so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"? [Archive]

al olson

30-May-2007, 17:38

It is interesting how definitions change with time. During the 50s and early 60s, I never heard the term "large format" used for anything smaller than 8x10, ... well maybe (???) sometimes for 5x7.

The 4x5 and 6x9 (2 1/4 x 3 1/4, if you will) were referred to simply as "press cameras", and 35mm was "miniature" format. Kodak's Dataguide on Lenses (1946) even refers to the Kodak Ektra and the Bantam as being miniature cameras.

I do not recall any of the roll films, 118, 120, 620, 122, 124, 127, 130, 116, 616, or 828 sizes ever being referred to as "medium format". News editors at the time were adament that photography had to be done with a press camera and these other formats were not considered serious contenders. Hasselblad and the other serious medium format cameras were successful later on.

One of my colleagues did manage to convince our editor that his photos were just as good with his TLR Rolleiflex, thereby saving money on materials. [Back in those days we were paid $3 for an 8x10 non-action photo and $5 for an action (sports, fires, accidents, etc.) photo. We purchased our own supplies and did our own darkroom work, so the editor only saw the final print.]

In just a year or two, ca. 1960-1961 as I recall, the Leicas and Nikons suddenly began to emerge as the cameras of choice for journalism, displacing the bulky press cameras for handheld work.

Somewhere along the way, the 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 press camera seems to have become lumped in with the other large format cameras, at least as far as the photo magazines and camera stores are concerned. I believe this has more to do with its press functionality and resemblence to the 4x5.

I like to shoot with all sizes and do not see that it is worth splitting hairs over these classifications. They all use sheet film and are operated in a similar manner. I have no quarrel with considering 4x5 to be large format. Compared to the subminiature chip that digital uses, 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 appears to be headed to a large format classification as well.

John Kasaian

30-May-2007, 18:12

In dog years its ULF! :)

Ron Marshall

30-May-2007, 18:50

Medium Large.

Pete Watkins

31-May-2007, 02:23

If I use my 6x9 rollfilm back on my 4x5 Wista does that make it a medium format camera. Of course not! I see your 6x9 as a large format camera.
Best wishes,
Pete.

David A. Goldfarb

31-May-2007, 03:44

If I shoot rollfilm on one of my LF cameras, I usually say I'm shooting medium format with a LF camera.

Bill_1856

31-May-2007, 04:18

This is silly. "Large Format" is a state of mind, not a film size.

Greg Lockrey

31-May-2007, 04:24

This is silly. "Large Format" is a state of mind, not a film size.

WEALTH is a state of mind.:D "Large format" is just the size of your tool.

Aender Brepsom

31-May-2007, 07:04

Pete, you've got a good point here.

There are 4x5" backs for 6x9cm cameras (for example for the Horseman VH), so it works the other way round too.

For me, my 6x9 Ebony clearly is a "large format type camera" because it works just like one, except for the costs per shot. For my purposes, its film size is large enough, and that is all I care about. Just enjoy it ...

J Peterson

31-May-2007, 07:36

no :p

Rider

31-May-2007, 07:44

I love the different approaches taken to answering this question. Shows that we're all looking at a different ground glass (and some of us can't take our eye off of it)! :rolleyes:

Andrew O'Neill

31-May-2007, 07:49

Can your 6x9 adapt to shoot 4x5 full frame? Then I would consider it LF. Which camera do you have?

Alan Davenport

31-May-2007, 12:14

This is silly. "Large Format" is a state of mind, not a film size.

Gotta disagree. "Large" refers to size. In this case it specifically refers to the size of the film, and 4x5 is the lower limit of "large format." If you put 4x5 film into a non-adjustable, fixed focus box camera it will still be large format. Likewise, if you put 6x9 film into a view camera with every possible movement it will still be medium format.

What the heck is so alluring about gaining entry to the "Large Format Club" that causes half the medium format users in the world to need to believe they're using large format?

Ole Tjugen

31-May-2007, 12:30

It's less than 100 square cm, so I'll have to say no.

That's the only workable definition of LF I've seen...

Leonard Evens

31-May-2007, 15:42

I had a 6 x 9 camera with view camera capability which I used for some 30 years before moving up to 4 x 5. Using movements immediately places you out of the range of the usual kind of photography. These days the gap is growing even larger since fewer and fewer people in the "small format" range even use film.

But I've found there are some significant differences between 6 x 9 and 4 x 5 which go beyond the size of the film. With my 6 x 9 camera, for example, I seldom needed to use tilts or swings because I usually had more than enough DOF without them. Similarly, I seldom needed to worry about subject or camera motion, particularly in daylight.

Brian Ellis

31-May-2007, 20:19

Medium format film on a medium format camera is medium format photography. Movements don't define LF. If they did a Canon or Nikon with a tilt/shift lens would be large format.

Oren Grad

31-May-2007, 21:14

Just to up the gain a bit on the cognitive dissonance, try this (http://website.lineone.net/~mauricefisher/KI%20Monobar.html).

:p

Turner Reich

1-Jun-2007, 02:49

Kinda no Kinda yes, no it's medium format.

Greg Lockrey

1-Jun-2007, 02:53

It's "Large Format" wannabee.:p

John Hoang

1-Jun-2007, 06:23

I googled and found this link. Of the 2 definitions, one says yes and one says no. So yes and no! :)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=gRR&defl=en&q=define:Large+format+camera&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

seawolf66

1-Jun-2007, 07:33

Decide-ing which size is which: Is like saying [Twiggy is a minox style] and Madonna is
a digital size and saying that Barbara walters is Medium format and Of course there is
Rose O'donell and Oprah should equal Large and Ultra large format :: really Its one choice of which one likes:

Bill_1856

1-Jun-2007, 09:41

How about 9x12 cm? That's smaller than 4x5. Or my 3 1/4x4 1/4 Graphic View II with full movements? Or Edward Weston's 3 1/4x4/1/4 Graflex with no movements? The whole concept of "who belongs to OUR club?" is pure eliteism.

Ole Tjugen

1-Jun-2007, 09:50

9x12cm is larger than 100 square centimeters, so that's LF. :)

DarkroomDan

1-Jun-2007, 10:15

In dog years its ULF! :)

Dog Years --- isn't that the distance a dog travels in a year? :)

Wayne

1-Jun-2007, 22:25

No.

Wayne

russyoung

3-Jun-2007, 08:14

I use a Horseman VH... and an Eastman Commercial View 8x10, thus I'm not biased one way or the other...

A 6x9 certainly can be a view camera if it has the capability of movements (Galvin, Horseman, Century, et al) but it is definitely NOT large format- note the modifier LARGE.

Russ

J Peterson

3-Jun-2007, 09:27

No. You loose.

eddie

17-Nov-2007, 11:15

No. You loose.

har har har!

thanks for the laughs everyone!

Kirk Gittings

17-Nov-2007, 12:43

As the years go by LF gets smaller and smaller in relationship to what the consumers are using. In my fathers day using 620 film to shoot the family, 8x10 was LF. In my day when the public was using 35 mm 4x5 was LF. Today a FF Canon DSLR is still about 35mm but most of the public is using cameras with smaller sensors, so I would not be surprised if 6x9 would be thought of as LF especially if used with a roll film back in a 4x5.

jetcode

17-Nov-2007, 13:19

6x9 is a juicy format for sure; enough detail to be LF, convenient enough to be 35mm

janepaints

18-Nov-2007, 22:47

Yes.

I also consider 6x7 as LF when movements, GG-focus etc are part of the recipe.

I'm in the process of building a 6x7 view camera--like a tiny Eastman 2D--and am also on the lookout for a Century/Baby Graphic or the like.

Inspired after seeing images made with 6x7 b&w film chemically developed but scanned & printed digitally. 6x7 sheet film is very affordable, holders teensy & light, less chemistry required....but still yields enough of that larger-film 'oomph'.

Unlike 120 film, 6x7/6x9 etc allows one to work with fewer exposures. Often I've just one specific image in mind, so 2 loaded holders is plenty, often more than enough. Expose, then into the soup, negs are ready to work with fast.

