| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thejager
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 3
Location: Indiana
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
can I put a 6x9 "23" graphic on my RB67?
please email me back
aksteele@indiana.edu |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
glennfromwy
Joined: 29 Nov 2001
Posts: 903
Location: S.W. Wyoming
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Absolutely!
_________________
Glenn
"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thejager
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 3
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| will i get a "6x9" image??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2120
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2004-02-18 05:29, thejager wrote:
will i get a "6x9" image???
|
no |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thejager
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 3
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| why not |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Les
Joined: 09 May 2001
Posts: 2682
Location: Detroit, MI
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Because.
Because there were never standardized image sizes for 120 film. The original "graphic 23" would come the closest, but it doesn't have the pin rollers that help keep t he film flat, curve film is great when you want to frustrate your lab guy, but not good what you want a sharp image from edge to edge. When they put the pin rollers in, they cropped the image closer to 6x8
Now I haven't tried this, but it's possible that the body of the RB will vignette a 6x9 image. Afterall it was designed for 6x7, so the body aperture wouldn't need to be much more than 7x7 or 8x8.
_________________
"In order to invent, you need a good imagination and a lot of junk" Thomas Edison |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
glennfromwy
Joined: 29 Nov 2001
Posts: 903
Location: S.W. Wyoming
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To begin with, "6X9" is not truly 6X9 and never has been. It's just a useful figure that's easier than, say, 56mm X 85mm or some such nonsense.
_________________
Glenn
"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2120
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2004-02-18 08:48, glennfromwy wrote:
To begin with, "6X9" is not truly 6X9 and never has been. It's just a useful figure that's easier than, say, 56mm X 85mm or some such nonsense.
|
Um, once upon a time we used imperial units. Image sizes were specified in inches and, sometimes, fractional plates.
The plate is 6.5" x 8.5", hence quarter-plate is 3.25" x 4.25". That size should be a little familiar to users of Speed Graphics.
Standard formats shot with 120 film included 2.25" x 2.25", 2.25" x 2.75", and 2.25" x 3.25". When the metric system came to photography, these sizes, which are sometimes, not always, close to real roll holders' and roll film cameras' gate sizes, were replaced with metric approximations. 6 cm x 6 cm, 6x7, and 6x9 respectively.
And then people who didn't know history or reality starting acting as though the metric approximations were the actual gate sizes. They weren't, they aren't, and they probably won't ever be.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
glennfromwy
Joined: 29 Nov 2001
Posts: 903
Location: S.W. Wyoming
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right you are, Dan. However, we haven't touched on the fact that every camera manufacturer seemed to have a little different opinion of what these sizes were, so there was always a tiny bit of "individuality" thrown in for good measure. Or, perhaps it was "artistic license".
_________________
Glenn
"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
