dealing with medium format technical cameras here in the Forum

[Xipho]

i would opt that you make a own part besides the Lounge for medium format cameras, that are to be used like LF cameras, but have 6x9 backs, like technika and technikardan.

This cameras will often serve as starting drugs for LF, and when you bury this topics in the strange lounge mix where nobody finds it you miss chances for promoting LF...

Big disadvantage of the lounge is that is is not showed to non-members. So you maybe miss the people that start with technical cameras in 6x9 because of the film they are used to, not sheet film.

For these baby technical cams there is no home in the internet.. in apug they are buried among the Hasselblads and rolleis, and here they are into "non-photo-topic...

if you start with such cameras, you have the knowledge for this cameras here, and nowhere else, and you miss a chance for new forum members...b especially because the lounge is hidden to visitors...

[Dan Fromm]

Harald, this is an old discussion that has been settled. We're in a large format (4x5/9x12 and larger) forum. After lengthy and tedious discussions medium format cameras, here mainly press, technical and view, have been banished to the lounge.

I have a couple of 2x3 (sold as such) view cameras and a small heap of 2x3 (sold as such) press cameras. I also have a 4x5 view camera that I use with a 6x12 roll holder. If I were king this forum's rules would be somewhat different but I'm not king and I can live with the rules as they are. You can too. I'm fed up with interminable wrangling about rules and with fools who reopen the wrangles.

You're mistaken about APUG, people talk about 2x3/6x9 press, technical and view cameras in that board's LF section. They talk about fixed lens 2x3/6x9 folders in that board's MF section. But unlike this forum, APUG is not primarily for view camera users.

As for non-members, screw 'em. Membership here is free and open to all. People who want to participate here have no reason not to join.

[Louis Pacilla]

Harald, this is an old discussion that has been settled. We're in a large format (4x5/9x12 and larger) forum. After lengthy and tedious discussions medium format cameras, here mainly press, technical and view, have been banished to the lounge.

I have a couple of 2x3 (sold as such) view cameras and a small heap of 2x3 (sold as such) press cameras. I also have a 4x5 view camera that I use with a 6x12 roll holder. If I were king this forum's rules would be somewhat different but I'm not king and I can live with the rules as they are. You can too. I'm fed up with interminable wrangling about rules and with fools who reopen the wrangles.

You're mistaken about APUG, people talk about 2x3/6x9 press, technical and view cameras in that board's LF section. They talk about fixed lens 2x3/6x9 folders in that board's MF section. But unlike this forum, APUG is not primarily for view camera users.

As for non-members, screw 'em. Membership here is free and open to all. People who want to participate here have no reason not to join.

I agree w/ all points Dan has made above.

Thanks Dan.

[Xipho]

I agree w/ all points Dan has made above.

Thanks Dan.

but even 9x12 is not large format here, as i learned yesterday...

I dont want to have the smaller technical cameras in the LF part, but If it stays buried in the lounge you will miss chances and for me it is better to leave the forum.

[Jac@stafford.net]

but even 9x12 is not large format here, as i learned yesterday...

Please revisit the thread. The moderator admits his bad call on that. 9x12cm is large format.

[rdenney]

but even 9x12 is not large format here, as i learned yesterday...

Not so. That was a mistake on the part of a new moderator who had not seen where we considered 9x12 as the metric equivalent of 4x5. That mistake was corrected and the action undone.

And then we more seasoned mods were rightly chastised for not making it clear in the guidelines, which we will do in the fullness of time.

Rick "the line has to be drawn somewhere given that not all view cameras are large format, and not all large format cameras are view cameras" Denney

[Corran]

Please revisit the thread. The moderator admits his bad call on that. 9x12cm is large format.

Yes, and good on them for doing so. Let's get that added to the "official rules" under the FAQ section so it's codified and can be referenced for new folks and regulars alike.

Edit: I see Rick has already mentioned above about adding it to said guidelines. Thanks!