Don't have to wait 'til the entire roll is shot (or waste film) in order to commence developing.

Turner Reich

18-Nov-2007, 23:51

Large Medium or ULF Medium, oh what he hey, it's a Large Format Camera.
Does it take medium format roll film? It's only a medium format camera if you use roll film but if you use sheet film then it's a Larger Format Camera.

panchro-press

2-Dec-2007, 11:50

What's next? How many angels can dance on a sheet of film?

-30-

3-Dec-2007, 11:01

Hmmm,

As film keeps improving, the size of a piece of film needed to get a given quality of image at a given size keeps shrinking.

So, what is LF really? A given size? Or a given quality? I'll vote for quality as my criterion. And that's pretty subjective. It's like whether Pluto is a planet or a pea. I say it's a planet.

I can't use movements as a criterion since a giant 11x14 fixed box camera with a helical focus would surely be LF without movements.

I'm sure 80 years ago, 4x5 would have felt utterly silly as LF, and 8x10 a shoe in, so size feels weak as a criterion.

But at all times, film big enough to have unusually good resolution by the standards of the time - resolution to spare - as one person wrote a while ago, resolution enough to throw some away and still be OK - would have been arguably LF.

Best,

C

Ralph Barker

3-Dec-2007, 17:44

Opinions obviously vary. Within the context of this forum, however. "large format" is still considered to be 4x5 and larger. But, we have traditionally been tolerant of smaller formats (120 roll film and 2x3-ish sheets) if done with a view camera or something resembling same. Conventional roll film cameras don't qualify, however.

John Bowen

3-Dec-2007, 18:39

If you have to enlarge the negative to see the image from 3 feet, then it isn't large format.... ;-)

Alan Davenport

3-Dec-2007, 19:16

"Large Format" is a state of mind, not a film size.

Only in bed.

Sorry, SM, the operative word is "large," which refers to the size of the film, not how far the camera can bend. 6x9 ain't large format.

neil poulsen

3-Dec-2007, 21:58

Gary Tarbert

4-Dec-2007, 03:25

L.F sheets M.F rolls :D but who cares welcome anyway.cheers Gary

Dan Fromm

4-Dec-2007, 04:37

Um, Gary, I've had a couple of aerial cameras that took 5" roll film. LF or MF or other?

Gary Tarbert

4-Dec-2007, 16:45

Um, Gary, I've had a couple of aerial cameras that took 5" roll film. LF or MF or other?Is that 5" wide?Because 6cmx17cm is that long but obviousely only 2 1/4 inches wide.If it is 5''inches wide then it would be classed in my mind as L.F ,this is not a contradiction to my previous post because i was reffering too sizes of film generally available not special orders.cheers Gary

Dan Fromm

5-Dec-2007, 02:45

Well, the spool's 5" high.

Armin Seeholzer

5-Dec-2007, 07:00

6x9 is the classic USLF what that means Ultra Small LF!
;--))))

darr

5-Dec-2007, 08:22

6x9 is the classic USLF what that means Ultra Small LF! ;--))))

When I post "6x9" in a "4x5" forum message, I feel superior. :D

rippo

5-Dec-2007, 08:53

use your 6x9, and then make an 8x10 pinhole camera with paper negs. that way no one can kick you out of the forum.

(it's a 'gateway drug' though...you'll get that 4x5 soon enough. thank god they don't make cameras any bigger than 4x5....)

Void

12-Dec-2007, 03:44

To add oil to the fire - what do You think about 6.5x9 format? maybe it qualifies for LF status?

orwellswift

13-Dec-2007, 20:58

If you want to compare sizes, I have an 8x10 Deardorff with a reducing back that enables me to fit the 120 roll film back onto the board. I have recently found a 35mm roll back that fits my crown graphic which is sized the same as the 120 roll back that I can fit on my 8x10. Therefore I can place that back into the reducing back enabling me to shoot 35mm film with my camera using a 25 inch Turner Reich.

rippo

14-Dec-2007, 08:17

ok, it's time to settle this issue once and for all.

