3M Anniversary - love it to death. Shot some kodachrome 64 - amazing stuff. Bought a few 120 RF folders (6x9, thank you) and i drool over the negs (makes printing hard):D

Now, I want to shoot some E-6 with my 6x9.

Is it worth it?

What's you favorite film (I'll do mostly landscape and achitecture with the 6x9)?

Who does the best and most economic E-6 processing?

Thanks!
 
Once you have seen a 6x7 or larger chrome - you will wonder how you ever thought 35mm was anything special.

Provia 100 is a good all-around film.
Velvia 50 is gorgeous and super saturated.

If you need a boost of speed - the Provia 400F is very nice, and pushes easily 2 or more stops.

For architecture, I actually prefer neg film. I use Portra 160 VC/NC - it holds a couple extra stops of latitude, and so can be good for balancing out difficult light.
 
I shoot some E6 in the Hasselblad. The slides are stunning when projected with the Zeiss/Hasselblad projector with 75mm wide-angle lens. I crop them to a 2:1 aspect ratio for a wide-screen effect, on my 8 foot wide screen. I use mostly Velvia 100 and Provia 100.

I have scanned the slides also, with nice results, using my primitive Epson Perfection flatbed. I think the model is 2500.
 
Last edited:
I prefer color neg or B&W in my Mamiya 7 due to the lack of 1/3rd stop increments for bracketing. However, for my 4x5, I use E100VS and RVP 50 vII. Stunning, absolutely stunning.
 

Attachments

  • Portra-400NC-Test.jpg
    Portra-400NC-Test.jpg
    191.3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Nothing beats a well exposed 120 film slide, no matter if it's 6X6, 6X4.5 or 6X7. They look simply gorgeous... You'll see! :)
 
CuS said:
Who does the best and most economic E-6 processing?
Click to expand...

I've sent slides to Dwayne's but there's also A & I (they work mostly through mailers: you buy mailers and send the film in them). There are other labs, but I will do these ones.

There's also the well-known Walmart route: you leave your roll of film in one of those envelopes and write down in the special instructions that it's slide film, roll film, and that it should be developed, not framed, and returned in sleeves. I will do that some day. There's safety in it: they send their slide film to Dwayne's. Of course, it takes about 10 days, but it's a lot less costly than sending it yourself.

Have fun shopping!
 
I bought a small light table, a nice large Peak loupe, and then shot some E6 in my Yashica Mat 124G. I was stunned. I then immediately sold my Bessa R and Yashica Electro to upgrade my Yashica 124G to a Rolleiflex I know I will own for the rest of my life.
 
I've done 6x7 & 4x5 in Velvia...Warning...once you do this you'll be hooked...
You'll also need deep pockets...tough addiction to shake...
 
I used to shoot velvia through a KO and it is an expensive wonderful addiction. Especially since the lab here has 2 E6 runs a day. Instant gratification.
 
SolaresLarrave said:
Nothing beats a well exposed 120 film slide, no matter if it's 6X6, 6X4.5 or 6X7. They look simply gorgeous... You'll see! :)
Click to expand...
Um- large format makes 120 look lame, even 4x5, the "small" LF. I gave up medium format a few years ago; when I want small, I shoot 35mm. For "real" photography, LF is the only way to go.

That said, if you don't want to (or can't) make the leap to big sheets, rouge designer's answer above is all you need to read.
 
yes, it is worth it!

yes, it is worth it!

Hi,

I use Astia (really nice skin tones) in my Rolleiflex-T. After I saw my first slides projected I was blown away and immediately had to get a bigger screen.

And yes, large format is even nicer (more is better), but I can not project those and the scans clog up my hard disk.

-a
 
I like 6x6 because I can rip a roll of 24 with speed. As said above, once you see MF trannies you wonder why you invested in 35mm. 4x5 is cool --been there, done that -- but more so for stagnant objects and occasional portrait.

