View Full Version : LF Clarification
Ralph Barker
2-Oct-2014, 07:19
A number of members requested clarification of how the forum defines "LF" - essentially, what image formats are allowed to be posted, and where, on the forum. After considerable discussion among the moderators and the forum owner, we have changed the FAQ as follows:
A. What is the Large Format Photography Forum all about? - The purpose of the forum is to provide a place for discussion of topics of particular interest to large format photographers. We especially encourage questions which will help build a repository of knowledge about the tools and techniques of large format photography. Commonly accepted definitions base large format photography on 4"x5" and larger sheet film, regardless of the style of camera being used. This is the definition we will use. We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well, regardless of technology.
Over time, these definitions and boundaries have changed. The current definition was established in September, 2014. Prior threads that no longer fit this definition will be moved to the appropriate forum only if new postings are made within them.
B. How is the LF Forum organized?
LF-related Forums
. . .
Image Sharing (LF) & Discussion - Post your own large-format images (based on 4"x5" or larger format) for sharing and discussion. Critiques should only be offered if requested by the original poster.
Image Sharing (Everything Else) & Discussion - Post your own images of other formats and types here for sharing and discussion. All rollfilm formats (rolls less than 4" wide) and medium-format digital formats belong here, regardless of camera used. Critiques should only be offered if requested by the original poster.
You will note that this adds a sub-forum in the LF-related section for posting and discussion of images that are not "LF" as we define it. This should resolve the confusion created by our previous policy of "grandfathering" certain formats that weren't really "LF" but shared the LF working style based on the camera being used.
Moderators,
Thank you for your efforts on this, as well as the general work you do for the LFF.
Kirk Gittings
2-Oct-2014, 07:45
Interesting solution. Having been in on these discussions previously I know how difficult they can be to arrive at a consensus. It sticks to a more traditional definition of what LF is while adding room for everything else. It should work. Of course like anything, not everyone will be happy. Thanks for your efforts.
All rollfilm formats (rolls less than 4" wide) [...] belong here, regardless of camera used.
So, does that mean 6x12 and 6x17 are "accepted" in the LF category, being ~4.5 / ~6.5 inches wide? Or are you talking about the "width" of the roll of film (2 1/4), meaning that all roll films shot on LF cameras w/ rollfilm back are now not allowed?
Images made on film whose smaller dimension is less than 4 inches, are no longer by our definition Large Format, even if they are very long in their other dimension.
For example, a horizontal landscape negative or transparency that is 1 inch high and 10 inches wide, is not Large Format according to our definition, even though it might have been made on an 8x10 view camera.
By contrast, a horizontal landscape negative or transparency that is 4 inches high and 10 inches wide, is Large Format according to our definition.
Non Large Format photos and related discussion are still welcome, but not in the Large Format forums. They fall into the category of "everything else".
Huh. Can't say I agree with that at all. I didn't think that was part of the discussion at all, but whatever...
Bob Salomon
2-Oct-2014, 08:12
I disagree.
Why not make the definition so that it includes cameras that have camera movements? This would then expand to 6x9 view cameras. Basically this would also exclude large roll formats like 612 and 617 unless they were taken on a view camera with movements.
Then images shot with a 45 view camera with a 612 or a 617 roll back would qualify.
In our view, it's not about the camera, but the size of the film or sensor. Any film or digital sensor whose shorter dimension is 4 inches or greater, qualifies as Large Format. This is true if the camera allows movements or not, has a bellows or not.
All other photos and discussion are welcome, but not in the Large Format sections.
Wasn't this whole debate brought up with regard to digital backs and similar technology being allowed or not?
Why was something that has been allowed for years (rollfilm back images made on LF cameras) suddenly now disallowed? Seems rather pointless and arbitrary, especially when literally hundreds/thousands of contradicting postings are still floating around in the now incorrect subforum.
Jim Noel
2-Oct-2014, 08:34
I agree with the moderators. The size of the film should be the major consideration. If not the now lost in history 35mm camera with almost full movements would have to be considered as LF. They are providing an area for other formats in the "everything else" area. It finally relieves having to work through the smaller formats to see what is up in LF. If some are unhappy with this, why don't they start a "Smaller than Large Format" forum.
It is done and settled and I can live with the new rules.
Thank you all, especially our benefactor Q T Luong!
I agree with the moderators. The size of the film should be the major consideration. If not the now lost in history 35mm camera with almost full movements would have to be considered as LF. They are providing an area for other formats in the "everything else" area. It finally relieves having to work through the smaller formats to see what is up in LF. If some are unhappy with this, why don't they start a "Smaller than Large Format" forum.
Frankly I would love to see a 35mm camera with movements, ha!
But what are you talking about , "work through the smaller formats to see what is up in LF?" The number of rollfilm back images being posted before was never that huge, or significant at all, in my opinion.
And I'm sorry but if we can't "discuss" this change in policy, why should we even have a post about it? This is a forum, not state-run media. 6x12 and 6x17 is large format as far as I'm concerned, considering I use a traditional LF camera for it, so, I'm giving my opinion.
...I'm sorry but if we can't "discuss" this change in policy, why should we even have a post about it? This is a forum, not state-run media.
The most recent discussion of the topic was within the last month or so, and there were 200 posts.
See Request clarification of large format (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?116002-Request-clarification-of-large-format).
Kirk Gittings
2-Oct-2014, 09:55
And I'm sorry but if we can't "discuss" this change in policy, why should we even have a post about it? This is a forum, not state-run media. 6x12 and 6x17 is large format as far as I'm concerned, considering I use a traditional LF camera for it, so, I'm giving my opinion.
Who said we can't discuss it-I can't find it? I don't think our discussions will change anything. This forum is not a democracy-but that is another question.
Clarification: Jim said if we (I) were unhappy, go start a "smaller than LF" forum. I took that statement to mean he thinks I should not be expressing my opinion. Sorry. Of course he is not a mod, so I didn't mean to imply the moderators made that statement/implication.
Mark Sawyer
2-Oct-2014, 10:11
We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well, regardless of technology...
So a "4x5" Better Light scanning back that actually has a slightly smaller than 3x4-inch scanning area will no longer be considered large format?
I won't argue LFF's reasoning for using the term to describe Large Format, But, I think if the research was accomplish to locate the origins of the term and it's reason for being it will be discovered that . . . a Linhof engineer coined the term specifically for advertising their 6x9 view cameras around 1951/1952 . Stating that 6x9 was the threshold for between Large Format film and all smaller format.
I consider 6x9 as the threshold between LF and the smaller formats. Referring to the frame size, and not the films structure. It's better to be inclusive than exclusive, and it allows for at least one film, 120, both sheet and roll into the arena.
So a "4x5" Better Light scanning back that actually has a slightly smaller than 3x4-inch scanning area will no longer be considered large format?
Correct.
We had to draw the line somewhere and 4x5 is where the line was drawn.
If the Better Light "4x5" sensor were actually 4x5 inches in size, it would be considered Large Format by the forum moderators.
Going forward, images made with that back are welcome here, just not in the Large Format section.
Bill_1856
2-Oct-2014, 10:29
I've said it before, and I'll insist on it again:
"Large Format is not about film size -- it's about state of mind."
(What The Forum is about may be something entirely different.)
jcoldslabs
2-Oct-2014, 10:30
If an image is shot on 4x5 (or larger) film but the portion of the negative used in the final crop is less than 4" in its shortest dimension, what then?
Jonathan
LOL, cut off at the pass.
Kidding! :)
If an image is shot on 4x5 (or larger) film but the portion of the negative used in the final crop is less than 4" in its shortest dimension, what then?
Jonathan
jcoldslabs
2-Oct-2014, 10:39
If the Better Light "4x5" sensor were actually 4x5 inches in size, it would be considered Large Format by the forum moderators.
I just measured the actual image area of a recent 4x5 negative and it comes out to 3 11/16" x 4 11/16". So are THOSE the minimum dimensions we should be talking about? If we require an absolute of 4" as the minimum "short side" dimension I'm afraid we'll become a forum for 5x7 and above.
Jonathan
BrianShaw
2-Oct-2014, 10:48
Dang. I guess I'll have to resign from this fine forum. I don't have a 5x7 camera. :o
jcoldslabs
2-Oct-2014, 10:53
Brian, I think you mean you don't have a 4 11/16" x 6 11/16" camera. :)
J.
Perhaps is should be stated as "film formats 4x5 and larger".......which would include the digital backs.
Sounds good to me. Not what I would have expected (I felt that the definition was more camera-related than film-size related), but I can easily work with this definition.
Good to hear that cutting a piece of 8x10 film in half (two 4x10's) makes the cut! I am a little concerned that those who are cutting 4x5 or 5x7 film in half (in camera -- using a modified darkslide or internal dividers) to make panoramic images, or significally cropping a 4x5 (or larger neg) to less than 4" on a minimum side, would no longer be classified as using LF.
I would consider both of these LF...but more than willing to play by the new rules. (Both are on 4x5 film)
Bob Salomon
2-Oct-2014, 11:11
Well, lets take roll film cameras a bit farther.
This is the Linhof Aero Technika 45El shooting 5" (120mm) roll film on modified NATO spools. There is one shot of the camera and another of the astronaut Pinky Nelson using it on a Space Shuttle Mission. It was placed on the Shuttle program by the US Navy but imagery was done by NASA and assignments would come from NASA as well as other agencies.
122697 122699
Here is another Linhof 5" roll film camera, the Linhof Metrika. It is the camera used to take the measurements of Otzi, the Ice Man that is 5200 years old that was found in the Alps in 1991. HABS also used two of them for documenting various places or buildings or rooms for the National Park Service. It has a Reseau plate in front of the film and made extremely precise non surface contact measurements when used with a photogrammetry program.
122698
So, would images on 5" roll film qualify? If so I can post one of the Otzi pictures if you like.
So, would images on 5" roll film qualify?
Yes, they qualify as Large Format according to our definition...
... as do 4x5 pinhole cameras, Polaroids conversions and home-made fixed-lens designs we see from time to time.
4x5 is where we have drawn the line, Jonathan's hair-splitting exactitude notwithstanding :rolleyes:
Other formats are also welcome, just not in the Large Format areas.
Bob Salomon
2-Oct-2014, 11:29
Yes, they qualify as Large Format according to our definition.
So do 4x5 pinhole cameras and the home-made fixed-lens 4x5 sheet-film cameras we see from time to time.
4x5 is where we have drawn the line... Jonathan's hair-splitting exactitude notwithstanding :rolleyes:
that is why I feel that adjustable cameras are the definition of a view camera since all of you are using those adjustments to make images as opposed to others who just use straight images from cameras that do not have movements, regrdless of the size of the film. But then, of course, a T/S lens or a shift lens on a mirrorless digital camera could also qualify.
But, representing a camera manufacturer, they do consider a 6x9cm view camera large format. And a camera like a TK23S can do more in the way of movements and corrections then many of the large 45 and larger cameras can do that are used here.
Kirk Gittings
2-Oct-2014, 11:55
But Bob they are not defining what a view camera is but what Large Format is.
djdister
2-Oct-2014, 11:58
But Bob they are not defining what a view camera is but what Large Format is.
Right, its not called the "View Camera Forum" its the Large Format Photography Forum. So size does matter...
I think it is important as a view-camera/box-camera/folding-camera/wooden-camera/plate-camera user that I know a bit about how things came into being within the realm of photography. Doing one's own research can be a daunting task. But, believe it or not Google's free online books (https://www.google.com/search?q=Photography&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl#q=Photography&tbm=bks&tbs=bkv:r) has been a godsend. At one point my library of downloaded photography books published between ~1835 to ~1920 exceeded over 300 titles. Not a single book contained the words "large" and "format" together in referring to a large film. But that was not a surprise. But, if some does find reference to it, I would love to see it first hand.