if your camera has the option to use sheet film of any sort, it's large format for the purposes of discussion here. you don't HAVE to use sheet film with it, just have the option. polaroid backs don't count for qualification purposes, although you're welcome to use them.

that excludes all medium format roll-film cameras i know about, all mini and sub-mini formats. but it includes cameras like my 2x3 Busch Pressman Model C, which i shoot exclusively with sheet film (even though i could find a roll-film back for it if i were desperate). it also includes pinhole cameras, and those weird 8x10 point-and-shoot cameras. movements and ground glass on a camera are desirable for qualification, but not a requirement.

i think these new rules are very inclusive, and include those who are shooting LF in spirit, even if their film is on the small side. it excludes those who just want to run around firing off shot after shot, with no thought to anything. (not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just a subject for another forum.) the point of LF is taking your time to get a few shots right, rather than machine-gunning your way through a thousand shots.

someone will no doubt bring up large format roll film shot on aerial mapping and surveillance cameras. and those are excluded for obvious reasons: they're shot from airplanes.

so...who's with me? anyone??

:)

Ralph Barker

14-Dec-2007, 08:53

Matt - if you'll refer to my earlier posts in this thread, you'll see the "official" position on the question.

Richard M. Coda

14-Dec-2007, 14:01

"Dog Years --- isn't that the distance a dog travels in a year?"

Actually it is the distance a dog travels in one year, at the speed of light ;^)

Dave Wooten

14-Dec-2007, 14:33

RB 67 and several other roll film cameras have sheet film backs available-2.25 x 3.25.

Jorge Gasteazoro

14-Dec-2007, 15:09

that excludes all medium format roll-film cameras i know about

I have two "sheet" film holders for my Hasselblad, 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, they used to be sold with a special scissor you used to cut bigger film and then load on to the little holders.

rippo

14-Dec-2007, 15:45

RB 67 and several other roll film cameras have sheet film backs available-2.25 x 3.25.

I have two "sheet" film holders for my Hasselblad, 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, they used to be sold with a special scissor you used to cut bigger film and then load on to the little holders.

hence the "that i know about" disclaimer. :)

my 'new rules' were somewhat tongue in cheek. but i did want to suggest that LF is a process that involves deliberation in the taking of the image, rather than a 'snapshot'. the size to me isn't as important as the process. it's somewhat connected to sheet film, somewhat to film size, somewhat to movements, and even somewhat to ground glass viewing. that's just my feeling on the matter. i'll continue calling my 2x3 press camera "large format" no matter what anyone on this forum thinks. that's just me.

jonreid

6-Jun-2011, 00:06

No, it's not

rdenney

6-Jun-2011, 06:22

No, it's not

Thank you for your substantive contribution to the archive of this four-year-old thread.

Rick " :eek: " Denney

Henry Carter

8-Jun-2011, 05:53

I shoot with two versions of basically the same camera. One is a 4x5 Linhof Master Technika, and the other its baby brother - the 6x9 Linhof Technika Vb. Both cameras can be used hand-held (or on a tripod), both have movements, and both have range-finder focusing in addition to ground-glass focusing.

They each have their advantages and disadvantages, and I have always considered the smaller 6x9 Technika to be a MF camera. In fact, I can use it hand-held and shoot reportage style in a way I could never do with the 4x5 version. It is also a great travel camera that allows for serious architectural shooting with movements and ground-glass focusing.

Using the same film and then comparing prints, there is no contest. Prints made from 4x5 negs have more detail, smooth tonality, and that LF magic. Prints made from 6x9 negs are very good, but the results are not quite LF.

So, if 4x5 is LF, 6x9 is MF (and there is nothing wrong with that).

BrianShaw

8-Jun-2011, 08:26

I tend to get confused when I put a roll film back on my 4x5. The transition from LF to MF should be easy, but sometimes it is quite traumatic. :)

John Koehrer

8-Jun-2011, 09:52

It depends. =@)

Don Dudenbostel

10-Jun-2011, 06:17

If I use my 6x9 rollfilm back on my 4x5 Wista does that make it a medium format camera. Of course not! I see your 6x9 as a large format camera.
Best wishes,
Pete.

Same here.

Bob Salomon - HP Marketing

10-Jun-2011, 06:33

I tend to get confused when I put a roll film back on my 4x5. The transition from LF to MF should be easy, but sometimes it is quite traumatic. :)

And, until a few years ago, Linhof made a 35mm Super Rollex back for the 4x5 Master Technika. So the camera could shoot: 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5 and 126mm roll film.

But it was still a large format camera just shooting different formats and medium. Like the camera also shoot digital. And all of those backs could also be used on a 5x7 or 8x10 Linhof with the proper reducing backs!

And the 69 Technikas could shoot 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9cm film with view camera movements, so can the current TKs 23, M679cs and Techno Linhof cameras.
So the question is really moot.

darr

10-Jun-2011, 06:34

Here is when the 6x9 view camera comes into play as large format:

After now using a P65+ for a couple of years there's no question that it exceeds 4X5" film in resolution, dynamic range and colour fidelity. So, what about the 80 Megapixel IQ180? Should it have been called the IQ8X10? Is an 80 Megapixel 500 Megabyte file able to equal 8X10" film?

I don't know. My seat-of-the-pants guess would be – yes. So, here's my challenge. If there's anyone out there that is still shooting 8X10" film, drum scanned or printed in the chemical darkroom, and who would like to do a side-by-side shoot out, please let me know, and when the IQ180 is shipping in May let's get together and find out.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/phase_one_iq180_field_report.shtml

Brian C. Miller

10-Jun-2011, 08:28

Here is when the 6x9 view camera comes into play as large format:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/phase_one_iq180_field_report.shtml

That discussion generated a lot of comments in the Lounge.

darr

10-Jun-2011, 08:49

Interesting. I do not visit the Lounge. Was it mean-spirited or educational? ;)

Brian C. Miller

11-Jun-2011, 22:42

Beings that I took the time to actually compare a 10328x7760 image to an 8x10 negative, it was educational for me. Some of the guys decided to go for the challenge, but were looking for reimbursement for their time and expenses, as all it does is bring traffic to the Luminous Landscape website. Somebody on the board actually has an 80Mp back, and posted a crop from it.

Yeah, there was a certain amount of blowing raspberries at each other, etc., etc.

Bottom line is that an 80Mp back can do a very credible job of getting close to what an 8x10 can do, for an order of magnitude increase in price. If the "comparison" setup is like what was done before, then everything will look like everything else. If the comparison is done outside, with near and far things, then a more objective viewpoint may be made.

darr

12-Jun-2011, 05:08

Robert Skeoch

13-Jun-2011, 05:58

No, it's just a pocket camera... although you might need rather large pockets.
What really matters is that you're having fun.

-rob

BrianShaw

13-Jun-2011, 06:48

So the question is really moot.

Yes and no, I suppose.

From a practical standpoint I often don't do too much different with a roll film back on a LF camera than I do with sheet film. Other times I do... like hand-holding. Of course, that can with either roll film or sheet film. so that supports the "mootness" of the difference.

But sometimes people have different objectives. If one is a literalist then adherance to a definition is important... and the question is very relevant. Similarly, if one's objective is bigotry the drawing lines is very important. In those types of situations it isn't a good thing to have confusion or any confounding understandings.

As far as photogprahy goes, I see the difference only as an equipment isse that has little to do with image-making. so, ya... the question is really moot.

p.s. a 35mm back... I need to check that out. Will it fit any camera with a Graflock back or is it dedicated?

Robert Hughes

13-Jun-2011, 10:17

I'm thinking of strapping a JATO rocket onto my Corvair. So, do you guys consider my car to be an airplane?

BrianShaw

13-Jun-2011, 10:21

No... if all four wheels get off the ground it is still a rocket; Airplanes have wings. If the wheels stay on the ground it is going to be one very fast Corvair!

al olson

13-Jun-2011, 15:04

Interesting. I do not visit the Lounge. Was it mean-spirited or educational? ;)

Darr,

Like you I avoided the lounge for a long time. For me the mindless rants and vitriol did not engender respect for the participants. Since the change of the rules, the lounge has become far more civil. There are some good threads that are worth looking at.

darr

13-Jun-2011, 16:04

Darr,

Like you I avoided the lounge for a long time. For me the mindless rants and vitriol did not engender respect for the participants. Since the change of the rules, the lounge has become far more civil. There are some good threads that are worth looking at.

Thanks Al. I will take a look. I do enjoy a good thread. :)

Darr

Robert Hughes

14-Jun-2011, 07:58

Lounge is da bomb!
http://photos2.fotosearch.com/bthumb/FSD/FSD319/x10366778.jpg

Robert Hughes

14-Jun-2011, 11:01

Dan Fromm

14-Jun-2011, 11:53

Opinions differ, even within the same household. I see my 2x3 Graphics and 2x3 Cambo as on the cusp between MF and LF, so I'm with that Linhof weasel. 6x7, definitely MF. 4x5, definitely LF. But if I had to commit myself to one or the other, 2x3 is MF.

My wife is a 35 mm shooter exclusively, won't even try to use any of my 2x3 gear. She says 2x3 is LF. I know better than to disagree with her.

Sirius Glass

14-Jun-2011, 12:12

Mortenson, in his book "The Negative", drew the "MF/LF" line right through the middle of 4x5. According to him, 6x9 was firmly in the MF camp, and about half the time, so was 4x5, depending on the application and intent of the photographer.

But Ansel Adams never had any respect for him and negated everything that Mortenson said! Therefore Mortenson was wrong then and still wrong now.

Robert Hughes

14-Jun-2011, 12:31

But Ansel came out for digital, therefore everything he said can be tossed aside...

AFSmithphoto

14-Jun-2011, 18:14

This is silly. "Large Format" is a state of mind, not a film size.

Hard to say it better than that!

Bill Burk

14-Jun-2011, 18:23

I come here for sanctuary. I also use 6x9 and 35mm but feel it is useful to have a forum where people have decided to make a commitment to 4x5 and up.

Vaughn

14-Jun-2011, 18:31

A large format image on MF film (Gowland PocketView 4x5, 150mm, Calumet 6x7 rollback).

Scanned RA4 print by the artist.

Gums, Comboyne Plateau, NSW, Aus

Robert Hughes

15-Jun-2011, 10:06

Huh? I can stick a strip of Super 8, or a piece of silver halide-soaked string into a 4x5 holder, and call it large format, too. But it isn't.

Sirius Glass

15-Jun-2011, 10:22

Well for argument sake say 6x9 was considered LF for this forum. The someone gets a Hasselblad ArcBody or Hasselblad FlexBody which have movements. Now 6x6 is LF. Next comes a 35mm user with a PC lens. Now 35mm is LF.

I am not taking sides in this discussion but a lot of bandwidth was used for this thread and a series about 6x17 recently that cause someone to leave the forum. I see all this energy when the rules seem to be pretty clear on this.

There was a lot of tolerance shown to me when I bought a 3 1/4" x 4 1/4" RB Graflex that had problems when I joined last year. It turned out to be a Shelf Queen and the seller refunded my money. I sold of nine of the twelve boxes so special order Ilford film quickly and it took forever to sell the last three boxes. By my count, my Classified Ads on then had over 4,500 views. For the most part I got very little flack. My questions were answered and I was referred to several places for help and advice. I did not make a big deal about the smaller the 4x5 size so my posts were accepted with grace.

I learned what I needed to know from this site and Graflex.org. I chose to get a 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic and a 4x5 Graflex Model D because I wanted both the ability to shoot handheld and to experiment with shifts, swings and tilts for less money than I would have invested in either the Hasselblad ArcBody or Hasselblad FlexBody. Neither the Hasselblad ArcBody or Hasselblad FlexBody are usable handheld. I can always add a view camera and either keep or sell the Speed and Graflex.

