J enea
Established
was gonna ask this in the pano section, but many more visitors here.
I have been strangely attracted to the fuji g617. some of the pictures i have seen from it as well as other 6x17 look amazing and fun. so time for GAS to kick in.
I do have a fuji gw690 as well as a fuji gsw680. both cameras give great results and I use them often for landscapes, which is clearly the perfect domain for the 617. so...
for printing, 6x9 and smaller is not an issue. To wet print a full 6x17 in B&W, i would need a 5x7 enlarger, which i have never seen for sale locally and im sure the cost would be a lot. I could crop it to fit on a 4x5 enlarger, which would guess would make it a 6x12 or somewhere in that size range. for color, same thing, but slides would be scanned. so the real question I am posing (sorry for being so long winded)....
would I be able to get the same results scanning 2 6x9, or6x8 shots as i could with a 6x17? I have a nikon coolscan 9000, so clearly a 6x17 would need to be scanned as 2 separate images and then stitched in photoshop, just like a 6x9. does having the image in 1 shot, 6x17 give me any advantages? the clear advantage would be saving the money from buying the new camera. $1400 buys a lot of film! also, if i stitch from 2 smaller negs i can also wet print them, so thats a plus as well. But a g617 is so cool looking and the shock factor at a place like lake tahoe or Yosemite could be worth the cost alone.
So am I being foolish, suffering from GAS, or is there a logical and quality justification going for the G617?
thanks
john
I have been strangely attracted to the fuji g617. some of the pictures i have seen from it as well as other 6x17 look amazing and fun. so time for GAS to kick in.
I do have a fuji gw690 as well as a fuji gsw680. both cameras give great results and I use them often for landscapes, which is clearly the perfect domain for the 617. so...
for printing, 6x9 and smaller is not an issue. To wet print a full 6x17 in B&W, i would need a 5x7 enlarger, which i have never seen for sale locally and im sure the cost would be a lot. I could crop it to fit on a 4x5 enlarger, which would guess would make it a 6x12 or somewhere in that size range. for color, same thing, but slides would be scanned. so the real question I am posing (sorry for being so long winded)....
would I be able to get the same results scanning 2 6x9, or6x8 shots as i could with a 6x17? I have a nikon coolscan 9000, so clearly a 6x17 would need to be scanned as 2 separate images and then stitched in photoshop, just like a 6x9. does having the image in 1 shot, 6x17 give me any advantages? the clear advantage would be saving the money from buying the new camera. $1400 buys a lot of film! also, if i stitch from 2 smaller negs i can also wet print them, so thats a plus as well. But a g617 is so cool looking and the shock factor at a place like lake tahoe or Yosemite could be worth the cost alone.
So am I being foolish, suffering from GAS, or is there a logical and quality justification going for the G617?
thanks
john
PKR
Mentor
If it were me, I would scan and stitch. I've never seen a 5x7 enlarger, but have some time in on a Durst 8x10. They are big and need some head room. Great enlarger if you have the room. The two I used were both in labs. If you find one, and can afford it, grab it.http://www.durst-pro-usa.com/L184.php
Most of my panoramas are digital, but I've made some on film using Fuji and Linhof 6x17 panoramic cameras. These things were rentable in the past. Maybe you can find a source for a test drive?
Most of my panoramas are digital, but I've made some on film using Fuji and Linhof 6x17 panoramic cameras. These things were rentable in the past. Maybe you can find a source for a test drive?
Scapevision
Well-known
many enlargers have rotating heads for projecting onto walls. I believe that's how massive prints can be done. I'd try stitch a couple 6x9s if i were you first, then gas.
PKR
Mentor
Besseler MCRX and similar do this well. Your platform needs to be level and accurately perpendicular to the wall for best results. The Durst 8x10 was great. Easily made many 30x40 prints. I had big problems aligning for big prints with an MCRX. Major PITA. With my Omega D6 I could rotate the enlarger 180 degrees. By weighting the base and projecting onto the floor. That is a much easier solution, I think.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I'd stitch. With a 35% overlap, Photoshop does a swell job. And the result would be pretty close to an (expensive) 6x17 camera.
A suggestion for a 6x9 that can do very wide shots by itself already: the Horseman Convertible 842. On 6x9 negatives, its 62mm lens translates to a 25mm wide angle on 135 format.
https://www.johanniels.com/index.ph...convertible-a-medium-format-wide-angle-camera
A suggestion for a 6x9 that can do very wide shots by itself already: the Horseman Convertible 842. On 6x9 negatives, its 62mm lens translates to a 25mm wide angle on 135 format.
https://www.johanniels.com/index.ph...convertible-a-medium-format-wide-angle-camera
Dwig
Well-known
Strictly speaking, if the 6x9 or 6x8 images are produced in standard roll film cameras then the answer is "no". You can get good to excellent image quality, but the wide angle effect will be different.