David A. Goldfarb
2-Oct-2014, 12:18
I can manage with this definition, though it might make the archives a bit difficult to sort out, since there has been so much crossover in the past, and some of it will be unavoidable in the future. Let's see how it goes.
Frankly I would love to see a 35mm camera with movements, ha!
Here you go: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ilford_KI_Monobar
If an image is shot on 4x5 (or larger) film but the portion of the negative used in the final crop is less than 4" in its shortest dimension, what then?
Jonathan
i know jonathan ;)
my 4x5 plates are 4x5" but my film isn't ... ( neither are my 4x5 [in camera] paper negatives )
all joking aside
it doesn't matter to me
whether i put things in a subform or the main forum, its just a heading
john
ic-racer
2-Oct-2014, 12:30
How about the Darkroom section? For example:
How to attach Omega lens to Omega B66 enlarger
I always thought it would be fun to create a challenge on the forum to make the smallest functional view-camera. Be it a group effort, or individual. But, that was years ago. I never pursued it because this was not a view-camera forum, or even a forum dedicated to view-cameras in general. At that time many of my plate cameras and view-cameras didn't exceed the 9x12cm standard. I really like the forum, but have found it restricted. Much like a cramped boat on a long journey. Things could be bigger and much better.
Here you go: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ilford_KI_Monobarhttp://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ilford_KI_Monobar
Awesome.
Look, guys, think of it this way...
Before we had an image-sharing forum for LF, and all other images were relegated to a couple of threads in the Lounge. People who used rollfilm backs on 4x5 cameras were allowed in the LF image sub-forum, but really on a technicality. There was just so much argument about the gray area that we had to be a little generous with the definition. But it still caused all sorts of problems over the last few years.
So, instead of tightening up the boundary and relegating everything else to a couple of threads in the Lounge, we have added a new sub-forum for smaller formats. This makes it possible to have all the diversity of image-sharing threads that we have in the LF image subforum--portraits, landscapes, etc., etc.--but still maintain the fundamental meaning of the forum.
Don't think of it as something that has been taken away, but rather something that has been added. Now, I can post images from my Pentax 67, or even my Canon 5D, in a regular image-sharing forum. This is actually more inclusive, but without undermining what it means to be a Large Format Photography Forum.
One of the reasons it took us weeks to work this out is because we tried several different approaches to rendering the definition. One approach was based on the camera rather than the film/sensor. There were other approaches, too. We tested each of these by writing test guidelines, which we then evaluated in terms of 1.) clarity, 2.) consistency with what users expect, 3.) brevity, 4.) consistency with the meaning of the forum, 5.) moderator consensus, and 6.) consistency with the wishes of the owner. Other approaches could be clear, but could not attract a consensus or would cut off users. Approaches that could gather consensus required paragraphs to explain clearly. Allowing everything would undermine the meaning of the forum and those who are here because of that meaning. And so on.
We ended up with this approach as performing best under all those considerations. It is based on the format used when the picture was made, not on the camera or image capture technology. What happens after the exposure is not used in the definition.
All boundaries are arbitrary. Perfection is unattainable. This is where we are.
But, like any change, it will work if we collectively make it work.
Rick "one of the 6x12 users who will now have to put those images in the new sub-forum" Denney
BrianShaw
2-Oct-2014, 12:54
Don't you mean to sign: Rick "this is a good thing" Denny?
And I don't mean that to be critical, but more to reflect how I read your posts - from the bottom up. :D
djdister
2-Oct-2014, 12:56
So, instead of tightening up the boundary and relegating everything else to a couple of threads in the Lounge, we have added a new sub-forum for smaller formats. This makes it possible to have all the diversity of image-sharing threads that we have in the LF image subforum--portraits, landscapes, etc., etc.--but still maintain the fundamental meaning of the forum.
Don't think of it as something that has been taken away, but rather something that has been added. Now, I can post images from my Pentax 67, or even my Canon 5D, in a regular image-sharing forum. This is actually more inclusive, but without undermining what it means to be a Large Format Photography Forum.
A good solution. So now the "Portland School" of work won't be relegated to a thread in the Lounge.
Thanks to Rick "Who always summarizes his main point in his signature block" Denney and all the other Moderators for your decision on this issue.
I can manage with this definition, though it might make the archives a bit difficult to sort out, since there has been so much crossover in the past, and some of it will be unavoidable in the future. Let's see how it goes.
Here you go: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ilford_KI_Monobar
I think I have been on the business end of one of those.
I think it is important as a view-camera/box-camera/folding-camera/wooden-camera/plate-camera user that I know a bit about how things came into being within the realm of photography. Doing one's own research can be a daunting task. But, believe it or not Google's free online books (https://www.google.com/search?q=Photography&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl#q=Photography&tbm=bks&tbs=bkv:r) has been a godsend. At one point my library of downloaded photography books published between ~1835 to ~1920 exceeded over 300 titles. Not a single book contained the words "large" and "format" together in referring to a large film. But that was not a surprise. But, if some does find reference to it, I would love to see it first hand.
Which is why any guideline will be arbitrary. We are trying to define what has not been defined consistently.
But camera-based definitions result in lists, and for every list there will be gaps and direct inconsistencies. View cameras have come in all formats--with "view camera" being defined as cameras where focusing and composition is done by directly viewing a ground glass. But a press or Technika-style camera, which may use a viewfinder and a rangefinder, doesn't fit that definition. But it is possible to use a press camera with directly viewed ground glass, so that's okay. But what about a ground-glass attachment on a Hasselblad? That makes it a view camera by that definition. But it doesn't have movements--let's limit it to cameras with movements. Well, that would exclude (for example) a Wanderlust Travelwide, which nobody would want to exclude. And then there's the Arcbody, which is a Hasselblad with movements and a ground-glass back. Okay, let's back up. We'll just reject reflex cameras. But what about a Sinar with a reflex viewer? Or a Graflex SLR?
There's no end to it. Every time we tried to explore camera-based boundaries, we ended up having to draw the line at nominal format size. And that line will always be arbitrary. Drawing it excludes some who feel their particular variation should not be excluded, which is why we opened another image-sharing sub-forum for other formats.
Rick "there are no straight lines through the history of camera equipment" Denney
Don't you mean to sign: Rick "this is a good thing" Denny?
And I don't mean that to be critical, but more to reflect how I read your posts - from the bottom up. :D
Funny that--I write them from the top down.
Rick "this is the end" Denney
I just measured the actual image area of a recent 4x5 negative and it comes out to 3 11/16" x 4 11/16". So are THOSE the minimum dimensions we should be talking about? If we require an absolute of 4" as the minimum "short side" dimension I'm afraid we'll become a forum for 5x7 and above.
Jonathan
The word of the day is: Nominal.
Rick "looking at what's printed on the box" Denney
How about the Darkroom section? For example: (How to attach Omega lens to Omega B66 enlarger.)
We have always allowed darkroom equipment discussions that were relevant to large-format photography. That subject is not, and we would move it to the Lounge (at least when we see it or someone complains about it).
That is still true. With the never-seen exception of an image made using a 6x6 film holder, a B66 has never accommodated the images we allowed in the LF section, and still doesn't.
Rick "sure that question can be answered just as well in the Lounge" Denney
Bob Salomon
2-Oct-2014, 13:34
Which is why any guideline will be arbitrary. We are trying to define what has not been defined consistently.
But camera-based definitions result in lists, and for every list there will be gaps and direct inconsistencies. View cameras have come in all formats--with "view camera" being defined as cameras where focusing and composition is done by directly viewing a ground glass. But a press or Technika-style camera, which may use a viewfinder and a rangefinder, doesn't fit that definition. But it is possible to use a press camera with directly viewed ground glass, so that's okay. But what about a ground-glass attachment on a Hasselblad? That makes it a view camera by that definition. But it doesn't have movements--let's limit it to cameras with movements. Well, that would exclude (for example) a Wanderlust Travelwide, which nobody would want to exclude. And then there's the Arcbody, which is a Hasselblad with movements and a ground-glass back. Okay, let's back up. We'll just reject reflex cameras. But what about a Sinar with a reflex viewer? Or a Graflex SLR?
There's no end to it. Every time we tried to explore camera-based boundaries, we ended up having to draw the line at nominal format size. And that line will always be arbitrary. Drawing it excludes some who feel their particular variation should not be excluded, which is why we opened another image-sharing sub-forum for other formats.
Rick "there are no straight lines through the history of camera equipment" Denney
Since 1980 when I joined HP Marketing as an employee we have been involved in the distribution of the following formats:
8x11
35mm
6x4.5
6x6
6x7
6x9
6x12
6x17
4x5
5x7
8x10
11.8x15.7
And of these 12 only 4 would qualify as a view camera and of those 4 one would not be in the least way portable.
And that 8x11 is in mm not inches since we were the Minox distributor in the 80's and early 90s.
And don't forget that Xact camera which was a Rollei with movements with a very wide range of lenses or the SL66 which was a reflex roll film with lots of lenses and lens tilts.
But there is still another. Novoflex makes the BALPRO T/S and the CASTBAL T/S which are tilt shift bellows which virtually any 35mm or mirrorless camera as well as most MF cameras with a focal plane shutter can be mounted to and which accept virtually any mirrorless or 35mm SLR or DSLR or RF camera lens as well as microscope lenses and many MF lenses and turms any of those cameras into a camera with T?S movements front and back. Or, as someone was mentioning earlier, into a miniature view camera.
The drawback is that you would need to use special Novoflex lenses to work at infinity but closer then infinity to macro there is almost an infinite number of lenses.
Henry Ambrose
2-Oct-2014, 13:49
This must be a good decision since more than a few people are stirred up by it.
It seems a good job of cutting the pie. Some like more crust, some like more filling. And with this new definition It seems that all were taken into account and everyone gets a slice. Having a new forum for the smaller formats is a great idea and if anyone does not want to view it they can set their preferences to ignore it. I suspect very few will do so. I never have seen why some members seemed so bothered by a few OT posts.
The new scheme is more inclusive (it really does let everyone in) but simply divides the forum into more categories. As long as this is enforced wisely and gently all will be well.
Good move gentlemen.
Jim Noel
2-Oct-2014, 13:56
I just measured the actual image area of a recent 4x5 negative and it comes out to 3 11/16" x 4 11/16". So are THOSE the minimum dimensions we should be talking about? If we require an absolute of 4" as the minimum "short side" dimension I'm afraid we'll become a forum for 5x7 and above.
Jonathan
I would love that one since when I was growing up my 4x5 was considered medium format and I yearned for the cash to buy a large format camera.
Such a first world problem this is, after I came back from a day in the woods in Maine in the fall. Get shooting, or developing, or scanning, or something.
BrianShaw
2-Oct-2014, 14:17
Since when has Maine been admitted to "first world" status? :o
jcoldslabs
2-Oct-2014, 14:44
4x5 is where we have drawn the line, Jonathan's hair-splitting exactitude notwithstanding.
I wasn't totally joking, Ken. I still have a few boxes of 10x15cm film in my freezer. 10cm = 3.94 inches. Which image sharing forum do I post those images to? I guess I'll find out when and if a moderator decides to move them. And that's fine. I learn better the hard way anyway!
I don't think I got an answer on the cropping issue. Are we still allowed in Large Format Land as long as we start out shooting on a 4x5 piece of film even if the crop we use is much less than that?
J.
I still have a few boxes of 10x15cm film in my freezer. 10cm = 3.94 inches. Which image sharing forum do I post those images to?
I'd say put them in the Large Format area. If anyone asks, you can tell them that you got special "metric dispensation" :cool:
Are we still allowed in Large Format Land as long as we start out shooting on a 4x5 piece of film even if the crop we use is much less than that?
Sticking with the 4x5 definition, my vote would be no: once we start cropping a 4x5 capture to something "much less", it's smaller than a "nominal" 4x5 negative, and belongs elsewhere on the forum. Of course, the key term here is "much less", which is subjective.
My suggestion is that if you have to ask, it's probably not Large Format and belongs in the "everything else" department.
Going forward, moderators don't want to spend time policing format issues. That's why we decided to create a reasonable definition of Large Format and refer to everything else as... everything else.
Sal Santamaura
2-Oct-2014, 15:16
...We ended up with this approach as performing best under all those considerations. It is based on the format used when the picture was made, not on the camera or image capture technology. What happens after the exposure is not used in the definition...
...Are we still allowed in Large Format Land as long as we start out shooting on a 4x5 piece of film even if the crop we use is much less than that?...
Sticking with the 4x5 definition, my vote would be no: once we start cropping a 4x5 capture to something "much less", it's smaller than a "nominal" 4x5 negative, and belongs elsewhere on the forum...Ken and Rick: you guys need to talk. :)
Tim Meisburger
2-Oct-2014, 15:16
Well, I was agreeing with everything until the last post. My understanding from Rick's post was that if it was shot on 4x5, it was acceptable if cropped. I almost always crop. :(
Sorry I really thought you were joking.
I think cropping HAS to be allowed as it is a common practice.
I wasn't totally joking, Ken. I still have a few boxes of 10x15cm film in my freezer. 10cm = 3.94 inches. Which image sharing forum do I post those images to? I guess I'll find out when and if a moderator decides to move them. And that's fine. I learn better the hard way anyway!
I don't think I got an answer on the cropping issue. Are we still allowed in Large Format Land as long as we start out shooting on a 4x5 piece of film even if the crop we use is much less than that?
J.
I agree about cropping being commonplace and normal practice, but it's a matter of degree.
Jonathan described a sheet of 4x5 film cropped-down to something "much less". The term "much less" is open to interpretation.
If our definition of Large Format excludes a 6x7 image made with a roll-film back, but allows a 4x5 sheet-film image cropped to 6x7, is that fair or consistent ?
One solution would be to extend the definition to 4x5 inches cropped by no more than x%. Is there a reasonable value for x ?
10%...
I agree about cropping being commonplace and normal practice, but it's a matter of degree.
Jonathan described a sheet of 4x5 film cropped-down to something "much less". The term "much less" is open to interpretation.
If we exclude a 6x7 image made with a roll-film back, but allow a 4x5 sheet cropped to 6x7, would that be fair or consistent ?
We could extend the definition to say 4x5 inches cropped by no more than X %, but what is a reasonable value for X ?
So 3.6 inches. Nominal. :rolleyes:
Ken and Rick: you guys need to talk. :)
Hey, I wrote my opinion first.
Rick "sticking with that" Denney
Tim Meisburger
2-Oct-2014, 16:07
I have a negative here I will print tomorrow. A group shot of the 100 delegates of the Multinational Observer Group in Fiji. When I print I will crop about three/quarters of the negative and use strips from 11x14 paper; either two or three per sheet, longways. I've already scanned the negative, and I can crop to an individual head and get quality that looks like 35mm. Its an amazing characteristic of LF!
Jac@stafford.net
2-Oct-2014, 16:08
How about total square inches? No good?
Ken and I will arm-wrestle over it. We will agree that we don't want to make or have to enforce a rule about it.
But let's just say there's not much point in hassling with large format if we are going to crop it down to 35mm. But we all crop images. If you think you've cropped it down to the point where you feel guilty calling it large format, then put it in Everything Else.
Hint: saying "I cropped this down to 1x1.5" but I can post it here. I can, I tell you!" Will be considered a sign of a guilty conscience.
Rick "seriously, use your own judgment" Denney
How about total square inches? No good?
No--that has been hashed out in the past, with no good results.
4x5 (nominal, which includes 9x12), 4" rolls, or bigger.
Rick "sticking with this line" Denney
jcoldslabs
2-Oct-2014, 16:34
My most recent post in the "Abstracts" thread was a roughly 3" x 3" crop from an 8x10 transparency. Should THAT be posted in a non-LF thread? I"m not bothered by the need to stick to the rules, I just want to make sure I know what the rules are.
Jonathan
EDIT: If I were to use Rick's "let thy conscience be thy guide" yardstick, I say a severe crop of 8x10 that nominally approximates 4x5 is acceptable. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Until we beat a confession out of you, how would we ever know.
Sal Santamaura
2-Oct-2014, 16:47
...I say a severe crop of 8x10 that nominally approximates 4x5 is acceptable. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Until we beat a confession out of you, how would we ever know.Indeed, how would we know about almost any images made on smaller format film after they've been scanned, re-sized by the forum software and displayed as (at best) 72dpi screen images. :D
Well my conscience can't be a guide, because it says that my 6x17 images taken with a view camera with LF lenses I use with sheet film that cover 5x7 inches, with 15 square inches of film exposed, is well within the confines of LF.
I'll call it split 5x7.
I gotta agree as I use sliders with LF film in studio portraits often.
Just like the olden days and my equipment is old too.
Well my conscience can't be a guide, because it says that my 6x17 images taken with a view camera with LF lenses I use with sheet film that cover 5x7 inches, with 15 square inches of film exposed, is well within the confines of LF.
I'll call it split 5x7.
Tim Meisburger
2-Oct-2014, 17:10
Well, no need to worry to much about it. If its roll film put it in the sub-forum. If its 4x5 put it in the regular forum. Lets just press on!
Tim Meisburger
2-Oct-2014, 17:21
Let me argue a little more for cropping. The ability to do extreme crops with acceptable quality is a defining characteristic of Large Format. So, a 1" by 1" crop of a 4x5 would potentially be of interest to the LF community, whereas a proportional crop of a smaller format might be a meaningless blob.
I usually prefer to carry fewer lenses, so my telephoto is often a crop. That capability is not present in 35mm and is only present to a lesser degree in medium format.
So, I argue for Denney's original definition. If it is shot on 4x5, its large format, regardless of how you print or display it. This means my 6x9 sheet film, which I shoot in my Recomar, is medium format and goes in the sub-forum, but a 6x9 crop from an 11x14 negative goes in LF. I can live with that.
Woohoo, we got a new sub-forum!
David
My most recent post in the "Abstracts" thread was a roughly 3" x 3" crop from an 8x10 transparency. Should THAT be posted in a non-LF thread? I"m not bothered by the need to stick to the rules, I just want to make sure I know what the rules are.
Jonathan
EDIT: If I were to use Rick's "let thy conscience be thy guide" yardstick, I say a severe crop of 8x10 that nominally approximates 4x5 is acceptable. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
There are no rules more deserving of being ignored than those that are base on personal whim. I would say . . . go for it.
Ken and I will arm-wrestle over it. We will agree that we don't want to make or have to enforce a rule about it.
But let's just say there's not much point in hassling with large format if we are going to crop it down to 35mm. But we all crop images. If you think you've cropped it down to the point where you feel guilty calling it large format, then put it in Everything Else.
Hint: saying "I cropped this down to 1x1.5" but I can post it here. I can, I tell you!" Will be considered a sign of a guilty conscience.
Rick "seriously, use your own judgment" Denney
I agree. If you shoot on 4x5 film but crop to the point where you have to ask, then it's probably not LF, but use your own judgement.
Racer X 69
2-Oct-2014, 18:47
I would consider both of these LF...but more than willing to play by the new rules. (Both are on 4x5 film)
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=122696&d=1412273044
Hey, there's a nekkid woman in that shot!
Nice.
Racer X 69
2-Oct-2014, 18:48
I always thought it would be fun to create a challenge on the forum to make the smallest functional view-camera.
Minox?
Racer X 69
2-Oct-2014, 18:50
Woohoo, we got a new sub-forum!
David
Unbridled optimism at its best!
I agree. If you shoot on 4x5 film but crop to the point where you have to ask, then it's probably not LF, but use your own judgement.
I agree but, if you shoot 4x5 and crop to 35mm.........something didn't happen and you may not want to share it as LF.
LF to a guy like me is.....sheet film.....as close to full frame as possible.
Michael Filler
2-Oct-2014, 20:36
What is the Large Format Photography Forum all about? - The purpose of the forum is to provide a place for discussion of topics of particular interest to large format photographers.
I completely support the above description, as I've "cropped" it. I would also include the sentence that follows, to build a knowledge base.
I was taught by a guy that photographed the midwest landscape with a 16*20 camera, using 16*20 film that he often cut down to 3*20 (central Illinois is flat, and the interesting stuff sits right on the horizon line). I think it insane to block him from posting his images because the narrow dimension is under 4".
In many ways talking about the film size is being used to classify the photographer. So if I want to save money, shoot 70mm stock in my 11*14, use all the movements needed, take into account belows factor, use the Zone System, and print my work as a contact sheet on platinum paper then this narrow definition seems to be blocking me from discussing topics of interest. The guy standing next to me using a 4*5 to take the same picture is OK, using the same techniques!?
I don't know what problem is being addressed by this new regulation. Reminds me of the US Forest Service requiring permits for still photography. And even then, the permit won't be granted unless it can ve shown that the activity does no harm.
If someone in the community can help me get a better image capture, but only if he happens to scan tbis new "backwater" then I think there is a disservice to the community as a whole.
For the record I shoot 11*14, 8*10, 4*5, 120 sq. 6*7 on my Sinar and 35mm, the latter mostly with Nikonos UW eq. I also use my phone's camera, SX70, Polaroid 600 series and 8*10 Polaroid & Impossible materials. I see a lot of the discussion as elitism.
What is the need for a narrow, exclusive definition? Am I considered a LF Photographer only when using a proscribed film in a camera of a certain type?
I agree with an earlier comment: "It's a state of mind".
gary mulder
2-Oct-2014, 21:44
It looks like the american way. Size matters most. In europe 90 x 120 mm lost the battle. For me it has always been about movements. The state of mind, not the quantity.
Pete Watkins
3-Oct-2014, 00:13
I must admit that I haven't read all the posts but can't the new thread be put into the Lounge? I don't think that it's appropriate for it to appear in the "Unified View" section.
Just an opinion.
Pete.
Images made on film whose smaller dimension is less than 4 inches, are no longer by our definition Large Format, even if they are very long in their other dimension.
There's discrimination there against 9x12cm which is the Continental European equivalent of 5"x4", modern DDS for both sizes share the same outside dimensions.
After all identical Linhof models sold in Germany and and also Zeiss, Schneider and Rodenstcock lenses were marketed as for 9x12 while in the US for 5x4.
Ian
It looks like the american way. Size matters most. In europe 90 x 120 mm lost the battle. For me it has always been about movements. The state of mind, not the quantity.
It is not "my" American way. The ability to use movements for focus and perspective control is the essence of the large format experience for me.
I believe the moderators really fumbled the ball in doubling down on film size as the "only" definition of large format. This "clarification" is both historically disruptive, in that it excludes equipment historically accepted by the forum, i.e. small 2X3 and 6X9 view and technical cameras using sheet and/or roll film, and it sets in stone, for all practical purposes, that in terms of equipment large format must be done with a sheet of film (or roll film over 4" on the short dimension that is no longer produced). And not just any sheet of film, but a sheet that has to be at least so many square centimeters or inches. By the new clarification, even a Better Light scanning device would not be called large format! Perfectly absurd. Way beyond absurd in fact.
The creation of the new image sub-forum was a good thing, mitigating to some extent the damage caused by doubling down on "size" as the primary definition. But on the whole I am profoundly disappointed with the "clarification" by this group of moderators, and believe they have done a significant disservice to the long term creative grown of the large format forum in being more exclusive. Arguments about how we can crop do not offer a good vision of the path forward in photography so far as I am concerned.
Sandy
Very valid points Sandy, I agree totally.
It reminds me of the 6x17 debate, where my 617ncamera uses the same LF lenses as my 5x4, but produces negatives too large to print with a 5x4 enlarger. Sometime there's a lack of common sense in having very rigid rules and excluding a a degree of flexibility.
Ian
Hey, there's a nekkid woman in that shot!
Nice.
In both images...:)
Only thing else I will add to the discussion is; Thank you, moderators!
Bob Salomon
3-Oct-2014, 08:14
Very valid points Sandy, I agree totally.
It reminds me of the 6x17 debate, where my 617ncamera uses the same LF lenses as my 5x4, but produces negatives too large to print with a 5x4 enlarger. Sometime there's a lack of common sense in having very rigid rules and excluding a a degree of flexibility.
Ian
Or people who use split 57 for panoramics on a 57 camera.
And I'm sorry but if we can't "discuss" this change in policy, why should we even have a post about it? This is a forum, not state-run media. 6x12 and 6x17 is large format as far as I'm concerned, considering I use a traditional LF camera for it, so, I'm giving my opinion.
To inform you of the rules of the forum, they did not as far as I can see ask for your opinion of them.
The discussion has concluded.
I don't really care. I'll give my opinion regardless.
they did not as far as I can see ask for your opinion of them.
The discussion has concluded.
This discussion continues to be quite lively and informative. We're up to 90 posts so far.
It follows in the wake of a recent discussion entitled Request clarification of large format (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?116002-Request-clarification-of-large-format) which consisted of over 200 posts.
The question of just what constitutes Large Format in general, and the purpose of this forum in particular, is not a new one.
Peter Collins
3-Oct-2014, 09:13
HEY!!
Moderators,
Thank you for your efforts on this, as well as the general work you do for the LFF.
another +1 here.
Let's get behind a camera and make some images. Enough!
Dan Fromm
3-Oct-2014, 09:28
It is not "my" American way. The ability to use movements for focus and perspective control is the essence of the large format experience for me.
I believe the moderators really fumbled the ball in doubling down on film size as the "only" definition of large format. This "clarification" is both historically disruptive, in that it excludes equipment historically accepted by the forum, i.e. small 2X3 and 6X9 view and technical cameras using sheet and/or roll film, and it sets in stone, for all practical purposes, that in terms of equipment large format must be done with a sheet of film (or roll film over 4" on the short dimension that is no longer produced). And not just any sheet of film, but a sheet that has to be at least so many square centimeters or inches. By the new clarification, even a Better Light scanning device would not be called large format! Perfectly absurd. Way beyond absurd in fact.
The creation of the new image sub-forum was a good thing, mitigating to some extent the damage caused by doubling down on "size" as the primary definition. But on the whole I am profoundly disappointed with the "clarification" by this group of moderators, and believe they have done a significant disservice to the long term creative grown of the large format forum in being more exclusive. Arguments about how we can crop do not offer a good vision of the path forward in photography so far as I am concerned.
Sandy
Sandy, you have confused me more than I thought you could.
You started this nonsense with a post asking for a more precise definition of "large format" and, by implication, of this forum's purview. I thought you were a damned fool when you started this brawl. You're even more of one for not liking what you got.
Yours in sorrow,
Dan
There are some forum members who once did, but no longer make Large Format images. They consider themselves aligned to the spirit and craft which is rooted in that practice. They would like to consider that what they make today - using rather different equipment - is still Large Format in one aspect or another. They see a continuity, a sense of tradition.
We respect that continuity and tradition. Even though there are many other venues for image sharing and discussion of photography on the internet, this forum has long allowed members to post images made with equipment that isn't Large Format. It continues to do that.
However, what distinguishes this forum from the others, is that it maintains a special "pride of place" for images made with (and discussion of) the equipment at the root of that tradition.
Edit:Ken was faster than me this time. I wrote this before seeing his message.
Okay, folks. We have heard about a hundred opinions, many of them in direct conflict with others. No matter where we draw the line, it will annoy people.
But there is no need for arguing about it. Opinions are welcome; fighting is not.
It is true that this is where we are going to be for at least long enough to see how it works, recognizing that some will be disappointed. But that doesn't mean we don't listen to those opinions, or that we will forget them if we have to revisit this again.
If you can't see that we are expanding what is shown image subforums in the regular area, well, I don't know how to respond to that. No more relegating images to the Lounge. But we give people a choice.
Making the mods out to be stupid or villainous is neither true nor charitable, by the way. It makes us grumpy.
I want to explore the notion that large format is merely a state of mind. I've made photographs in most formats at one time or another, and I've made photos using the kind of slow deliberation favored by many (not all!) large-format photographers. I've used movements, obtained one way or another, in most formats. I've done it using a darkroom, and I've done using a computer. I think I understand the state of mind argument. But no matter how deliberatively I might approach a medium-format view camera, it's still medium format. States of mind are the topics of endless arguments (and someone like Weegee would laugh at that state of mind discussion, it seems to me), because they are entirely subjective.
"4x5 or larger" is not subjective. It is indeed arbitrary, and people can debate it. But much worse would be a boundary both arbitrary and subjective--and we'd come down to just stamping our feet about it.
I think we've had enough foot-stamping.
Rick "who doesn't need approval, just cooperation and respect" Denney
Dan,
I asked for the clarification with regard to the use of digital backs. It was never my intention to bring into question the legitimacy of the use of 2X3 and 6X9 technical cameras as "large format." That seem firmly entrenched by the historical facts, which include several articles on these type of cameras and the lenses that support them in the Large Format home page, including an article by Q. T. Luong entitled "2x3 Cameras : a round-up", where it is stated, "This survey is about cameras of 2x3 format which operate like 4x5 and larger view/field cameras, with bellows, movements, and ground glass. Although technically those cameras are Medium Format, the techniques and mindset that are required to use them make them an integral part of the Large Format photography experience." http://www.largeformatphotography.info/roundup2x3.htmlAlthough
If the moderators really want to break with the history and vision of the forum so be it, but please don't blame me for the decisions they make.
Sandy
djdister
3-Oct-2014, 10:10
Ahem. Debating is all fine and dandy, but a picture is worth a thousand posts ... maybe more, adjusted for inflation.
jcoldslabs
3-Oct-2014, 10:12
If you can't see that we are expanding what is shown image subforums in the regular area, well, I don't know how to respond to that. No more relegating images to the Lounge. But we give people a choice.
I see very clearly that the sub-forum for non-LF images is expanded. But since you're soliciting opinions, I have something to say about that. :)
We now have two parallel tracks, one for LF images and one for non-LF. Sounds good. But my issue is this: there are already what I consider to be too many sub-categories in the LF area. I mean, if I have a photo of a tree alone in a landscape near some water at a high elevation, does that get posted to the "Trees" thread, the "LF Landscapes" thread, the "Water's Edge" thread or the "Photos Taken at Elevation" thread?
It's no coincidence that the "Large Format Landscapes" thread is one of the most populated and viewed threads since it casts a wide net, while the "Balloons (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?80594-Balloons)" thread has two posts in it.
My worry is that there will be a similar fracturing of the threads in the new non-LF sub-forum. If so we'll end up with 30-40 active threads with duplicate subject headings in both areas. That's a lot to keep track of, especially for someone like me who prefers to browse his subscribed threads and not use the "Unified View." (Someone already started a "Battleship" thread in the non-LF area. No offense, but I don't see that one taking off.) The appeal for me of the "Small Formats" thread in the Lounge was that it was a catch-all. One stop shopping. I like that.
So yes, Rick, you guys are offering us more real estate over which we can spread our non-LF images, but will that help the cause of actually sharing our images or hurt it?
I think I'll keep posting to the "Safe Haven for Small Formats" thread until the rest of the non-LF image sharing sub-forum settles down and the new categories have been created and seasoned a bit.
Jonathan
The now largely defunct UK LF forum has possible the best definition which encompasses slightly more than the arbitrary 4x5 which excludes the European standard of 9x12.
Their definition is: "Large format starts at 100 square centimetres" which seems a very logical and simple solution.
Moderators are forgetting that LF is not just the camera it's the equipment needed to process/output, and print (if not digital) the final images. An enlarger or scanner or even contact frame for LF is needed that is significantly larger than those with simple 345mm or 6x6 capability.
Ian
We are not excluding 9x12. It is nominally the same as 4x5. Don't make it more arbitrary than it already is.
Rick "resisting the desire of some to be too prescriptive" Denney
Their definition is: "Large format starts at 100 square centimetres" which seems a very logical and simple solution.
That has been a consideration at times, and might be again. But people stamped their feet just as much about where that line gets drawn as about where we've drawn it. It is really no less arbitrary.
Rick "not seeing that this line results in substantially different equipment than 4x5" Denney
Do the math, same same, but so square.
Jonathon, the fracturing of image threads are decisions made by the users, not by the moderators. Personally, I prefer some division so that I don't have to look through many images of no interest when in a hotel with slow Internet service or using my iPhone.
People won't agree on the balance, and the moderators have no role in how people choose threads for posting their images. We have less of a role now.
Rick "not seeing a any restriction against posting an image in two relevant threads" Denney
djdister
3-Oct-2014, 11:16
I think a type of Forum Thread Darwinism is an okay approach to take, plus it generally requires less effort by moderators in trying to herd the cats.
...including an article by Q. T. Luong entitled "2x3 Cameras : a round-up", where it is stated, "This survey is about cameras of 2x3 format which operate like 4x5 and larger view/field cameras, with bellows, movements, and ground glass. Although technically those cameras are Medium Format, the techniques and mindset that are required to use them make them an integral part of the Large Format photography experience." http://www.largeformatphotography.info/roundup2x3.htmlAlthough
As QT says, "technically those cameras are Medium Format". We agree with his statement.
We don't intend to block images or discussion related to those cameras. We just intend to adhere to his categorization when deciding in which forums those images and discussions belong.
That has been a consideration at times, and might be again. But people stamped their feet just as much about where that line gets drawn as about where we've drawn it. It is really no less arbitrary.
Rick "not seeing that this line results in substantially different equipment than 4x5" Denney
I can see the dilemma, however you (as moderators) need to come up with a solution that alienates the fewest people.
I do shoot 6x7 & 6x9 the first with a Busch Pressman the latter with an Ensign Selfix 820 I don't consider either to be LF. I do consider the 6x9 back on my Wista 45DX to be LF.
Something's missing it's not the definition of LF it's the definition of what else is acceptable on this forum, in sub forums
Suggestions:
Cameras with movements, there's only been one 35mm, press, field and technical cameras (with movements) using 120 film, ot Quarter plate.
Cameras shooting 120 films where the negative size is 6x12 or larger
Thanks Rick for clarifying that 9x12cm is accepted as being 4x5, actually the dynamics are quite different as it's a thinner longer format (when printed).
IAn
i dont understand what the problem is
the " ruling ". really doesnt change much ..
except it is more inclusive not exclusive
maybe i am wrong, but
i dont think my life will change because i post something
under a different heading ... then again maybe it will
i havent done it yet ...
Uh, I forgot, one needs to actually post images for this to matter.
My bad.
David A. Goldfarb
3-Oct-2014, 13:08
I like the example of Art Sinsabaugh mentioned above. I mean, this guy is definitely schlepping a LF camera around:
http://www.iub.edu/~iuam/online_modules/sinsabaugh/b_main.html
Even if he's cropping to 1-1/8 x 19-3/8 inches:
http://www.iub.edu/~iuam/online_modules/sinsabaugh/p_mw12.html
I like the example of Art Sinsabaugh mentioned above. I mean, this guy is definitely schlepping a LF camera around:..
"was" carrying one around. RIP 1983. Great images!
Most could post in LF -- only a few are <4" wide.
David A. Goldfarb
3-Oct-2014, 13:22
Yes, I know he died in the 1980s, but I'm thinking of the photo of him wrestling with the 12x20" camera in the present tense.
Yes, I know he died in the 1980s, but I'm thinking of the photo of him wrestling with the 12x20" camera in the present tense.
If he cropped from 12x20, do you think he'd feel guilty posting in the LF images subforum? I sure wouldn't.
But if he used a 624 back, we'd ask him to post in the other subforum. And we would hope he would do so.
Rick "who wants judgment about cropping, not rules" Denney
jcoldslabs
3-Oct-2014, 13:34
Jonathon, the fracturing of image threads are decisions made by the users, not by the moderators. Personally, I prefer some division so that I don't have to look through many images of no interest when in a hotel with slow Internet service or using my iPhone.
No decision will please everyone, of course, and I was just throwing my two cents in. As I said, I can stubbornly continue to post to the "Small Formats" thread all I want, and others are free to create a new sub-category for each photo they post if they so choose. Life goes on.
On a personal note, I have a lot of interest in seeing "images of no interest." If I only view image categories based on my known preferences, I miss out on being exposed to a lot of other good work. The catch-all threads force me to look at subject matter I wouldn't usually seek out, and for me that's a good thing. But hey, to each his (or her) own.
J.
Thanks Rick for clarifying that 9x12cm is accepted as being 4x5, actually the dynamics are quite different as it's a thinner longer format (when printed).
Sure, it's a little different. But it's the official metric equivalent of 4x5, and thus nominally the same, as far as I'm concerned.
Rick "one of those whose 612 images will now be in the new subforum" Denney
Racer X 69
4-Oct-2014, 06:52
On a personal note, I have a lot of interest in seeing "images of no interest." If I only view image categories based on my known preferences, I miss out on being exposed to a lot of other good work.
A very good point Jonathan. If one limits their viewing and reading then it limits their potential for growth. By maintaining an open perspective one may discover areas of interest that they may have never discovered otherwise.
Pete Watkins
4-Oct-2014, 07:39
If the ultimate achievement in LF photography is considered to be a contact print from the whole negative why are some Forum members into extreme cropping?
Pete.
They probably aren't, but whenever a change appears to the rules, it's natural for people to test the "boundary conditions".
The Pareto principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) suggests that we spend 80% of our time on problems which occur only 20% of the time. In software development, the numbers are often more extreme. I'm not an attorney, but it's probably the same with the Law.
when did the ultimate achievement in lf photography become a contact print?
it certainly isn't for me ...
Tim Meisburger
4-Oct-2014, 08:36
Extreme cropping? Must be me. I made a 3mm by 3mm crop today, but only digitally...
Tim Meisburger
4-Oct-2014, 08:49
The first image is a crop from 4x5 of about 3/4 inch by 5 inch (I'm second from the left). The second (Mysterious Sophie) is about 3x4mm (guess) from the same negative. My argument is that a crop like that is only possible with LF.
122766
122765
Sal Santamaura
4-Oct-2014, 09:13
when did the ultimate achievement in lf photography become a contact print?...Any response to that ought be in the form of a construction similar to Louis Armstrong's answer when he was asked what jazz is. :D:D:D
i know what you mean sal .. i guess i'll never know ;)
analoguey
4-Oct-2014, 09:34
Since we're talking about 4x5 and not being 4x5 -whats the mods take on the Fuji fp100c45? (I reckon it's LF, but if better-lights back isnt LF...?)
Since we're talking about 4x5 and not being 4x5 -whats the mods take on the Fuji fp100c45? (I reckon it's LF, but if better-lights back isnt LF...?)
FP100C45 is nominally 4x5. It says so right on the box. But FP100C is nominally quarter plate and would need to be in the other subforum.
Rick "not so difficult" Denney
Pete Watkins
4-Oct-2014, 12:47
Come on Rick, do what I suggested earlier shove this thread into the lounge and we can view it if we want to!
Pete.
But FP100C is nominally quarter plate and would need to be in the other subforum.
So now the only generally available instant film for shooting on 4x5 cameras is no longer LF?
Sorry guys, but you got this ruling all wrong. You guys should consider changing the "4-inch" rule to the longest dimension. That makes way more sense when you consider the breadth of images that are now no longer being considered LF. This would then include 6x12, 6x17, 3x4 film/instant, etc.
jcoldslabs
4-Oct-2014, 14:38
A number of members requested clarification of how the forum defines "LF" - essentially, what image formats are allowed to be posted, and where, on the forum.
For the record, the previous definitions were crystal clear and made sense to me, so I'm puzzled by the fact that the confusion of a "number of members" led to a significant rule change for all.
It's too bad there wasn't a poll taken to determine what percentage of the forum membership was unclear on the prior definitions. If it were a majority I'd eat my bellows.
Jonathan
Jac@stafford.net
4-Oct-2014, 15:10
It's too bad there wasn't a poll taken to determine what percentage of the forum membership was unclear on the prior definitions. If it were a majority I'd eat my bellows.
Jonathan
As I see it the forum is not, nor has ever been a democracy. If there is a flaw in defining large format it is trying to DEFINE it in rigorous metrics. My background in law and rhetoric suggests that specificity is the path to failure.
To fathom the issue of being nonspecific but still addressing the very heart of the matter refer to Marianne Constable's legal scholarship.
analoguey
4-Oct-2014, 15:59
FP100C45 is nominally 4x5. It says so right on the box. But FP100C is nominally quarter plate and would need to be in the other subforum.
Rick "not so difficult" Denney
Yea. It does but I thought better-light was 4x5 too.
Yes. Not about the original fp100c -thats quite smaller.
So now the only generally available instant film for shooting on 4x5 cameras is no longer LF?
Fp100c is smaller to fp100c45 -which is for the Pa45 backs.
(Or are you saying fp100c is LF? I use it w my MF - mamiya RB)
Many people here shoot the full 3x4 sheet of FP100C or 3200B in our 405 holders on 4x5 cameras.
The 4x5 size is of course discontinued!
analoguey
4-Oct-2014, 16:53
Aha! I thought only the 45 version worked in 4x5 Polaroid holders.
Thanks for letting me know!
analoguey
4-Oct-2014, 19:01
Thats the similar to the the Mamiya RB Pola backs then? (just different film opening?)
Yes, I use the RB's. My trick is to shoot heads against a black backdrop so I get a full frame print with what looks like a law of 3rds composition, if that makes sense.
I also use a different 405 on a Horseman 2x3, but that gives a full rectangle, but not full film size. Full size print/film only happens with a 405 made for 4x5 backs.
Thats the similar to the the Mamiya RB Pola backs then? (just different film opening?)
We have a whole new forum where images on 3x4 instant film can be shown, without it being relegated to the lounge.
So, why don't we go make some images with FP100C and post them.
Rick "who does still have some 4x5 Fujiroid that needs to be used up" Denney
jcoldslabs
5-Oct-2014, 00:06
As I see it the forum is not, nor has ever been a democracy.
I agree completely. Yet by the moderators' own admission it was the confusion of "a number of [forum] members" that sparked the recent changes. Thus, there is now a precedent that expressed confusion can lead to change. So perhaps if I, as a forum member, express my confusion at the current state of things, there is a chance it will change back.
;)
Jonathan
richardman
5-Oct-2014, 03:40
Basically, it has always been that 4x5 or larger is LF. The questions have always been 1) 612/617, 2) 6x9, 2x3, and 9x12. Realistically, most people are OK with #2 not being LF, with the exceptions of people who uses 2x3 with movements.
#1 has always been the problem child. Area-wise, 617 is really just about the same size as 4x5.
The previous rule basically addresses that: 617 is OK only if it's on a view camera.
This new rule simplifies it to 4x5 or larger.
It could just as well be simplified to 617 or 4x5 or larger. The moderators may huff and hum, but I do not see too many non-moderators objecting 617 regardless of cameras being called LF.
That leaves 612, but I think most people would be OK if 612 is not considered as LF.
However, this is not a democracy and the moderators do all the work, except for the guy that runs the server (I do know him personally), so that's that.
gary mulder
5-Oct-2014, 03:47
It’s reassuring that some of the people that make the rules recognize that large format in it’s essence is a state of mind. Slow photography. The product originates from the imagination. In the way AA describes as pre- visualization. For 2 decades ago the tool of the trade was a large piece of film. And as so easy identifiable. But times are changing. Obviously it’s still possible to use film. But everyone must have noticed that possibilities are dyeing down. So some people are looking for new tools to continue . To rigorous reject these attempts and place the side by side with hail shot formats is rude. In some way blinding the window that looks out into the future. Keep in mind the refusing to replace the beacon’s the island on which you stand will keep diminishing. Keep the past and stay open-minded towards the future.
analoguey
5-Oct-2014, 05:33
We have a whole new forum where images on 3x4 instant film can be shown, without it being relegated to the lounge.
So, why don't we go make some images with FP100C and post them.
Rick "who does still have some 4x5 Fujiroid that needs to be used up" Denney
:-)
Thanks for the clarification. And on making an entire sub-forum instead of a single thread available!
It’s reassuring that some of the people that make the rules recognize that large format in it’s essence is a state of mind.
Ansel Adams, Brett Weston and Paul Strand were well-known Large Format photographers who transitioned to Medium Format equipment in their later years. Even so, if they were members today, we'd ask them to post their Large Format photos in the Large Format area, and their work with other formats in the section for "everything else".
It's unlikely that their artistic vision drifted very far from their "Large Format state of mind", but their equipment did and that's the objective criteria we're working with today.
Images made with other equipment are not prohibited. They just belong in the "everything else" sections.
Jac@stafford.net
5-Oct-2014, 06:38
Ansel Adams, Brett Weston and Paul Strand were well-known Large Format photographers who transitioned to Medium Format equipment in their later years. [...]
It's unlikely that their vision drifted away from their "Large Format state of mind", but their equipment did and that's the objective criteria we're working with today. [...]
Fair enough. Is there an age restriction? Perhaps we can put ULF under forum called Fitness Training.
Darin Boville
5-Oct-2014, 12:30
Could the mods offer one small clarification of the new sub-forum? The title is "Everything else" but then the explanatory text within the sub forum says "All roll film formats (rolls less than 4" wide) and medium-format digital formats belong here, regardless of camera used." which doesn't quite match.
The above discussion shows that the Fuji instant film should go here, despite being excluded by the explanatory text, for example.
My real question, though, is on the digital side. Is this the right time to allow stitched digital images, regardless of camera used? Stitched images seem to represent the same sort of slower, more contemplative photography that is the mainstay of this forum.
Just a thought...
--Darin
StoneNYC
5-Oct-2014, 13:40
Ian me mentioned what I was thinking, I'm surprised more people haven't.
Short and sweet.
1. It's their forum, not "ours" it is what they say it is, we don't have to like it.
2. The only problem I see is with the polaroid thread which now I can't post to because I don't have the 4x5's stocked and only FP100C is available.
3. Since polaroid is "quarter plate" why not make quarter plate the drawn line?
ON THE OTHER HAND.
4. (the main idea FOCUS ON THIS) - if 4x5 inches is the rule, why not make it about total surface area and not "size" because that gets confusing. A 6x17 piece of film is still only 3.25x4.25 inches ROUGHLY (if my math is right?) in actual surface area. (I actually used a ruler not math equations).
SO why not make the rule any film who's total surface area is 20 inches (50.8cm).
This cuts out any issue with 6x12 or 6x17 etc.
PERSONALLY I think it should include quarter plate, and the definition should be any film who's total surface area is 13 inches / 35cm but then we get back to issues of roll film backs etc.
Sandy King had some good points, I remember him once saying that he doesn't personally consider anything smaller than 8x10 to be large-format (but I think that might have been a joke?).
ULTIMATELY, I really think that you should make the definition about images that are 4x4 inches, this would allow normal 4x5 shooters to crop their images square without fear of "breaking the rules" but I THINK that would allow 6x17 and not 6x12 shooters so I guess sticking to 20" total surface area is the best compromise to keep it LF and not have lots of muck and questions.
Mod's, what do you think about my logic on surface area? It clears a lot of stuff up and makes it more definitive regardless of crop "shape" this would also clear up any confusion for those wanting to post ROOUND images mimicking the original kodak ;) or oval images etc.
Surface area makes the most sense to me if you're going by size and not camera type.
Stitched images seem to represent the same sort of slower, more contemplative photography that is the mainstay of this forum.
When Ansel made his famous Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico) with an 8x10 camera (one of his most famous images), he was in such a hurry that he didn't have time to take a meter reading or expose a second sheet of film. We've probably all had a similar experience in the field.
The process wasn't slow or contemplative, but the film was 8x10. We can't divine the photographer's approach, so we have to rely on objective criteria to distinguish between Large Format and "everything else".
Please keep in mind that images made with other equipment are not prohibited. They just belong in the "everything else" sections.
It’s reassuring that some of the people that make the rules recognize that large format in it’s essence is a state of mind. Slow photography. The product originates from the imagination. In the way AA describes as pre- visualization. For 2 decades ago the tool of the trade was a large piece of film. And as so easy identifiable. But times are changing. Obviously it’s still possible to use film. But everyone must have noticed that possibilities are dyeing down. So some people are looking for new tools to continue . To rigorous reject these attempts and place the side by side with hail shot formats is rude. In some way blinding the window that looks out into the future. Keep in mind the refusing to replace the beacon’s the island on which you stand will keep diminishing. Keep the past and stay open-minded towards the future.
In addition to Ken's comments, we should recognize that there is a whole school of large-format photography that is not necessarily taking the same deliberative approach. Weegee, for example, was a press photographer, and work like his defines a genre of photographer where large-format gives it a different look, but it is still essentially spontaneous and hand-held. The interest in the Travelwide extends well beyond those of us trained and comfortable with that slow approach. Weegee would probably laugh at the notion of a "large-format state of mind". But he was still a large-format photographer.
So, we recognize and share that state of mind, but we won't try to define a boundary condition based on it. It's just too subjective, and likely no less arbitrary than where we ended up.
I agree that we have to be open-minded about the future, which is why we added a whole new image forum for non-LF images.
Rick "who considers carefully what makes this forum work uniquely among photography forums" Denney
Could the mods offer one small clarification of the new sub-forum? The title is "Everything else" but then the explanatory text within the sub forum says "All roll film formats (rolls less than 4" wide) and medium-format digital formats belong here, regardless of camera used." which doesn't quite match.
The above discussion shows that the Fuji instant film should go here, despite being excluded by the explanatory text, for example.
My real question, though, is on the digital side. Is this the right time to allow stitched digital images, regardless of camera used? Stitched images seem to represent the same sort of slower, more contemplative photography that is the mainstay of this forum.
Just a thought...
--Darin
"Everything Else" was intended to be inclusive of everything smaller than (nominal) 4x5. The examples we gave just clarified those that provide the most question in practice, rather than those thrown up in this thread where everything is being questioned. We don't want to try to provide a comprehensive list. We think everyone will know what we mean by what we wrote, once they have a chance to think it through. We don't mean equivalent area, we don't mean equivalent resolution, we don't mean whatever camera it fits in. We mean nominally (as in, what's printed on the box, or its metric equivalent) 4x5 or bigger, or 4" rolls or bigger, for the forum for posting large-format images.
Stitched digital images were not made on film or sensors nominally 4x5 or larger. They were made on smaller sensors and then stitched. Thus, they should go in the Everything Else forum. We are not opposed to those images (or any other images on small-format or medium-format roll film or digital sensors); this is just where we drew the line.
There will be fast, spontaneous photography in both forums, and slow, contemplative photography in both forums. That's too fuzzy a dimension to use for drawing a boundary.
Rick "hoping that provides clarity" Denney
Darin Boville
5-Oct-2014, 15:51
Stitched digital images were not made on film or sensors nominally 4x5 or larger. They were made on smaller sensors and then stitched. Thus, they should go in the Everything Else forum. We are not opposed to those images (or any other images on small-format or medium-format roll film or digital sensors); this is just where we drew the line.
There will be fast, spontaneous photography in both forums, and slow, contemplative photography in both forums. That's too fuzzy a dimension to use for drawing a boundary.
Rick "hoping that provides clarity" Denney
That's great and just what I suspected. I just thought the explanatory text was perfectly unclear and contradictory to what you and the other mods were saying in this thread. Looking forward to seeing a wider breath of images in the sub forum.
--Darin
P.S. I think maybe you and Ken didn't take my comment about slow, deliberate photography as I wrote it. I think everyone here is aware of the Moonrise story--which is interesting precisely because in this one instance Ansel did not adopt the slow, deliberate approach that he otherwise advocated (and, indeed, came to embody). And we all know Weegee and many others who used 4x5 press cameras. But I think it's hard to argue that the mainstay of this forum--not photography in general, not LF photography in general--but of the forum, is a mode of photography that is slow and deliberate, though I would love to see examples of other modes of LF photography posted here.
StoneNYC
5-Oct-2014, 16:57
I still say 20 inch total surface area is the way to go rather than saying 4x5.
I also don't really like that there is a 6x6 or 35mm or whatever thread area, I think it should all be shut down and only LF period. There are other forums for tiny formats, don't need it clogging up the server with non-LF stuff. Simply separating the LF area from the "everything else" and it looks more like APUG in here, they have a LF section too.
I still say 20 inch total surface area is the way to go rather than saying 4x5.
I also don't really like that there is a 6x6 or 35mm or whatever thread area, I think it should all be shut down and only LF period. There are other forums for tiny formats, don't need it clogging up the server with non-LF stuff. Simply separating the LF area from the "everything else" and it looks more like APUG in here, they have a LF section too.
Noted.
Rick "no further need to repeat" Denney
StoneNYC
5-Oct-2014, 17:20
Noted.
Rick "no further need to repeat" Denney
Whoops, sorry.
~Stone "feeling sheepish" JustStone
Making the yardstick total sq area of film doesn't work as a roll of 35mm 36 exposure > real estate of 4x5 sheet film. fwiw, I've always considered LF to start at 4x5 and up and not equipment related (I also shoot 4x5 and 8x10 pinhole with no movements). ymmv
StoneNYC
5-Oct-2014, 18:14
Making the yardstick total sq area of film doesn't work as a roll of 35mm 36 exposure > real estate of 4x5 sheet film. fwiw, I've always considered LF to start at 4x5 and up and not equipment related (I also shoot 4x5 and 8x10 pinhole with no movements). ymmv
Per single total image! Lol
photographers have taped strips of film onto holders to create a single image across x number of strips of 35 or 120.
analoguey
5-Oct-2014, 19:50
And if they're longer than 4x5 / 9x12, that strip will be an LF allowable part of the forum is how I read it.
Either way - if you're taping it together to make it near 4x5 size - it qualifies under that heading (and I dont see why anyone who's gone thr length of taping and shooting would want it to be smaller 35mm or 120 anyhow.defeats purpose of taping it.
Think I Pre-empted a ' Rick "dont need to summarise everything" Denny' comment thr. Hmm.
StoneNYC
5-Oct-2014, 21:24
And if they're longer than 4x5 / 9x12, that strip will be an LF allowable part of the forum is how I read it.
Either way - if you're taping it together to make it near 4x5 size - it qualifies under that heading (and I dont see why anyone who's gone thr length of taping and shooting would want it to be smaller 35mm or 120 anyhow.defeats purpose of taping it.
Think I Pre-empted a ' Rick "dont need to summarise everything" Denny' comment thr. Hmm.
I don't know about that, those are separate strips... Tape doesn't equal acetate base material, they are still separate strips.
That's like saying if I shoot an Octapyct using 8 2.25x3.25 sheets that this is considered LF because it's total is bigger than 4x5 but they are still separate pieces of film.
~Stone "that's just silliness" JustStone
analoguey
6-Oct-2014, 02:39
Thats mistaking the medium for the result. Taped together - the 35/120 are shot as one exposure/negative, Not stitched together from multiple exposures.
The whole is bigger than the sum of parts.
When someone tapes together strips into something 4x5 and bigger, and ends up with an image that works well enough for them to want to post it, we'll consider it then. Either way, we'll be able to see it.
But this could easily devolve to a thousand variations of "but what about...", identifying stuff almost nobody does in practice. Let's take things as they come.
Rick "hoping the theorizing stays in this thread" Denney
BrianShaw
6-Oct-2014, 09:16
ButWhatAbout#1: Does it have to be physically taped together to be considered? What about (conceptually speaking) a diptych or triptych of more-than-that-typh made of FP-100 images (made with a view camera, of course) that visually forms a singular image concept? :D
gary mulder
6-Oct-2014, 09:35
If taping together is accepted the whole exercise off intensifying the rules will be futile because obviously the whole purpose was to ban digital capture. Stitching is nothing more than the digital taping.
obviously the whole purpose was to ban digital capture
There's no ban on digital capture. In fact, there's no ban on any kind of capture as far as I know.
Images made with non-Large Format equipment are not prohibited. They just belong in the "everything else" sections.
Speaking of digital capture, I look forward to seeing more images made with the LargeSense (http://largesense.com/) 8x10 digital back. Because it has an 8x10 sensor, images and discussion related to it will appear in the Large Format section of this forum.
StoneNYC
6-Oct-2014, 12:13
There's no ban on digital capture. In fact, there's no ban on any kind of capture as far as I know.
Images made with non-Large Format equipment are not prohibited. They just belong in the "everything else" sections.
Speaking of digital capture, I look forward to seeing more images made with the LargeSense (http://largesense.com/) 8x10 digital back. Because it has an 8x10 sensor, images and discussion related to it will appear in the Large Format section of this forum.
Is that a joke? 24 frames per second 8 x 10 digital image? That can't possibly be real... Wow!
ButWhatAbout#1: Does it have to be physically taped together to be considered? What about (conceptually speaking) a diptych or triptych of more-than-that-typh made of FP-100 images (made with a view camera, of course) that visually forms a singular image concept? :D
It has to be epoxied together using black silk strips. Only JB Weld epoxy will be tolerated.
C'mon. Let's talk about real pictures, not contrived circumstances created solely to vex the moderators. Moderator-vexing is not recommended.
Rick "large-format triptychs are made with large-format materials--that's what makes them large-format triptychs" Denney
Darin Boville
6-Oct-2014, 13:31
C'mon. Let's talk about real pictures, not contrived circumstances created solely to vex the moderators.
Indeed. If we actually get so many pictures that are challenging to categorize (think Muybridge, photograms, David Hockney's photo work, etc) then, 1) That will be a great thing and fun to look at, 2) the mods can worry about that problem when it happens, and 3) it will probably happen so little that either forum will work--no need to make changes in policy--or have a huge debate--to accommodate the small number of images that we will get.
--Darin
BrianShaw
6-Oct-2014, 14:07
It has to be epoxied together using black silk strips. Only JB Weld epoxy will be tolerated.
C'mon. Let's talk about real pictures, not contrived circumstances created solely to vex the moderators. Moderator-vexing is not recommended.
Rick "large-format triptychs are made with large-format materials--that's what makes them large-format triptychs" Denney
Not contrived. I actually had one displayed in my home. It is inspired by Oliver Gagliani but not done on a single strip of film. Doesn't have black silk strips ad JB Weld, but I understand your point. I shall cease and sesist with further mod-vexing. My apologies for wasting your time (but thanks for the very creative response).
