I believe the intent behind Paul's statements and others is the inclusion of "view cameras" of any type, in addition to the nominal 4x5 or larger size criterion.
I believe the intent behind Paul's statements and others is the inclusion of "view cameras" of any type, in addition to the nominal 4x5 or larger size criterion.
What? That makes no sense.Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
It makes perfect sense to me. I'm sorry that you don't get it. It is focused on ends, not means.
If nothing else, the French approach avoids the pointless boundaries and stupid wrangling we insist on.
I have a couple of medium format view cameras, and I enjoy that kind of photography.
But I think what draws photographers or photo enthusiasts (and me) to large format photography, is the detail and rich tonalities that can result from 4x5 (9x12) and larger format films. So as a group, the moderators have decided to emphasize images, equipment, and methodologies for those larger format films.
If I may add, medium format films are called "medium" for a reason.
Perhaps a sheet film forum, then?And then graflex D and speed graphic and pinhole and such would all not be included.
J.
Wet plate, tintype, autochrome, paper then would be excluded
Incorporating anything about resolving power into a definition of LF makes no sense. Talk about wrangling. The arguments about what what constitutes high resolution would never end.
Good comment! Look to the works of our friend Jim Galli to make that so.
Is that sarcasm? (apologies if it isn't). I don't know the person you're referring to.
I just don't see how you can possibly set any boundary whatsoever on format size based on resolution.
Why do we continue to grease the squeaky wheel of new members coming here and complaining that the Forum doesn't suit their narcissistic desires?
Lachlan.
You miss 100% of the shots you never take. -- Wayne Gretzky
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks