What do you consider large format?

[Jay DeFehr]

Eugene,

you wrote:

"Therefore, I have to conclude that cameras that are capable of taking 2.25X3.25 inch (and larger) sheet film, are to be classified as large format cameras."

The Mamiya RB67 does have that capability, despite using a camera-specific holder, and being of an SLR design, which precludes the necessity of sliding the holder under a ground glass. Graflex LF SLRs didn't use standard, Fidelity-type holders, or have a GG at the film plane either. I think that the argument that the type of filmholder used is determinant, is specious at best. There are several MF cameras that are capable of using 2x3 film in standard holders, but that doesn't make them LF cameras, in my book.

Jay

[Ole Tjugen]

Well, I've now found a rollfilm back for the 6.5x9 VAG I mentioned before...

Reading through all the responses here, it seems that the definition is vaguer than ever. 8x10" Deardorffs are definitely LF, 6x9cm Bessa I's are not. But I insist my 6.5x9cm VAG is LF, even if I have a rollfilm back.

So it seems that the difference is in the movements: A LF camera has movements built into the camera, not the lens. If it uses big sheet films, it's LF regardless - even a shoe box with a pinhole is LF. If the body has no movements, AND if the body is primarily built for rollfilm (small ones, less than 6cm wide), it isn't LF.

Anyone?

[Gem Singer]

Jay,

Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

When I look at the B&H and MPEX websites, I can easily ascertain which cameras they classify as medium format and which ones as large format. Both of those dealers place the Ebony SV23 and baby Speed Graphic in the large format category. Of course, there are other examples of crossover cameras in each format. However, I think of the Ebony SV23 and the baby Speed Graphic as compact large format cameras, and you think of them as medium format cameras.

[Jay DeFehr]

It might prove instructive to look at this question from another perspective. While LF might be difficult to define, MF is far simpler. If a format can be considered MF, can it be considered LF as well?

Jay

[mark blackman]

Donald,
is that the sound of something rushing over you head? :-)

I make light of this thread because it's rather like the question about how many angels can fit on a pinhead.

If someone *thinks* they are shooting LF, then who am I to argue with them? If they enjoy the process and are striving to better their enjoyment, then good for them. They have my support 100%, and I don't give a camel's fanny if someone else thinks they are *wrong*

[Jay DeFehr]

Eugene,

I think that you're emphasizing equipment in your consideration, while I'm thinking more directly about film format. Most LF cameras are capable of using MF films and formats, and some cameras limited to MF films are used much like any LF camera. When I think of what constitutes the differences in formats, I primarily consider the size and shape of the image captured on film, which is the literal definition of the term, "format". All Medium Formats share a common 2 1/4" dimension, and only vary in the other dimension, because all MF film is 2 1/4"wide, wether in rolls or sheets. 70mm film could be considered a departure form the above rule, even though the image area is common to 120/220 films. If a hard and fast rule is needed, logic suggests that Large Format is limited to LF films, and Medium Format to MF films.

Jay

[Gem Singer]

Jay,

Using my logic, when I use a 6X9 rollfilm back on my 4X5 camera, is the camera now considered to be a medium format camera?

Is 2.25 X 3.25 inch HP-5+ sheet film considered to be large format film, or is it medium format film?

This will be my last post on the subject. You can have the last word.

[Jay DeFehr]

Eugene, a given camera can be compatible with a variety of formats, so it is possible to shoot MF with a LF camera. Wether a film comes in a roll, or cut up into sheets doesn't affect its format, which is determined by the size and shape of the image area. Make sense?

[Graeme Hird]

Mark,



My packet of Velvia claims "10.2x12.7 (4x5)", but that's a hell of a mouthful. 5x4 will do.



But like you say, who really cares what my opinion is? If someone wants to cut up a perfectly good roll of film so they can call it LF photography, who am I to stop them?



The "large" in "large format" is a relative thing anyway, isn't it? If you take note of all that spam I get in my mail each day, 4 or 5 inches is most definitely inadequate!!!!! Anything less than 8 or 10 is laughable .....

Largely Yours,
Graeme

[Harry Smart]

How do you contact print a pixel?

You contact print digital images by outputting them onto paper or film and then making your contact the usual way, of course. There are at least two books devoted specifically to this way of making images, and it's now commonplace among alt.process printers.

Harry

www.harrysmart.net