Not contrived. I actually had one displayed in my home. It is inspired by Oliver Gagliani but not done on a single strip of film. Doesn't have black silk strips ad JB Weld, but I understand your point. I shall cease and sesist with further mod-vexing. My apologies for wasting your time (but thanks for the very creative response).
The mod thanks you.
Rick "unvexed" Denney
Bob Salomon
6-Oct-2014, 15:51
When someone tapes together strips into something 4x5 and bigger, and ends up with an image that works well enough for them to want to post it, we'll consider it then. Either way, we'll be able to see it.
But this could easily devolve to a thousand variations of "but what about...", identifying stuff almost nobody does in practice. Let's take things as they come.
Rick "hoping the theorizing stays in this thread" Denney
Consider this. When I was stationed at Shaw AFB in Sumter, SC we were sent on a TDY (temporary duty assignment) to Moses Lake, WA. At the time our unit was flying 5x5" (larger then 4x5") on RF101 Voodoos. Two were sent to fly from Sumter to Moses Lake. We then printed all of the film on to roll film. Had to feather the back edges with a razor blade on all of the prints and they were then pasted together to form a continuous strip that wove around the entrance hallway to the lab, several times. Of course, while flying the route, the planes did "crab" so these strips were not straight but showed the crabbing.
So, how would this variation work? It sure used up an awful lot of man hours not to mention fuel, film, paper, razor blades and glue.
Drew Wiley
17-Oct-2014, 15:42
I generally like diptychs and triptychs more than spliced images (regardless of how they get spiced). There's something more challenging to having each component being capable of either a stand-alone image or working in sequence as a panorama. I did that once where the ideal lighting between the right and
left halves was actually twenty minutes apart. The paired combination was stunning, a splice would have been patently absurd. But if you are contemplating
splicing, guess you missed your heyday back when every movie studio and theater had some poor stiff who routinely did this.
Racer X 69
18-Oct-2014, 10:21
Wow.
166 posts and we are still beating the horse about what is and is not Large Format.
I got it after reading the very first post by Mr. Barker.
Kirk Gittings
18-Oct-2014, 10:42
Wow.
166 posts and we are still beating the horse about what is and is not Large Format.
I got it after reading the very first post by Mr. Barker.
yep.
richardman
19-Oct-2014, 00:10
Oh people get it. Some people refuse to accept it XD
It used to be that 2x3 view camera images and FP-100C images shot in a view camera were allowed in the LF works.
I'm saddened to see that is no longer the case.
Rather than becoming more and more restrictive over time I would have thought we'd become less so.
StoneNYC
22-Oct-2014, 09:25
It used to be that 2x3 view camera images and FP-100C images shot in a view camera were allowed in the LF works.
I'm saddened to see that is no longer the case.
Rather than becoming more and more restrictive over time I would have thought we'd become less so.
The FP-100C45 is allowed, as is any other 4x5 polaroid, just not anything smaller. If I had anything decent I would start a new thread on it. Alas I decided to use my only 4x5 pack in a lego camera I built with a little 5 year old instead, it took pictures but not very good ones! :)
Tin Can
22-Oct-2014, 09:34
The FP-100C45 is allowed, as is any other 4x5 polaroid, just not anything smaller. If I had anything decent I would start a new thread on it. Alas I decided to use my only 4x5 pack in a lego camera I built with a little 5 year old instead, it took pictures but not very good ones! :)
I have always found Polaroids to be only a novelty. Very few 'good' images produced over the decades. At least by me.
Perhaps we should look to statistics of active members and lurkers to see if we are diminished or enhanced by recent decisions.
Time will tell.
StoneNYC
22-Oct-2014, 10:22
I have always found Polaroids to be only a novelty. Very few 'good' images produced over the decades. At least by me.
Perhaps we should look to statistics of active members and lurkers to see if we are diminished or enhanced by recent decisions.
Time will tell.
Personally, I like it, I think that the quality of work will increase even if the quantity decreases.
I also have seen some truly fantastic Polaroid work, here in other places, particularly in 8 x 10. I would love to have the opportunity to have access to some color it by 10 Polaroid even expired, however unfortunately this also means picking up all of the extra processors etc. and it's just not worth it to me financially, but truly some amazing work can be done with Polaroid as a final product.
I also have a friend who used to work for Polaroid and he made some amazing 20 x 24 and I think 30 x 40 Polaroid images, and then get a bunch of emulsion lifts onto secondary medium.
StoneNYC
22-Oct-2014, 10:26
http://youtu.be/jIyUgm40yIY
The aforementioned video... No doubt this is large-format.
Tin Can
22-Oct-2014, 11:02
http://youtu.be/jIyUgm40yIY
The aforementioned video... No doubt this is large-format.
That's nuts!
http://youtu.be/jIyUgm40yIY
The aforementioned video... No doubt this is large-format.
Wow! That was great.
richardman
22-Oct-2014, 12:19
Crazy! But notice now the lifted print has imperfections and folds, but I guess that's what makes it even more unique and one of a kind!
StoneNYC
22-Oct-2014, 13:54
Crazy! But notice now the lifted print has imperfections and folds, but I guess that's what makes it even more unique and one of a kind!
It only has folds because he made it that way, what's the use in lifting a Polaroid emulsion if you're just going to put it back down on a different base perfectly exactly as it was? There isn't one, the folds are designed to give it some texture and to make it into artwork rather than just a photograph, they aren't a mistake nor an error.
http://youtu.be/jIyUgm40yIY
The aforementioned video... No doubt this is large-format.
Cool video. Personally I liked the original photo more than the transfer but I can see how it wcould have interesting properties, manipulating it.
Adamphotoman
25-Dec-2014, 11:01
I had not seen this. I guess my Large Format Digital scan back is really not large format as it crops a slightly smaller image. Funny though, it absolutely needs a large format camera to use it...
Actually there is no such thing as a large format digital sensor according to the rules.
Except maybe a prototype floating around somewhere.
I had not seen this. I guess my Large Format Digital scan back is really not large format as it crops a slightly smaller image. ...
We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well, regardless of technology.
"Crops a slightly smaller image" sounds like "nominal sensor size of 4"x5". I assumed you meant cropped 4x5, sorry if I am incorrect.
Adamphotoman
25-Dec-2014, 18:05
No it is 3X4 inches. Funny though, because I just produced a product shot on 8X10 sheet / 4x5 sheet and with the Betterlight. Guess which one the client chose because of res / colour accuracy and gradation of tone. Hint, it wasn't film...
Adamphotoman
25-Dec-2014, 18:55
I disagree.
Why not make the definition so that it includes cameras that have camera movements? This would then expand to 6x9 view cameras. Basically this would also exclude large roll formats like 612 and 617 unless they were taken on a view camera with movements.
Then images shot with a 45 view camera with a 612 or a 617 roll back would qualify.
I agree with Bob, and if you don't then maybe you need to go through all of the posts from the beginning and move all the [Not quite LF posts and threads] somewhere else...
BIG JOB I would think!
And if you don't then lots of confusion...especially with newcomers.
My last post comparing a few soft focus lenses was done with My Betterlight.
Even the older Post is Betterlight still the standard would need to be moved.
Kirk Gittings
25-Dec-2014, 20:01
Wow.
166 posts and we are still beating the horse about what is and is not Large Format.
I got it after reading the very first post by Mr. Barker.
just to go back a few posts.
Adamphotoman
25-Dec-2014, 20:30
Please remove every post that I have ever made.
Like Frank Petrono I am gone.
I will use my Large format Scan Back and make better images. Elswwere
Adamphotoman
25-Dec-2014, 20:56
Not turmoil,
Just leaving a family that I loved.
Sirius Glass
25-Dec-2014, 21:22
The thread did wonders for my insomnia.
You can share those image in the 'other' category, and of course continue to commune with the rest of us. Totally up to you, of course.
If you leave, I hope you find a suitable replacement for the LFPF.
And that is all we can really hope for -- to make better images!
sanking
25-Dec-2014, 21:37
Not turmoil,
Just leaving a family that I loved.
Very sorry to see you go.
What comes to mind is the great break-up song by Mindy McCready, " A girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcEGfu_a1hw
Sandy
Adamphotoman
25-Dec-2014, 21:59
Yes make better images.
I can take solace in that the Betterlight does make better images.
So do take off ALL posts...
Adamphotoman
25-Dec-2014, 22:01
Including this one pure hypocrisy
Interesting article: "36 Megapixels vs 6×7 Velvia" and 4 x 5
Adamphotoman
25-Dec-2014, 22:16
Actually most scanners have sensors smaller than 4 inches. It is only the lenses that allow them to scan LF Film. For that matter I use the Betterlight to scan LF Film.
Even Drum scanners have very small openings much smaller than 4 inches.
And if I didn't say anything you wouldn't have known.
Oh well
8 years wasted.
gary mulder
26-Dec-2014, 02:11
Yes make better images.
I can take solace in that the Betterlight does make better images.
So do take off ALL posts...
For me hanging around on forums is mostly inversely proportional to making better images. In that way the new rules helped. The bulk of my images are made with a camera capable of movements and a digital back.
Old-N-Feeble
26-Dec-2014, 08:00
It wasn't long ago that things were reversed. Those shooting digital were the oddballs and analog shooters were common. Now it's the other way around. I guess I just like being weird.
Sal Santamaura
26-Dec-2014, 09:02
Please remove every post that I have ever made...
...So do take off ALL posts...The moderators can't/don't read everything people write here. If you wish to have your posts removed, contact them either by clicking the small black triangle-with-an-exclamation-point at the lower left of either of your posts or the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page. Ask them to delete all your posts that way, if that's what you want. I'm not sure why you do, even if you're not planning to participate here any longer.
StoneNYC
26-Dec-2014, 09:17
If you don't want something posted to be permanent don't post...
If you don't shoot 4x5 or larger but still want to post and want to complain about how unfair the world is, go to APUG.
Dan Fromm
26-Dec-2014, 09:38
Stone, the APUG powers that be won't let him brag about how wonderful scanning backs are. APUG isn't the world but some could easily see it as unfair. Personally, I just follow forums' rules as best I can and don't complain about them.
Ralph Barker
26-Dec-2014, 09:46
From the Guidelines (AKA Terms of Service):
What about Intellectual Property Rights?
By submitting materials to this site, you you are representing that are you are the owner, or are authorized by the owner to do so. As a consequence, all the material posted in this site is assumed copyrighted by their respective authors, and shouldn't be reproduced without permission and proper credit by any means, including framing. The site doesn't claim copyright to any material submitted by readers. However, by submitting materials to this site, you grant an irrevocable royalty-free license to the maintainers of this site to publish that material on the largeformatphotography.info site. The maintainers of the site are not obligated to remove posted material, should you request it, but may do so if it does not conform to forum guidelines. No other rights are granted. The site will not use your materials without proper attribution to you, nor will it edit them in a way that would misrepresent your intent.
StoneNYC
26-Dec-2014, 10:19
Stone, the APUG powers that be won't let him brag about how wonderful scanning backs are. APUG isn't the world but some could easily see it as unfair. Personally, I just follow forums' rules as best I can and don't complain about them.
Oh! Haha I should have said DPUG then, hah!!
Tin Can
26-Dec-2014, 10:52
'From the Guidelines (AKA Terms of Service): ...by submitting materials to this site, you grant an irrevocable royalty-free license to the maintainers of this site to publish that material on the largeformatphotography.info site.'
+1
Don't just write here, read also.
I will try to remember that...
