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

[Sirius Glass]

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.

But Ansel Adams never had any respect for him and negated everything that Mortenson said! Therefore Mortenson was wrong then and still wrong now.

[Robert Hughes]

But Ansel came out for digital, therefore everything he said can be tossed aside...

[AFSmithphoto]

This is silly. "Large Format" is a state of mind, not a film size.

Hard to say it better than that!

[Bill Burk]

I come here for sanctuary. I also use 6x9 and 35mm but feel it is useful to have a forum where people have decided to make a commitment to 4x5 and up.

[Vaughn]

A large format image on MF film (Gowland PocketView 4x5, 150mm, Calumet 6x7 rollback).

Scanned RA4 print by the artist.

Gums, Comboyne Plateau, NSW, Aus

[Robert Hughes]

Huh? I can stick a strip of Super 8, or a piece of silver halide-soaked string into a 4x5 holder, and call it large format, too. But it isn't.

[Sirius Glass]

Well for argument sake say 6x9 was considered LF for this forum. The someone gets a Hasselblad ArcBody or Hasselblad FlexBody which have movements. Now 6x6 is LF. Next comes a 35mm user with a PC lens. Now 35mm is LF.

I am not taking sides in this discussion but a lot of bandwidth was used for this thread and a series about 6x17 recently that cause someone to leave the forum. I see all this energy when the rules seem to be pretty clear on this.

There was a lot of tolerance shown to me when I bought a 3 1/4" x 4 1/4" RB Graflex that had problems when I joined last year. It turned out to be a Shelf Queen and the seller refunded my money. I sold of nine of the twelve boxes so special order Ilford film quickly and it took forever to sell the last three boxes. By my count, my Classified Ads on then had over 4,500 views. For the most part I got very little flack. My questions were answered and I was referred to several places for help and advice. I did not make a big deal about the smaller the 4x5 size so my posts were accepted with grace.

I learned what I needed to know from this site and Graflex.org. I chose to get a 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic and a 4x5 Graflex Model D because I wanted both the ability to shoot handheld and to experiment with shifts, swings and tilts for less money than I would have invested in either the Hasselblad ArcBody or Hasselblad FlexBody. Neither the Hasselblad ArcBody or Hasselblad FlexBody are usable handheld. I can always add a view camera and either keep or sell the Speed and Graflex.

Steve

[rdenney]

Well for argument sake say 6x9 was considered LF for this forum. The someone gets a Hasselblad ArcBody or Hasselblad FlexBody which have movements. Now 6x6 is LF. Next comes a 35mm user with a PC lens. Now 35mm is LF.

It isn't the movements. It's the size of the camera. The moderators and the forum owner have agreed that rollfilm images made in a 4x5 or larger camera can be shown on the forum. That allows all fixed-body 4x5 cameras (e.g. Cambo Wide), a 6x17 image made on a 5x7 camera, or a digital image made on an 8x10 camera, but it does not allow a 2x3 press camera, an Arcbody, or a Canon 5D with a tilt-shift lens.

Any line will be arbitrary as to the specific point where it is drawn, but this one seems clearly drawn enough to me.

Rick "noting again that this thread is ancient" Denney

[GPS]

...
Rick "noting again that this thread is ancient" Denney

Don't worry, it's an evergreen...

[Sirius Glass]

It isn't the movements. It's the size of the camera. The moderators and the forum owner have agreed that rollfilm images made in a 4x5 or larger camera can be shown on the forum. That allows all fixed-body 4x5 cameras (e.g. Cambo Wide), a 6x17 image made on a 5x7 camera, or a digital image made on an 8x10 camera, but it does not allow a 2x3 press camera, an Arcbody, or a Canon 5D with a tilt-shift lens.

Any line will be arbitrary as to the specific point where it is drawn, but this one seems clearly drawn enough to me.

Rick "noting again that this thread is ancient" Denney

I agree. I was just walking down the line of logic to show how absurd it could get if one took one slice at a time until nothing was left.

Steve