so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

[Ralph Barker]

Opinions obviously vary. Within the context of this forum, however. "large format" is still considered to be 4x5 and larger. But, we have traditionally been tolerant of smaller formats (120 roll film and 2x3-ish sheets) if done with a view camera or something resembling same. Conventional roll film cameras don't qualify, however.

[John Bowen]

If you have to enlarge the negative to see the image from 3 feet, then it isn't large format.... ;-)

[Alan Davenport]

"Large Format" is a state of mind, not a film size.

Only in bed.

Sorry, SM, the operative word is "large," which refers to the size of the film, not how far the camera can bend. 6x9 ain't large format.

[neil poulsen]

It is interesting how definitions change with time. During the 50s and early 60s, I never heard the term "large format" used for anything smaller than 8x10, ... well maybe (???) sometimes for 5x7.

It's funny; I've been seeing a lot of 35mm cameras appearing in the LF section of EBay.

[Gary Tarbert]

L.F sheets M.F rolls but who cares welcome anyway.cheers Gary

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Gary, I've had a couple of aerial cameras that took 5" roll film. LF or MF or other?

[Gary Tarbert]

Um, Gary, I've had a couple of aerial cameras that took 5" roll film. LF or MF or other?

Is that 5" wide?Because 6cmx17cm is that long but obviousely only 2 1/4 inches wide.If it is 5''inches wide then it would be classed in my mind as L.F ,this is not a contradiction to my previous post because i was reffering too sizes of film generally available not special orders.cheers Gary

[Dan Fromm]

Well, the spool's 5" high.

[Armin Seeholzer]

6x9 is the classic USLF what that means Ultra Small LF!
;--))))

[darr]

6x9 is the classic USLF what that means Ultra Small LF! ;--))))

When I post "6x9" in a "4x5" forum message, I feel superior.