I'd be thrilled if newcomers actually searched the archive, leading to a bit of potential confusion from this recent definition change, rather than blithely starting new, redundant threads. Explaining to them where things belong would be much less trouble than sifting through a cluttered archive.Originally Posted by Adamphotoman
Eliminating all the non LF image threads and "everything else" entirely would make it pretty clearI'd be thrilled if newcomers actually searched the archive, leading to a bit of potential confusion from this recent definition change, rather than blithely starting new, redundant threads. Explaining to them where things belong would be much less trouble than sifting through a cluttered archive.
That combined with a simple email of introduction stating
"please do not post anything smaller than a 4x5 (this includes 6x12 and 6x17 and 2.25x3.25 sheet film and 3.25x3.25 fujiroid's etc. get it?) thanks"
This will never happen but it would make things pretty clear
A few days ago my Large Format Digital Scan Back was accepted and guess what. Everyone was ignorant. Everyone thought YUP it is the only large format digital.
There is no such thing it turns out.
I am not going to run away with my tail between...
But I suggest manyPosts need to be moved...
I could have just kept my mouth shut. And you would have taken a lot of time to figure it out. If Ever.
Well, it appears I'm quite late to this particular party, and the new change doesn't really effect me as aninfrequent poster, but I feel I must speak my piece all the same.
Considering the long history of a fuzzy definition for large format, drawing an arbitrary line about what does and does not constitute large format is no easy task. Certainly it is going to upset someone no matter where you draw it. Further, if your goal is to clarify, that line you draw had better be a clear one which includes nothing subjective.
I believe the moderators have done a fine job of achieving their stated goals. Film with a short dimension of 4" or more is large format. That is a clear line , and I think that it is a reasonable place to draw it. (Even though I'm mostly shooting 6x9 these days.)
However, though the Moderators have done an admirable job of creating a clear definition, I think this forum would have been better served if they had used their collective expertise less for creating a clear definition, and more for determining if a clear definition is actually needed.
Large format is an increasingly specialized thing. I think its fair to assume that anyone that spends time on a large format forum, would have a special respect, if not reverence for the subject. Is it not reasonable to create a place for sharing "large format" and a place for sharing "everything else" and letting each photographer to determine where each of their own images belong?
Certainly, this would lead to an occasional image posted in "large format" that the vast majority of us would agree does not belong there; which would be a shame, but what would be the consequences beyond some mild annoyance on the part of those of us that disagree with its placement?
Do the moderators feel that drawing an arbitrary line based on one dimension of the film size diminishes this forum less than some rogue images placed inappropriately?
You can post images of any smaller format or even digital (and hundreds have been posted)-just not in the core forums.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"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"
You can post images of any smaller format or even digital (and hundreds have been posted)-just not in the core forums. I was not in favor of these changes but it has worked fine IMHO.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"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"
The definition we are using is: " . . . 4"x5" and larger sheet film (or the 9x12 cm metric equivalent), 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" - not just a short dimension of 4" or greater.
The "arbitrary" line helps establish the expectations of the primary focus of the forum, so that the primary focus doesn't drift due to interpretations based on other factors, such as the number of pixels in a digital capture, or the size of a print.
Note, however, that non-LF images can be shared and discussed in the "Image Sharing (Everything Else) & Discussion" sub-forum.
Yes all of that was understood. I said in my post that you guys did a great job of setting a clear definition. My point was that perhaps too much effort was spent creating a great definition, and not enough was spent in determining if a clear hard definition was the best course.
Is debate not the purpose of a forum? Should the name of this site be changed to the "Large Format Photography Information and Definitions Council"?
Yes, that is an excellent change. My question is why bother creating a set of rules to dictate which goes where? Why not let the photographers themselves determine? Are photographers placing images in the wrong place a worse scenario than having to chase down everyone that does it wrong anyway?
To me, your regurgitation of the definition in response to my post perhaps suggests a laser focus on what the definition is, (which I stated I agree with should one have to exist), and a relative blindspot toward the larger question.
.
Tin Can
Hmm...
Your thirteen-year-old daughter asks about "rules" for dating. You give her requested rules but also tell her those rules are all highly malleable and have no consequences. Nine months later.....
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks