List of Formats in LF category?

[Rickettles]

I have the camera made by Butch Welch. I am the third owner and thrilled to have it. Besides 8*10 Butch made 7*11 and 9*9.

I am sorry Butch is not still photographing but glad to have the Camera. Now just to cut some film to size and get out there!

Richard

[Jay DeFehr]

And doing so you're beating yourself on your own backside, because your definition of a MF film (according to a format) is contradictory. Don't you still realize than you're putting the definition problem from a frying pan and into the fire?

I don't think my definition of MF film is controversial, since every manufacturer and supplier of the film concurs, and it seems a less arbitrary basis for categorization than Ole's 100cm basis, which allows for LF images to be made on MF film. Ole's definition has a kind of, line-in-the-sand simplicity that appeals to me, and 100cm is a nice, round number, arbitrary though it might be. Still, a definition that defines LF as any format in which the smallest dimension is greater than 70mm is equally simple, and more consistent with standard practice and industry terminology. Few (if any) would argue that 120 is a MF film, and it seems incongruous that LF images would be made on MF film. So, 1/4 plate is either the largest MF, or the smallest LF, depending on how one chooses to look at it. If it's MF, it's the only MF not made on roll film, which makes it unique among MFs, but typical of LFs. http://www.largeformatphotography.in...lies/smile.gif

[GPS]

...
Few (if any) would argue that 120 is a MF film, and it seems incongruous that LF images would be made on MF film.
...

You first define the 120 film as MF according to the format of pictures on it and then you argue that LF pictures cannot be taken on MF film... still happily kicking yourself into your own backside...
Yet if you take LF pictures on 120 film it's not only MF film and then... Some things you don't get... Never mind.

[rdenney]

One definition is a film area of 100 cm^2 or more.

So 9x12cm qualifies, as does 6x17 - but not 6x9cm or 6x12cm.

Can you say "arbitrary"?

Fred "who wants credit for LF photography using a 4x5 camera even if using a 6x12 back" Rogers

[Jay DeFehr]

You first define the 120 film as MF according to the format of pictures on it and then you argue that LF pictures cannot be taken on MF film... still happily kicking yourself into your own backside...
Yet if you take LF pictures on 120 film it's not only MF film and then... Some things you don't get... Never mind.

I don't define MF film by the format of photos made on it, I define it the same way the manufacturers and retailers do; 120/220/70mm roll films.Where did you get the idea I define MF by the size of photos made on it? MF happens to be 6cm wide, and that's the common dimension of every MF. The other dimension varies, but there's one common dimension because they're all made on the same type of film- MF. All MF cameras use 120 and/or 220 film; not because of the way I define MF, but because it's the industry standard.

The format distinction is an abstract one, and not very important, or even relevant outside discussions like this one, or websites like this one, which makes format a part of its organizing principles. In the real world, films are categorized as rolls-35mm and MF, and sheets- whatever size they happen to be cut. The rest is just a question of conventions. One convention, American, and possibly the most popular, says LF begins at 4x5. This convention extends from the common practices of American commercial photographers of the past, who made up the bulk of sheet film consumers. The MF convention is universal, since there is/was no competing metric alternative to MF roll films; they're all 120/220, and every MF, or as they're often called- roll film camera- ever made was made to use this type of film precisely because it is an industry standard.

It's very difficult to argue that 120/220 are not MF films, and it's equally difficult to argue that other types of film are MF, based on standard industry practice. Of course, we're all free to make up our own categories on any basis we choose, and name them however we like. For instance, I prefer XLF (eXtra Large Format) to ULF (Ultra Large Format), but only on a linguistic basis.

I remain unconvinced there's any compelling reason to refer to any film larger than 6cm wide as MF, but I'm certainly not bothered by others who do.

[Mike Castles]

I like that. Or "Eccentric Large Format".

I think that may be closer to the truth than any Oren..

[jnantz]

I think anything larger than 2-1/4" on its smallest dimension is Large format, even though some panoramic MF sizes are larger in film area than 4x5 inches.

I love the Postcard format! Which cameras used that format? Was the Kodak 3A one of them? Sorry to digress.

hi jay

there was someone selling a
pc format sheet film camera on ebay
just last week.
it came with 5 holders as well ...
there seems to be a few of these cameras on ebay each week or two ..

that format is one of my favorites as well !
john

[Jay DeFehr]

hi jay

there was someone selling a
pc format sheet film camera on ebay
just last week.
it came with 5 holders as well ...
there seems to be a few of these cameras on ebay each week or two ..

that format is one of my favorites as well !
john

Incredible! I'll definitely watch for one. Film would be a problem, though. You probably use paper for yours? I suppose I could cut down 11x14 and get 8 sheets of PC format, but that's a lot of cutting. Hmmmmm. When was the deadline for the special order? I think I missed it! Does Ilford still make PC paper? I just love this idea too much! Thanks, John!

[Oren Grad]

Does Ilford still make PC paper?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...o.html#reviews

[Jay DeFehr]

Thanks, Oren! I just love everything about the whole PC camera idea. It's absolutely charming, and precious in a way iPhone pix never could be. I had a quick look at the cameras on offer, and the Kodaks seem very common and inexpensive. Does anyone know how those cameras performed? I'm intrigued, to say the least!