Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: LF definition used by the forum

  1. #1
    A.K.A Lucky Bloke ;-)
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newton, MA, USA
    Posts
    637

    LF definition used by the forum

    I am trying to understand the logic behind what is considered or not LF in this forum, according to the FAQ.

    If I read it correctly:
    - Direct positives, regardless the size, are not considered LF because it is paper, not film. Unknown to AA, most of his work with Polaroid is not considered LF here.
    - Scanning backs listed as 4x5 are considered LF, even if the image captured size can be as small as 2.8x3.8".
    - The film in a 665 (3.25x4.25") is not considered LF because is smaller than 3.5x4.7" (9x12cm)

    I hope the discussion will help to improve our understanding of what we should or not consider LF.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    599

    Re: LF definition used by the forum

    I don't understand how direct postives/paper negatives aren't LF. I mean it's shot in a LF camera and it's the same size as the film right?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Shodoshima, Japan
    Posts
    828

    Re: LF definition used by the forum

    AFAIK, scanning backs are not considered LF by the forum moderators - even though it takes more time to capture an image than 8x10

    Kumar

  4. #4
    A.K.A Lucky Bloke ;-)
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newton, MA, USA
    Posts
    637

    Re: LF definition used by the forum

    Agree. I do not know why the FAQ limits the media to "sheet film". IMHO, it should be open to any material and/or medium capable of capturing an image of certain size regardless of technology. I also don't understand why digital backs with smaller image area are included.

  5. #5
    A.K.A Lucky Bloke ;-)
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newton, MA, USA
    Posts
    637

    Re: LF definition used by the forum

    Quote Originally Posted by B.S.Kumar View Post
    AFAIK, scanning backs are not considered LF by the forum moderators - even though it takes more time to capture an image than 8x10

    Kumar
    It's in the FAQ. It was a moderator the one who suggested to check the forum FAQ for the LF definition in the thread "May 2016 portraits".

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,218

    Re: LF definition used by the forum

    Well, if you look in the image sharing forum (LF), you will find threads that include paper negatives and direct positive images of 4x5 or larger. You will also see digital sensor back captures 4x5 or larger considered "LF".

  7. #7
    Moderator Ralph Barker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Posts
    4,718

    Re: LF definition used by the forum

    Quote Originally Posted by onnect17 View Post
    I am trying to understand the logic behind what is considered or not LF in this forum, according to the FAQ.

    If I read it correctly:
    - Direct positives, regardless the size, are not considered LF because it is paper, not film. Unknown to AA, most of his work with Polaroid is not considered LF here.
    No, film, digital, or paper are acceptable, as long as the capture area is nominally 4x5 (or the European 9x12 "equivalent") or larger.

    Most applications of direct positive paper (and, paper negatives) use 4x5 film holders for convenience, but the same size of paper taped in a shoe box would also suffice.

    And, Ansel never posted here (he died before the forum was started), and no longer cares about where the LF line is drawn.

    Quote Originally Posted by onnect17 View Post
    - Scanning backs listed as 4x5 are considered LF, even if the image captured size can be as small as 2.8x3.8".
    No. Again, it is the actual capture area that matters, not marketing materials.

    Quote Originally Posted by onnect17 View Post
    - The film in a 665 (3.25x4.25") is not considered LF because is smaller than 3.5x4.7" (9x12cm)
    More or less. The 3 x 4 format is smaller than both 4x5 and the European 9x12, so it's not "LF" within the definition used by this forum. Plus, it has long been considered "medium format" - even when sheet-film cameras were commonly manufactured in that size.

    Quote Originally Posted by onnect17 View Post
    I hope the discussion will help to improve our understanding of what we should or not consider LF.
    Everyone is free to consider whatever they wish as LF. The forum rules only govern where things are appropriately posted on this forum.

    It should be noted that this issue has been "litigated" numerous times over the years, with arguments all over the map. We think the current definition of "LF" (established in September of 2014 ) used for this forum is pretty clear, and is consistent with traditional definitions used within the industry. We do, however, accommodate smaller formats in selected sub-forums.

  8. #8
    A.K.A Lucky Bloke ;-)
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newton, MA, USA
    Posts
    637

    Re: LF definition used by the forum

    Agree with the approach but if I am reading it correctly, it does not match the FAQ. Here's a copy and paste:

    ...Commonly accepted definitions base large format photography on 4"x5" and larger sheet film (or the 9x12 cm metric equivalent), regardless of the style of camera being used. This is the definition we will use. We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well, regardless of technology....

  9. #9
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    6,337

    Re: LF definition used by the forum

    Quote Originally Posted by onnect17 View Post
    Agree with the approach but if I am reading it correctly, it does not match the FAQ.
    Can you clarify specifically what it is that you see as a mismatch?

  10. #10
    A.K.A Lucky Bloke ;-)
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newton, MA, USA
    Posts
    637

    Re: LF definition used by the forum

    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    Can you clarify specifically what it is that you see as a mismatch?
    Sure. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the use of the term "sheet film" should be replaced by "material or medium".

    Also making sure all the images from the digital backs marketed as 4x5 are forwarded to the MF area because none have a scanning area equal or larger than 9x12cm.

Similar Threads

  1. LF, VLF, ULF: What's Your Definition of Format Sizes?
    By Reinhold Schable in forum On Photography
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 17-Jan-2014, 17:02
  2. LF definition?
    By Emil Schildt in forum On Photography
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 10-Dec-2010, 21:25
  3. Definition of inversion
    By ericzhu in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22-Dec-2008, 18:47

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •