From a practical standpoint I often don't do too much different with a roll film back on a LF camera than I do with sheet film. Other times I do... like hand-holding. Of course, that can with either roll film or sheet film. so that supports the "mootness" of the difference.
But sometimes people have different objectives. If one is a literalist then adherance to a definition is important... and the question is very relevant. Similarly, if one's objective is bigotry the drawing lines is very important. In those types of situations it isn't a good thing to have confusion or any confounding understandings.
As far as photogprahy goes, I see the difference only as an equipment isse that has little to do with image-making. so, ya... the question is really moot.
p.s. a 35mm back... I need to check that out. Will it fit any camera with a Graflock back or is it dedicated?
I'm thinking of strapping a JATO rocket onto my Corvair. So, do you guys consider my car to be an airplane?
No... if all four wheels get off the ground it is still a rocket; Airplanes have wings. If the wheels stay on the ground it is going to be one very fast Corvair!
Lounge is da bomb!
Mortenson, in his book "The Negative", drew the "MF/LF" line right through the middle of 4x5. According to him, 6x9 was firmly in the MF camp, and about half the time, so was 4x5, depending on the application and intent of the photographer.
Opinions differ, even within the same household. I see my 2x3 Graphics and 2x3 Cambo as on the cusp between MF and LF, so I'm with that Linhof weasel. 6x7, definitely MF. 4x5, definitely LF. But if I had to commit myself to one or the other, 2x3 is MF.
My wife is a 35 mm shooter exclusively, won't even try to use any of my 2x3 gear. She says 2x3 is LF. I know better than to disagree with her.