LF Clarification

[BrianShaw]

Since when has Maine been admitted to "first world" status?

[jcoldslabs]

4x5 is where we have drawn the line, Jonathan's hair-splitting exactitude notwithstanding.

I wasn't totally joking, Ken. I still have a few boxes of 10x15cm film in my freezer. 10cm = 3.94 inches. Which image sharing forum do I post those images to? I guess I'll find out when and if a moderator decides to move them. And that's fine. I learn better the hard way anyway!

I don't think I got an answer on the cropping issue. Are we still allowed in Large Format Land as long as we start out shooting on a 4x5 piece of film even if the crop we use is much less than that?

J.

[Ken Lee]

I still have a few boxes of 10x15cm film in my freezer. 10cm = 3.94 inches. Which image sharing forum do I post those images to?

I'd say put them in the Large Format area. If anyone asks, you can tell them that you got special "metric dispensation"

Are we still allowed in Large Format Land as long as we start out shooting on a 4x5 piece of film even if the crop we use is much less than that?

Sticking with the 4x5 definition, my vote would be no: once we start cropping a 4x5 capture to something "much less", it's smaller than a "nominal" 4x5 negative, and belongs elsewhere on the forum. Of course, the key term here is "much less", which is subjective.

My suggestion is that if you have to ask, it's probably not Large Format and belongs in the "everything else" department.

Going forward, moderators don't want to spend time policing format issues. That's why we decided to create a reasonable definition of Large Format and refer to everything else as... everything else.

[Sal Santamaura]

...We ended up with this approach as performing best under all those considerations. It is based on the format used when the picture was made, not on the camera or image capture technology. What happens after the exposure is not used in the definition...

...Are we still allowed in Large Format Land as long as we start out shooting on a 4x5 piece of film even if the crop we use is much less than that?...

Sticking with the 4x5 definition, my vote would be no: once we start cropping a 4x5 capture to something "much less", it's smaller than a "nominal" 4x5 negative, and belongs elsewhere on the forum...

Ken and Rick: you guys need to talk.

[Tim Meisburger]

Well, I was agreeing with everything until the last post. My understanding from Rick's post was that if it was shot on 4x5, it was acceptable if cropped. I almost always crop.

[Tin Can]

Sorry I really thought you were joking.

I think cropping HAS to be allowed as it is a common practice.

I wasn't totally joking, Ken. I still have a few boxes of 10x15cm film in my freezer. 10cm = 3.94 inches. Which image sharing forum do I post those images to? I guess I'll find out when and if a moderator decides to move them. And that's fine. I learn better the hard way anyway!

I don't think I got an answer on the cropping issue. Are we still allowed in Large Format Land as long as we start out shooting on a 4x5 piece of film even if the crop we use is much less than that?

J.

[Ken Lee]

I agree about cropping being commonplace and normal practice, but it's a matter of degree.

Jonathan described a sheet of 4x5 film cropped-down to something "much less". The term "much less" is open to interpretation.

If our definition of Large Format excludes a 6x7 image made with a roll-film back, but allows a 4x5 sheet-film image cropped to 6x7, is that fair or consistent ?

One solution would be to extend the definition to 4x5 inches cropped by no more than x%. Is there a reasonable value for x ?

[Tin Can]

10%...

I agree about cropping being commonplace and normal practice, but it's a matter of degree.

Jonathan described a sheet of 4x5 film cropped-down to something "much less". The term "much less" is open to interpretation.

If we exclude a 6x7 image made with a roll-film back, but allow a 4x5 sheet cropped to 6x7, would that be fair or consistent ?

We could extend the definition to say 4x5 inches cropped by no more than X %, but what is a reasonable value for X ?

[Corran]

So 3.6 inches. Nominal.

[rdenney]

Ken and Rick: you guys need to talk.

Hey, I wrote my opinion first.

Rick "sticking with that" Denney