[Doremus Scudder]

Xipho,

Any question you have about view camera movements, bellows extension, film holders, ground glass, etc. that applies to 4x5 or larger cameras you can simply ask as such. Just substitute "4x5" for "2x3" or whatever.

Questions about roll film backs for 4x5 cameras (which you may have on your smaller cameras) likewise.

Questions like these are generic and can be asked and answered in the appropriate large-format sub-forum.

Topics specific to the smaller camera (I can't think of any right off hand...) will have to stay in the lounge. If that doesn't serve you well enough, you'll just have to start your own forum...

Best,

Doremus

[vinny]

Large Format Photography Forum.

[Xipho]

Large Format Photography Forum.

so I should just pretend an imaginary Super Technika 4x5 and everything is fine...

I just make a point that it would be a good thing for a LARGE FORMAT forum to look a little bit to cameras that are like LF cameras only a little bit smaller.

It is even more strange, that this forum does not allow discussions to 6x9 backs for LF cameras. These threads are all moved to "loung" Thats absolutely weird. If I deal with a tyoe of camera, I have to cover them completely. So the Format size seems more like a religion here..

If I have a rollexflex (eg in apug in the MF forum) and I have a question about the 35mm film insert, It is not moved to 35mm section...

[vinny]

Yes pretend. If i attach a macro rail/bellows to my nikon slr, it looks like a LF camera. It isn't but I tell everyone it is.
You're new to the forum, you'll get over it.

[IanG]

Formats can be a grey area.

There's a format larger than 6x9 that's close to 9x12 - Quarter plate and it's not medium format. A very common field camera format before WWII here in the UK, there were also many SLRs as well, it continued in the US after WWII with the smaller Century Graphic cameras.

Then there's the Postcard sized 3½ x 5½ Compact Graflex (and similar camera) but as this format is longer than 9x12 it fits the rules here. In fact a modern 5x4 or 9x4 DDS (film holder) fits with very slight modification.

Ian

[IanG]

Yes pretend. If i attach a macro rail/bellows to my nikon slr, it looks like a LF camera. It isn't but I tell everyone it is.
You're new to the forum, you'll get over it.

There was the Ilford/kennedy Instruments (http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ilford_KI_Monobar) 35mm monorail camera.

Ian

[Dan Fromm]

If I have a rollexflex (eg in apug in the MF forum) and I have a question about the 35mm film insert, It is not moved to 35mm section...

Different forums, different rules. This forum is its owner's hobby. APUG is its owner's livelihood.

[rdenney]

We have gone back and forth over the years, making exceptions for this camera or that, trying to decide if we were a view-camera forum or a large-format forum. We discovered that any line is arbitrary, but there was a clearer boundary between formats than between cameras. If we are going to be arbitrary anyway, we can at least be as clear as possible.

Rick "who used to post 6x12 images but does no longer" Denney

[Kirk Gittings]

Any question you have about view camera movements, bellows extension, film holders, ground glass, etc. that applies to 4x5 or larger cameras you can simply ask as such. Just substitute "4x5" for "2x3" or whatever.


Yes it comes down our version of political correctness :)

[IanG]

The 9x12/5x4 size is a clear cut boundary, the same external size International DDS film/plate holders after WWII. There's very few of us using quarter plate cameras, film's only really available by special order through Ilford's annual ULF run and quite expensive anyway so it's no big deal here on this forum.

Ian

[Kirk Gittings]

As Petronio showed us when I was a moderator, it's based on what you call something-not what it is always. He was posting cropped 4x5, small format and even digital occasionally with a full 4x5 rebate pasted on in PS in the LF threads. I have a pretty keen eye I think for whether a posted image is scanned film, scanned print or digital capture as I do and teach all methods, but so what? I've seen here, what I am pretty sure, is digital capture presented as LF film. But proving it is a waste of energy.

[StoneNYC]

I can't speak for anyone but me, but I joined the forum when I was only shooting 6x7.

It never even occurred to me to look for or shoot anything smaller than 4x5.

