Careful, it fits 405's.
Careful, it fits 405's.
Tin Can
Thats the similar to the the Mamiya RB Pola backs then? (just different film opening?)
Yes, I use the RB's. My trick is to shoot heads against a black backdrop so I get a full frame print with what looks like a law of 3rds composition, if that makes sense.
I also use a different 405 on a Horseman 2x3, but that gives a full rectangle, but not full film size. Full size print/film only happens with a 405 made for 4x5 backs.
Originally Posted by analoguey
Tin Can
We have a whole new forum where images on 3x4 instant film can be shown, without it being relegated to the lounge.
So, why don't we go make some images with FP100C and post them.
Rick "who does still have some 4x5 Fujiroid that needs to be used up" Denney
I agree completely. Yet by the moderators' own admission it was the confusion of "a number of [forum] members" that sparked the recent changes. Thus, there is now a precedent that expressed confusion can lead to change. So perhaps if I, as a forum member, express my confusion at the current state of things, there is a chance it will change back.
Jonathan
Basically, it has always been that 4x5 or larger is LF. The questions have always been 1) 612/617, 2) 6x9, 2x3, and 9x12. Realistically, most people are OK with #2 not being LF, with the exceptions of people who uses 2x3 with movements.
#1 has always been the problem child. Area-wise, 617 is really just about the same size as 4x5.
The previous rule basically addresses that: 617 is OK only if it's on a view camera.
This new rule simplifies it to 4x5 or larger.
It could just as well be simplified to 617 or 4x5 or larger. The moderators may huff and hum, but I do not see too many non-moderators objecting 617 regardless of cameras being called LF.
That leaves 612, but I think most people would be OK if 612 is not considered as LF.
However, this is not a democracy and the moderators do all the work, except for the guy that runs the server (I do know him personally), so that's that.
It’s reassuring that some of the people that make the rules recognize that large format in it’s essence is a state of mind. Slow photography. The product originates from the imagination. In the way AA describes as pre- visualization. For 2 decades ago the tool of the trade was a large piece of film. And as so easy identifiable. But times are changing. Obviously it’s still possible to use film. But everyone must have noticed that possibilities are dyeing down. So some people are looking for new tools to continue . To rigorous reject these attempts and place the side by side with hail shot formats is rude. In some way blinding the window that looks out into the future. Keep in mind the refusing to replace the beacon’s the island on which you stand will keep diminishing. Keep the past and stay open-minded towards the future.
:-)
Thanks for the clarification. And on making an entire sub-forum instead of a single thread available!
Ansel Adams, Brett Weston and Paul Strand were well-known Large Format photographers who transitioned to Medium Format equipment in their later years. Even so, if they were members today, we'd ask them to post their Large Format photos in the Large Format area, and their work with other formats in the section for "everything else".
It's unlikely that their artistic vision drifted very far from their "Large Format state of mind", but their equipment did and that's the objective criteria we're working with today.
Images made with other equipment are not prohibited. They just belong in the "everything else" sections.
Fair enough. Is there an age restriction? Perhaps we can put ULF under forum called Fitness Training.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks