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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller

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.

---

Thank you Brian for running the test and sharing your results. This forum is full of valuable information from photographers like yourself.

I think it is fair to say that a 6x9 view camera can be called 'large format' these days.

Kind regards,
Darr

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

-rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Salomon - HP Marketing

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?

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

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by al olson

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

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

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.

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.