Request clarification of large format.

[VictoriaPerelet]

I have couple random notes on subject:
1. "Very little" known author in "very little" known book^(*) said this:


defines it well enough inline with technology from mid of last century.

2. A lot of very interesting digital pics made by what's called technocams (Alpa, Linhoff techno, arca m2 etc), gets posted on getdpi. Those are modern view cameras. Is this website restricted to outdated hardware only? Quite few of analogue LF pics is reposted there, so it appears that too anti-digital attitude here drives people somewhere else.

^(*)A. Adams, "Camera", Chapter 9, pg 29.

[DennisD]

Yeah... though the question Sandy raised to start this thread, which many of us haven't really addressed, is what to do about MFDBs mounted to cameras that are either the same ones we're using or are functionally closely analogous to them.

This is precisely the point I was questioning as I read this thread. However, it seems references to "sheet film" and "roll film" as noted in the quote below (from the forum rules) is the operative language with respect to the use of medium format digital backs attached to view cameras. I.e. MFDBs are not allowed because that's not "sheet film"

Quoted from opening paragraph of this forum's "Usage Guidelines":

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).

Perhaps it's time to reconsider that position because, in this day and age, there are photographers with MFDBs on view cameras or on technical cameras with view camera functionality. While there may not be many DB users on this forum, they do exist. And, as VictoriaPerelet so aptly points out in her post above, the "anti digital attitude here drives people somewhere else".

I, for one, would be happy to post images taken with a digital back / technical camera, but have refrained from doing so based on my own interpretation of forum policy as noted above.

I wonder whether this issue is one that the forum founder and site owner, Q.T. Luong, might voice his opinion, if not to clarify or pass ultimate judgment on, considering the following: 1) his original intentions when establishing the forum and 2) taking into account the current state of film vs. digital.

I make the above suggestion with all due respect and appreciation to the moderators who give very unselfishly of their time and effort.

[Daniel Stone]

"Drives people elsewhere"...
Ok, let them post elsewhere, maybe? I mean, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I use both digital and film, for different purposes.

I like being able to come here, and know(at least up until now I guess, if the rules change?) that the photographs being displayed ORIGINATED on film, not digital. Yes, it might not "matter" to some, as they(as I believe) that the end result is really what matters. When I read through the Luminous-Landscape forum, I'm there for certain reasons, and I read through Apug for certain reasons as well...

Personally, I'm for keeping this a "film only" forum(outside the lounge's "small formats" section), personally. But if a "digital" section was to be added down the line, it wouldn't drive me away entirely. Being different isn't a bad thing. In fact, I think it could help MAINTAIN the exclusivity of this forum as it currently stands. But being able to discern which section(s) allow which technology, I think it'll help keep this forum a bit more "traditional" to its original designation when founded and as currently laid-out in the sites main information page.

-Dan

[Pete Watkins]

I'm with Daniel!
Pete

[Struan Gray]

I would welcome a section devoted to LF-relevant digital tools. MFDBs on pancake cameras, DSLRs mounted on view cameras. Anything more complex than a box camera with helical focussing. This is where LF is headed for both commercial and personal work and I like to learn about it even if I can't afford it.

Bouncing threads to the Lounge seems to work well enough as a way to keep the main sections clear while allowing discussion of borderline cases. It would be nice if OPs could be less thin-skinned about 'relegation'.

I started reading and participating in the usenet group for large format film and cameras long before I owned an LF camera myself. It was where the people with a deep knowledge of lens optics, photochemistry, other arts and the history of the medium tended to hang out. That sophistication persists here. It can only be good to have discussion of new techniques, or the application of novel technology to established modes of LF image-making, within the context of that knowledge base.

[jnantz]

Yeah... though the question Sandy raised to start this thread, which many of us haven't really addressed, is what to do about MFDBs mounted to cameras that are either the same ones we're using or are functionally closely analogous to them. I think what will keep it from being a huge issue one way or another here is that very few of us will ever own one. Even at Getdpi the buzz has largely shifted to the latest FF35 sensors.

in my opinion ... ( which doesn't add up to much )
if it is attached to the back of a view camera i don't see that being any different than a roll film adapter ...
its always interesting to see what people do using large cameras, sensors, film, paper &c as building blocks ...
some make a "shotgun shack" others make things you couldn't have imagined

[StoneNYC]

"Drives people elsewhere"...
Ok, let them post elsewhere, maybe? I mean, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I use both digital and film, for different purposes.

I like being able to come here, and know(at least up until now I guess, if the rules change?) that the photographs being displayed ORIGINATED on film, not digital. Yes, it might not "matter" to some, as they(as I believe) that the end result is really what matters. When I read through the Luminous-Landscape forum, I'm there for certain reasons, and I read through Apug for certain reasons as well...

Personally, I'm for keeping this a "film only" forum(outside the lounge's "small formats" section), personally. But if a "digital" section was to be added down the line, it wouldn't drive me away entirely. Being different isn't a bad thing. In fact, I think it could help MAINTAIN the exclusivity of this forum as it currently stands. But being able to discern which section(s) allow which technology, I think it'll help keep this forum a bit more "traditional" to its original designation when founded and as currently laid-out in the sites main information page.

-Dan

I think that the one thing you may be forgetting Daniel is that there are many large-format backs like the scanning backs which are full large-format but are definitely not film, and so this format for him is about large-format images being taken with large format cameras and has nothing to do with the medium that is used in the image making. It just so happens that there are many more options for film versus digital scanning backs and the cost of which is much lower for film in the initial entrance, and more people are used to using film so of course they do, but this isn't a film forum it's a camera forum.

So I guess I'm contradicting my previous statement when I say that this forum is specifically for larger cameras.

Hmm a conundrum for sure!

I would venture to guess that part of Sandy King's question stems from his use of 35mm digital cameras which he then has put onto a larger film base with a special printer and then contact prints for carbon prints and things like that which the image itself in the film used as the secondary medium is certainly ultralarge, but the initial taking image format is 35mm digital.

At least I think that is Sandy, after a while all of you guys who are amazing and technical and have all the skills start to blur together into one amazing photographer in my brain and so sometimes I get confused, but I pretty sure that's Sandy's more recent adventures.

[goamules]

Let me explain how this could go with an analogy. Years ago I started a Flickr group called Petzval Lens Photographs. https://www.flickr.com/groups/868027@N25/ Over the years it was a place to view amazing photography made by these classic lenses. Of course, they were all large format. Many were wetplate, as those practitioners led the charge into readopting these lenses. The membership slowly grew to 100, 200, 300 members over 5 years or so.

Then the Lomography "petzval" came out (I've still never seen one disassembled to verify it even is a true Petzval). Suddenly the membership rapidly increased, and is now almost 700, it doubled in 1 year. Unfortunately 99% of the shots posted each day, week, month are from this new "Lomo" lens, shot on 35mm. As a moderator, I have to constantly weed out shots taken by other, normal 35mm lenses and digital cameras too, as people become confused as to what a Petzval is. It used to get 2 to 5 new Large Format shots posted a week, now it gets 10 a day. All Lomo.

Some of the shots show the distinction of a Petzval or Pseudo-petzval. Some you can't tell. Again, almost all are now 35mm. The few true Petzval shots (those lenses were made for Large Format only) are lost in the shuffle. I haven't decided if it's a good thing or bad thing. But the intent of the group was to showcase large format film shots with traditional Petzvals, not dozens of Lomo snapshots taken each day. I had to limit the number of posts to 2 a day, because I was getting "Lomo Spammed" by a few users who shot hundreds a week.

This is what happens with new technology. Classic race car drivers are pushed to allow replicas in their shows. Antique shops become furniture stores for modern made pieces. The 35mm film Rangefinder Forum now mostly discusses mirrorless digital cameras. Tradition is replaced by Technology, in many clubs, hobbies, lifestyles. My question is; does the Large Format Forum want to dilute, replace, and change the definition of Large Format Film Photography, so that a new Technology can take over?

[Christopher Barrett]

I'm new here, but I'm always opinionated so I'll just say, why does any of this even matter? Large format photography is a mindset, a methodology, a work practice that emphasizes a respect for craft and the medium of photography. It is an approach to image making that transcends the specifics of both format and capture medium. I've always taken the same care with every image I've captured whether I was shooting 8x10, 4x5, MF, 35mm, MFDB, DSLR or Digital Cinema cameras. I'd like to believe that it is particularly that care and respect for the craft that creates the camaraderie of this forum. Personally, if I had to pick, I'd rather discuss thoughtful and stunning images made with point and shoots than mediocre images made with an 8x10. Tools are awesome and God knows I love the gear, but it should only be a means to an end. That 'end' for me is the work... well crafted and provocative imagery.

Now, I would truly hate to ever see any '8x10 vs. d800' threads on this board, but I'd like to think that a bunch of artists can be open-minded when talking about art.

IMHO,
CB

[goamules]

I'm new here, but I'm always opinionated so I'll just say, why does any of this even matter? Large format photography is a mindset, a methodology, a work practice that emphasizes a respect for craft and the medium of photography. It is an approach to image making that transcends the specifics of both format and capture medium. I've always taken the same care with every image I've captured whether I was shooting 8x10, 4x5, MF, 35mm, MFDB, DSLR or Digital Cinema cameras. I'd like to believe that it is particularly that care and respect for the craft that creates the camaraderie of this forum. Personally, if I had to pick, I'd rather discuss thoughtful and stunning images made with point and shoots than mediocre images made with an 8x10. Tools are awesome and God knows I love the gear, but it should only be a means to an end. That 'end' for me is the work... well crafted and provocative imagery.

Now, I would truly hate to ever see any '8x10 vs. d800' threads on this board, but I'd like to think that a bunch of artists can be open-minded when talking about art.

IMHO,
CB

Discussions are great. There are perennially Digital vs Film discussions on most forums, often banned because it's too vague and subjective to ever reach a conclusion. But I disagree with your assumption that LF is a "mindset" and "....image making that transcends the specifics of both format and capture medium." LF is EXACTLY medium and specifics of capture, in movements, lenses, aspect ratios, film types, speeds, grain, resolution, etc.

You are trying to turn a tangible (Large Format) into an abstract ("art"). That's what the "transitional" adapters of new technology often do. Those I spoke about in my previous post, that change and replace hobbies, events, and forums. Mark my words, and my question above still holds, if the LF Forum allows DSLR shots and Medium Format digital backs to be posted as examples of Large Format, it will dilute the focus of this forum as hundreds of newly acceptable photographers and their non LF equipment join. It will merge the LF world into the generic, digital, mainstream, cell phone "camera" world.

You say the medium "...should only be a means to an end. That 'end' for me is the work... well crafted and provocative imagery." There are plenty of places to showcase and discuss your multiple-source photography. Flickr, Facebook groups, your gallery, ton's of websites for "photos by any means." This is a Large Format forum. Plain and simple.

We don't allow Photoshopped fake wetplates on the Collodion forum which I moderate either. Because they have nothing to do with wetplate.