LF Clarification

[djdister]

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.

A good solution. So now the "Portland School" of work won't be relegated to a thread in the Lounge.

Thanks to Rick "Who always summarizes his main point in his signature block" Denney and all the other Moderators for your decision on this issue.

[Jmarmck]

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.



Here you go: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ilford_KI_Monobar

I think I have been on the business end of one of those.

[rdenney]

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.

Which is why any guideline will be arbitrary. We are trying to define what has not been defined consistently.

But camera-based definitions result in lists, and for every list there will be gaps and direct inconsistencies. View cameras have come in all formats--with "view camera" being defined as cameras where focusing and composition is done by directly viewing a ground glass. But a press or Technika-style camera, which may use a viewfinder and a rangefinder, doesn't fit that definition. But it is possible to use a press camera with directly viewed ground glass, so that's okay. But what about a ground-glass attachment on a Hasselblad? That makes it a view camera by that definition. But it doesn't have movements--let's limit it to cameras with movements. Well, that would exclude (for example) a Wanderlust Travelwide, which nobody would want to exclude. And then there's the Arcbody, which is a Hasselblad with movements and a ground-glass back. Okay, let's back up. We'll just reject reflex cameras. But what about a Sinar with a reflex viewer? Or a Graflex SLR?

There's no end to it. Every time we tried to explore camera-based boundaries, we ended up having to draw the line at nominal format size. And that line will always be arbitrary. Drawing it excludes some who feel their particular variation should not be excluded, which is why we opened another image-sharing sub-forum for other formats.

Rick "there are no straight lines through the history of camera equipment" Denney

[rdenney]

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.

Funny that--I write them from the top down.

Rick "this is the end" Denney

[rdenney]

I just measured the actual image area of a recent 4x5 negative and it comes out to 3 11/16" x 4 11/16". So are THOSE the minimum dimensions we should be talking about? If we require an absolute of 4" as the minimum "short side" dimension I'm afraid we'll become a forum for 5x7 and above.

Jonathan

The word of the day is: Nominal.

Rick "looking at what's printed on the box" Denney

[rdenney]

How about the Darkroom section? For example: (How to attach Omega lens to Omega B66 enlarger.)

We have always allowed darkroom equipment discussions that were relevant to large-format photography. That subject is not, and we would move it to the Lounge (at least when we see it or someone complains about it).

That is still true. With the never-seen exception of an image made using a 6x6 film holder, a B66 has never accommodated the images we allowed in the LF section, and still doesn't.

Rick "sure that question can be answered just as well in the Lounge" Denney

[Bob Salomon]

Which is why any guideline will be arbitrary. We are trying to define what has not been defined consistently.

But camera-based definitions result in lists, and for every list there will be gaps and direct inconsistencies. View cameras have come in all formats--with "view camera" being defined as cameras where focusing and composition is done by directly viewing a ground glass. But a press or Technika-style camera, which may use a viewfinder and a rangefinder, doesn't fit that definition. But it is possible to use a press camera with directly viewed ground glass, so that's okay. But what about a ground-glass attachment on a Hasselblad? That makes it a view camera by that definition. But it doesn't have movements--let's limit it to cameras with movements. Well, that would exclude (for example) a Wanderlust Travelwide, which nobody would want to exclude. And then there's the Arcbody, which is a Hasselblad with movements and a ground-glass back. Okay, let's back up. We'll just reject reflex cameras. But what about a Sinar with a reflex viewer? Or a Graflex SLR?

There's no end to it. Every time we tried to explore camera-based boundaries, we ended up having to draw the line at nominal format size. And that line will always be arbitrary. Drawing it excludes some who feel their particular variation should not be excluded, which is why we opened another image-sharing sub-forum for other formats.

Rick "there are no straight lines through the history of camera equipment" Denney

Since 1980 when I joined HP Marketing as an employee we have been involved in the distribution of the following formats:

8x11
35mm
6x4.5
6x6
6x7
6x9
6x12
6x17
4x5
5x7
8x10
11.8x15.7

And of these 12 only 4 would qualify as a view camera and of those 4 one would not be in the least way portable.
And that 8x11 is in mm not inches since we were the Minox distributor in the 80's and early 90s.

And don't forget that Xact camera which was a Rollei with movements with a very wide range of lenses or the SL66 which was a reflex roll film with lots of lenses and lens tilts.

But there is still another. Novoflex makes the BALPRO T/S and the CASTBAL T/S which are tilt shift bellows which virtually any 35mm or mirrorless camera as well as most MF cameras with a focal plane shutter can be mounted to and which accept virtually any mirrorless or 35mm SLR or DSLR or RF camera lens as well as microscope lenses and many MF lenses and turms any of those cameras into a camera with T?S movements front and back. Or, as someone was mentioning earlier, into a miniature view camera.

The drawback is that you would need to use special Novoflex lenses to work at infinity but closer then infinity to macro there is almost an infinite number of lenses.

[Henry Ambrose]

This must be a good decision since more than a few people are stirred up by it.

It seems a good job of cutting the pie. Some like more crust, some like more filling. And with this new definition It seems that all were taken into account and everyone gets a slice. Having a new forum for the smaller formats is a great idea and if anyone does not want to view it they can set their preferences to ignore it. I suspect very few will do so. I never have seen why some members seemed so bothered by a few OT posts.

The new scheme is more inclusive (it really does let everyone in) but simply divides the forum into more categories. As long as this is enforced wisely and gently all will be well.

Good move gentlemen.

[Jim Noel]

I just measured the actual image area of a recent 4x5 negative and it comes out to 3 11/16" x 4 11/16". So are THOSE the minimum dimensions we should be talking about? If we require an absolute of 4" as the minimum "short side" dimension I'm afraid we'll become a forum for 5x7 and above.

Jonathan

I would love that one since when I was growing up my 4x5 was considered medium format and I yearned for the cash to buy a large format camera.

[jp]

Such a first world problem this is, after I came back from a day in the woods in Maine in the fall. Get shooting, or developing, or scanning, or something.