You might be in for a rude awakening as time goes on and more people look to large format gear but want digital solutions. The attitude you display doesn't bode well as it will definitely not attract new users to the hobby nor this site. In the end, the majority make the rules, and those unwilling to change and accept that find themselves alone.....that might be something you should keep in mind as well.
Regards,
This is not a publicly owned forum, the guidelines do rule and it is called a Large Format photoraphy forum, there's no misunderstanding there, but...Originally Posted by Ralph Barker
Let say we have a standard view camera with a 6x7, 6x12 or 6x17 rollfilm back attached on one side and a handheld, rigid-box 4x5 camera or even a 8x10 pinhole camera on another. According to the rules as you stated them, it appears that the first would not belong to this forum and the latter would.
Also, like it or not, the fact of life is that digital is rapidly becoming a mainstream light sensitive medium and as such is being increasingly used on all types of cameras. It will introduce different medium sizes than film simply because of its different characteristics, and I am not sure insisting on film sizes-based categorization will make sense much longer. My understanding is that even Better Light back is not really a 4x5, although I will admit upfront that I don't know much about it.
So, my question is this: is it the strict size of the light-capturing medium, whatever it is, or the type of the camera or the technique used that determines whether a topic is kosher enough for this board or not?
Marko,
It does appear that it only has to do with film sizes in the LF world. A view camera post doesn't necessarily mean it is acceptable. As such, all posts involving roll film, DSLR bodies attached to view cameras, Betterlight and other digital backs apparently don't make the grade....unless the moderators say so....which should make matters rather difficult for the rest of us deciding on whether or not it is acceptable.
This should indeed be a lonely forum in a few years.
Wow Dave - you sure don't get it.... Surely you get that "large format" means large format - why is that so very confusing to you? I've followed some very interesting posts here on Betterlight backs (they're interesting to me because I actually don't know too much about them), roll film holders for view cameras etc. While I would guess that many members own DSLRs, I am sure that they share the same view that I do, which is that this is not an appropriate forum to dicuss them.
Believe it or not, this forum was not such a "lonely" place the last time you left...
As has been stated above and previously, sheet film smaller than 4x5 and 120 film shot in roll-film adapters on view cameras are OK topics, even though strictly not "large format" (generally considered to be 4x5 or larger). Similarly, digital capture and processes, related to LF photography, are fine. Digital capture and process topics not related to LF photography, however, should be posted elsewhere, or (now) in the Lounge, as they are off-topic for the core forums here.
Many people here, including myself, shoot digital in addition to large format, and digital, indeed, is very mainstream. That, however, is not the issue here, nor the focus of this forum. In fact, by most statistical measures, LF wouldn't be considered mainstream. But, that remains what this forum is all about. Pretty simple, really - unless one is trying to press a digital-trumps-everything agenda.
No agenda here, Ralph.
If I wanted to do digital-ueber-alles type of thing, there's plenty of forums out there on which it would be more fun than here. Not my cup of tea, though.
The core of my question was Large Format vs. View Camera, or in other words, Size vs. Technique, regardless of capture medium. I believe this is a valid question, to which I still don't see a clear answer.
Insofar as I have an agenda, although I'd rather call it an interest, it is biased more toward technique than the size. I am asking this question because it will have a bearing on when and how I should participate on the forum.
The way I understand it, Dave was saying a very similar thing - it is technique that makes Large Format so unique and it is digital that is blurring the size boundaries.
Perhaps this might be worth deeper discussion before we summarily dismiss one view or the other?
Last edited by Marko; 30-Jun-2006 at 09:50.
Marko - I didn't mean to infer that you had an agenda. Sorry if you got that impression. Actually, the format size vs. view camera issue has been discussed numerous times - resulting in the smaller "view camera" based formats (in quotes because the majority are really press cameras) being permitted, largely based on technique. Where digital topics stray off topic is when they aren't related to view camera technique and/or LF-related processes. A properly-framed topic relating to LF techniques used on a view-camera-mounted DSLR, for example, would probably be OK. Extending that to the characteristics of images captured directly in a DSLR, however, are not.
I'm sorry, guys.
I didn't mean to stir up a controversy; I just posted an image I thought was relevant to the discussion, by the only means available to me. It won't happen again.
Jay
P.S. I think the most technically accurate definition of Large Format is any format larger than MF , which itself is narrowly defined as 120/70mm rollfilm formats and their sheetfilm counterpart (2x3 sheets). To suggest that 3x4 film is MF, or not large format has no basis in tradition, or logic.
Last edited by Jay DeFehr; 30-Jun-2006 at 12:29.
No Don, you don't get it. Large Format to most means using a view camera. Even you agree with this as I haven't heard you complain about roll film backs or digital backs on a view camera.....yet the second it is mentioned to use a DSLR as a cheap film back on a view camera, some people jump down other peoples throats....as though there is an agenda.
So really, it appears it is confusing to you. You have stated that "Large Fromat means Large Format", yet you accept roll film backs, which aren't large format.
I can accept where Ralph is coming from, as the tone appears to have changed and he is now offering that a DSLR mounted to a view camera is OK.....which is precisely what I said. So what exactly are you saying....because your post in contradictory and doesn't make sense?
Dave
As I have said before, your tone and manner are abrasive; and that coupled with an obvious ineptitude for basic reading comprehension makes a lot of what you post here offensive. I'm not sure why you came back again after promising to go away! Is that clear this time?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks