Will I get beaten up if ...

[Frank Petronio]

I'd like to see good medium and large sensor digital work, and to also hear about the workflow and your experiences using various higher-end digital systems. The Linhof Techno is very cool and some action/behind the scenes pix would be great.

The forum probably ought to start an entire section for digital, anything larger than full-frame FX 35mm sensors, even if they are using SLR bodies like H4s, Mamiyas, S2s... it is interesting and useful to everyone here and ultimately many of us will be moving towards those types of cameras sooner or later anyway. Not everyone wants to do wet plate or coat their own emulsions.

OK ban me again.

[Kirk Gittings]

"OK ban me again."

It wasn't like you didn't know it was coming. Here's one we missed after two official infractions and warnings.-scroll down to number 6.
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ronio+politics

[Frank Petronio]

I need an ankle bracelet like Bob Shell!

[wentbackward]

Thanks Frank and Kirk for making light of things, sorry for exploding, I'd been up since 5am taking care of my baby so the missus could get some sleep! Anyway, I shall post. I always note where it is roll film or sheet, so likewise will inform as and when it is digital. I'm certainly not turning my back on sheet film a friend has borrowed my Toyo, which I can't part with and in fact I recently bought my first lens that covers 10x8 in addition to upgrading to a 5 series Gitzo ... future plans!

[Brian Ellis]

Well... I guess I'll never understand the definition of LF. While I'll agree that 120 roll film is not large format, I believe that shooting 4x5 sheet just so we can boldly state we shot an image in LF is silly. I'll (boldly) add that, in today's world of DSLR's and super-duper-high-quality films films that 6x12cm might be the new "smallest" LF. Why make such a fuss over 6x12cm cropped from 4x5 (a waste of LF as one stated) vs. shooting 6x12cm on roll film. After all, the latter produces better quality.

You don't understand the definition of large format photography because there is no uniformly accepted definition for all purposes and in all contexts. Haven't you noticed that by now?

Nobody is trying to "boldly state we shot an image in LF." We're not talking about individual bragging rights. We're talking about how one defines "large format" for purposes of a forum devoted to "large format" photography and that has rules/guidelines relating to that type of photography.

You ask "why make such a fuss over 6x12 cropped from 4x5?" We make such a fuss about it because in a forum that has rules/guidelines relating to one particular type of photography, as this one does, there needs to be a way to distinguish that type of photography from other types. If you consider trying to do that a useless "fuss" then I really can't help you except to suggest that you might be happier participating in forums that don't make such distinctions.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Hey Brian... I intended no offense.

My arguments are purely academic and are only intended to provoke thoughtful conversation. FWIW, I too consider 4x5 sheet film the minimum size to be considered large format film.

If I'm one of those middle-of-the-road folk shooting 6x12cm with a 4x5in view camera... where else am I to go but here? You hurt my feelings, Brian, you really do. Oh but wait... I have no feelings to hurt.

Viva la Large Format 6x12cm roll film!!!

[Eric Ashcroft]

So... if I shoot 4x5in sheet film and crop to 6x12cm that's LF. But if I shoot 6x12cm roll film with a 4x5 camera that's not LF. Hmm... yeah, I guess that's technically correct.

Nope, If you take a Rose & pull the petals off, its its not a rose anymore. Likewise if one takes 4x5" & crops it (no matter which side or how much) it is not 4x5" anymore,even tho' you don't actually cut the negative/positive.
& besides,although I'm new here,I've accepted whole heartedly the idea What & that LF is!! about size.... the fact I've gotta develop some muscle & be not namby pamby about weight & too much trouble??? to carry heavy stuff about,
go read what Matthew Brady, Francis Frith, & others carried around 150yrs ago ,weep & be ashamed of yourself,...they were men.(I do dread to think what 50 glass collodian glass plates weighed,just for starters,not to mention 100's of
miles into the middle of nowhere,& no actual road.
To me one either wants 'that beautiful big neg/pos',.. or you do not.

[E. von Hoegh]

I absolutely do not agree: I posted this question in a forum entitled Forum -> LF Forums -> Digital Hardware and want to clarify the position of view cameras that are dedicated to smaller format, in my case Linhof's Techno, but there are now many others. I've been a member here for many years I suppose during that time have received very valuable help and built great respect many of the members, some of whom I find inspirational.

LF photography was where it all started and was a revolution of science, the knowledge of people who work (and play) in this domain remains exceptional and to my mind the best lenses I have ever used are still Rodenstock and Schneider.

I exclude from the following, the people that actually tried a sensible reply

The responses make me very sad, I didn't intend to start a war between a bunch of mud slinging kids, but clearly that mentality has now polluted this forum too. I guess I never noticed this because I really only look at the image posting threads, i.e. where there are people that actually use their cameras for photography.

photo.net deteriorated like this and I left there never to post again, I have noticed very respected members here threatening to do the same, so perhaps just consider my question void, close or delete the whole thread.

So sorry to have troubled everyone. Bloody nonsense. Grow up.

You started a thread with a rather hyperbolic title. Don't complain if some (OK, many) of the replies followed that lead.
I'd also like to add that my first reply was clear, informative, and an attempt to answer all your questions. I then joined the perennial digital/what is LF fray, because it was Friday and a beautiful one at that. Smile. Take some pictures. Post them.

[gliderbee]

You guys took some pictures lately? Might be a good idea, in whatever format... It might even be good for your mental health

[Old-N-Feeble]

Nope, If you take a Rose & pull the petals off, its its not a rose anymore. Likewise if one takes 4x5" & crops it (no matter which side or how much) it is not 4x5" anymore,even tho' you don't actually cut the negative/positive.
& besides,although I'm new here,I've accepted whole heartedly the idea What & that LF is!! about size.... the fact I've gotta develop some muscle & be not namby pamby about weight & too much trouble??? to carry heavy stuff about,
go read what Matthew Brady, Francis Frith, & others carried around 150yrs ago ,weep & be ashamed of yourself,...they were men.(I do dread to think what 50 glass collodian glass plates weighed,just for starters,not to mention 100's of
miles into the middle of nowhere,& no actual road.
To me one either wants 'that beautiful big neg/pos',.. or you do not.

I was a man once... then the neurologist told me I am no more so, most of the time, I'll be carrying a sissy little-girl 4x5 with RFB.