LF Clarification

[Peter Collins]

HEY!!

Moderators,
Thank you for your efforts on this, as well as the general work you do for the LFF.

another +1 here.

Let's get behind a camera and make some images. Enough!

[Dan Fromm]

It is not "my" American way. The ability to use movements for focus and perspective control is the essence of the large format experience for me.

I believe the moderators really fumbled the ball in doubling down on film size as the "only" definition of large format. This "clarification" is both historically disruptive, in that it excludes equipment historically accepted by the forum, i.e. small 2X3 and 6X9 view and technical cameras using sheet and/or roll film, and it sets in stone, for all practical purposes, that in terms of equipment large format must be done with a sheet of film (or roll film over 4" on the short dimension that is no longer produced). And not just any sheet of film, but a sheet that has to be at least so many square centimeters or inches. By the new clarification, even a Better Light scanning device would not be called large format! Perfectly absurd. Way beyond absurd in fact.

The creation of the new image sub-forum was a good thing, mitigating to some extent the damage caused by doubling down on "size" as the primary definition. But on the whole I am profoundly disappointed with the "clarification" by this group of moderators, and believe they have done a significant disservice to the long term creative grown of the large format forum in being more exclusive. Arguments about how we can crop do not offer a good vision of the path forward in photography so far as I am concerned.

Sandy

Sandy, you have confused me more than I thought you could.

You started this nonsense with a post asking for a more precise definition of "large format" and, by implication, of this forum's purview. I thought you were a damned fool when you started this brawl. You're even more of one for not liking what you got.

Yours in sorrow,

Dan

[Ken Lee]

There are some forum members who once did, but no longer make Large Format images. They consider themselves aligned to the spirit and craft which is rooted in that practice. They would like to consider that what they make today - using rather different equipment - is still Large Format in one aspect or another. They see a continuity, a sense of tradition.

We respect that continuity and tradition. Even though there are many other venues for image sharing and discussion of photography on the internet, this forum has long allowed members to post images made with equipment that isn't Large Format. It continues to do that.

However, what distinguishes this forum from the others, is that it maintains a special "pride of place" for images made with (and discussion of) the equipment at the root of that tradition.

[rdenney]

Edit:Ken was faster than me this time. I wrote this before seeing his message.

Okay, folks. We have heard about a hundred opinions, many of them in direct conflict with others. No matter where we draw the line, it will annoy people.

But there is no need for arguing about it. Opinions are welcome; fighting is not.

It is true that this is where we are going to be for at least long enough to see how it works, recognizing that some will be disappointed. But that doesn't mean we don't listen to those opinions, or that we will forget them if we have to revisit this again.

If you can't see that we are expanding what is shown image subforums in the regular area, well, I don't know how to respond to that. No more relegating images to the Lounge. But we give people a choice.

Making the mods out to be stupid or villainous is neither true nor charitable, by the way. It makes us grumpy.

I want to explore the notion that large format is merely a state of mind. I've made photographs in most formats at one time or another, and I've made photos using the kind of slow deliberation favored by many (not all!) large-format photographers. I've used movements, obtained one way or another, in most formats. I've done it using a darkroom, and I've done using a computer. I think I understand the state of mind argument. But no matter how deliberatively I might approach a medium-format view camera, it's still medium format. States of mind are the topics of endless arguments (and someone like Weegee would laugh at that state of mind discussion, it seems to me), because they are entirely subjective.

"4x5 or larger" is not subjective. It is indeed arbitrary, and people can debate it. But much worse would be a boundary both arbitrary and subjective--and we'd come down to just stamping our feet about it.

I think we've had enough foot-stamping.

Rick "who doesn't need approval, just cooperation and respect" Denney

[sanking]

Dan,

I asked for the clarification with regard to the use of digital backs. It was never my intention to bring into question the legitimacy of the use of 2X3 and 6X9 technical cameras as "large format." That seem firmly entrenched by the historical facts, which include several articles on these type of cameras and the lenses that support them in the Large Format home page, including an article by Q. T. Luong entitled "2x3 Cameras : a round-up", where it is stated, "This survey is about cameras of 2x3 format which operate like 4x5 and larger view/field cameras, with bellows, movements, and ground glass. Although technically those cameras are Medium Format, the techniques and mindset that are required to use them make them an integral part of the Large Format photography experience." http://www.largeformatphotography.in...3.htmlAlthough

If the moderators really want to break with the history and vision of the forum so be it, but please don't blame me for the decisions they make.

Sandy

[djdister]

Ahem. Debating is all fine and dandy, but a picture is worth a thousand posts ... maybe more, adjusted for inflation.

[jcoldslabs]

If you can't see that we are expanding what is shown image subforums in the regular area, well, I don't know how to respond to that. No more relegating images to the Lounge. But we give people a choice.

I see very clearly that the sub-forum for non-LF images is expanded. But since you're soliciting opinions, I have something to say about that.

We now have two parallel tracks, one for LF images and one for non-LF. Sounds good. But my issue is this: there are already what I consider to be too many sub-categories in the LF area. I mean, if I have a photo of a tree alone in a landscape near some water at a high elevation, does that get posted to the "Trees" thread, the "LF Landscapes" thread, the "Water's Edge" thread or the "Photos Taken at Elevation" thread?

It's no coincidence that the "Large Format Landscapes" thread is one of the most populated and viewed threads since it casts a wide net, while the "Balloons" thread has two posts in it.

My worry is that there will be a similar fracturing of the threads in the new non-LF sub-forum. If so we'll end up with 30-40 active threads with duplicate subject headings in both areas. That's a lot to keep track of, especially for someone like me who prefers to browse his subscribed threads and not use the "Unified View." (Someone already started a "Battleship" thread in the non-LF area. No offense, but I don't see that one taking off.) The appeal for me of the "Small Formats" thread in the Lounge was that it was a catch-all. One stop shopping. I like that.

So yes, Rick, you guys are offering us more real estate over which we can spread our non-LF images, but will that help the cause of actually sharing our images or hurt it?

I think I'll keep posting to the "Safe Haven for Small Formats" thread until the rest of the non-LF image sharing sub-forum settles down and the new categories have been created and seasoned a bit.

Jonathan

[IanG]

The now largely defunct UK LF forum has possible the best definition which encompasses slightly more than the arbitrary 4x5 which excludes the European standard of 9x12.

Their definition is: "Large format starts at 100 square centimetres" which seems a very logical and simple solution.

Moderators are forgetting that LF is not just the camera it's the equipment needed to process/output, and print (if not digital) the final images. An enlarger or scanner or even contact frame for LF is needed that is significantly larger than those with simple 345mm or 6x6 capability.

Ian

[rdenney]

We are not excluding 9x12. It is nominally the same as 4x5. Don't make it more arbitrary than it already is.

Rick "resisting the desire of some to be too prescriptive" Denney

[rdenney]

Their definition is: "Large format starts at 100 square centimetres" which seems a very logical and simple solution.

That has been a consideration at times, and might be again. But people stamped their feet just as much about where that line gets drawn as about where we've drawn it. It is really no less arbitrary.

Rick "not seeing that this line results in substantially different equipment than 4x5" Denney