Page 1 of 23 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 226

Thread: LF Clarification

  1. #1
    Moderator Ralph Barker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Posts
    4,718

    LF Clarification

    A number of members requested clarification of how the forum defines "LF" - essentially, what image formats are allowed to be posted, and where, on the forum. After considerable discussion among the moderators and the forum owner, we have changed the FAQ as follows:

    A. What is the Large Format Photography Forum all about? - The purpose of the forum is to provide a place for discussion of topics of particular interest to large format photographers. We especially encourage questions which will help build a repository of knowledge about the tools and techniques of large format photography. Commonly accepted definitions base large format photography on 4"x5" and larger sheet film, regardless of the style of camera being used. This is the definition we will use. We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well, regardless of technology.

    Over time, these definitions and boundaries have changed. The current definition was established in September, 2014. Prior threads that no longer fit this definition will be moved to the appropriate forum only if new postings are made within them.

    B. How is the LF Forum organized?
    LF-related Forums
    . . .
    Image Sharing (LF) & Discussion - Post your own large-format images (based on 4"x5" or larger format) for sharing and discussion. Critiques should only be offered if requested by the original poster.

    Image Sharing (Everything Else) & Discussion - Post your own images of other formats and types here for sharing and discussion. All rollfilm formats (rolls less than 4" wide) and medium-format digital formats belong here, regardless of camera used. Critiques should only be offered if requested by the original poster.


    You will note that this adds a sub-forum in the LF-related section for posting and discussion of images that are not "LF" as we define it. This should resolve the confusion created by our previous policy of "grandfathering" certain formats that weren't really "LF" but shared the LF working style based on the camera being used.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    144

    Re: LF Clarification

    Moderators,
    Thank you for your efforts on this, as well as the general work you do for the LFF.

  3. #3
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,714

    Re: LF Clarification

    Interesting solution. Having been in on these discussions previously I know how difficult they can be to arrive at a consensus. It sticks to a more traditional definition of what LF is while adding room for everything else. It should work. Of course like anything, not everyone will be happy. Thanks for your efforts.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 67
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  4. #4
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    GA, USA
    Posts
    4,946

    Re: LF Clarification

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph Barker View Post
    All rollfilm formats (rolls less than 4" wide) [...] belong here, regardless of camera used.
    So, does that mean 6x12 and 6x17 are "accepted" in the LF category, being ~4.5 / ~6.5 inches wide? Or are you talking about the "width" of the roll of film (2 1/4), meaning that all roll films shot on LF cameras w/ rollfilm back are now not allowed?
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    7,818

    Re: LF Clarification

    Images made on film whose smaller dimension is less than 4 inches, are no longer by our definition Large Format, even if they are very long in their other dimension.

    For example, a horizontal landscape negative or transparency that is 1 inch high and 10 inches wide, is not Large Format according to our definition, even though it might have been made on an 8x10 view camera.

    By contrast, a horizontal landscape negative or transparency that is 4 inches high and 10 inches wide, is Large Format according to our definition.

    Non Large Format photos and related discussion are still welcome, but not in the Large Format forums. They fall into the category of "everything else".

  6. #6
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    GA, USA
    Posts
    4,946

    Re: LF Clarification

    Huh. Can't say I agree with that at all. I didn't think that was part of the discussion at all, but whatever...
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Posts
    10,340

    Re: LF Clarification

    I disagree.

    Why not make the definition so that it includes cameras that have camera movements? This would then expand to 6x9 view cameras. Basically this would also exclude large roll formats like 612 and 617 unless they were taken on a view camera with movements.
    Then images shot with a 45 view camera with a 612 or a 617 roll back would qualify.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    7,818

    Re: LF Clarification

    In our view, it's not about the camera, but the size of the film or sensor. Any film or digital sensor whose shorter dimension is 4 inches or greater, qualifies as Large Format. This is true if the camera allows movements or not, has a bellows or not.

    All other photos and discussion are welcome, but not in the Large Format sections.

  9. #9
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    GA, USA
    Posts
    4,946

    Re: LF Clarification

    Wasn't this whole debate brought up with regard to digital backs and similar technology being allowed or not?

    Why was something that has been allowed for years (rollfilm back images made on LF cameras) suddenly now disallowed? Seems rather pointless and arbitrary, especially when literally hundreds/thousands of contradicting postings are still floating around in the now incorrect subforum.
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,481

    Re: LF Clarification

    I agree with the moderators. The size of the film should be the major consideration. If not the now lost in history 35mm camera with almost full movements would have to be considered as LF. They are providing an area for other formats in the "everything else" area. It finally relieves having to work through the smaller formats to see what is up in LF. If some are unhappy with this, why don't they start a "Smaller than Large Format" forum.

Similar Threads

  1. Some Process Clarification, Please
    By Will Whitaker in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 27-Jul-2013, 12:42
  2. zs clarification
    By coops in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 4-May-2011, 17:44
  3. Kodak T Max 400 LF/ULF Clarification
    By Michael Kadillak in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20-Dec-2005, 08:13
  4. Clarification about Pyro
    By steve simmons in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 17-Jun-2004, 20:07
  5. Go to 4x5 or Stay with 6x6 - I need some clarification
    By Hugh Sakols in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 1-Nov-2003, 09:55

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •