Digital hate overmoderating?

[Mark Sawyer]

Seriously, if "which sub-heading should this post fall under" is the most pressing issue, the moderation is being done in moderation. For that, and everything else they do for us, I thank the moderators

[Corran]

I've not expressed any opinion on whether the Usage Guidelines are optimum with respect to this forum's sensor size definition. I simply said that they're clear and unambiguous. No matter who likes or dislikes them.

Actually, I just looked again at the Usage Guidelines, and no, it's not clear and unambiguous - absolutely no mention of stitching is made. So it is in fact a grey area, since people keep bringing it up. If the mods want to make it unequivocally not allowed, they should add that.

Also, I will say now I also appreciate the mods in general for not being overbearing with their own opinions. I recently was censored on another forum for having an opposing viewpoint with a moderator, so he just deleted the opinion. That hasn't happened here AFAIK.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I've not expressed any opinion on whether the Usage Guidelines are optimum with respect to this forum's sensor size definition. I simply said that they're clear and unambiguous. No matter who likes or dislikes them...

Actually, I just looked again at the Usage Guidelines, and no, it's not clear and unambiguous - absolutely no mention of stitching is made. So it is in fact a grey area, since people keep bringing it up...

I noted that there is no ambiguity concerning sensor size. I said nothing about stitching.

That people bring the same thing up repeatedly is indicative of their unhappiness with it, not that the Usage Guidelines aren't clear about it.

[Bruce Barlow]

Don't we have anything better to do? Such as photography?

[rdenney]

How about if the scanner doesn't take 4x5 size film. Will it be moved to the Lounge if it draws a complaint? Can it be discussed on the main forum outside the Lounge then? Please clarify.

I would expect a discussion I started about using my Nikon 8000 scanner to scan 6x12 to be moved to the Lounge, just as I would expect a discussion about enlarging rollfilm in an Omega B enlarger to be moved. I would expect a discussion on using a small digital camera to scan 4x5 film, one frame at a time, to be acceptable in the main forum. Large format applies to the image capture, not to subsequent processes.

Rick "not appreciating the underlying hostility" Denney

[Heroique]

Yes, a reasonable tolerance for ambiguity would be a blessing around here.

[StoneNYC]

This would all be solved more easily if we went back to the original definition of large format before Linhof came in and redefined it and called 4x5 Large format, prior to that, 5x7 was large format and 4x5 was considered medium format... Just saying... That would solve 90% of the complaints except those pesky 6x17 users

Stone "who thinks this argument is tired and also thinks non-LF/non-sheet film/70mm-and-smaller stuff shouldn't even be allowed on the forum at all, even in the lounge so just be glad I'm not in charge" NYC

[prendt]

I would expect a discussion I started about using my Nikon 8000 scanner to scan 6x22 to be moved to the Lounge, just as I would expect a discussion about enlarging rollfilm in an Omega B enlarger to be moved. I would expect a discussion on using a small digital camera to scan 4x5 film, one frame at a time, to be acceptable in the main forum. Large format applies to the image capture, not to subsequent processes.

Rick "not appreciating the underlying hostility" Denney

What underlying hostility are you speaking about? On who's side? I just got deleted posts when I doubted about MF scanner scanning 4x5 image twice and stitching the results. Do you think trying to understand rules that are not so clear is hostile endeavour? A polite explanation goes long way, don't forget that. Your servant, truly.

[Oren Grad]

What underlying hostility are you speaking about? On who's side? I just got deleted posts when I doubted about MF scanner scanning 4x5 image twice and stitching the results. Do you think trying to understand rules that are not so clear is hostile endeavour? A polite explanation goes long way, don't forget that. Your servant, truly.

We are having the discussion here. Parachuting into threads in the main section with disruptive posts, whether the motivation is to grab the moderators' attention, to press a case for a particular interpretation, or who-knows-what, is not "polite" by any stretch of the imagination. We will continue to delete such posts.

[rdenney]

In this case, the definition seems clear. Moving a sliding back and taking multiple exposures to assemble an image can be as easily done with a Canon EOS-1 as with my Canon 5D, so it is not a digital-vs.-film issue. Each image may be in the same plane, but they are not the same scene, simply because time has gone by. A stack of 24x36 digital images assembled to something bigger is no more large format than a stack of 35mm Kodachrome slides similarly assembled, by our definition.

We are not against digital, but until there is a digital capture device that allows the capture of an image of 4x5 or larger (and we know of at least one that is emerging), then digital is not large format. Many of us are hoping for that. But if I want to discuss my small and medium format digital equipment, I can do so in the Lounge, and I can even share images in the main forum. Or, I can participate in another forum, many of which have little interest in or support for large format.

And, yes, that seems clear enough to me.

Rick "most of whose work is outside the scope of this forum" Denney