Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 226

Thread: LF Clarification

  1. #31

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,218

    Re: LF Clarification

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings View Post
    But Bob they are not defining what a view camera is but what Large Format is.
    Right, its not called the "View Camera Forum" its the Large Format Photography Forum. So size does matter...

  2. #32
    DannL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    OK, USA
    Posts
    283

    Re: LF Clarification

    I think it is important as a view-camera/box-camera/folding-camera/wooden-camera/plate-camera user that I know a bit about how things came into being within the realm of photography. Doing one's own research can be a daunting task. But, believe it or not Google's free online books has been a godsend. At one point my library of downloaded photography books published between ~1835 to ~1920 exceeded over 300 titles. Not a single book contained the words "large" and "format" together in referring to a large film. But that was not a surprise. But, if some does find reference to it, I would love to see it first hand.
    "Photography is a marvelous discovery, a science that has attracted the greatest intellects, an art that excites the most astute minds and one that can be practiced by any imbecile." Nadar, 1856

  3. #33
    Whatever David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    4,658

    Re: LF Clarification

    I can manage with this definition, though it might make the archives a bit difficult to sort out, since there has been so much crossover in the past, and some of it will be unavoidable in the future. Let's see how it goes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Corran View Post
    Frankly I would love to see a 35mm camera with movements, ha!
    Here you go: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ilford_KI_Monobar

  4. #34
    multi format
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    local
    Posts
    3,705

    Re: LF Clarification

    Quote Originally Posted by jcoldslabs View Post
    If an image is shot on 4x5 (or larger) film but the portion of the negative used in the final crop is less than 4" in its shortest dimension, what then?

    Jonathan
    i know jonathan

    my 4x5 plates are 4x5" but my film isn't ... ( neither are my 4x5 [in camera] paper negatives )

    all joking aside
    it doesn't matter to me
    whether i put things in a subform or the main forum, its just a heading


    john

  5. #35
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    4,754

    Re: LF Clarification

    How about the Darkroom section? For example:

    How to attach Omega lens to Omega B66 enlarger

  6. #36
    DannL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    OK, USA
    Posts
    283

    Re: LF Clarification

    I always thought it would be fun to create a challenge on the forum to make the smallest functional view-camera. Be it a group effort, or individual. But, that was years ago. I never pursued it because this was not a view-camera forum, or even a forum dedicated to view-cameras in general. At that time many of my plate cameras and view-cameras didn't exceed the 9x12cm standard. I really like the forum, but have found it restricted. Much like a cramped boat on a long journey. Things could be bigger and much better.
    "Photography is a marvelous discovery, a science that has attracted the greatest intellects, an art that excites the most astute minds and one that can be practiced by any imbecile." Nadar, 1856

  7. #37
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    GA, USA
    Posts
    4,946

    Re: LF Clarification

    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    Awesome.
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  8. #38
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,079

    Re: LF Clarification

    Look, guys, think of it this way...

    Before we had an image-sharing forum for LF, and all other images were relegated to a couple of threads in the Lounge. People who used rollfilm backs on 4x5 cameras were allowed in the LF image sub-forum, but really on a technicality. There was just so much argument about the gray area that we had to be a little generous with the definition. But it still caused all sorts of problems over the last few years.

    So, instead of tightening up the boundary and relegating everything else to a couple of threads in the Lounge, we have added a new sub-forum for smaller formats. This makes it possible to have all the diversity of image-sharing threads that we have in the LF image subforum--portraits, landscapes, etc., etc.--but still maintain the fundamental meaning of the forum.

    Don't think of it as something that has been taken away, but rather something that has been added. Now, I can post images from my Pentax 67, or even my Canon 5D, in a regular image-sharing forum. This is actually more inclusive, but without undermining what it means to be a Large Format Photography Forum.

    One of the reasons it took us weeks to work this out is because we tried several different approaches to rendering the definition. One approach was based on the camera rather than the film/sensor. There were other approaches, too. We tested each of these by writing test guidelines, which we then evaluated in terms of 1.) clarity, 2.) consistency with what users expect, 3.) brevity, 4.) consistency with the meaning of the forum, 5.) moderator consensus, and 6.) consistency with the wishes of the owner. Other approaches could be clear, but could not attract a consensus or would cut off users. Approaches that could gather consensus required paragraphs to explain clearly. Allowing everything would undermine the meaning of the forum and those who are here because of that meaning. And so on.

    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.

    All boundaries are arbitrary. Perfection is unattainable. This is where we are.

    But, like any change, it will work if we collectively make it work.

    Rick "one of the 6x12 users who will now have to put those images in the new sub-forum" Denney

  9. #39
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    6,387

    Re: LF Clarification

    +1!!
    "Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,426

    Re: LF Clarification

    Don't you mean to sign: Rick "this is a good thing" Denny?

    And I don't mean that to be critical, but more to reflect how I read your posts - from the bottom up.

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
  •