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?
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?
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.
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?
"Vocation to Solitude -- To deliver oneself up, to hand oneself over, entrust oneself completely to the silence of a wide landscape of woods and hills, or sea, or desert; to sit still while the sun comes up over the land and fills its silences with light." Thomas Merton