What is Large Format Photography

[Marko]

Unless some limitation is hit, I suspect that handheld cameras capable of 40+ MP are in our future. Using MP to define LF seems to be too changable...today's "large format" will be tomorrow's "small format".

In the end, I would just have to say that true Large Format Photography is based on film capture (tho the size of the LF film is and probably always will be debatable -- as well as the use of roll film in a LF camera, LOL!). Your new definitions just don't fit, and trying to fit them into the definition of LF limits them...like trying to shove an elephant into a crate designed for a lion. They are a subset of digital photography, not of large format photography.

If you are indeed saying, as it sounds, that in this case format equals size equals medium, than I can see why this question keeps popping up every once in a while.

You are right to say that today's large format will be tomorrow's small one. After all, didn't this exact transformation happen with 4x5 already? "Large" and "small" seem to be pretty relative qualifiers and as such should be considered in the contemporary context. The problem is that the window that defines contemporary seems to be moving faster than some people's ability or willingness to adopt the the change.

So:

Q1: Why film only?
Q2: Why not digital?
Q3: Why not new definitions?

As I see it, attaching a DSLR or MF digital back to a view camera and using a sliding back or rise/fall/shift to compose a high resolution image is within the scope of the forum as I understand it. You still compose on the groundglass and use the same movements--only the sensor has changed (and the possibility of instantaneous capture for multishot backs).

Q4: Why only the ground glass?
Q5: Why not the computer screen?

Using a DSLR or MF SLR with a high resolution digital back and a pano head to compose stitched image is a different discipline in my opinion. It seems more like expanded 35mm or medium format photography to me, only related to traditional large format by virtue of the file size, but not by the method of composition or control of perspective and the focus plane. Of course some of these things can be done in post-processing, but we wouldn't say that when someone tilts the enlarging easel to square up a 35mm image that it becomes large format photography, just as I wouldn't say that skewing an image in PhotoShop or changing the projection of a stitched image digitally makes it large format.

This is, IMO, probably the most relevant point in this discussion. But it still leaves the original question unanswered:

Q6: What exactly can be considered Large Format today?

As Vaughn has noted, the concept of "large" and "small" has been shifting historically, so why not today or in the future? The technology changes too, as most of us seem to be aware, so why fix the format in the past? Wouldn't that move the entire field into the history along the way? In that light, the OP's question is certainly very valid, and even though it's indeed been beaten to death and back, the point is that there's still no clear answer. Reading this (and other) threads, another question inevitably comes up:

Q7: Do we really want to find a good answer to the original question?

And finally, a question relating to Donald's excellent description:

Q8: Why does size matter at all?
Q9: Why not use concept as a qualifier? (such as View Camera photography)

The way I understand the OP the real question is how do we define the type of photography we are talking about here.

If the focus is indeed on the concept itself (i.e. using movements to control perspective and plane of focus), why do the capture medium and its size really matter?

If the focus is on film only, then a 11x14 point-and-shoot should also qualify, as well as the 110 and an asyl... err... forum dedicated to this line of thinking already exists.

And if focus is on the size, we still need to determine what kind of size, since the size given in inches makes sense for only one of the two mediums currently used for capturing light. Or perhaps this is the main reason for insisting on the fixed size, since that would neatly eliminate the troublesome other?

Insisting that the Large Format Photography means only film of a certain minimum size in a view camera may have been justified a few years ago, but today it is rapidly becoming an incredibly narrow and outdated concept. What is more troubling is that people who are most vocal and who insist the most on this interpretation seem to be doing so mostly because they themselves are largely unskilled for using digital tools and unwilling to learn and adopt.

After all, what else would provoke the amount of scorn the OP's question elicited in the beginning?

[Marko]

if anyone knows of a good forum on art or the art of photography with no restrictions on format let me know - while I certainly appreciate all things LF this forum does not cater to my global love of art - time to do some surfing to see what's out there

Joe, if you find one, please let me know too.

[Ralph Barker]

Kirk's posts summarize the official position of the forum quite well. For the last 20-30 years, "large format" has been widely understood to mean 4x5 or larger film. We have traditionally included some smaller formats exposed with view and/or press cameras, even though they aren't technically large format. Similarly, discussions of roll film backs used on 4x5 cameras have been allowed, as are digital backs used on 4x5 cameras. Digital processing of large format negs is also clearly allowed by the structure of the forum.

The relatively tight focus of this forum is one of the reasons it has survived as long as it has. That doesn't diminish the value of other formats and other methods, it simply means that those formats and methods should be discussed elsewhere, or in The Lounge, since they are off-topic here.

New members are encouraged to read the FAQ/Guidelines (see the FAQ link in the blue navigation bar), since everyone agrees to comply with those provisions when they join the forum. The FAQ describes the scope of the forum and the type of behavior that is expected in reasonable detail. The FAQ also outlines what happens when a member repeatedly fails to comply. Pretty simple, really.

If a tightly-focused forum is not your cup of tea, by all means find another forum that better suits your objectives. Until Tuan decides to change the name of the forum to "Any Format Photography" and add DSLRs and camera phones to the logo, we'll remain dedicated to large format photography, as traditionally defined.

[Bruce Watson]

I propose a new definition of Large Format Photography...

Yawn...

[Don Hutton]

Kirk's posts summarize the official position of the forum quite well. For the last 20-30 years, "large format" has been widely understood to mean 4x5 or larger film. We have traditionally included some smaller formats exposed with view and/or press cameras, even though they aren't technically large format. Similarly, discussions of roll film backs used on 4x5 cameras have been allowed, as are digital backs used on 4x5 cameras. Digital processing of large format negs is also clearly allowed by the structure of the forum.

The relatively tight focus of this forum is one of the reasons it has survived as long as it has. That doesn't diminish the value of other formats and other methods, it simply means that those formats and methods should be discussed elsewhere, or in The Lounge, since they are off-topic here.

New members are encouraged to read the FAQ/Guidelines (see the FAQ link in the blue navigation bar), since everyone agrees to comply with those provisions when they join the forum. The FAQ describes the scope of the forum and the type of behavior that is expected in reasonable detail. The FAQ also outlines what happens when a member repeatedly fails to comply. Pretty simple, really.

If a tightly-focused forum is not your cup of tea, by all means find another forum that better suits your objectives. Until Tuan decides to change the name of the forum to "Any Format Photography" and add DSLRs and camera phones to the logo, we'll remain dedicated to large format photography, as traditionally defined.

Ralph

I think it's worth pointing out, that while Tuan's own personal workflow has moved from LF to a DSLR (I believe anyway), he has not tried to move this forum over from it's tried and seemingly frequently tested subject matter to a more encompassing and less focused, anything goes photography forum...

There are hundreds of other forums devoted to stitching, DSLRs, photoshop, scanners etc etc. I'm extremely grateful that this forum is intent on fostering and preserving an extremely wealthy base of knowledge and experience around large format photography.

[Jan Pedersen]

Ralph, THANKS

[David A. Goldfarb]

If rollfilm today becomes sufficiently fine grained and detailed that it is as good as the 4x5" sheet film of yesterday, I wouldn't call medium format rollfilm photography large format, so I think the question of increasing digital resolution and sensor size isn't necessarily relevant. A Better Light scanning back to me on a view camera is large format, but the Sinar Hy6 is a digital medium format SLR in my opinion.

There are other things that I think of as LF that aren't view cameras, like Graflex SLRs, Hobos, and rangefinder press cameras, so I suppose the groundglass isn't the only option.

Computer screen with live view and sufficient resolution to make accurate camera adjustments using an appropriate camera (I'm thinking of something like a high-end digital back on a camera like a Linhof M679)?--I'd say that's in the ballpark--bearing in mind that groundglass composition is still an option in such a situation. The forum has been open to medium format work that is scaled-down from large format, like using rollfilm backs on LF cameras or 2x3" view and press cameras, so I'd see that in the same vein.

Medium format or DSLR with a T-S lens, Zoerk adapter, macro bellows with movements--I'd say that's more marginal to the LF forum. I have a bellows with full view-camera movements for my Bronica S2a, but I discuss that on the Bronica forum, not the LF forum.

[I started writing that before Ralph's post, which I thoroughly agree with.]

[Dave Parker]

Kirk's posts summarize the official position of the forum quite well. For the last 20-30 years, "large format" has been widely understood to mean 4x5 or larger film. We have traditionally included some smaller formats exposed with view and/or press cameras, even though they aren't technically large format. Similarly, discussions of roll film backs used on 4x5 cameras have been allowed, as are digital backs used on 4x5 cameras. Digital processing of large format negs is also clearly allowed by the structure of the forum.

The relatively tight focus of this forum is one of the reasons it has survived as long as it has. That doesn't diminish the value of other formats and other methods, it simply means that those formats and methods should be discussed elsewhere, or in The Lounge, since they are off-topic here.

New members are encouraged to read the FAQ/Guidelines (see the FAQ link in the blue navigation bar), since everyone agrees to comply with those provisions when they join the forum. The FAQ describes the scope of the forum and the type of behavior that is expected in reasonable detail. The FAQ also outlines what happens when a member repeatedly fails to comply. Pretty simple, really.

If a tightly-focused forum is not your cup of tea, by all means find another forum that better suits your objectives. Until Tuan decides to change the name of the forum to "Any Format Photography" and add DSLRs and camera phones to the logo, we'll remain dedicated to large format photography, as traditionally defined.

Well Ralph all I have to say is:



You hit it directly on the Head!

[Bruce Watson]

Kirk's posts summarize the official position of the forum quite well. For the last 20-30 years, "large format" has been widely understood to mean 4x5 or larger film. We have traditionally included some smaller formats exposed with view and/or press cameras, even though they aren't technically large format. Similarly, discussions of roll film backs used on 4x5 cameras have been allowed, as are digital backs used on 4x5 cameras. Digital processing of large format negs is also clearly allowed by the structure of the forum.

The relatively tight focus of this forum is one of the reasons it has survived as long as it has. That doesn't diminish the value of other formats and other methods, it simply means that those formats and methods should be discussed elsewhere, or in The Lounge, since they are off-topic here.

New members are encouraged to read the FAQ/Guidelines (see the FAQ link in the blue navigation bar), since everyone agrees to comply with those provisions when they join the forum. The FAQ describes the scope of the forum and the type of behavior that is expected in reasonable detail. The FAQ also outlines what happens when a member repeatedly fails to comply. Pretty simple, really.

If a tightly-focused forum is not your cup of tea, by all means find another forum that better suits your objectives. Until Tuan decides to change the name of the forum to "Any Format Photography" and add DSLRs and camera phones to the logo, we'll remain dedicated to large format photography, as traditionally defined.

Yes! Well said!

[sanking]

If a tightly-focused forum is not your cup of tea, by all means find another forum that better suits your objectives. Until Tuan decides to change the name of the forum to "Any Format Photography" and add DSLRs and camera phones to the logo, we'll remain dedicated to large format photography, as traditionally defined.

Excellent advice. If you are not happy with the focus of the LF forum, there are plenty of alternative sites out there.

And besides, why would anyone want to waste valuable time and brain power debating something this silly? The forum is what it is. If you don't like the focus of the forum, move on. The internet is a big place. Learn to use it.

Sandy