Will I get beaten up if ...

[Leigh]

I could not find the definition on the homepage.

It's in the FAQ.

Quoting: "For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film."

I suggest reading the entire FAQ.

- Leigh

[Drew Wiley]

It all depends. If you take 6x7 film and then put it in a film stretcher I think it still counts
as large format. Remember to soak the negative in mayonnaise and water overnight so the emulsion doesn't crack when you stretch it.

[Old-N-Feeble]

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.

What kind of cropping are you talking about? If you mean crops in making a print that has nothing to do with anything. If I expose 4x5 film in a 4x5 camera I've made a large format photograph. It's the size of the film that's relevant, not the size of the final print.

If you're talking about a film holder that crops the 4x5 film in camera, e.g. so that two images can be made on one sheet, that's irrelevant too it seems to me. You put 4x5 film in a 4x5 camera. You made a LF photograph. You put 6x7 film in a 4x5 camera and you've made a medium format photograph. I don't know what's "allowed" and what isn't and I doubt that everyone agrees but I don't see how a 6x7 negative can be considered "large format" regardless of what kind of camera was used to make it.

[Shen45]

It's in the FAQ.

Quoting: "For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film."

I suggest reading the entire FAQ.

- Leigh

The answer to this on going stupidity has been provided a while back "Safe haven for tiny formats". Why does this keep coming up? There must be at least a hundred digital fora but still people want to take their pixelography graphic art and pollute a large format film only section. You won't get beaten up but you won't be respected in the morning.

[Leigh]

There must be at least a hundred digital fora but still people want to take their pixelography graphic art and pollute a large format film only section.

I agree.

Anybody interested in serious pixeolography should consider the forum at getdpi.com.
They have some very talented members, and great work.

- Leigh

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yeah, yeah... I can shoot six 6x12cm roll film images for the overall cost of a single sheet of 4x5 cropped to 6x12cm. FWIW, I'll also be shooting 5x7 and stitching to 5x10 or 5x12 when I want better quality and wider format than 4x5.

[Leigh]

I can shoot six 6x12cm roll film images for the overall cost of a single sheet of 4x5 cropped to 6x12cm.

Then why don't you go shoot some pictures instead of abusing that poor computer keyboard.

If money is an issue, you could save even more by not shooting at all.

- Leigh

[wentbackward]

The problem with paper tape is that it's impregnated with oil, which can escape and foul the optics.

My vote goes to punched cards. Be sure to punch the sequence number columns so the sorter will work right.

- Leigh

You had a sorter? A bit high tech, I had to sort them by hand, or maybe was just my shift leader having fun with me, better find out!

[Old-N-Feeble]

Then why don't you go shoot some pictures instead of abusing that poor computer keyboard.

If money is an issue, you could save even more by not shooting at all.

- Leigh

Leigh... you kill me. You really do. Yeah... I need to get off my byootox and shoot some film.

[BrianShaw]

You guys are too uptight. Let's just beat up a couple of small-format and-or digitoraphers and make examples of them. It might be fun, who knows?