Who is using LF commercially?

[Ivan J. Eberle]

I've sometimes wondered whether folks realize that Q.T.'s description on the Large Format Photography.info home page states that this is a:

"Non-commercial community of large format photographers, includes a repository of primers, how-to articles, user's reviews of equipment, and an active discussion forum."

or whether it generally still applies.

But since it did--at its founding, as it still stands described on the home page-- drawing definitive conclusions from this thread seems rather dubious (e.g. commercial photographers largely being excluded).

[Thom Bennett]

I would say I am but not in the traditional sense of delivering film. I am a staff photographer and use a view camera with a MF digital back to photograph products. I use swings, tilts, rise, fall; all the "traditional" aspects of the view camera to photograph the product in front of me. I use Live View (Leaf) to compose, focus, swing, tilt, etc. much like I used to use a ground glass. I consider myself a large format photographer because of the view camera controls I use, not the end product.

Personally, I shoot film (8x10, 4x5) and do a few commissioned portraits throughout the year.

[r.e.]

I've sometimes wondered whether folks realize that Q.T.'s description on the Large Format Photography.info home page states that this is a:

"Non-commercial community of large format photographers, includes a repository of primers, how-to articles, user's reviews of equipment, and an active discussion forum."

or whether it generally still applies.

But since it did--at its founding, as it still stands described on the home page-- drawing definitive conclusions from this thread seems rather dubious (e.g. commercial photographers largely being excluded).

Ivan, your interpretation of that sentence is at odds with the history of this forum, which I've been following for about eight years, and would also seem to be on very thin ground as a matter of grammar. It does not say "community of non-commercial large format photographers", to the benefit of all of us. As I understand it, "non-commercial" means that the site is not for profit. I have not seen a single post on this forum, ever, suggesting that participation by commercial photographers or discussion of commercial photography is, to use your word, "excluded".

[Kirk Gittings]

I've sometimes wondered whether folks realize that Q.T.'s description on the Large Format Photography.info home page states that this is a:

"Non-commercial community of large format photographers, includes a repository of primers, how-to articles, user's reviews of equipment, and an active discussion forum."

or whether it generally still applies.

But since it did--at its founding, as it still stands described on the home page-- drawing definitive conclusions from this thread seems rather dubious (e.g. commercial photographers largely being excluded).

Nothing has changed. That was not QTs intent at all. The site is "non-commercial" in that we accept no advertising etc. It was never about not allowing members who were commercial photographers or not allowing discussions of commercial photography.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Hey, I didn't write it, not here to debate it or enforce it-- just pointing out that a reasonable interpretation of this site's mission statement would have commercial photographers flocking elsewhere.

[Kirk Gittings]

Hey, I didn't write it, not here to debate it or enforce it-- just pointing out that a reasonable interpretation of this site's mission statement would have commercial photographers flocking elsewhere.

Ivan, In all the years I have been here, that is the first time I have ever heard that interpretation and it is wrong. Qt himself, as a professional stock photographer, is a commercial photographer.

[Sal Santamaura]

...just pointing out that a reasonable interpretation of this site's mission statement would have commercial photographers flocking elsewhere.

Any such flocking could only result from an unreasonable interpretation.

[David de Gruyl]

Any such flocking could only result from an unreasonable interpretation.

I have to agree, not based on prior knowledge, but on the english language. Non-commercial tightly binds with community. I can't see another way to read it without the introduction of punctuation and semantic acrobatics.

Had it said (which it does not) "A community of non-commercial ...", I would have to agree.

[photodoc]

I'm new here, but my lab has processed large format film for pros for the last 34 years. As far as I know, we are now New Jersey's only custom lab still capable of running large format films and there is only one professional shooting it for commercial work, yet it's rare that I even see him because he only has one customer who insists on it.

We still have many serious photographers who shoot sheet film, but the commercial business stopped years ago and there is no sign of a resurgence.

Cinema remains the last bastion of commercial film use, which is noteworthy when you consider the money that's on the line there. I totally agree that the look of film is unique and better for story telling while being cheaper and easier to use and store for a Hollywood production.

[Bosaiya]

I haven't done very much commercial work lately but when I have it's usually been LF (and if not then MF).