:)
Sal Santamaura
26-Dec-2014, 17:56
...maybe you need to go through all of the posts from the beginning and move all the [Not quite LF posts and threads] somewhere else...And if you don't then lots of confusion...especially with newcomers...I'd be thrilled if newcomers actually searched the archive, leading to a bit of potential confusion from this recent definition change, rather than blithely starting new, redundant threads. Explaining to them where things belong would be much less trouble than sifting through a cluttered archive. :D
StoneNYC
26-Dec-2014, 19:34
I'd be thrilled if newcomers actually searched the archive, leading to a bit of potential confusion from this recent definition change, rather than blithely starting new, redundant threads. Explaining to them where things belong would be much less trouble than sifting through a cluttered archive. :D
Eliminating all the non LF image threads and "everything else" entirely would make it pretty clear ;)
That combined with a simple email of introduction stating
"please do not post anything smaller than a 4x5 (this includes 6x12 and 6x17 and 2.25x3.25 sheet film and 3.25x3.25 fujiroid's etc. get it?) thanks"
This will never happen but it would make things pretty clear ;)
Adamphotoman
26-Dec-2014, 21:41
A few days ago my Large Format Digital Scan Back was accepted and guess what. Everyone was ignorant. Everyone thought YUP it is the only large format digital.
There is no such thing it turns out.
I am not going to run away with my tail between...
But I suggest manyPosts need to be moved...
I could have just kept my mouth shut. And you would have taken a lot of time to figure it out. If Ever.
AFSmithphoto
30-Oct-2015, 08:35
Well, it appears I'm quite late to this particular party, and the new change doesn't really effect me as aninfrequent poster, but I feel I must speak my piece all the same.
Considering the long history of a fuzzy definition for large format, drawing an arbitrary line about what does and does not constitute large format is no easy task. Certainly it is going to upset someone no matter where you draw it. Further, if your goal is to clarify, that line you draw had better be a clear one which includes nothing subjective.
I believe the moderators have done a fine job of achieving their stated goals. Film with a short dimension of 4" or more is large format. That is a clear line , and I think that it is a reasonable place to draw it. (Even though I'm mostly shooting 6x9 these days.)
However, though the Moderators have done an admirable job of creating a clear definition, I think this forum would have been better served if they had used their collective expertise less for creating a clear definition, and more for determining if a clear definition is actually needed.
Large format is an increasingly specialized thing. I think its fair to assume that anyone that spends time on a large format forum, would have a special respect, if not reverence for the subject. Is it not reasonable to create a place for sharing "large format" and a place for sharing "everything else" and letting each photographer to determine where each of their own images belong?
Certainly, this would lead to an occasional image posted in "large format" that the vast majority of us would agree does not belong there; which would be a shame, but what would be the consequences beyond some mild annoyance on the part of those of us that disagree with its placement?
Do the moderators feel that drawing an arbitrary line based on one dimension of the film size diminishes this forum less than some rogue images placed inappropriately?
Kirk Gittings
30-Oct-2015, 08:39
You can post images of any smaller format or even digital (and hundreds have been posted)-just not in the core forums.
Kirk Gittings
30-Oct-2015, 08:40
You can post images of any smaller format or even digital (and hundreds have been posted)-just not in the core forums. I was not in favor of these changes but it has worked fine IMHO.
Ralph Barker
31-Oct-2015, 08:52
Well, it appears I'm quite late to this particular party, and the new change doesn't really effect me as aninfrequent poster, but I feel I must speak my piece all the same.
Considering the long history of a fuzzy definition for large format, drawing an arbitrary line about what does and does not constitute large format is no easy task. Certainly it is going to upset someone no matter where you draw it. Further, if your goal is to clarify, that line you draw had better be a clear one which includes nothing subjective.
I believe the moderators have done a fine job of achieving their stated goals. Film with a short dimension of 4" or more is large format. That is a clear line , and I think that it is a reasonable place to draw it. (Even though I'm mostly shooting 6x9 these days.)
However, though the Moderators have done an admirable job of creating a clear definition, I think this forum would have been better served if they had used their collective expertise less for creating a clear definition, and more for determining if a clear definition is actually needed.
Large format is an increasingly specialized thing. I think its fair to assume that anyone that spends time on a large format forum, would have a special respect, if not reverence for the subject. Is it not reasonable to create a place for sharing "large format" and a place for sharing "everything else" and letting each photographer to determine where each of their own images belong?
Certainly, this would lead to an occasional image posted in "large format" that the vast majority of us would agree does not belong there; which would be a shame, but what would be the consequences beyond some mild annoyance on the part of those of us that disagree with its placement?
Do the moderators feel that drawing an arbitrary line based on one dimension of the film size diminishes this forum less than some rogue images placed inappropriately?
The definition we are using is: " . . . 4"x5" and larger sheet film (or the 9x12 cm metric equivalent), regardless of the style of camera being used. This is the definition we will use. We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well" - not just a short dimension of 4" or greater.
The "arbitrary" line helps establish the expectations of the primary focus of the forum, so that the primary focus doesn't drift due to interpretations based on other factors, such as the number of pixels in a digital capture, or the size of a print.
Note, however, that non-LF images can be shared and discussed in the "Image Sharing (Everything Else) & Discussion" sub-forum.
AFSmithphoto
31-Oct-2015, 13:28
The definition we are using is: " . . . 4"x5" and larger sheet film (or the 9x12 cm metric equivalent), regardless of the style of camera being used. This is the definition we will use. We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well" - not just a short dimension of 4" or greater.
Yes all of that was understood. I said in my post that you guys did a great job of setting a clear definition. My point was that perhaps too much effort was spent creating a great definition, and not enough was spent in determining if a clear hard definition was the best course.
The "arbitrary" line helps establish the expectations of the primary focus of the forum, so that the primary focus doesn't drift due to interpretations based on other factors, such as the number of pixels in a digital capture, or the size of a print.
Is debate not the purpose of a forum? Should the name of this site be changed to the "Large Format Photography Information and Definitions Council"?
Note, however, that non-LF images can be shared and discussed in the "Image Sharing (Everything Else) & Discussion" sub-forum.
Yes, that is an excellent change. My question is why bother creating a set of rules to dictate which goes where? Why not let the photographers themselves determine? Are photographers placing images in the wrong place a worse scenario than having to chase down everyone that does it wrong anyway?
To me, your regurgitation of the definition in response to my post perhaps suggests a laser focus on what the definition is, (which I stated I agree with should one have to exist), and a relative blindspot toward the larger question.
Tin Can
31-Oct-2015, 13:34
:(.
Old-N-Feeble
31-Oct-2015, 13:48
Hmm...
Your thirteen-year-old daughter asks about "rules" for dating. You give her requested rules but also tell her those rules are all highly malleable and have no consequences. Nine months later.....
The bottom line is this forum allows discussion of all format. Quite ironic really, it's just about which sub-forum you post in. I don't have a problem with that but there's very blurred edges and it needs give and take from members and moderators.
Ian
Hmm...
Your thirteen-year-old daughter asks about "rules" for dating. You give her requested rules but also tell her those rules are all highly malleable and have no consequences. Nine months later.....
my God, does this mean if I post a 35mm picture in an LF image forum, someone will get pregnant?
AFSmithphoto
31-Oct-2015, 14:14
Hmm...
Your thirteen-year-old daughter asks about "rules" for dating. You give her requested rules but also tell her those rules are all highly malleable and have no consequences. Nine months later.....
Your post would be an excellent rebuttal if I was saying "no rules for anything!"
I am not however. I am just asking if people think we needed this particular rule.
The purpose of rules is obviously to prevent unwanted consequences, as you point out.
The question I'm asking, is are the consequences this particular rule prevents actually a bad consequence? If they are, is it worse than the additional consequences the existence of the rule bring into being?
The fact that a rule is needed or appropriate in one situation is an extremely poor argument for the idea that any rule must therefore be good.
AFSmithphoto
31-Oct-2015, 14:15
my God, does this mean if I post a 35mm picture in an LF image forum, someone will get pregnant?
Wish I'd seen this before I posted.
Its a much better reply than mine was.
And I might have added:
"Yes it does. And if you post a shot from an iphone she'll have twins!"
Old-N-Feeble
31-Oct-2015, 14:17
my God, does this mean if I post a 35mm picture in an LF image forum, someone will get pregnant?
Yes, and advise your young daughters to keep their shutters closed and never overexpose. They don't want anything getting past those apertures before the appropriate time for exposure and development.
Really, the whole concept of this forum from its conception is all about LARGE FORMAT photography. And APUG... is all about ANALOG photography. Both of these forums guard and moderate those concepts appropriately. Otherwise, EVERYONE'S daughters will become pregnant from total lack of respect for the RULES.
rdenney
31-Oct-2015, 15:27
With respect to my colleague, this has already been deeply discussed and a matter of much debate, with the general membership and among several combinations of moderators. We needed the rule because lacking it was causing forum drift that was being aggressively promoted or bitterly resisted by some. The notion that we didn't need this clarification defies what we were experiencing at the time, and have not experienced since to nearly the same degree. Let's not relitigate it.
Rick "not noticing a desire by the mods here to make new rules without need" Denney
richardman
1-Nov-2015, 01:32
my God, does this mean if I post a 35mm picture in an LF image forum, someone will get pregnant?
True statement! Someone is getting pregnant RIGHT NOW, and NOW, NOW, NOW... so whatever you do, someone will get pregnant.
Old-N-Feeble
1-Nov-2015, 10:57
This is a Large Format photo forum... always was... always will be. Check the web address if you don't believe me.
Kirk Gittings
1-Nov-2015, 11:30
With respect to my colleague, this has already been deeply discussed and a matter of much debate, with the general membership and among several combinations of moderators. We needed the rule because lacking it was causing forum drift that was being aggressively promoted or bitterly resisted by some. The notion that we didn't need this clarification defies what we were experiencing at the time, and have not experienced since to nearly the same degree. Let's not relitigate it.
Rick "not noticing a desire by the mods here to make new rules without need" Denney
Agreed. This ship has sailed and we are in the fair wind IMHO.
Taija71A
1-Nov-2015, 13:50
Re: Upcoming changes in the FS/WTB forum, Part II (*Closed Thread).
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?124027-Upcoming-changes-in-the-FS-WTB-forum-Part-II/page3
>> Sounds like it's time to take all the round II comments back to the bat-cave, make sure we've fully digested them, and then report back the plan. Thanks, and stay tuned (26-Jul-2015, 01:24).
___
Question:
Since this Thread is also speaking about 'LF Clarification'...
I was just wondering...
Are Batman and Robin still all 'Huddled Up' in the Batcave -- Three (3) Months later?
Or... Did I perhaps just miss the 'Updated' Plan?
Thank-you! Just curious...
Best regards, -Tim.
__________
Jac@stafford.net
1-Nov-2015, 14:09
Are Batman and Robin still all 'Huddled Up' in the Batcave -- Three Months later?_
Not a pretty picture. Throw some cold water on 'em.
No, this is entirely my fault. My life has been so complicated for a couple of months that I haven't done my part in reviewing and supporting the consensus of the moderators.
Rick "getting pulled in many directions" Denney
Taija71A
1-Nov-2015, 22:15
Thank-you!
No problem... Understood in full. That all makes 'Perfect Sense'.
“There are only the pursued, the pursuing, the busy and the tired."
~~ F. Scott Fitzgerald. ~~
;)
richardman
1-Nov-2015, 23:13
Since there really shouldn't be any debates any more, why not just close the thread so the zombie doesn't wake up every so often?
StoneNYC
2-Nov-2015, 08:16
Since there really shouldn't be any debates any more, why not just close the thread so the zombie doesn't wake up every so often?
+1
...before I start vying for 5x7 and up to be the new threshold and 4x5 to be back to being considered medium format like it used to be pre-Linhof :whistles: :munch: :cool:
Since there really shouldn't be any debates any more, why not just close the thread so the zombie doesn't wake up every so often?
Rick "good idea" Denney
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.