Will I get beaten up if ...

[E. von Hoegh]

Provided not even 10 percent of the image is cropped? If I shoot 8x10 and crop to 17.8125 square inches (full 4x5in image area) that's still LF but if I crop it to 16 square inches it's not?

If you crop 8x10 at current prices, you're insane. But as long as you don't cut the sheet down, it's LF. Insane, but LF.

[Leigh]

It's the size of the film that matters, not the size of the image.

Following your argument, a 4x5 would cease to be LF if you used it with a lens
having an image circle too small to cover the film, resulting in vignetting.

A corollary to that:
If you use an adequate lens, but add enough rise that you get vignetting, are you still shooting LF?

- Leigh

[Old-N-Feeble]

If you crop 8x10 at current prices, you're insane. But as long as you don't cut the sheet down, it's LF. Insane, but LF.

I never claimed to be sane. My inquires are hypothetical anyway since my largest camera is 5x7.

It was stated earlier that 4x5in film cropped to 6x12cm is not LF and this is still in question. If it's not then the other query was/is: At what point does 4x5in cease to be LF... cropped 10 percent, 20 percent, more?

[E. von Hoegh]

I never claimed to be sane. My inquires are hypothetical anyway since my largest camera is 5x7.

It was stated earlier that 4x5in film cropped to 6x12cm is not LF and this still in question. If it's not then the other query was/is: At what point does 4x5in cease to be LF... cropped 10 percent, 20 percent, more?

I've already given you my opinion. I'm German, Swiss, Irish, and Scots. You don't really expect me to change the opinion, do you?

[Leigh]

It was stated earlier that 4x5in film cropped to 6x12cm is not LF and this is still in question.

Well, OnF...

Back in post #10 you acknowledged the difference between 6x12 done as sheet film v. 6x12 done as roll film.

I believe you answered your own question.

- Leigh

[Vaughn]

Gad, this again.

I believe the owner of this forum has the position that it is the camera that matters -- not the film size. Roll film backs on a view camera are perfectly acceptable. 6x17 back on a view camera is fine -- 6x17 on a non-view camera is not fine. Digital back on a view camera should be fine. Press cameras have been grandfathered in and are fine. Still lots of gray areas, but that basically is it.

Vaughn

[Old-N-Feeble]

EvonH / Leigh...

Now I understand. I can crop 4x5in or larger sheet film as much as I like and it will always be LF but roll film, regardless of size is never LF... at least not with the size of RF that's readily available today.

ETA: There was a member here (Jim Galli?) who had a custom 5x14 camera made (by Chamonix?) who cut 5 inch roll film to shoot in said camera? Is that LF?

[Vaughn]

If you crop 8x10 at current prices, you're insane. But as long as you don't cut the sheet down, it's LF. Insane, but LF.

I do two 4x10 images on a single sheet of 8x10 -- am I doublely insane? Or twice as smart?

[Kirk Gittings]

... I post images on the forum shot using a Linhof Techno and a digital back?

I'm having an identity crisis as the techno largely replaces my Toyo 45AII. I'll be shooting 6x7 roll film, plus digital. Am I considered large format still? as the techno certainly similar features to the Toyo.

Thanks
Paul

If the question is whether you are allowed to post in the core LF forums? The answer is yes as Sandy quoted the guidelines above. Will you get crap for it from the diehards? Obviously but that's not the same question.

[E. von Hoegh]

I do two 4x10 images on a single sheet of 8x10 -- am I doublely insane? Or twice as smart?

Neither. You're obviously making panoramas. Sheesh. I've done the same, and it's obvious I'm sane.