Would Love to See an "Other Formats" Sub Forum

[Roger Cole]

There is also DPUG which, name aside, invites discussion of scanning and hybrid work modes.

[Tim Meisburger]

Hi Ole. I have a similar dilemma with my 6.5x9 Kodak Recomar, which functionally is closer in shooting and film processing to my 4x5 than any other camera type, and have thought about starting a thread in the Lounge called "Medium Format Sheet Film" for posting photos and asking camera questions. These negatives don't fit in my scanner film holders (they are made for roll film), so have not gotten around to scanning any yet, but a thread like that might be a good work-around for your question.

Tim

[Roger Cole]

Hi Ole. I have a similar dilemma with my 6.5x9 Kodak Recomar, which functionally is closer in shooting and film processing to my 4x5 than any other camera type, and have thought about starting a thread in the Lounge called "Medium Format Sheet Film" for posting photos and asking camera questions. These negatives don't fit in my scanner film holders (they are made for roll film), so have not gotten around to scanning any yet, but a thread like that might be a good work-around for your question.

Tim

I thought this forum was for any users of sheet film, or in cameras with movements?

Come to think of it, I'm not sure where the line is, but I know I've seen discussion of 3.25x4.25 sheet film and I'm pretty sure it isn't just "4x5 and larger."

[lenser]

Interesting problem as there are some of us (I am certainly one) who may routinely use roll film backs on large format cameras. How is that supposed to be classified.

Also in my case, I've had a machinist friend make adapters so I can use my wonderful Wollensak Veritar (covers up to 5x7), on my Hasselblad 2000FCM with bellows for focusing, and on my Nikons with my PB-4 bellows for that system.

Definitely large format equipment, but hybridized to other formats.

So are medium format film images shot with a large format camera or lenses excluded?

[Tim Meisburger]

No, I think the criteria is film size, not movements or view cameras. Minimum is 4x5 or 9x12, I think.

I'm okay with that, but my little camera uses sheet film in film holders, has rise and shift, is triggered with a cable release, and focused with a loupe on a ground glass, so I am more likely to find useful information here than anywhere else, but am happy to seek that in the lounge. In the "Safe Haven for Tiny Formats" thread I'm sure to find people that understand sheet film and view cameras.

[lenser]

What about 2.25 x 3.25? Didn't Gowland make a pocket view camera in that size? Galvin certainly did (I used to own one) with very full movements just as with many 4x5 and 8x10 etc. cameras.

Is it film size or is it the fact that it is sheet film, or is it the camera style that defines large format rules.

[Oren Grad]

Is it film size or is it the fact that it is sheet film, or is it the camera style that defines large format rules.

The Forum's definition is stated clearly at the top of the "General Forum Usage" FAQs:

For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras).

[jnantz]

What about 2.25 x 3.25? Didn't Gowland make a pocket view camera in that size? Galvin certainly did (I used to own one) with very full movements just as with many 4x5 and 8x10 etc. cameras.

Is it film size or is it the fact that it is sheet film, or is it the camera style that defines large format rules.

once every six months or so
there is a question whether or not a certain format
is considered large format ...

[jnantz]

there are good photographers ( and photographs ) and bad ones
on every forum regardless of the format and media ...
i don't think apug has the lion's share because it is film/silver based ..

[Wayne Crider]

For the small format stuff I generally go to Pnet or APUG. RFF is not bad as well