Steve

rdenney

15-Jun-2011, 13:08

Well for argument sake say 6x9 was considered LF for this forum. The someone gets a Hasselblad ArcBody or Hasselblad FlexBody which have movements. Now 6x6 is LF. Next comes a 35mm user with a PC lens. Now 35mm is LF.

It isn't the movements. It's the size of the camera. The moderators and the forum owner have agreed that rollfilm images made in a 4x5 or larger camera can be shown on the forum. That allows all fixed-body 4x5 cameras (e.g. Cambo Wide), a 6x17 image made on a 5x7 camera, or a digital image made on an 8x10 camera, but it does not allow a 2x3 press camera, an Arcbody, or a Canon 5D with a tilt-shift lens.

Any line will be arbitrary as to the specific point where it is drawn, but this one seems clearly drawn enough to me.

Rick "noting again that this thread is ancient" Denney

GPS

15-Jun-2011, 13:16

...
Rick "noting again that this thread is ancient" Denney

Don't worry, it's an evergreen...:)

Sirius Glass

15-Jun-2011, 16:17

It isn't the movements. It's the size of the camera. The moderators and the forum owner have agreed that rollfilm images made in a 4x5 or larger camera can be shown on the forum. That allows all fixed-body 4x5 cameras (e.g. Cambo Wide), a 6x17 image made on a 5x7 camera, or a digital image made on an 8x10 camera, but it does not allow a 2x3 press camera, an Arcbody, or a Canon 5D with a tilt-shift lens.

Any line will be arbitrary as to the specific point where it is drawn, but this one seems clearly drawn enough to me.

Rick "noting again that this thread is ancient" Denney

I agree. I was just walking down the line of logic to show how absurd it could get if one took one slice at a time until nothing was left.

Steve

rodney@theloughroad.com

3-Jul-2011, 10:06

Here is when the 6x9 view camera comes into play as large format:

So, here's my challenge. If there's anyone out there that is still shooting 8X10" film, drum scanned or printed in the chemical darkroom, and who would like to do a side-by-side shoot out, please let me know, and when the IQ180 is shipping in May let's get together and find out.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/phase_one_iq180_field_report.shtml

I answered his call for a challenge and I'm still waiting to hear back, after 4+ months. I'm just sayin'.

darr

3-Jul-2011, 12:31

I answered his call for a challenge and I'm still waiting to hear back, after 4+ months. I'm just sayin'.

So are you saying that you responded to Luminous Landscape's article and never heard back from them?
I pointed to the article and was waiting to hear someone chime in with the results.

rodney@theloughroad.com

3-Jul-2011, 12:36

I am saying exactly that.

rodney@theloughroad.com

3-Jul-2011, 12:58

Here is the exact email that was sent:

From: Rodney Lough Jr. <rodney@theloughroad.com>
Subject: 8x10 - i'll take that challenge!
Date: February 10, 2011 10:20:55 AM PST
To: mreichmann@rogers.com

challenge, on. when and where?

Until next time, take care and I'll....

See Ya on the Trail!
Rodney Lough Jr.

The Lough Road, Inc.
16735 SE Ken's Court, Ste. D
Milwaukie, OR 97267

866.456.7623
503.654.8410 (direct)
503.654.8592 (fax)

http://www.TheLoughRoad.com

Rodney is currently listed on Yahoo's Master of Photography list and
is one of Fuji Films' Professional Lecture Series Talent Team Members,
and shown in the Smithsonian in Washington D.C.

- Think GREEN. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

bob carnie

3-Jul-2011, 13:09

M Reichman and I have been corresponding and actually we are going ahead with this 8x10 vs 80 phase back challenge.* personally I think it as testing than a challenge**
I am taking on the role of Paul Bunyon and he is the wippersnapper with the chainsaw.

We are waiting until he gets the unit and timelines are not important to him and for me I really am just interested in the results
I have the 8x10 and film, Lenny Eiger or scanning guru on Large Format has said he will scan the film for me, and M Reichman will supply the digital camera.

Hopefully this will happen this year, believe me he is not hiding from this challenge , we are both in the same city and at some point we will make this happen.
There is another thread going that goes into this a bit more.