View Full Version : LF definition?
Emil Schildt
6-Dec-2010, 14:40
as the headline implies, I would like to hear whether there is a definition on what constitutes as large format ?
I have been told (but I have often been told wrong...) that all sizes bigger than negatives larger (wider) than an 120 film is LF...
I don't know.
Is 6x17 then not LF?
is the classic polaroid 3.25 x 4.25" (ex in pol 665) LF?
I have seen an old reprint of a sales brochure on cameras. Here all sizes up to 8x10 was called small format (!!) - from 10x12 to 20x24 "medium format" (!!!) and above that LF....:eek:
Does the "definition" change over time?
Jay DeFehr
6-Dec-2010, 14:55
This discussion has been had. At this site, the definition has more to do with the type of camera used than the size of the format. I think this site could more accurately be called the View Camera Forum, but maybe that was taken?
Armin Seeholzer
6-Dec-2010, 14:55
Yes it did really change over time!
Vor example around 1900 there was almost all what was smaller then 8x10 amateurisch format in Switzerland, later up from 40is to around the 80is all smaller the 5x7/13x18cm was amateurisch from the 80is the started to accept 4x5 as pro format, because film got always better and better and the lenses also!
Cheers Armin
Jack Dahlgren
6-Dec-2010, 15:12
Yes it did really change over time!
Vor example around 1900 there was almost all what was smaller then 8x10 amateurisch format in Switzerland, later up from 40is to around the 80is all smaller the 5x7/13x18cm was amateurisch from the 80is the started to accept 4x5 as pro format, because film got always better and better and the lenses also!
Cheers Armin
At that historical rate, we are due to accept 120 film as large format in 10 more years.
Emil Schildt
6-Dec-2010, 15:17
At that historical rate, we are due to accept 120 film as large format in 10 more years.
maybe in 10 years the 35mm film has dissapeared, so ther will be only "any format"...;)
Emil Schildt
6-Dec-2010, 15:18
This discussion has been had. At this site, the definition has more to do with the type of camera used than the size of the format. I think this site could more accurately be called the View Camera Forum, but maybe that was taken?
so what is the definition on Wiew camera?
Brian C. Miller
6-Dec-2010, 16:18
so what is the definition on Wiew camera?
If it kind of looks like an accordian or concertina, takes film at one end and a lens at the other, and requires incessant fiddling, then it's probably a view camera.
BrianShaw
6-Dec-2010, 16:47
Why do I get the impression it's April 1?
Gem Singer
6-Dec-2010, 17:02
This is the definition that was taught in photo school in 1948:
If the camera uses 35mm roll film, it is considered to be small format.
If the camera uses 120 (220) roll film, it is considered to be medium format
If the camera uses individual sheets of film in film holders, it is considered to be large format.
Larger than 8x10 is considered to be ultra large format.
120 (220) roll film backs can be adapted to be used on large format cameras. The cameras are still considered to be a large format, however even sizes up to 6X17 are considered to be medium format since they are made on 120 roll film.
A view camera allows the user to compose and focus on a ground glass at the back of the camera, while viewing directly through the lens. Then a film holder is placed in the same plane as the ground glass, and the exposure is made.
Sirius Glass
6-Dec-2010, 17:20
If it kind of looks like an accordian or concertina, takes film at one end and a lens at the other, and requires incessant fiddling, then it's probably a view camera.
So that would rule out Speed Graphics, Crown Graphics, Graflexes of any size, even 5"x7" or larger? What about the early cameras that had boxes that were focused by moving one box in and out of another box?
Steve
Brian C. Miller
6-Dec-2010, 17:59
How would it rule out my Super Graphic? Kind of looks like a concertina, film at one end, lens at the other, incessant fiddling. Actually, maybe like a concertina in a 1950s Steampunk flick. As for box cameras, it's the accordian or concertina that's too cheap to have a bellows so they just used two box halves.
One of these days I'm going to get a lensboard fitted with some keys and valves.
Mike Anderson
6-Dec-2010, 18:18
so what is the definition on Wiew camera?
OK I'll try:
A view camera is a camera that allows directly viewing the image as it will be captured on film or sensor.
A TLR camera reflects the image (not direct) so not a view camera. Same with SLR. A large format camera with a reflex viewer is not a view camera (it's a large format SLR). A digital point and shoot reorients the view image electronically so it's not a view camera.
...Mike
Jack Dahlgren
6-Dec-2010, 19:08
OK I'll try:
A view camera is a camera that allows directly viewing the image as it will be captured on film or sensor.
A TLR camera reflects the image (not direct) so not a view camera. Same with SLR. A large format camera with a reflex viewer is not a view camera (it's a large format SLR). A digital point and shoot reorients the view image electronically so it's not a view camera.
...Mike
Actually, while the nits are being picked... in a view camera the image is not viewed directly, it is projected upon the ground glass or through a fresnel lens.
Sirius Glass
6-Dec-2010, 19:36
So that would rule out Speed Graphics, Crown Graphics, Graflexes of any size, even 5"x7" or larger? What about the early cameras that had boxes that were focused by moving one box in and out of another box?
Steve
How would it rule out my Super Graphic? Kind of looks like a concertina, film at one end, lens at the other, incessant fiddling. Actually, maybe like a concertina in a 1950s Steampunk flick. As for box cameras, it's the accordian or concertina that's too cheap to have a bellows so they just used two box halves.
One of these days I'm going to get a lensboard fitted with some keys and valves.
I never said "Super Graphic". Specifically said "Speed Graphics, Crown Graphics, Graflexes of any size, even 5"x7" or larger". How can a Super Graphic be a Speed Graphic, Crown Graphic, or Graflex?
Ole Tjugen
6-Dec-2010, 20:15
"Large format" means the film area is greater than 100 square cm.
It's the only workable definition I've found!
That means 4x5" and 9x12cm are safely "Large", 6x12 is not, and 6x17 is. That's the only weakness, as far as i can see...
Mike Anderson
6-Dec-2010, 20:22
Actually, while the nits are being picked... in a view camera the image is not viewed directly, it is projected upon the ground glass or through a fresnel lens.
Almost nearly directly? Damn this is a tough question.
...Mike
Chris Strobel
6-Dec-2010, 21:50
This discussion has been had. At this site, the definition has more to do with the type of camera used than the size of the format. I think this site could more accurately be called the View Camera Forum, but maybe that was taken?
Yes "View Camera Forum" is probably most accurate for this site.I have stitched digital images that dwarf my scanned 8x10 images making the 8x10 not look so "large format" anymore :D
Brian C. Miller
6-Dec-2010, 22:37
I never said "Super Graphic". Specifically said "Speed Graphics, Crown Graphics, Graflexes of any size, even 5"x7" or larger". How can a Super Graphic be a Speed Graphic, Crown Graphic, or Graflex?
There is a radical difference between the Super Graphic and its predecessors??? So much so that the Super Graphic is so unique that it cannot be categorized as a view camera if the preceding models are categorized as view cameras? (And in other news: aliens land on White House lawn and barbecue UN!) :eek:
http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/crown_graphic1.jpg
http://www.bobgraf.com/images/speed_graphic.jpg
http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/super.jpg
I think you're fibbing! They all fit my definition: Looks kinda like an accordian or a concertina, takes film at one end and a lens at the other, and needs incessant fiddling.
Brian C. Miller
6-Dec-2010, 23:10
Now, here is a radical difference:
"Built around 4x5 Super D body with front box replaced by lens cone
riding on rigid bed supporting camera body and lens. With better
emulsions and 4x5 enlargers, the 5x7 was outmoded and cumbersome. Like
the last of the Big Berthas, the 4x5 size was customized by people
other than Graflex. Same general design of 5x7 Big Bertha."
(T. Holden, 1999). (http://www.geh.org/fm/mees/htmlsrc/mG736700011_ful.html#topofimage)
http://www.geh.org/fm/mees/m197400283537.jpg
And of course the Rambomatic:
http://home.arcor.de/turrican101/pd/ramboobjektiv.jpg
Would the mighty Rambo stoop to anything less than cut film? I don't think so. Someone who cauterizes a bullet wound by pouring the powder from one cartridge into the wound and lighting it off, with the flames shooting out his belly and back, just would not be using roll film.
Emil Schildt
7-Dec-2010, 08:55
This is the definition that was taught in photo school in 1948:
If the camera uses 35mm roll film, it is considered to be small format.
If the camera uses 120 (220) roll film, it is considered to be medium format
If the camera uses individual sheets of film in film holders, it is considered to be large format.
Larger than 8x10 is considered to be ultra large format.
120 (220) roll film backs can be adapted to be used on large format cameras. The cameras are still considered to be a large format, however even sizes up to 6X17 are considered to be medium format since they are made on 120 roll film.
A view camera allows the user to compose and focus on a ground glass at the back of the camera, while viewing directly through the lens. Then a film holder is placed in the same plane as the ground glass, and the exposure is made.
This is how I think too...
Oles definition I have trouble with... (I feel/think my pol 655 is LF, but not so if Ole is right...)
Somebody know about the rules of this site? How do you determine if a negative is Lf or not?
(I am actually asking about the pol 665)
Kirk Gittings
7-Dec-2010, 09:05
"FWIW, when this forum originated back in 1993, I'm confident the name was chosen to avoid any confusion of being part of View Camera Magazine.
For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras).
Images from conventional medium-format camera (Hasselblad, Rollie, non-view panoramic cameras, etc.) are considered "off-topic" and not appropriate for the main forums. Images from such cameras, however, may be posted in The Lounge for discussion there.
As noted earlier, the focus of the forum has always been on the broad category of view cameras - monorails, field cameras, technical cameras, etc. Old-style press cameras (Crown and Speed Graphics, etc.) were grandfathered in, since many used 4x5 sheet film and the basic concepts were similar. Similarly, other formats available via an adapter back attached to a view camera were always tolerated, even though they didn't fit the "large format" definition of "4x5 or larger". from some posts by moderator Ralph Barker a couple of weeks ago. Ralph has been part of this forum pretty much since the beginning.
Emil Schildt
7-Dec-2010, 09:08
from some posts by moderator Ralph Barker a couple of weeks ago. Ralph has been part of this forum pretty much since the beginning.
thanks.
That means (to be clear) that even though the pol 665 is smaller than 4x5, it is admissable as it is used on a technical camera?
Chris Strobel
7-Dec-2010, 09:12
Yeah, but stitch some of your 8x10 together, and it's a different story.
Lol your preachin to the choir Van :) Thats the same argument I use when debating the virtues of 8x10 with the all digital folks over on the dark side websites :) It would be fun to try say a six neg color 8x10 stitch one of these days just for giggles, don't think my computer could handle it though.
6x17 is Large Format, it requires a Large Format enlarger/
6x17 requires a Large format capable scanner
6x17 requires Large format lenses
A 6x17 camera cannot use Medium format lenses neither can the negatives (or positives) be printed with a Medium format enlarger and most 5x4 enlargers are too small to print the full width of a 6x17 negative.
When Gem's 1948 definition was written there were no 6x17 cameras, so it's not valid.
Ian
Kirk Gittings
7-Dec-2010, 09:19
thanks.
That means (to be clear) that even though the pol 665 is smaller than 4x5, it is admissable as it is used on a technical camera?
Yes, basically. To simplify 4x5 or larger film or anything that is used for capture in a view type camera. That would include BetterLight scanning backs or roll film backs used in VCs etc. We are NOT defining for everyone what the universal definition is of LF. We are simply defining the parameters of posting on this site.
BrianShaw
7-Dec-2010, 09:35
Why do I get the impression it's April 1?
Correction: Ground Hog Day.
Gem Singer
7-Dec-2010, 10:00
IanG and Van Camper,
As I explained, those two formats use 120 roll film. That type and size film is considered medium format, not large format.
However, if you classify those formats as large format, feel free to post those images on this forum.
There is nothing to prevent you from doing so.
IanG and Van Camper,
As I explained, those two formats use 120 roll film. That type and size film is considered medium format, not large format.
However, if you classify those formats as large format, feel free to post those images on this forum.
There is nothing to prevent you from doing so.
I understand your reasoning Gem, however mine comes from the other perspective as a 6x17 and LF user, where I need to use a Large formant enlarger to print my 6x17 negatives.
6x17 is a grey area because it's a large format using roll film, it's not the same as Medium format because the negatives are too large to be enlarged or scanned with Medium format enlargers or scanners.
What people are unhappy about on this site is the poor moderation when 6x17 images have been posted and then deleted by a moderator.
There is a case for 6x17 and perhaps 6x12 as well being accepted as large format on this site regardless of whether there's a dedicated camera or roll film back being used, the formats have far more in common with Large format than Medium format.
It's anomalous that 6x7 and 6x9 are acceptable in a roll film back which are medium format and 6x12 and 6x17 aren't if a dedicated camera is used.
Ian
ic-racer
7-Dec-2010, 11:18
The word "Large" is an unlikely candidate for a useful description or definition of anything.
I interpret common internet usage of the term "Large Format" as a moniker for "View Camera."
Gem Singer
7-Dec-2010, 11:20
IanG,
There are no 6cmx17cm sheet films available, nor any cut film holders for that format.
Linhof and Fuji 6x17 cameras use 120 roll film and are being sold as medium format equipment.
I have been contemplating purchasing a Canham 6x17 motorized back for my Canham 5x7 MQC camera. As soon as I find one that fits my budget, I will add it to my equipment collection.
Personally, it's immaterial to me whether the 6x17 format is classified as large format or medium format.
I was not aware that the moderators have been deleting 6x12 and 6x17 photos taken with cameras that use 120 roll film.
Perhaps there should be a section of this forum dedicated to pano photography.
Perhaps there should be a section of this forum dedicated to pano photography.
That would be the ideal situation.
There's always been discussion of 6x17 & 6x12 on the Forum with no issues. The recent problems arose because a thread with 6x17 images was moved from the Lounge to Image Sharing and Discussion and then images & posts deleted by a moderator on the grounds taht 6x17 images couldn't be posted in that section.
There are 6x17 field cameras available :D
Ian
Jim Noel
7-Dec-2010, 11:55
as the headline implies, I would like to hear whether there is a definition on what constitutes as large format ?
I have been told (but I have often been told wrong...) that all sizes bigger than negatives larger (wider) than an 120 film is LF...
I don't know.
Is 6x17 then not LF?
is the classic polaroid 3.25 x 4.25" (ex in pol 665) LF?
I have seen an old reprint of a sales brochure on cameras. Here all sizes up to 8x10 was called small format (!!) - from 10x12 to 20x24 "medium format" (!!!) and above that LF....:eek:
Does the "definition" change over time?
Yes, the definition has changed over time.When I began in 4x5 in the late 30's it was considered medium format. At that time 35mm was considered "miniature", 120 was simply one of the many sizes of "roll film".
5x7 was also medium format and 8x10 was the beginning of large format. All of the sheet film sizes we now call panoramic were "Banquet" cameras whether they were 5x12" or 12x20, or any other size with the long dimension 2x or more of the short one.
"Large format" means the film area is greater than 100 square cm.
It's the only workable definition I've found!
You mean the only one you agree with.
But beyond the requirements of this list, which must draw the line somewhere--however arbitrary that somewhere might be--, we really don't need an enforced definition. I draw the line at any format that requires the use of a 4x5 camera or larger, as I implement that format. Given that I will never buy a 6x12 fixed-body camera, then that format meets my definition; I always use a 4x5 camera for 6x12.
You could argue that I'm just drawing a line around what I do so I can feel good. You'd be right. But that is driving the definitions used by most others, too.
Rick "who can live with whatever" Denney
Bryan Lemasters
7-Dec-2010, 13:57
It's déjà vu all over again
from some posts by moderator Ralph Barker a couple of weeks ago. Ralph has been part of this forum pretty much since the beginning.
Yes, but that was posted in the November LF definition thread, Kirk. This is the December LF definition thread.
So, I have a Hulcherama panoramic camera that uses roll film and a Mamiya medium format lens. At a 35mm focal length it takes a 360 degree panoramic image with a negative that is about 8 1/2 inches long. Is that large format just because I need a LF enlarger? If I trade out the 35mm lens and gearset for an 80mm one, the negative is then something like 20 inches long. Is that then ultra large format?
And on a totally unrelated note: I want to send out some of my panoramic film for development. Does anybody have any empty 6x17 sheet film boxes that they don't need?;)
Gem Singer
7-Dec-2010, 15:28
Van Camper,
I'll repeat my statement (with slight re-wording): "I don't give a rat's ass how you or anybody else classifies a 6x17 negative made with 120 roll film"
I will still refer to it as a medium format pano. shot .
Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
Kirk Gittings
7-Dec-2010, 19:15
Yes, but that was posted in the November LF definition thread, Kirk. This is the December LF definition thread.
Bryan, thanks for that moment of levity. I needed that!
Van Camper,
I'll repeat my statement (with slight re-wording): "I don't give a rat's ass how you or anybody else classifies a 6x17 negative made with 120 roll film"
I will still refer to it as a medium format pano. shot .
Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
Gem,
Let me concede a couple of points.
First, the owner of the forum and the moderators, and you, are free to define large format anyway they/you damn well please, whether it makes sense to me or to anyone else.
Second, I don't own a 6X17 camera or film back for use on a view camera, so personally I could care less about the issue than a hair on a rat's ass, or a hair on anyone else's ass for that matter.
That said, I have stated before, and will do so again, that it is totally illogical to call 6X17 cm exposed on a view camera in a roll film back "large format" and to reject 6X17 cm shot in a dedicated film camera. 6X17 cm is 102 square centimeters of film, however you expose it, and that IMHO is large format. Now, if this forum called itself the View Camera forum I could accept the logic, but the forum is known as the large format forum, not the View Camera forum. The decision by which the moderators operate was made a long time ago, using what I consider faulty logic. Again, if this were a view camera forum the logic would make sense, but it is not. It is a shame that they won't revisit the subject and correct the mistake, but apparently the prevailing concept here is hold the line, whether most folks agree with you or not, and whether your decision makes sense or not. However, the bottom line here is that the points Ian G. has made make a whole lot more sense to me than the decision of this forum.
Sandy King
Brian C. Miller
7-Dec-2010, 20:42
Perhaps what bothers Gem is that the Holga 120WPC (Wide Angle Pinhole) (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/193120-Holga-120WPC-Wide-Angle-Pinhole-Plastic-Medium-Format-Camera?cat_id=1805) camera could be construed to be a large format camera, due to the 6x12 image size.
Gem Singer
7-Dec-2010, 23:28
Van Camper,
I agree that the picture shows a large format camera.
However, to make an image with that camera you need to use 120 film in a 6x17 roll film back. There are no sheet films or cut film holders available in the 6cmx17cm size.
Those types of roll film backs are considered to be medium format panoramic. Check with the photo websites that list them for sale.
I looked up the Linhof 6x17 camera on the B&H website. It is listed as a medium format panoramic camera.
I formerly owned a Canham 4"X10" camera.There are sheet films and film holders available for that format, and it is considered to be a large format panoramic camera.
I have a friend that uses an 8"X20" camera, and that size is considered to be an ultra-large format panoramic camera.
It's past my bedtime. Goodnight.
Gem, your argument would also cover the smaller Press & Technical cameras, Graphics, Busch Pressmanas, Linhofs etc which are used with Roll film, so are Medium format cameras.
It's about this site being more tolerant and flexible, no-ones asking for the site to become dedicated to 6x17 or 6x12 rather just a recognition that these formats are treated in the professional world as specialist large formats and use roll film in the same way as the smaller press cameras etc.
Many of use use the same lenses on our 6x17's and our 5x4's or 7x5's (in my case Half plate0 and the same LF enlargers.
The roll film argument is totally invalid as many LF cameras used roll film, although the formats have largely disappeared but fim's still available for Cirkut cameras.
Sandy King sums up the whole argument well:
That said, I have stated before, and will do so again, that it is totally illogical to call 6X17 cm exposed on a view camera in a roll film back "large format" and to reject 6X17 cm shot in a dedicated film camera. 6X17 cm is 102 square centimeters of film, however you expose it, and that IMHO is large format. Now, if this forum called itself the View Camera forum I could accept the logic, but the forum is known as the large format forum, not the View Camera forum. The decision by which the moderators operate was made a long time ago, using what I consider faulty logic. Again, if this were a view camera forum the logic would make sense, but it is not. It is a shame that they won't revisit the subject and correct the mistake, but apparently the prevailing concept here is hold the line, whether most folks agree with you or not, and whether your decision makes sense or not. However, the bottom line here is that the points Ian G. has made make a whole lot more sense to me than the decision of this forum.
Sandy King
Ian
Gem Singer
8-Dec-2010, 07:37
Ian,
We're arguing semantics here.
A photo captured on 120 roll film is considered medium format. Immaterial if it is 645, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12, or 6x17.
Whether it is taken with a 120 dedicated camera or a 120 roll film back is immaterial.
A photo captured on individual sheets of film is large format no matter what the size of the film or camera.
Aside from the other advantages of a large format camera, being able to develop each sheet of film independently is one of it's most outstanding features.
I believe the moderators were correct when they deleted a photo taken with a 6x17 medium format panoramic camera.
The rules of this forum clearly state large format, only.
If you don't agree, change the rules.
Ian,
We're arguing semantics here.
A photo captured on 120 roll film is considered medium format. Immaterial if it is 645, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12, or 6x17.
Whether it is taken with a 120 dedicated camera or a 120 roll film back is immaterial.
A photo captured on individual sheets of film is large format no matter what the size of the film or camera.
Aside from the other advantages of a large format camera, being able to develop each sheet of film independently is one of it's most outstanding features.
I believe the moderators were correct when they deleted a photo taken with a 6x17 medium format panoramic camera.
The rules of this forum clearly state large format, only.
If you don't agree, change the rules.
Whether a camera uses sheet film or roll film does not make a bit of difference in the real world in determining what is large format and what is not large format. Would you argue that the Cirkut camera that were capable of using roll film in dimensions from 5" wide up to 16" wide were not large format cameras? Or the big aerial cameras that also used roll film were not large format?
As I recall, even View Camera magazine has had articles on Cirkut cameras.
Again, the plain facts are that in the world outside this forum large is a relative term, not a word that describes a kind of camera. I would certainly change the rules in a heart beat, but unfortunately that is not within my power. All I can do is point out the total lack of logic in calling 6X17 cm film shot on roll film in a roll film back on a view camera large format and not accepting 6X17 cm film shot in a dedicated camera.
Sandy King
Ian,
We're arguing semantics here.
A photo captured on 120 roll film is considered medium format. Immaterial if it is 645, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12, or 6x17.
Whether it is taken with a 120 dedicated camera or a 120 roll film back is immaterial.
A photo captured on individual sheets of film is large format no matter what the size of the film or camera.
Aside from the other advantages of a large format camera, being able to develop each sheet of film independently is one of it's most outstanding features.
I believe the moderators were correct when they deleted a photo taken with a 6x17 medium format panoramic camera.
The rules of this forum clearly state large format, only.
If you don't agree, change the rules.
No your arguing, I'm just taking the pragmatic and logical view, I use LF lenses to shoot 6x17 and a 10x8 enlarger and a 150mm LF enlarger lens to print the negatives. They wouldn't have fit my old 5x4 enlarger as the format is too wide.
As for moderators deleting the 6x17 images, it was entirely out of order, there's 35mm and true MF camera shots on this site in the Lounge.
I've been a large format user since the mid 1970's, and took up photography seriously about 10 years before that, in all that time I have never heard anyone call 6x17 Medium format,
Sure some camera stores might label them as such because they take 120 and sometimes 220 film but in the real world it;s a specialist larger format and only laboratories capable of printing LF can print the negatives (or positives).
Put simply 6x17 is a Large format regardless whether the camera is a dedicated body or a roll film back. My own camera has a Ground glass focus screen, I use it in the same way as a Crown Graphic. It shares the same lenses at times, I print the negatives with the same enlarger and lens.
I cannot take my 6x17 negatives to a lab specialising in 35mm & 120 as they can't handle the printing, that's always been the case.
If you can't understand the simple logic in that the there's something wrong.
We are asking that the rules be changed now, and Sandy King has suggested a new sub Forum for Panoramic discussion & I assume images, I'd like to see 6x12 and upwards included.
Ian
Gem Singer
8-Dec-2010, 08:50
Sandy,
Disregarding the size of the camera, my definition is based on the size of the film, not whether the camera uses roll film or sheet film.
Cirkut cameras and aerial cameras use roll film that is considerably wider than 6cm. Those cameras are large in size but not considered to be large format cameras (no movement capability,no ground glass, no individual sheet film holders, etc.).They fall into a category of specialized cameras.
My argument is based on the fact that 120 (6cm wide) roll film is considered to be medium format and is marketed as such, no matter what the type of camera .
I agree, it doesn't make sense that the moderators would allow images captured with medium format roll film backs in large format cameras and not with 6x17 dedicated medium format panoramic cameras.
I agree, it doesn't make sense that the moderators would allow images captured with medium format roll film backs in large format cameras and not with 6x17 dedicated medium format panoramic cameras.
That's the crux of why we now want 6x17 and possibly 6x12 to be fully included in the main part of the forum.
The moderators also allow MF digital capture in an LF camera.
Ian
Gem Singer
8-Dec-2010, 09:01
IanG,
As I stated, you are using semantics, not logic.
If you consider a 6x17 panoramic camera to be large format, and the moderators of his forum classify it as medium format, you know what you need to do---
Change the rules.
No Gem, not Semantics, just plain Logic.
A negative that won't fit a Medium format enlarger (which means any 6x12 and over) and needing a Large format enlarger is by it's very nature a Large format negative regardless of the fact the same film can be used in a Medium format camera for formats from 6x4.5 to 6x9.
That's a very simple definition, but it also happens to be the ways labs have worked for years as well.
Yes we want the rules changed
Ian
Disregarding the size of the camera, my definition is based on the size of the film, not whether the camera uses roll film or sheet film.
Gem,
If that is your argument, do the math. A 6XX17 cm negative shot on roll film is virtually the same size in terms of film area as as sheet of 4X5 film. May be in fact slightly larger depending on the exact width of the 6X17 cm camera.
Sandy
Lynn Jones
8-Dec-2010, 10:30
This is for Brian Miller who doesn't wish to hear directly from any of us (some us us take time to help out whom ever we can).
Most of the "Big Bertha" cameras were constructed by Burke & James, especially imediately after WWII because there were lots of long focal length and long tele available at that time. There were several 600mm, 800mm, and 1,000mm lenses around and B&J used 5x7 Graflex SLR's when possible and if not, 4x5 Graflex SLR's. I've used a 4x5 Grafex Big Bertha and 600mm Kodak f 6.0 several times this was really something for certain sports and documentary use. In the early 1970's, I also borrowed a 5x7 Graflex Big Bertha (with 4x5 permanently mounted grafloc back) and a 1,000mm lens, I seem to remember that it was around a max aperture of f 8.0/ Both of these were hard to "horse" around, but the results were stunning!
Lynn
Guys, to make it even worse (for some of us) or better (for the others) you could even consider the 120 film as a single sheet film, just rolled up on a spool...:confused:
Or you could wait for the January edition of this question, who knows, things happen... ;)
Personally, for my strict academic purposes, I always considered my 6x12, 6x17, 6x24 slides to be a large format and slept with that well all these years...:)
So, you are all over the place. One minute size matters, and then it doesn't as long as it is sheet film. Make up your mind, you have contradicted yourself. You then turn around and add a 3rd variable. You say that Circa cameras (film considerably larger then 6cm) are also not large format because they have no tilts or groundglass. Frankly you are as confused as a squirrel running across the road and then turning back.
Confused is certainly a bad place to be. I killed one of those little critters a few years ago. I tried to brake but he ran back and forth from one side of the road to the other, then in utter anguish he stopped in the middle of the road and jumped straight up., and sadly, right into my front bumper. RIP, little confused guy.
Sandy
evan clarke
8-Dec-2010, 12:39
OK, let me stir this pot. I have a 6x9 Arca F compact with an Arca spring back and use 2 1/4 x 3/14 film holders and HP5 sheets. Classify this one...EC
Gem Singer
8-Dec-2010, 14:26
IanG and Van Camper,
Please allow me clarify why I believe that your logic is faulty.
You reason: In order to make an enlargement from a 6x17 negative you need to use an enlarger (or scanner) that can handle a 5x7 negative. Since 5x7 is large format, 6x17 should also be considered to be large format.
This is my logic: a 6x17 negative is made on 120 roll film. 120 roll film is medium format. Therefore, 6x17 must also be considered to be medium format, irregardless of the square inch size of the negative.
Gem Singer
8-Dec-2010, 14:37
Evan,
Your 6x9 Arca Swiss is considered to be a compact large format view camera and is marketed as such.
However, if you use 6x7 or 6x9 roll film back (120 roll film) on your camera, the images produced are medium format.
OK, let me stir this pot. I have a 6x9 Arca F compact with an Arca spring back and use 2 1/4 x 3/14 film holders and HP5 sheets. Classify this one...EC
6X9 cm is medium format, regardless of whether you expose it in a roll film back on a view camera or in a dedicated film camera, or with sheet film.
Not knocking it because 6X9 cm is one of my favorite formats and I have backs for my view camera and I also use Fuji GW and GSW 690 cameras.
But cut it however you like, 6X9 cm is medium format, even though the illogical logic of this forum allows us to talk about it in the main forums if we expose it in a view camera, as if it were large format.
Sandy
Armin Seeholzer
8-Dec-2010, 14:42
I'm with Gem on this one 120 RF is not GF but who cares!
Brian C. Miller
8-Dec-2010, 15:27
This is for Brian Miller who doesn't wish to hear directly from any of us (some us us take time to help out whom ever we can).
:confused: Que? :confused:
What is up with you guys? Here I was blowing raspberries and making faces at Sirius Glass who was being oh-so-serious, and remarking that those cameras are, in fact, quite different from Graflex Super Graphic, Speed Graphic, Crown Graphic, etc., which are in fact quite like each other. And of course this has something to do with a tongue-in-cheek definition of what is a large format camera. And yes, most large format cameras do fit that definition, including all of mine.
And now you make this odd comment, "who doesn't wish to hear directly from any of us," which is a non-sequitur if I ever saw one. I'm not confused like a squirrel, but I am puzzled. (not about cameras, but your comment.)
Gem defines a "large format" camera as one which takes cut film above a certain size. Others define it by the enlarger used for it. Me, I really don't care that much, since the definition is plastic. 120 film laid in a 8x10 sheet film holder such that all 80 square inches are used constitutes large format, but if it is left in the roll, it is not. Roll film 5" wide is not "large format" but if it is cut into 4" segments then it is.
To me, the definition of "large format" is a big joke. Try laughing sometime! Laughter truly is a wonderful medicine. And just as importantly, make some photographs! Lens at one end, film at the other. Enjoy!
You're right Brian it's about the Forum and one moderator in particular lightening up and relaxing. Allowing 6x12 & 6x17 isn't going to swamp or dilute the forum. There's already free discussion about them with no issues, it's only the issue of posted images.
If we look at the case of the Century Graphics (and similar) are they view cameras ? They don't really have an effective range of movements, many use them as rangefinder cameras.
I think perhaps the forum includes them because they are a step away from the stereo typical Medium format cameras (Hasselblad, Mamiya, Bronica etc but then the old Reflex Graflex's etc are acceptable but the modern equivalent the Mamiya RB67/RZ67 isn't.
Personally I don't see a problem with the smaller variants of some 4x5 cameras being included, but at the same time that automatically means that far larger formats like 6x12 & 6x17 should be included with out any hesitation.
As I keep hammering home, a 6x17 camera uses LF lenses, it's a wider format than 5x4, lenses need to be of a larger image circle, negatives need printing with an enlarger larger than 5x4, For example my 65mm Super Angulon will cover 5x4 but it won't cover 6x17.
It's about a bit more flexibility and better moderation.
Ian
Gem Singer
8-Dec-2010, 15:52
Brian,
I did not state that the square inch size of a sheet of cut film is a measure of whether it can be considered as large format, or not.
2 1/4" (6cm) film rolled on a 120 spool is for use in a medium format camera or a roll film back.
Film cut into 2 1/4"x 3 1/4" sheets and loaded into sheet film holders is for use in view cameras.
View cameras can be classified as compact, large, or ultra-large format.
I cannot understand the reason for the confusion.
:
To me, the definition of "large format" is a big joke. Try laughing sometime! Laughter truly is a wonderful medicine. And just as importantly, make some photographs! Lens at one end, film at the other. Enjoy!
Gee, are you suggesting we can not chew gum and walk at the same time? Having a discussion about the rules does not mean that some of us are not also always laughing, and/or making photographs.
Sandy King
Those arguing against 6x17 (or 6x12) don't use the formats and so don't fully understand the issues.
In the late 80's or early 90's there were images I could only shoot at that time by deliberately cropping 5x4, I don't usually crop at all but had no finances to get a panoramic camera, so I cropped to 6x12 with a mask over the screen. That was a poor compromise.
Now I shoot 6x17, I could shoot 6x12 as well but it's not wide enough, when I print it's an either or. I either print my MF negatives with my Durst (I shoot 6x6) or I use my De Vere 5108 (10x8) for 6x17, 5x4 and 10x8's.
It's so simple Gem, a 6x17 camera need LF lenses, an LF enlarger, LF techniques.
Ian
Sirius Glass
8-Dec-2010, 17:09
Here I was blowing raspberries and making faces at Sirius Glass who was being oh-so-serious, and remarking that those cameras are, in fact, quite different from Graflex Super Graphic, Speed Graphic, Crown Graphic, etc., which are in fact quite like each other. And of course this has something to do with a tongue-in-cheek definition of what is a large format camera. And yes, most large format cameras do fit that definition, including all of mine.
So I made a mistake. BFD!
Aside from Brian being his usual antisocial self, the seem to be three main streams of thoughts in this thread:
6x12 or 6-17 are LF cameras.
6x12 or 6-17 are not LF cameras.
Nobody gives a rats ass about this subject.
So far, no animals have been injured or killed in this thread.
Did I miss any other points?
Did I miss any other points?
Yes Gem said in his own words that "Nobody give a rats ass about this subject."
It's no big deal, if you use the formats you'd appreciate why they are large format. Those that don't won't all see reason, just the odd ones that is.
Ian
Sirius Glass
8-Dec-2010, 17:46
Yes Gem said in his own words that "Nobody give a rats ass about this subject."
It's no big deal, if you use the formats you'd appreciate why they are large format. Those that don't won't all see reason, just the odd ones that is.
Ian
Ian, I thought I covered that in #3.
5) If you post on this forum and your format is called not a legitimate format by someone else, you get offended.
Ben Syverson
8-Dec-2010, 20:47
This is the problem with definitions... They're personal, subjective, and ultimately not worth very much.
Steve M Hostetter
9-Dec-2010, 06:01
the definition varies with motion picture film and still photos,, I think IMAX is close to 6x7 cm which they call LF..
evan clarke
9-Dec-2010, 06:44
Large format is any camera that's bigger than yours!!!
Dan Fromm
9-Dec-2010, 07:45
Ils sont fous, ces photographes. For those of you who aren't Asterix fans, these photographers are nuts.
Moderators, would you please lock this thread? Every participant has stated its position at least twice and no one has changed position. Time to cut the discussion off.
Steve M Hostetter
9-Dec-2010, 08:05
"nuts" can accomplish great things ! whats ur definition of nuts :D
Dan Fromm
9-Dec-2010, 08:46
Steve, by inclusion, chest-, wal-, coco-, hickory, Brazil, cashew, ... There may be a few non-biological exceptions, ours are probably 1/4"-20 or 3/8"-16; all UNC, no UNF ...
Whichever type they are, ours seem to be obsessed with being right, regardless of information to the contrary.
Walnuts are the minimum size for a large nut ...
Though I'm probably going to incur the wrath of the chestnut users-
Thankfully, there's no restriction on the size or variety of nuts allowed on this forum.
We could define it based on whether it's rollfilm or sheet film.
Or, we could define it based on the image area.
Or, we could define based on the lenses needed.
We could define it based on the enlarger needed.
We might define it based on the scanner. I haven't seen that one yet. If it's too big for my medium-format Nikon film scanner, then it must be large format.
We could define it based on the camera used.
we could define it based on which section of the KEH catalog we find the associated equipment.
I'm sure I missed a few.
In spite of repeated chest-thumping about logic, I find nothing logical about using any of these criteria to the exclusion of all others.
And in spite of complaints about arguing mere semantics, arguing about a definition is, um, by definition an issue of semantics. And semantics would suggest that a term means what the person who hears it thinks it means, unless the person talking states otherwise.
The is no straight boundary through all these criteria. We will have to live with inconsistencies if we insist on having rules. And as much kvetching as there is about the rules as applied, I can't imagine the kvetching that would ensue if the moderators exercised real discretion. We could live with inconsistent rules, though, if we could agree that forum rules do not constitute a definition.
Rick "semantics is not a sin" Denney
redrockcoulee
9-Dec-2010, 10:25
In my day job I have to ensure that the Base complies with government regulations and hence each law or regulation has a definition section to make sure we do not intrepete it anyway we choose. Do not think the definition of large format on the forum is a legal binding one however that does not mean it is not important. If I only shot my Pentax A110 then to me 120 film would indeed be very large format.
When I think of large format I think of sheet film and not roll film. I would never consider my wife's Hoga panoramic pinhole or the roll film backs on my 4X5 as large format, the latter is to my mind simply using roll fim on large format. I also have access to a groundglass for my Hasselblad but if I used it I would be using a SLR like a view camera not using a view camera similarly using a reflex hood on a view camera is that and not using a SLR.
Is 6X17 large format? I do not know and have never seen negs of that size. The working definition of large format for this site is...whatever the owner of the site says it is or else a consenus of the forum users. The important thing is some consistency in how each other is treated, my 6X12 is no more and no less LF than someone else's 6X12 (unless perhaps his is shot on sheet film) . Maybe a separate forum for panoramics 6X12 or larger would be of interest to many and solve where to place those images and questions or perhaps that idea will create an all out fistacuffs.
Also the lens definition would be iffy as I can use the same pinhole lenses on my 4X5 as on my K10D and that is not even 'full frame" (the worst defintion of all as the only camera I have that is not full frame is the Holga due to the vinetting).
Back to work I go. I think it has been an interesting discussion.
Ivan "who needs Rick's imaginination in this spot" Shukster
...I think it makes sense to have a panoramic forum, so we don't keep arguing the same thing over and over. Great idea! Start your own!
...Start erasing a few more images, and it will only fire up people again, and some of us may even leave. No one is getting paid for their time in here...
Don't let the door hit your bum on the way out! No one is paid to be here and no one pays to be here. No one pays except the owner who wanted to start a forum sharing info on large format cameras and their use.
I am sorry, but when people threaten to leave, it is probably time for them to leave...or to have an attitude adjustment.
Vaughn
redrockcoulee
9-Dec-2010, 12:06
Don't let the door hit your bum on the way out! No one is paid to be here and no one pays to be here. No one pays except the owner who wanted to start a forum sharing info on large format cameras and their use.
I am sorry, but when people threaten to leave, it is probably time for them to leave...or to have an attitude adjustment.
Vaughn
I know when I suggested a panoramic forum I was speaking about one WITHIN the LF forum such as there is a digital processing one and the lounge.
Don't let the door hit your bum on the way out! No one is paid to be here and no one pays to be here. No one pays except the owner who wanted to start a forum sharing info on large format cameras and their use.
I am sorry, but when people threaten to leave, it is probably time for them to leave...or to have an attitude adjustment.
Vaughn
With all due respect there is no point in making this discussion personal. I think it is entirely understandable that some of the persons involved in this discussion are quite frustrated, and they have every right to be so in my opinion. The rules are entirely arbitrary and make no logical sense, though as we all agree, the owner and moderators are free to make and enforce whatever rules they like. However, in my opinion the current position, and the way the rules have been enforced, is not defensible on logical grounds and continuing the policy as is erodes the credibility of the forum.
I am trying to treat this objectively as I don't own have a personal pan in the fire, not owning either a 6X17 cm dedicated camera or roll film back for a view camera.
Sandy King
Gem Singer
9-Dec-2010, 13:30
My new Canham motorized 6X17 roll film back is on it's way as we speak.
It will be utilized on a Canham MQC57 view camera.
The rules of this forum will be followed to the letter. My 6x17 images will be captured with a 6x17 roll film back on a large format camera instead of in a dedicated 6x17 roll film camera.
Wouldn't it be a better idea to modify the existing rules or add a new section to this forum that's devoted to panoramic photography?
Nothing personal in my comment -- just an observation...and it really has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand.
I do not own a 6x17 camera nor 6x17 rollback, and am also looking at this issue as objectively as possible. But I have three teenagers -- and I know whining when I hear it...LOL! So when someone threatens to leave unless they get their way, I am afraid that just makes me laugh and suggest that they do leave.
Vaughn
Gem -- yes, creating a pano thread in the Lounge is a great idea. But I wonder, if I create a pano from three individual 6x6 negatives, will that be acceptable for the tread?;)
Gem Singer
9-Dec-2010, 13:43
Vaughn,
You will need to ask the forum moderators for the answer to your question.
Heck, I still don't get it. So is the digital better than film or is it vice versa...:confused:
I'm asking as I now start to make my latest LF camera with 6x17 Canham roll film holder and lenses from 90 to 800 mm (no movements but the body is only about 800g, without the RF holder).
So many questions and so few answers...:confused: ;)
Vaughn,
You will need to ask the forum moderators for the answer to your question.
Nah...I would just post it and see if it gets deleted! Always easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission!
I do have a neat pano made of seven 6x7 negs of the Eastside Sierras. I contact printed it on RA4 paper -- I had a 5 inch roll of the stuff. It was taken with a 6x7 rollback on a Gowland 4x5 -- so it might fit everyone's criteria...except for the pano purists who might require the image to be taken all at once. ;)
Nothing personal in my comment -- just an observation...and it really has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand.
Vaughn
Vaughn,
Sorry, I don't accept your comment as just an observation. Telling someone "Don't let the door hit your bum on the way out!" is personal and has nothing to do with the merits of the issue, no question about it in my mind.
Sandy
Vaughn,
Sorry, I don't accept your comment as just an observation. Telling someone "Don't let the door hit your bum on the way out!" is personal and has nothing to do with the merits of the issue, no question about it in my mind.
Sandy
Taking a cue from my boys..."Whatever..." :D
Sorry, I just can't get too serious about all this. Any "merit" this discussion might have had departed many many posts ago...
Wouldn't it be a better idea to modify the existing rules or add a new section to this forum that's devoted to panoramic photography?
That's the crux of the posts that Van Camper, Sandy King, myself and others have made on the subject of 6x17 as a format.
Ian
Actually, I am treating all of this very light-heartedly. What I have learned as a parent is as important as what I have learned in college and from life in general...it all becomes part of my life and my art.
Sorry about the quote -- the bold lettering were my own words inserted into your quote. I obviously needed to make it even more obvious.
Your words, VC -- "Start erasing a few more images, and it will only fire up people again, and some of us may even leave."
This is a forum created by the owner to provide info and discussion about the use of large format cameras. If people want to leave because because they can't put up images made from non-larger format cameras (or have a different opinion on what a large format camera is), then that is all fine and normal.
It is nice of the owner to allow some exceptions -- it is not nice when people whine and threaten to leave because further exceptions are not made for them. Just the way I read it.
Vaughn
Steve M Hostetter
9-Dec-2010, 16:53
name the border of LF and ULF :D I know, I'm not helpin
name the border of LF and ULF :D I know, I'm not helpin
When you pick up a LF camera you go "Oh, sh*t, this is heavy!" When you pick up a ULF camera your back goes out.
Dang -- that won't work...Ritter's 7x17 camera weighs a third less than my 8x10! Maybe ULF should be anything over 100 sq inches? (Just in case someone has a 9x11 camera! LOL!) And if anyone has picked up a Fuji GX680 MF camera, "Oh, sh*t, this is heavy!" can easily apply!
This is a forum created by the owner to provide info and discussion about the use of large format cameras. If people want to leave because because they can't put up images made from non-larger format cameras (or have a different opinion on what a large format camera is), then that is all fine and normal.
It is nice of the owner to allow some exceptions -- it is not nice when people whine and threaten to leave because further exceptions are not made for them. Just the way I read it.
Vaughn
My experience has been that 6x17 has long been openly disused on this Forum with no issues, regardless of whether it's been a dedicated camera or a roll film back.
It's no big deal the negatives don't fit MF enlargers or scanners it's a format in a limbo between MF & LF, but apart from the film format itself it's a large format when it come to practicalities.
It's ignorant t5o ignore it as a large Format.
Ian
.
...(6x17 -- added by Vaughn)...it's a format in a limbo between MF & LF, but apart from the film format itself it's a large format when it come to practicalities.
It's ignorant t5o ignore it as a large Format.
Ian
.
If 6x17 actually is in limbo between MF and LF, then it is, by definition of being "in limbo", neither. Therefore, it is a matter of preference, not ignorance (nor wisdom), to consider it LF or not.
Vaughn
Your words, VC -- "Start erasing a few more images, and it will only fire up people again, and some of us may even leave."
Boldface and underlining added by me.
Saying the same thing over and over, and then saying you and others might leave if you don't get your way, is whining. Sorry to be so rude as to point that out!
Your words, VC -- "Start erasing a few more images, and it will only fire up people again, and some of us may even leave."
Boldface and underlining added by me.
Saying the same thing over and over, and then saying you and others might leave if you don't get your way, is whining. Sorry to be so rude as to point that out!
Vaughn,
When you are up to your shoulder digging a hole maybe it is time to put the shovel down? The point is your were rude in making this a personal matter by insulting Van Camper. And now you continue to stoke the fire. If you are not interested in the subject, as you say you are not, why did you not just keep your opinion to yourself. I mean, who gives a flying f*&k what you think? The issue may be of no interest to you, but it is obviously of some interest to others so why not just extend the obvious courtesy of allowing people to express their opinions?
I don't want to be rude about this but from my perspective you are out of line and need to back off.
Sandy
Gem Singer
9-Dec-2010, 18:21
Anyone else taking bets on who will be the person who will have the last word on this post before the moderators block it out???
Will it be IanG from Turkey& the UK, Vaughn, Sandy King, the guy that Camps out in his Van, or me???
Tune in tomorrow and find out. :) :) :) .
Anyone else taking bets on who will be the person who will have the last word on this post before the moderators block it out???
Will it be IanG from Turkey, Vaughn, Sandy King, the guy that camps out in his Van, or me???
Tune in tomorrow and find out. :) :) :) .
Who knows? Or cares? But there is a new starter thread on the subject in the Lounge as of this evening. Care to contribute?
Sandy
Gem Singer
9-Dec-2010, 18:27
Do I care to contribute in the Lounge?
Nope!
Do I care to contribute in the Lounge?
Nope!
Gee, you don't even plan to vote?
Sandy
What the matter, Sandy? You wear out all you shovels?
The owner and moderators recently discussed this issue in depth -- I am sure there is absolutely nothing in this thread and the others like it that have added any facts on the issue that they did not already know and take into serious consideration.
The only new info will be presented in the new poll now running to see how the forum as a whole sees 6x17.
So these threads on why all 6x17 images should be allowed on the forum boil down to is mostly ranting (and counter-ranting...guilty as charged) -- I will withdraw my use of the word "whining", as it does carry the unintended reference to age. Whining tends to be done by children (and spouses, perhaps?), while ranting is something we all tend to do occasionally.
I really should have just stayed out and watched the fun, but I found it too much fun to wade in. I appoloize for my lack of restraint and its results. I did not add anything new and substantial to the discussion.
I will refrain from these discussions for now on.
Vaughn
PS...Bold and underlining is mine.
BrianShaw
9-Dec-2010, 19:14
Interesting chatter.
Sirius Glass
9-Dec-2010, 19:49
There seems to be five main streams of thoughts in this thread:
6x12 or 6-17 are LF cameras.
6x12 or 6-17 are not LF cameras.
Nobody gives a rats ass about this subject.
So far, no animals have been injured or killed in this thread.
If you post on this forum and your format is called not a legitimate format by someone else, you get offended.
... So far, still no animals killed, but several members have bruised egos and some more members have been offended and feel abused. Name calling has risen to a new high. <<sigh>> Can't we all just get a bong?
Anyone else taking bets on who will be the person who will have the last word on this post before the moderators block it out???
Will it be IanG from Turkey& the UK, Vaughn, Sandy King, the guy that Camps out in his Van, or me???
Tune in tomorrow and find out. :) :) :) .
Well, when I get back to Turkey this weekend I'll be using my 6x17 camera again with it's Large format lenses, then next trip back to the UK I'll print the negatives with my Large format enlarger.
Regardless of what detractors may say in all practice it's a Large format.
Ian
Ole Tjugen
10-Dec-2010, 05:22
name the border of LF and ULF :D I know, I'm not helpin
I think my 24x30cm camera is right at the border there. 9 1/2 x 12", for the metrically challenged. The film is visibly and significantly larger than 8x10", yet equally visibly and significantly smaller than 11x14". Also, the camera is not that much larger than a small 8c10" and not that much smaller than a 12x16"...
I tend to call it Very Large Format, if anyone asks if it's LF or ULF.
Steve M Hostetter
10-Dec-2010, 05:31
I think my 24x30cm camera is right at the border there. 9 1/2 x 12", for the metrically challenged. The film is visibly and significantly larger than 8x10", yet equally visibly and significantly smaller than 11x14". Also, the camera is not that much larger than a small 8c10" and not that much smaller than a 12x16"...
I tend to call it Very Large Format, if anyone asks if it's LF or ULF.
thx Ole :)
I think my 24x30cm camera is right at the border there. 9 1/2 x 12", for the metrically challenged. The film is visibly and significantly larger than 8x10", yet equally visibly and significantly smaller than 11x14". Also, the camera is not that much larger than a small 8c10" and not that much smaller than a 12x16"...
I tend to call it Very Large Format, if anyone asks if it's LF or ULF.
That surely should be better than digital, shouldn't it...?:confused:
The diagonal of 617 is longer than the diagonal of 4x5.
The diagonals of images and lenses are an inportant consideration in the discussion of photography. With no dog in the fight, I go with LF
That's true. On the other hand, if you count the number of complete concentric circles on the Fresnel lens the 4x5 wins outright...:(
... In this example 617 surpasses 4x5 quality (2 inches longer), because 4x5 cropped to pano poportions is a much smaller area.
While that is valid, you could easily use the same logic for a 35mm film strip too (long 17cm). Would that still fit in the LF forum standards? (I feel like a devil's advocate now...:eek: )
Gem Singer
10-Dec-2010, 13:30
Here we go again!
Some folks just don't know when to call it quits.:)
Don't you worry Gem, soon there could be the January edition of this chess problem...:)
sanking
10-Dec-2010, 15:12
Here we go again!
Some folks just don't know when to call it quits.:)
Darn, you seem a bit stuck on not knowing when to quite as well.
I just hope you understand the current rules. Anything shot on the back of a view camera is OK for discussion in the main forum, regardless of size. That could be 6X6 cm, 6X7 cm, 6X7 cm, 6X12 cm, or 6X17 cm shot on roll film. It could also be digital of any kind. You could hang a MF digital back from a view camera, and that becomes LF for this forum. Or, you could make an adaptor for your Canon G11 and shoot it on the back of your view camera, and that becomes LF for this forum. Or any point and shoot. The rules clearly allow for that.
You have spent a fair amount of time, with some contradictions, trying to define what you mean by large format. I just thought you should understand what the rules for this forum mean by the term.
Sandy
Gem Singer
10-Dec-2010, 15:23
Sandy,
I am well aware of the current rules of this forum.
I have been following them for more than ten years.
However, if I take the time to make an effort to refute your remarks, it would make me the winner of the bet as to who will eventually have the last word on this thread.
I bow to your superiority as the ultimate authority on matters photographic.
Go ahead, have the last word.
sanking
10-Dec-2010, 15:28
Sandy,
If I take the time to make an effort to refute your remark, it would make me the winner of the bet as to who will have the last word on this thread.
However, I bow to your superiority as the ultimate authority on matters photographic.
So, go ahead, have the last word.
Gem,
Please explain to me what the hell you mean by refuting my remarks? I just explained for you the rules of this forum as they stand. Do you believe my interpretation is wrong? If so, perhaps you need to read the rules for yourself, or have one of the moderators explain them to you. I have not stated for you my interpretation of large format, only what the forum rules are for large format on the LF forum.
I really don't care who has the last word but I will assure you that I will be expressing my opinion about the rules so long as they exist as they are, as long as discussion of this issue is not ended by the moderators, a la China method with Google and the recent Noble Prize winner from China, about whom no discussion is allowed in China.
And please, avoid the condescension. Texans don't wear the hat of humility very well.
Sandy
Hi GPS, yes, in my opinion it would. The 35mm film by 7 inch length was still taken by a large format lens, which defines the size of the image projected (bigger all directions). Why waste 5x7 film, if your image only requires 7 inches of 35mm film (perfect for a profile shot of rope, or a 20 ft snake, or a tight long photo of both eyes, where length matters and not width). The 35mm by 7 inch piece of film can produce a 70 inch print of top quality (10x). Neither a 35mm or medium format camera could do this with the same quality, because it is limited by the lens (not the film). Even a 6x7 camera could not reproduce those same proportions and get near the same quality because the lens allows only a 2.75 inch negative (max), so at 10 you only get a 27.5inch print in length (2.5x shorter length). So length matters to me. Crop 4x5 film to the same 617 ratio, and one gives you a 70 inch print on the wall, the other a 50 inch print. Which is now the bigger camera? It is the one capable of recording an image with the greatest length.
The bottom line is medium format cameras cannot make HUGE 70 inch prints with respectable quality, the lens does not allow it. Go past 6x9cm and medium format cameras now require a large format lens (bigger image circle), lensboard (not bayonet) and so are no longer a medium format camera. The workflow, and everything else then changes, including processing. So if you prefer your images cropped to around 612 or longer, then 4x5 is no longer large format...because it creates a far smaller print then 617 film at 10x magnification.
Hi Van Camper,
forget the snakes and ropes - when I made my 24x110 (2.4x12 if you want) camera for 35mm film I used it for mountains ranges and all things panoramic on a given horizon. Just a 35mm film adaptor on my home built 6x12 camera. Loved that so much that I made a 6x60 camera with 600mm Fujinon C to take even better pics of mountains ranges and interesting horizons. Now that IS a LF camera, even for Gem (using one sheet of 120 film)... :) He won't say no because he doesn't want to have the last word...;)
rdenney
10-Dec-2010, 16:25
...the number of complete concentric circles on the Fresnel lens...(
Dangit! I knew I had forgotten an important criterion.
Rick "whose Maxwell screen might beat out most 8x10 cameras" Denney
Gem Singer
10-Dec-2010, 16:36
Sandy,
You left out the first and second sentences in my response in post #122. Please read it again.
I'll admit, unusual changes have taken place in my behavior lately.
I used to be a humorous fellow. A little round man. An aging retired dentist with lots of time on his hands and money to burn.
However my relationships have now begun to go down the tubes. My money is running out. I even have the unmitigated gall to spar with a superior authority, such as yourself.
Hold on a a minute pardner! The change in my behavior seems to have begun when I started using Pyrocat-HD as a film developer.
Perhaps there's something to that rumor. Pyro must be responsible for driving people insane. After all, look what happened to Edward W.
Hey, I just realized, you have been using Pyro a lot longer than I have.
Hmmmm----:) :) :)
And, oh yes, "Don't mess with Texas".
sanking
10-Dec-2010, 18:49
Gem,
You should be OK if you quit drinking Pyrocat and use it as a developer. I know that some forms of Pyrocat, -MC in glycol, look a lot like those rot gut ales that they call beer in Texas. In fact, I suspect Pyrocat has a better tast than the typical Texas beer, but that is another story.
What I would suggest is that you make your way over to Lafayette, Louisiana and get back in touch with the good life. And listen to that song by Lucinda Williams about that poor wretch who was born in Nacogdoches but insisted that Lake Charles was his home.
BTW, just for the record, my grandfather David Green Bradford, with two of his brothers, walked from Central Louisiana to Houston and they all fought in the war from 1846-48 to free you lousy good for nothing Texas scoundrels from Mexico. The only good thing from that is that all three brothers received good tracts of land back in Louisiana for their efforts. Thank God they did not have to remain in Texas or I might have been born there!!
Sandy
Gem Singer
10-Dec-2010, 19:37
Sandy,
I'm not native to Texas. Born and raised in Michigan. Practiced dentistry in Ohio. Retired to Arizona, and ended up here in Texas by chance.
However, the DFW metroplex is a nice place to live.
You're correct about the taste of Texas beer. Haven't had a Lone Star beer since the 1980's. Probably never will again.
In fact, I only drink an occasional Mexican beer with my meal in a Tex-Mex restaurant.
BTW, your grandfather and his brothers wasted their time. They would be disappointed if they lived today. The Gringos in Texas are now out numbered by Latinos from south of the border.
rdenney
10-Dec-2010, 20:41
...The only good thing from that is that all three brothers received good tracts of land back in Louisiana for their efforts. Thank God they did not have to remain in Texas or I might have been born there!!
And here I have admired your work, your level-headedness, your expertise, and your willingness to share it...
...and then this post.
Sigh. Just what we need--character advice from someone who admires southern Louisiana.
Rick "native of Houston--a little too close for comfort" Denney
sanking
10-Dec-2010, 20:54
Sigh. Just what we need--character advice from someone who admires southern Louisiana.
Uhhhh!! What is there not to admire and love about southern Louisiana? It is God's gift to good cuisine. Have you never had a good cajun meal in Lafayette? Say gumbo, or crayfish etouffé, or turducken with seafood dressing?
And by the way, there are some good cajun restaurants in Houston. Great one there in the Houston airport, forget the name right now. I always try to stop in there on my way to Mexico through George Bush International.
Sandy
rdenney
10-Dec-2010, 21:13
Uhhhh!! What is there not to admire and love about southern Louisiana?
Coo.......
No, I won't say it. It would be uncharitable, even in this thread.
Do folks in Lafayette actually spell mudbugs "crayfish"?
Oh, yes, I've had crawfish etouffe, and my great-grandmother's cook (in Anahuac--waaaay too close to the border), whose people were from Lake Charles, could cook gumbo to die for. So, I enjoyed that stuff regularly, but home-style and not in restaurants.
All the cajun restaurants in Houston are new pretenders. There were never good cajun joints there in my youth. Good Gulf seafood--yes. Maybe a hint of New Orleans. But not cajun. Some of the pretenders are still pretty good, like Pappadeax's (owned by Greeks!). I usually make it there at least once during visits.
(There has to be some cliche cajun joke picture about large-format photography, like a tripod with one leg bitten off by an alligator, that I could throw in to keep on topic, but I can't find anything.)
Rick "some of whose best friends were coo.....--no, I still won't say it" Denney
sanking
10-Dec-2010, 21:25
(There has to be some cliche cajun joke picture about large-format photography, like a tripod with one leg bitten off by an alligator, that I could throw in to keep on topic, but I can't find anything.)
Yes, I will stay away from that c**n a*s comment as well, but being one it does not sting!! At least half one as my grandmother was Cajun and she taught me to love the culture, and also a bit of the language.
BTW, meant to stay on topic also by mentioning that I have a 14X17" albumen photograph of the great grandfather, from circa 1870, I mentioned earlier. And yes, it was my "great" grandfather, not grand father. I am getting pretty damn old but go figure if a man who was in his thirties in the late 1840s could have really been my grandfather? Only if I am vampire, which I won't categorically deny.
Course, I still don't know how I managed to get the photograph. It was the only photograph of him any of the relatives had, at least from that period, and I had thirty uncles and aunts on that one side of the family, and over sixty first cousins. So I had to work hard to come out with that treasure.
So Pappadeaux's is owned by Greeks? Did not know that.
Sandy
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.