What is Large Format Photography

[Merg Ross]

For a definition of large format photography, try this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_format

For a definition of the Large Format Photography Forum, read the comments posted earlier by Ralph Barker and Kirk Gittings.

This forum has, for many years, been very clear as to its intent. If you look back over those years, you will find contributions from practitioners who had no need to question their legitimacy as large format photographers. What is important to this forum, is its integrity. It is not the only forum available for discussing photography, but it has been one of the best for discussing large format photography. I hope that it will remain so.

[Greg Lockrey]

And the pixels on the H3D are 6.8 microns across - pretty clunky in comparison

Yep, I think you'd need more than a 10x magnifier to see the difference.

[Kirk Gittings]

And the pixels on the H3D are 6.8 microns across - pretty clunky in comparison

I am tripping over my terminology here but......If one stretches the analogy about sampling or SPI to film grain or a silver particle being equivalent to a single pixel ppi. I am trying to figure out how many whatevers that represents on 4x5 film. Is 4x5 film like 200 MPE (Mega Pixel Equivilent). Catch my train of thought?

Thanks Merg.

[Greg Lockrey]

I am tripping over my terminology here but......If one stretches the analogy about sampling or SPI to film grain or a silver particle being equivalent to a single pixel ppi. I am trying to figure out how many whatevers that represents on 4x5 film. Is 4x5 film like 200 MPE (Mega Pixel Equivilent). Catch my train of thought?

Thanks Merg.

1" = 25,400 microns

Average grain = 1.5 microns or 25,400/1.5 = 16,963 grains

4(16,963) x 5(16,963) = 5,754,867,380 ave grains

[jnantz]

large scale prints, stitched files sounds like fun.
BUT the more you stick around, the more you will understand
this forum is very rigid in its belief that certain things
are and are not for consideration ...

[Marko]

For a definition of large format photography, try this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_format

Personally, I would not rely on Wikipedia for anything other than mere pointers for serious research. It has certain informative value, but its credentials are inherently suspect - it can be and it is written by everybody. Literally.

And indeed, the article you link to has only one reference, Wegman's 20x24 studio and it further links APUG as one of the "related links" (sic!). It does not even mention this forum! Really makes one wonder who wrote that, doesn't it?

Looks like Donald may be on to something, after all...

[GPS]

Personally, I would not rely on Wikipedia for anything other than mere pointers for serious research. It has certain informative value, but its credentials are inherently suspect - it can be and it is written by everybody. Literally.

And indeed, the article you link to has only one reference, Wegman's 20x24 studio and it further links APUG as one of the "related links" (sic!). It does not even mention this forum! Really makes one wonder who wrote that, doesn't it?

..

Wikipedia referring to Apug? Tell me who your friend is and I tell you who you are...

[Merg Ross]

Marko, I agree.

Seriously, after fifty years of using large format cameras, I was not seeking a definition. I have my definition, others have theirs. My comments were related to the historical direction of this forum.

[Bruce Watson]

Just curious, does anyone know how many grains of silver are in an average 4x5 sheet of film? Each one of those grains represents in digital terms a kind of sample.

No idea really. The thing is, the majority of the silver is removed from the film during fixing. And it's a rather large variable because it depends largely on the image, exposure, developer.

For a really good look at what film grain really is, see Tim Vitale's paper. Excellent research, this is.

Also, I should point out that "each one of those grains represents in digital terms a kind of sample" isn't an accurate presentation. The thing is, the emulsion has thickness. Film grains therefore overlap (sometimes called grain clumping). And I don't even want to think about the ramifications of the light scatter (controlled but not eliminated) in the emulsion during latent image formation. There's just not a good one-to-one representation between a metallic silver film grain and a pixel. I think trying to follow this path will lead to madness.

[sanking]

large scale prints, stitched files sounds like fun.
BUT the more you stick around, the more you will understand
this forum is very rigid in its belief that certain things
are and are not for consideration ...

I don't agree with you on this. The LF forum seems to me to be quite flexible, especially as it concerns digital issues. There are two different topics just for digital, and in the past people have posted there on a wide range of issues regarding digital. This includes scanning, digital backs for view cameras, digital processing, stitching, what have you. I think it reasonable to ask that the digital issue being discussed have some connection to LF cameras, but even that has not always been enforced. For example I can remember any number of threads about DSLRs.

So I just don't understand why anyone finds a problem, or perhaps it is like the proverbial "solution in search of a problem."

Sandy King