What's then point, there's no serious advantage, you don't get more detail, you maybe get more movements than many 120 cameras but the developing is more difficult with specialty old equipment.

I don't see smaller than 4x5 to be any kind of gateway to LF, it's more expensive and more complicated than 4x5.

The film costs more and is harder to come by.

So the argument that they could be gateway formats is negligible.

Anyway just one person's perspective.

[Kirk Gittings]

Stone........dude........who is debating the benefits of shooting LF vs. MF? The only question here is what is allowed in the main forum and the history of that.

[paulr]

As Petronio showed us when I was a moderator, it's based on what you call something-not what it is always.

And in this case, what-it-is is based on what-you-call-it. "Large format" has never been a fixed definition. Once upon a time 4x5 was small format. Now we act like it's large format, as if the definition had been handed down by Zeus.

For all practical purposes, I think medium format technical cameras with digital backs are large format. I know that's a minority opinion. I just suspect that this opinion is based on prejudice rather than experience. People I know who's use these cameras describes them as fussier, slower, and harder to focus than 8x10. And in practice the results are as good or better than anything else I've seen, so I'm not sure what the protests are actually about.

(If they're about young upstarts with digital tech cameras taking over the forum, people really need to chill out. Not many people on planet earth can afford to use this stuff. I certainly can't. But I do enjoy learning about the technology)

[Corran]

I'm not sure what the protests are actually about.

I think the majority of it comes from the anti-digital brigade. Just look at the arguments that the forum should be film only.

[StoneNYC]

Stone........dude........who is debating the benefits of shooting LF vs. MF? The only question here is what is allowed in the main forum and the history of that.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear, my point was that it's not necessary because most people who would be shooting those obscure less-than-4x5 formats aren't a draw (or gateway format) and therefore don't need to be outside of the lounge. The OP was using the "gateway" idea as an argument for why it should be outside the lounge.

[Oren Grad]

For all practical purposes, I think medium format technical cameras with digital backs are large format. I know that's a minority opinion. I just suspect that this opinion is based on prejudice rather than experience. People I know who's use these cameras describes them as fussier, slower, and harder to focus than 8x10. And in practice the results are as good or better than anything else I've seen, so I'm not sure what the protests are actually about.

You don't even have to go to the technical cameras. My view, based on experience of using digital cameras with a wide range of specifications and working with the files to make prints, is that if the point is to make big prints and/or meet exceptionally demanding standards of print quality and character, a high-MP DSLR can demand levels of both capture and processing discipline that match or exceed those required by LF, though the practical details of what "discipline" means will necessarily differ in many respects. Every shortcoming in optical quality or shot technique is magnified; pixel-peep the results and suddenly depth of field vanishes as the size of the perceptible circle of confusion heads toward zero.

But this is a "Large Format Photography" forum, not a "High-Resolution Photography" forum or a "Photography with Cameras that are Exceptionally Demanding to Use" forum.

[Dan Fromm]

FWIW, folks, the French LF forum solved all this by calling itself the high resolution photography forum.

[StoneNYC]

FWIW, folks, the French LF forum solved all this by calling itself the high resolution photography forum.

That would mean those with a 50mp digital 35mm or 80mp digital MF back could post images etc, which would defeat the purpose of this forum.

[paulr]

You don't even have to go to the technical cameras. My view, based on experience of using digital cameras with a wide range of specifications and working with the files to make prints, is that if the point is to make big prints and/or meet exceptionally demanding standards of print quality and character, a high-MP DSLR can demand levels of both capture and processing discipline that match or exceed those required by LF, though the practical details of what "discipline" means will necessarily differ in many respects. Every shortcoming in optical quality or shot technique is magnified; pixel-peep the results and suddenly depth of field vanishes as the size of the perceptible circle of confusion heads toward zero.

But this is a "Large Format Photography" forum, not a "High-Resolution Photography" forum or a "Photography with Cameras that are Exceptionally Demanding to Use" forum.

I would agree with this, and would not be lobbying to include work with high res dslrs (which I happen to use for just about all my work now). But it seems to me that a technical camera is a kind of ultra-fussy view camera, with all the attendant qualities and concerns of a view camera, plus a whole lot more. And that the only thing keeping a PhaseOne back from being considered large format is a completely arbitrary line in the sand measured in square millimeters.

I don't have a pony in this race, not being a user of these cameras. But I do think that the forum would be a richer place if it included discussion of these things. It would likely be a very small minority of users, and the information exchange could helpful to everyone.

[Oren Grad]

Paul - that is a reasonable way to look at it.

Again speaking for myself, I think that the specialty end of digital capture is well served by LuLa and GetDPI, with the caveat that I haven't checked in to the LuLa forum in a while and don't have a feel for how the discussions there are currently going. I'm also pretty risk-averse when it comes to messing with the boundaries here, as such changes can sometimes go badly awry, and my first priority is sustaining those aspects of our mission that are distinctive and aren't served in the same way anywhere else.

[jcoldslabs]

Personally, I'd prefer this place to be a view camera forum, which would include the cameras Paul is talking about but ecxlude DSLRs.

But that dead horse has sailed.

Jonathan

[StoneNYC]

Personally, I'd prefer this place to be a view camera forum, which would include the cameras Paul is talking about but ecxlude DSLRs.

But that dead horse has sailed.

Jonathan

And then graflex D and speed graphic and pinhole and such would all not be included. ;)

[Corran]

I believe the intent behind Paul's statements and others is the inclusion of "view cameras" of any type, in addition to the nominal 4x5 or larger size criterion.

[Michael R]

FWIW, folks, the French LF forum solved all this by calling itself the high resolution photography forum.

What? That makes no sense.

[Dan Fromm]

What? That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense to me. I'm sorry that you don't get it. It is focused on ends, not means.

If nothing else, the French approach avoids the pointless boundaries and stupid wrangling we insist on.

[neil poulsen]

I have a couple of medium format view cameras, and I enjoy that kind of photography.

But I think what draws photographers or photo enthusiasts (and me) to large format photography, is the detail and rich tonalities that can result from 4x5 (9x12) and larger format films. So as a group, the moderators have decided to emphasize images, equipment, and methodologies for those larger format films.

If I may add, medium format films are called "medium" for a reason. ;)

[jcoldslabs]

And then graflex D and speed graphic and pinhole and such would all not be included. ;)

Perhaps a sheet film forum, then?

J.

[StoneNYC]

Perhaps a sheet film forum, then?

J.

Wet plate, tintype, autochrome, paper then would be excluded ;)

[Michael R]

It makes perfect sense to me. I'm sorry that you don't get it. It is focused on ends, not means.

If nothing else, the French approach avoids the pointless boundaries and stupid wrangling we insist on.

Incorporating anything about resolving power into a definition of LF makes no sense. Talk about wrangling. The arguments about what what constitutes high resolution would never end.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Incorporating anything about resolving power into a definition of LF makes no sense.

Good comment! Look to the works of our friend Jim Galli to make that so.

[Michael R]

Is that sarcasm? (apologies if it isn't). I don't know the person you're referring to.

I just don't see how you can possibly set any boundary whatsoever on format size based on resolution.

[Lachlan 717]

Why do we continue to grease the squeaky wheel of new members coming here and complaining that the Forum doesn't suit their narcissistic desires?

[Dan Fromm]

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

[RSalles]

Let me say this: for the large format fitting rules, the image would have to be made using AT LEAST one LF characteristic or procedure:
If:
- Longest film side size: not shorter then 4" or 101 mm,
- Camera has some movement capabilities as shift or tilt or both,
- Camera has to have a bellows
- The image have to be processed with chemicals at some point - out digital from start to end.
- Lens has a covering power equal to or greater then 9x12,

... then, if any of the points are cover the image or thread submited could be permitted.

About the digital large format et all, there is few digital backs in the planet capable of 101mm in the longest side an none in the photo industry.
At the foundation date of the LFPF there was nothing even close to a LF photo sensor size, and I suggest when this day arrives the forum changes its name to Large Format Analog Photography Forum, and open an area named "Safe Heaven for Digital Photo".
The reason in simple, the working approach with digital and analog being different in the image making, there is already a myriad of good Internet forums on the planet where one can call for help or share its pictures, and I can strongly recommend some of them which I'm proud be part of: Manual Focus lenses, Luminous Landscape and Fred Miranda.com.
As photographers, we have to keep the thing in focus,

Cheers,

Renato

[Tim Meisburger]

I think if the x axis were divided by the y and doubled equaled the square root of ....

Oh screw it. Think I'll go shoot.

[jcoldslabs]

Wet plate, tintype, autochrome, paper then would be excluded ;)

This is why I think it makes more sense to define what is and isn't large format based on camera parameters regardless of imaging material.

J.

[rdenney]

Let me say this: for the large format fitting rules, the image would have to be made using AT LEAST one LF characteristic or procedure:
If:
- Longest film side size: not shorter then 4" or 101 mm,
- Camera has some movement capabilities as shift or tilt or both,
- Camera has to have a bellows
- The image have to be processed with chemicals at some point - out digital from start to end.
- Lens has a covering power equal to or greater then 9x12,

... then, if any of the points are cover the image or thread submited could be permitted.

About the digital large format et all, there is few digital backs in the planet capable of 101mm in the longest side an none in the photo industry.
At the foundation date of the LFPF there was nothing even close to a LF photo sensor size, and I suggest when this day arrives the forum changes its name to Large Format Analog Photography Forum, and open an area named "Safe Heaven for Digital Photo".
The reason in simple, the working approach with digital and analog being different in the image making, there is already a myriad of good Internet forums on the planet where one can call for help or share its pictures, and I can strongly recommend some of them which I'm proud be part of: Manual Focus lenses, Luminous Landscape and Fred Miranda.com.
As photographers, we have to keep the thing in focus,

Cheers,

Renato

There are arbitrary boundaries in what you wrote, too. Firstly, we are not specifically concerned about film versus digital, and thus your requriement for a chemical step imposes a boundary we do not have. The Wanderlust Travelwide, about which we have been enthusiastic on this forum, does not have bellows or movements. It is a point-n-shoot--there is no practical ground-glass viewing (which is what would make it a view camera). But we allow it because it is large-format. That is not the only such camera ever made that had no bellows or movements, of course.

As I said, whether the line is in the right place to a given person depends on whether their ox is being gored. Dan works with 2x3 using view cameras and, one supposes, sheet film. I do a lot with roll-film adapters on a 4x5 camera. But allowing an exception for Dan or for me that does not also allow an exception for, say, a Hasselblad Arc-Body with a ground-glass adapter isn't as easy as you think. One ends up just listing which cameras are acceptable and which are not, and that list would grow endlessly and still be hopelessly arbitrary. There are just too many variations. And it leads to distortions, such as allowing 2x3 sheet-film view camera discussions, but not allowing 6x17 fixed-body camera discussions. A lot of hard feelings resulted from those discussions.

For those who think it was a film-dominated or anti-digital decision, that is incorrect. But I think it's fair to say that large-format is a film-dominated medium, because nobody has yet made a large-format sensor (excepting that emerging 8x10 sensor, which has been discussed here without hindrance). That's not our fault! If we downgrade the definition because the medium-format sensors are really, really good, then we'll have to downgrade it further now that 35mm sensors are really, really good. We'd become the "Whatever Forum".

It has nothing to do with the fact that many pros have switched to small and medium-format digital for their paid work (I only occasionally do paid work, but I do it with digital, too). It is not about image quality, end result, difficulty, thought process, digital versus analog, resolution, state of mind, workflow, inclusiveness, exclusiveness, camera type, or any of the other arguments people make justifying format decisions. It's about inches--4 on one side and 5 on the other, or more. But, because we didn't want to close the door on great image-making, we still allow images from smaller cameras to be posted in their own image forum. Discussions about those cameras can still be pursued in the Lounge. This is the compromise, but we are a large-format forum first and last.

Rick "it's about format" Denney

[rdenney]

Why do we continue to grease the squeaky wheel of new members coming here and complaining that the Forum doesn't suit their narcissistic desires?

Because we are not Reddit.

Rick "meta-thread alert" Denney

[Dan Fromm]

Rick, just to be clear I don't want an exception to be made for 2x3 or 6x12. Making one won't improve my life or this forum in any way.

What I want right now is that the peanut gallery will shut up and get on with trying to be good photographers. I wish they'd learn the difference between the sideshow and the center ring.

I think that your concern about this turning into the 'whatever photographic forum' is misplaced. The French LF forum hasn't turned into one yet.

[Sal Santamaura]

...What I want right now is that the peanut gallery will shut up and get on with trying to be good photographers...Won't happen as long as the moderators keep "coddling" them. Less moderate moderating would be more efficient. ;)

[ic-racer]

Personally, I'd prefer this place to be a view camera forum, which would include the cameras Paul is talking about but ecxlude DSLRs.

But that dead horse has sailed.

Jonathan

I have mentioned that many times in the past. "Large" is an ambiguous term, always has been and always will be. "View Camera" is clearly defined. What I will never understand is why, with all the digital crap on the internet, do people want to come here and discuss it in a forum based entirely around film cameras.

[RSalles]

Rick,

I understand your point of view, and hope you don't misunderstand mine. Me too I shoot digital for working, assignments, etc, with a full frame digital camera, but the main purpose to come to the forum is to deal with LF photo - last week I acquired from a member a Baby Speed Graphic camera, and I have maybe 4 graflex roll film backs which I eventually use with my Sinar F2 view camera, and the only difference in the workflow I follow with a medium format view camera would be restricted to a different back and another developing tank. Just that: same chems, enlarger, etc.
That said, it's a lot more easy to me to maintain digital and analog each one with its own working space than to have both mixed, even if at certain point we'are forced to follow the hybrid path, scanning the prints or negatives; and I'm already aware that without it we hadn't have any pictures to share - a forum being a digital medium after all.
It's not a matter of any sort of analog credo, but only different workflow.
Oranges & apples, we can enjoy both, but I don't mix it, but it's only my taste,

Cheers,

Renato

[cikaziva]

for me there is a clear line and that line is in how we use them. shooting multiply frames on a single film strip is one ball game and shooting sheet film, plates, papers... all different ballgame. i have 6x9, 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 view cameras and aside in film size i consider them same in nature. is shooting Linhof technika Master V 23 rally different form shooting Linhof technika Master V 45? not to me! in a same way as shooting Hasselblad and Nikon F2 are same to me. Yes film size has its calling but we cant say that shooting Hasselblad and shooting Tehnikardan 23 is the same thing! again IMHO 23 view cameras are compact LF and as such should be in a same basket as big relatives. 20 and some years ago, when i was in school, on of my professors didnt want to accept some work i shoot on 6x17, his explanation was: this is a LF shot on roll film! i event showed him Linhof 617, explained that its not a view camera but simple point and shoot of a sort... nop for him that was LF!

[rdenney]

I have mentioned that many times in the past. "Large" is an ambiguous term, always has been and always will be. "View Camera" is clearly defined. What I will never understand is why, with all the digital crap on the internet, do people want to come here and discuss it in a forum based entirely around film cameras.

There are many large-format cameras that are not view cameras. I've already described one such, but there are many others.

Rick "we've been down this road before" Denney

[rdenney]

Okay, everyone has had their say, but there will be no changes to this forum definition. We consider such changes every half-decade or so (part of moderating moderately), and the current one is not even a year in place.

Rick "respectfully closed" Denney