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

[rippo]

use your 6x9, and then make an 8x10 pinhole camera with paper negs. that way no one can kick you out of the forum.

(it's a 'gateway drug' though...you'll get that 4x5 soon enough. thank god they don't make cameras any bigger than 4x5....)

[Void]

To add oil to the fire - what do You think about 6.5x9 format? maybe it qualifies for LF status?

[orwellswift]

If you want to compare sizes, I have an 8x10 Deardorff with a reducing back that enables me to fit the 120 roll film back onto the board. I have recently found a 35mm roll back that fits my crown graphic which is sized the same as the 120 roll back that I can fit on my 8x10. Therefore I can place that back into the reducing back enabling me to shoot 35mm film with my camera using a 25 inch Turner Reich.

[rippo]

ok, it's time to settle this issue once and for all.

if your camera has the option to use sheet film of any sort, it's large format for the purposes of discussion here. you don't HAVE to use sheet film with it, just have the option. polaroid backs don't count for qualification purposes, although you're welcome to use them.

that excludes all medium format roll-film cameras i know about, all mini and sub-mini formats. but it includes cameras like my 2x3 Busch Pressman Model C, which i shoot exclusively with sheet film (even though i could find a roll-film back for it if i were desperate). it also includes pinhole cameras, and those weird 8x10 point-and-shoot cameras. movements and ground glass on a camera are desirable for qualification, but not a requirement.

i think these new rules are very inclusive, and include those who are shooting LF in spirit, even if their film is on the small side. it excludes those who just want to run around firing off shot after shot, with no thought to anything. (not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just a subject for another forum.) the point of LF is taking your time to get a few shots right, rather than machine-gunning your way through a thousand shots.

someone will no doubt bring up large format roll film shot on aerial mapping and surveillance cameras. and those are excluded for obvious reasons: they're shot from airplanes.

so...who's with me? anyone??

[Ralph Barker]

Matt - if you'll refer to my earlier posts in this thread, you'll see the "official" position on the question.

[Richard M. Coda]

"Dog Years --- isn't that the distance a dog travels in a year?"

Actually it is the distance a dog travels in one year, at the speed of light ;^)

[Dave Wooten]

RB 67 and several other roll film cameras have sheet film backs available-2.25 x 3.25.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

that excludes all medium format roll-film cameras i know about

I have two "sheet" film holders for my Hasselblad, 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, they used to be sold with a special scissor you used to cut bigger film and then load on to the little holders.

[rippo]

RB 67 and several other roll film cameras have sheet film backs available-2.25 x 3.25.

I have two "sheet" film holders for my Hasselblad, 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, they used to be sold with a special scissor you used to cut bigger film and then load on to the little holders.

hence the "that i know about" disclaimer.

my 'new rules' were somewhat tongue in cheek. but i did want to suggest that LF is a process that involves deliberation in the taking of the image, rather than a 'snapshot'. the size to me isn't as important as the process. it's somewhat connected to sheet film, somewhat to film size, somewhat to movements, and even somewhat to ground glass viewing. that's just my feeling on the matter. i'll continue calling my 2x3 press camera "large format" no matter what anyone on this forum thinks. that's just me.

[jonreid]

No, it's not