Unless you are using a swing-lens panorama camera, the shot done with a 6x17 camera is done with the whole image plane flat. To cover the same field of view from the same position, the two separate shots done with a conventional 6x9 camera would have to be done by panning the camera between the two shots. The resulting images would not be taken with the image planes parallel. When stitched, the images would need to be warped to align the seam. Artistically, the result would be somewhat different than the shot with the 6x17.
Personally, I prefer the rendering of the multi-shot stitch approach to that produce by extreme WA shots done with a flat film plane. i would, though, recommend 3 shots with increased overlap rather than just two with minimal overlap. The stitching software can do a much better job that way.
Prest_400
Multiformat
A bit out of the line with what the OP asks but I was playing with cropping on a frame taken with my GW690 and a 2:1 ratio doesn't shave off that much off top and bottom.
Infact I was searching about panoramic crops from MF and some people already did this "xpanning". Angle FoV aside (GW's 39mm equivalent) the neg is bigger from a 6x9 or a 6x7.
The GSW is a better option as it gives wider coverage and you have it.
Instead of a 6x7 maybe head for a 5x7 view camera with a roll film back. More versatile in a way, GG focusing and movement.
Though I'd start off with the equipment you have. The Fuji GWs are good and have RFs to focus with.
Infact I was searching about panoramic crops from MF and some people already did this "xpanning". Angle FoV aside (GW's 39mm equivalent) the neg is bigger from a 6x9 or a 6x7.
The GSW is a better option as it gives wider coverage and you have it.
Instead of a 6x7 maybe head for a 5x7 view camera with a roll film back. More versatile in a way, GG focusing and movement.
Though I'd start off with the equipment you have. The Fuji GWs are good and have RFs to focus with.
J enea
Established
i have a besseler that has that option. it the film gate, or better said, the neg carrier is not big enough to fit the entire neg in it. even on the long end, a 4x5 is 5 inches max. but a 6x17 would need a long side of about 6.7 inches, so you couldn't get the entire neg in it. no big deal though.
and yeh, i didnt think about the field curvature of using 2 negs, even though ive done it before but with 645 negs. photoshop did fine with it. when i get home from vacation, im gonna have to give it a try with some 6x9 and 6x8 shots just to try it out.
thanks for the replies.
john
Dwig
Well-known
Ah, but the diagonal of a 4x5 neg is slightly over 6" (standard image area) and the sheet is 6.4" on the diagonal. A custom carrier could be made and a Beseler 4x5 would come very close to illuminating the whole neg.
Corran
Well-known
I have a 617 and also have done a lot of stitching.
Practically they both have some advantages and disadvantages. I can get "wider" with stitching, provided I don't mind the pseudo-fisheye effect. Stitching doesn't work with some subjects or environments (wind/movement).
Printing is a conundrum. A friend offered me a 5x7 enlarger but it needed a complete refurb and I didn't really have time. Lately I've been making a number of contact prints of my 6x17 negatives, which actually looks really nice matted to an 8x12 frame size or so.
Digital stitching limits printing but for a really special photo you could scan it and get it made into a digital 4x5 negative for printing. I have been thinking about doing that with some digital images and film images that I stitched or edited digitally. There are commercial services that do this and transparency printing that can be done at home, but there is a learning curve with that.
Here's one of those contact prints:
Practically they both have some advantages and disadvantages. I can get "wider" with stitching, provided I don't mind the pseudo-fisheye effect. Stitching doesn't work with some subjects or environments (wind/movement).
Printing is a conundrum. A friend offered me a 5x7 enlarger but it needed a complete refurb and I didn't really have time. Lately I've been making a number of contact prints of my 6x17 negatives, which actually looks really nice matted to an 8x12 frame size or so.
Digital stitching limits printing but for a really special photo you could scan it and get it made into a digital 4x5 negative for printing. I have been thinking about doing that with some digital images and film images that I stitched or edited digitally. There are commercial services that do this and transparency printing that can be done at home, but there is a learning curve with that.
Here's one of those contact prints:
Attachments
voltrader66
Member
Key for me is the ability to take pictures handheld. I like people and movement in my shots. Stitching is out of the question. Go with the 617, the pictures I have seen with it are really nice plus the camera looks very cool.
dagbb
Member
I recently tried stitching on a trip, this is four handheld 6x9 frames from a Horseman ER-1 using a 75mm or 65mm lens - very happy with the result! An alternative would be to use an even wider angle lens and crop one frame. You'll save a lot of money on the camera and lenses, and gain flexibility compared to a 6x17 camera. Of course you can also have movement and people in stitched shots, as long as you plan a bit and they don't stretch across the frame.
Keipen/Kjeipen 1426m by dagr, on Flickr
Keipen/Kjeipen 1426m by dagr, on Flickrvaldas
Mentor
I have a similar dilemma... I bought Horseman sw612 with 35mm lens. I like it, but very often I would love a "normal" lens, not so wide. I found on ebay Rodenstock 135mm, but it is not cheap. So now I am thinking - do I buy it or maybe I just use my Rolleiflex with panorama head to get those "normal" angle shots... Stitching Rollei frames works quite ok in PS (see below), but like others noticed there might be conditions when stitching is not a possibility (e.g. moving objects).