While I love my Leica gear, I am pushing to shoot more, alot more, with my Hasselblad.
 
drewbarb said:
Um- large format makes 120 look lame, even 4x5, the "small" LF. I gave up medium format a few years ago; when I want small, I shoot 35mm. For "real" photography, LF is the only way to go.

That said, if you don't want to (or can't) make the leap to big sheets, rouge designer's answer above is all you need to read.
Click to expand...

You can play the 'bigger is better' game indefinitely, e.g. I don't really care for piddy little 4x5 but shoot 5x7 or 8x10 inch instead.

A lot depends on what you are going to do with your pictures. Full-page, or even double-truck, a top-quality 6x7cm or larger image will look at least as good as 4x5 inch. Once you've got over the 'Wow!' factor on the light-box, I am totally unconvinced of the advantages of going bigger than roll-film for trannies.

For that matter, I shoot far less MF tranny than I used to. I've shot a lot of it over the last 35 years or so, in all formats up to 6x17cm, but as I get older, I lean more and more towards the notion that there is a 'quality plateau', above which further technical increases in quality are of limited importance: the picture stands or falls on its visual merits, not its technical excellence.

So, unlike those who say it's addictive, I'd say it's expensive, and a hassle, and only of limited usefulness in many cases. For the right pictures, on the other hand, there is no doubt that MF gives significantly better technical quality than 35mm or sub-30-megapixel digi, and that 4x5 inch and above can give slightly more quality again. This is from experience, shooting for publication.

This is all with respect to colour, of course, in response to the original question. What I mostly shoot in MF and LF nowadays is mono, where I much prefer the tonality -- though even then, I'm not convinced that I personally take better pictures with the larger formats. It's very much a personal matter, here: what suits one person will not necessarily suit another.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
I am totally unconvinced of the advantages of going bigger than roll-film for trannies.
Click to expand...

Roger, with all due respect, I use my view camera for landscapes where I can take advantage of perspective control offered by tilts, swings, and shift. If I want to create a looming foreground, i will use a rear base tilt. If I want to put the viewer at eye level will tall Sequoia trees and negate convergence, i will tilt the bed and correct for parallel with the front and rear standards. You just don't have that sort of control with any other camera architecture. The biggest gain in quality is not so much due to the increase in film real estate, it is because you can optimize the plane of focus, thereby minimizing focus spread and requisite aperture for DOF. As such, you are not into diffraction limiting apertures. I think it's important to also keep in mind that 4x5 lenses are optimized for f/22, unlike 35mm and MF optics.

My smallest print size is 16x20 and I have compared my Mamiya 7 against my Arca Swiss using Rodenstock APO Sironar-S glass for these dimensions. When there are no gains to be had with re-orientation of the focus plane (i.e. lens and film in-parallel), there is only modest gain in sharpness in going 4x5, but the tonal range appears greater and there seems to be a greater overall sense of depth, an enhanced 3D rendering if you will. As soon as the optimal plane of focus is no longer parallel to both the lens and the film, then 4x5 leaves MF in the dust, and the difference becomes more obvious as the focus plane becomes increasingly obtuse from parallel.

And finally, I am not constrained to the roll of film I have in the camera. Using Readyloads or Quickloads, I can mix my film types for the scene at hand. Light is fading, no problem, out comes the Portra 400NC. Beautiful soft "glow" light within the latitude of chrome, out comes the Velvia 50. This, IMHO, is a huge advantage over MF.

Just my 2-cents from someone who shoots everyday with both systems.

~ Jeff
 
Thanks!

Thanks!

Roger Hicks said:
This is all with respect to colour, of course, in response to the original question. What I mostly shoot in MF and LF nowadays is mono, where I much prefer the tonality -- though even then, I'm not convinced that I personally take better pictures with the larger formats. It's very much a personal matter, here: what suits one person will not necessarily suit another.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

Thanks everybody for your responses - It's alot to digest. I am especially thankful to you Roger for your thoughtful and engaging response.

I too have always believed that photography (like all art) is purely subjective.

Still, I think I'm stopping at my local Penn camera today for some E-6 in 120. Pray for me :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom