Yes pretend. If i attach a macro rail/bellows to my nikon slr, it looks like a LF camera. It isn't but I tell everyone it is.
You're new to the forum, you'll get over it.
Yes pretend. If i attach a macro rail/bellows to my nikon slr, it looks like a LF camera. It isn't but I tell everyone it is.
You're new to the forum, you'll get over it.
Formats can be a grey area.
There's a format larger than 6x9 that's close to 9x12 - Quarter plate and it's not medium format. A very common field camera format before WWII here in the UK, there were also many SLRs as well, it continued in the US after WWII with the smaller Century Graphic cameras.
Then there's the Postcard sized 3½ x 5½ Compact Graflex (and similar camera) but as this format is longer than 9x12 it fits the rules here. In fact a modern 5x4 or 9x4 DDS (film holder) fits with very slight modification.
Ian
There was the Ilford/kennedy Instruments 35mm monorail camera.Originally Posted by vinny
Ian
Different forums, different rules. This forum is its owner's hobby. APUG is its owner's livelihood.
We have gone back and forth over the years, making exceptions for this camera or that, trying to decide if we were a view-camera forum or a large-format forum. We discovered that any line is arbitrary, but there was a clearer boundary between formats than between cameras. If we are going to be arbitrary anyway, we can at least be as clear as possible.
Rick "who used to post 6x12 images but does no longer" Denney
Yes it comes down our version of political correctnessAny question you have about view camera movements, bellows extension, film holders, ground glass, etc. that applies to 4x5 or larger cameras you can simply ask as such. Just substitute "4x5" for "2x3" or whatever.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
The 9x12/5x4 size is a clear cut boundary, the same external size International DDS film/plate holders after WWII. There's very few of us using quarter plate cameras, film's only really available by special order through Ilford's annual ULF run and quite expensive anyway so it's no big deal here on this forum.
Ian
As Petronio showed us when I was a moderator, it's based on what you call something-not what it is always. He was posting cropped 4x5, small format and even digital occasionally with a full 4x5 rebate pasted on in PS in the LF threads. I have a pretty keen eye I think for whether a posted image is scanned film, scanned print or digital capture as I do and teach all methods, but so what? I've seen here, what I am pretty sure, is digital capture presented as LF film. But proving it is a waste of energy.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
I can't speak for anyone but me, but I joined the forum when I was only shooting 6x7.
It never even occurred to me to look for or shoot anything smaller than 4x5.
What's then point, there's no serious advantage, you don't get more detail, you maybe get more movements than many 120 cameras but the developing is more difficult with specialty old equipment.
I don't see smaller than 4x5 to be any kind of gateway to LF, it's more expensive and more complicated than 4x5.
The film costs more and is harder to come by.
So the argument that they could be gateway formats is negligible.
Anyway just one person's perspective.
Stone........dude........who is debating the benefits of shooting LF vs. MF? The only question here is what is allowed in the main forum and the history of that.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks