Large Format Poll 2

[Ed K.]

Why more and more rules are needed for something that tends to work out by itself is a mystery to me. It seems that there shouldn't be much need for rules banning other formats, because in general, people stay on LF related stuff here. Most people would probably seek out the appropriate online forum to find the most useful opinions.

It does seem inappropriate to discuss DSLR cameras here most of the time, yet sometimes such cameras serve as replacements for pen and paper, perhaps even a light meter of sorts. Light meters are not banned from discussion. Obviously, if non LF stuff predominates too much, that dilutes the forum from the purpose expressed by at least its title. Surely people here would suggest to a poster that they post in another place if it gets way out of hand or if there is no audience.

Of course, some people wish to feel superior for having possession of a particular physical thing. The inferior / superior thing is snobbery, something that is perhaps a part of human nature. I'm not in favor of creating hard rules that would have to have a jury to decide fairly. While I'm not in favor of creating a hard rule for it, the forum would be well served to have people do more searching for existing threads on topics and then add to them, which would keep them better organized. I believe that "rule" is already stated, yet how many people actually attend to it? So, for violation of that rule, are people then banned? Hmmm, we'd be without a lot of great posts, even though the whole is a bit less organized.

There are many aspects of composing, printing, marketing and developing where LF photographers can benefit from the knowledge of 35mm shooters without specific discussions of 35mm.

"I personally think we should ban all anonymous posters who try to control the content of this forum."

In some ways, a person can get banned here in a way. Perhaps I'm banned here already if Kirk has anything to say about it. After all, I don't state my full name here, so the quote attributed to him above asked that I be banned. Am I now banned? That seems like a rather strident quote. How about a rule to ban people who want to ban people or things? No thanks.

Ah, but this could be a troll survey, intended just to see who bites. I'd rather not see anyone ban anyone or create rules; even the survey has some virtue someplace, for someone.

[Andrew O'Neill]

So what your saying is that although I shoot 3x4 film cut out of 4x5 and I use cut film holders and enlarge on a D2 I cannot according to you be considered a large format photographer because I'm shooting under 4x5?

I have my definition of LF. You have yours. I have my opinion. You have yours. I just don't want to see too much digital slr crap here. That's all. Using digital slrs is NOT LF photography as far as I'm concerned.

[Marko]

I have my definition of LF. You have yours. I have my opinion. You have yours. I just don't want to see too much digital slr crap here. That's all. Using digital slrs is NOT LF photography as far as I'm concerned.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and your choices, just like everybody else here.

All you have to do is ignore what you don't want to read about. It's that easy. If, for whatever reason you cannot do that, this forum provides a very handy set of tools that can make it go away.

Just don't force your definition, your opinion and your choice on me. Please.

[PViapiano]

As for those stitching threads you mention - they didn't happen out of the blue, they all started out as a way to add an economy digital capability to view cameras. I don't really understand why would an alternative and obviously niche-within-a-niche technique bother anybody with an open mind.

You know...what-evva.

Stitching with dSLRs doesn't "add an economy digital capability to view cameras" but using a digital back on a view camera would....errr, except for the economy part

[Geary Lyons]

Sometimes it is just amazing how some folks just like to promulgate controversy. This is a Large Format photography forum. It is the outgrowth of the Large Format site that provides practical information on the application of large format cameras for producing photographic images.

This site is neither pro nor con digital. IMO, there seems to be an "cyber-borne" cancer that infects niche sites for no other reason than to revel in the disruption caused. There are folks that post just to "stir the pot", making no contribution to the general knowledge or focus of the site. As has already been stated, there is a multitude of sites to discuss the multi-faceted aspects of digital imaging.

If the imaging process did not start in a Large Format camera, then this is not the best location for discussion. Posting otherwise is simply not being a good site citizen. Please rather than posting here for processes not related to the core focus of this site, why don't folks just use the same time and energy to go make images, regardless of the chosen tool or media? Everyone will be the healthier for it! Trolls need not apply!

Cheers,
Geary

[Sergio Caetano]

"...smaller than 4x5 be allowed ? "
If so, let's change the name of the forum to SMALLER FORMAT PHOTOGRAPHY .

[Randy H]

Sometimes it is just amazing how some folks just like to promulgate controversy. This is a Large Format photography forum. It is the outgrowth of the Large Format site that provides practical information on the application of large format cameras for producing photographic images.....

Yep. That seems to sum it all up. It is called LargeFormatPhotography. Not Everythingthatmayormaynotcaptureanimage. If that is what you want, and care to wade through all the miscellaneous to try and find any information, go ape-hug. Or far-fetched finders.

I personally like it here and like the way the mods and Q have it set up and run.

If it ain't broke, it don't need fixin'.

[tim atherton]

I personally like it here and like the way the mods and Q have it set up and run.

If it ain't broke, it don't need fixin'.

exactly, it will continue on it's way, having posts every now and then about 6x7 or 6x9 (as it always has done) as well as - now - the occasional post on stitching - and it won't make any difference to it being the LF Forum at all.



(All that will happen is the blood pressure of the AR's will go up every now and then)

[DrPablo]

Who cares about a rigid definition for large format photography? We're not doing a clinical trial here that requires strict inclusion and exclusion criteria.

As I see it, the phrase "large format photography" has a relatively limited number of potential definitions, and the content and membership of the forum will end up being some sort of variation about that mean.

In other words, some people think that real men only use 20x24, some people think that 2x3 rollfilm view cameras count, and some people think of stitching as an approximation for classical LF view cameras.

But those are the fringes that delimit a discussion that centers around a whole lot of common ground, and I see no reason to spend energy thinking about how we should constrain the fringe definitions. If it's close enough, then let it stay. It's not going to open flood gates to the Canon vs. Nikon or 35mm vs APS-C wars.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just don't force your definition, your opinion and your choice on me. Please.

By writing my opinion is that forcing it on you??? How does one state their opinion by not trying to force it on you?? Please educate me.