Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 96

Thread: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

  1. #1

    so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    It swings and tilts... :+)

    Well, do ya?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    5,188

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    If it is the lens and/or film planes that swing and tilt, I'll consider it large format, even if it is "just" roll film.

    But doesn't 6x9 seem a little, well, small for someone with the handle of studmuffin?

    Vaughn

  3. #3
    Whatever David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    4,569

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    I'd call it a medium format view camera, but still fair game for this forum (unlike the old f32.net forum that was strictly 4x5" and larger).

  4. #4
    tim atherton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1998
    Posts
    3,693

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    it's "weenie large format" -but go ahead...
    You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn

    www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Westminster, MD
    Posts
    1,656

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    Who cares what we think, you're the studmuffin. If it works for you, use it.
    When I grow up, I want to be a photographer.

    http://www.walterpcalahan.com/Photography/index.html

  6. #6
    Greg Lockrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Temperance, MI
    Posts
    1,957

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    Size is relative to the beholder.
    Greg Lockrey

    Wealth is a state of mind.
    Money is just a tool.
    Happiness is pedaling +25mph on a smooth road.



  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    38

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    That would have to be 6 x 9 INCHES, right?

  8. #8
    westernlens al olson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Southwest Mountains of Colorado
    Posts
    831

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    It is interesting how definitions change with time. During the 50s and early 60s, I never heard the term "large format" used for anything smaller than 8x10, ... well maybe (???) sometimes for 5x7.

    The 4x5 and 6x9 (2 1/4 x 3 1/4, if you will) were referred to simply as "press cameras", and 35mm was "miniature" format. Kodak's Dataguide on Lenses (1946) even refers to the Kodak Ektra and the Bantam as being miniature cameras.

    I do not recall any of the roll films, 118, 120, 620, 122, 124, 127, 130, 116, 616, or 828 sizes ever being referred to as "medium format". News editors at the time were adament that photography had to be done with a press camera and these other formats were not considered serious contenders. Hasselblad and the other serious medium format cameras were successful later on.

    One of my colleagues did manage to convince our editor that his photos were just as good with his TLR Rolleiflex, thereby saving money on materials. [Back in those days we were paid $3 for an 8x10 non-action photo and $5 for an action (sports, fires, accidents, etc.) photo. We purchased our own supplies and did our own darkroom work, so the editor only saw the final print.]

    In just a year or two, ca. 1960-1961 as I recall, the Leicas and Nikons suddenly began to emerge as the cameras of choice for journalism, displacing the bulky press cameras for handheld work.

    Somewhere along the way, the 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 press camera seems to have become lumped in with the other large format cameras, at least as far as the photo magazines and camera stores are concerned. I believe this has more to do with its press functionality and resemblence to the 4x5.

    I like to shoot with all sizes and do not see that it is worth splitting hairs over these classifications. They all use sheet film and are operated in a similar manner. I have no quarrel with considering 4x5 to be large format. Compared to the subminiature chip that digital uses, 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 appears to be headed to a large format classification as well.
    al

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    6,685

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    In dog years its ULF!
    I steal time at 1/125th of a second, so I don't consider my photography to be Fine Art as much as it is petty larceny.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,947

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    Medium Large.

Similar Threads

  1. Converting 5x4 roll film backs to 6x9 fitting
    By ADG in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28-Feb-2006, 04:40
  2. Using 4x5 lens on 6X9 camera
    By Terry Hull in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 1-Nov-2005, 06:26
  3. Difference between ARCA-SWISS 6x9 Front/Rear Frame
    By Kerry L. Thalmann in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 14-Oct-2004, 15:05
  4. 6x9: practicallity of holders and quality
    By Bill Smith in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-Oct-2000, 18:03
  5. Digital printing 6x9 vs 4x5
    By Glenn Kroeger in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 22-Feb-2000, 12:42

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
  •