No. And neither are my 2x3 Graphics and 2x3 Cambo.
By local standards, all are medium format.
It is unfortunate as I think all people who shoot with View Cameras have a lot to offer.
I thought the 6x9 Horseman did qualify because it is a camera with all the movements
Not enough area, though. There was a bellows for some 35mm or other that had all the movements, did that make 35mm large format? The oldtime definition was anything smaller than 4x5 was medium format.Originally Posted by Scott Walker
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
that "definition" can't have originated from Central Europe....Not enough area, though. There was a bellows for some 35mm or other that had all the movements, did that make 35mm large format? The oldtime definition was anything smaller than 4x5 was medium format.
In the old oldtime, I have seen an add, where small format goes to 8x10... medium format till 20x24", and everything bigger than that was LF.....
Would give a small community I think...
I do not remember where I have read it but it was suggested that anything smaller than 1/4 Plate was 'medium format' and 1/4 Plate was recognised/treated by many old photographers as entrance to LF.The oldtime definition was anything smaller than 4x5 was medium format.
If it has bellows and movements we tend to let it slide.
My personal belief is that Large starts at 6x12 (which is a slightly cropped 4"x5" frame) 6x17 covers as much surface area as 4x5, and is as wide as 5x7..
6x9 is medium format, but as Edward said, anyone shooting a view camera has alot to offer on this forum, do not let the fact that you shoot medium format deter you from contributing.
Chamonix 045N-2 - 65/5.6 - 90/8 - 210/5.6 - Fomapan 100 & T-Max 100 in Rodinal
Alexartphotography
Who cares? They are just things that make pictures.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks