The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Let me say this: for the large format fitting rules, the image would have to be made using AT LEAST one LF characteristic or procedure:
If:
- Longest film side size: not shorter then 4" or 101 mm,
- Camera has some movement capabilities as shift or tilt or both,
- Camera has to have a bellows
- The image have to be processed with chemicals at some point - out digital from start to end.
- Lens has a covering power equal to or greater then 9x12,
... then, if any of the points are cover the image or thread submited could be permitted.
About the digital large format et all, there is few digital backs in the planet capable of 101mm in the longest side an none in the photo industry.
At the foundation date of the LFPF there was nothing even close to a LF photo sensor size, and I suggest when this day arrives the forum changes its name to Large Format Analog Photography Forum, and open an area named "Safe Heaven for Digital Photo".
The reason in simple, the working approach with digital and analog being different in the image making, there is already a myriad of good Internet forums on the planet where one can call for help or share its pictures, and I can strongly recommend some of them which I'm proud be part of: Manual Focus lenses, Luminous Landscape and Fred Miranda.com.
As photographers, we have to keep the thing in focus,
Cheers,
Renato
I think if the x axis were divided by the y and doubled equaled the square root of ....
Oh screw it. Think I'll go shoot.
This is why I think it makes more sense to define what is and isn't large format based on camera parameters regardless of imaging material.Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Wet plate, tintype, autochrome, paper then would be excluded
J.
There are arbitrary boundaries in what you wrote, too. Firstly, we are not specifically concerned about film versus digital, and thus your requriement for a chemical step imposes a boundary we do not have. The Wanderlust Travelwide, about which we have been enthusiastic on this forum, does not have bellows or movements. It is a point-n-shoot--there is no practical ground-glass viewing (which is what would make it a view camera). But we allow it because it is large-format. That is not the only such camera ever made that had no bellows or movements, of course.
As I said, whether the line is in the right place to a given person depends on whether their ox is being gored. Dan works with 2x3 using view cameras and, one supposes, sheet film. I do a lot with roll-film adapters on a 4x5 camera. But allowing an exception for Dan or for me that does not also allow an exception for, say, a Hasselblad Arc-Body with a ground-glass adapter isn't as easy as you think. One ends up just listing which cameras are acceptable and which are not, and that list would grow endlessly and still be hopelessly arbitrary. There are just too many variations. And it leads to distortions, such as allowing 2x3 sheet-film view camera discussions, but not allowing 6x17 fixed-body camera discussions. A lot of hard feelings resulted from those discussions.
For those who think it was a film-dominated or anti-digital decision, that is incorrect. But I think it's fair to say that large-format is a film-dominated medium, because nobody has yet made a large-format sensor (excepting that emerging 8x10 sensor, which has been discussed here without hindrance). That's not our fault! If we downgrade the definition because the medium-format sensors are really, really good, then we'll have to downgrade it further now that 35mm sensors are really, really good. We'd become the "Whatever Forum".
It has nothing to do with the fact that many pros have switched to small and medium-format digital for their paid work (I only occasionally do paid work, but I do it with digital, too). It is not about image quality, end result, difficulty, thought process, digital versus analog, resolution, state of mind, workflow, inclusiveness, exclusiveness, camera type, or any of the other arguments people make justifying format decisions. It's about inches--4 on one side and 5 on the other, or more. But, because we didn't want to close the door on great image-making, we still allow images from smaller cameras to be posted in their own image forum. Discussions about those cameras can still be pursued in the Lounge. This is the compromise, but we are a large-format forum first and last.
Rick "it's about format" Denney
Because we are not Reddit.
Rick "meta-thread alert" Denney
Rick, just to be clear I don't want an exception to be made for 2x3 or 6x12. Making one won't improve my life or this forum in any way.
What I want right now is that the peanut gallery will shut up and get on with trying to be good photographers. I wish they'd learn the difference between the sideshow and the center ring.
I think that your concern about this turning into the 'whatever photographic forum' is misplaced. The French LF forum hasn't turned into one yet.
Won't happen as long as the moderators keep "coddling" them. Less moderate moderating would be more efficient.
I have mentioned that many times in the past. "Large" is an ambiguous term, always has been and always will be. "View Camera" is clearly defined. What I will never understand is why, with all the digital crap on the internet, do people want to come here and discuss it in a forum based entirely around film cameras.
Rick,
I understand your point of view, and hope you don't misunderstand mine. Me too I shoot digital for working, assignments, etc, with a full frame digital camera, but the main purpose to come to the forum is to deal with LF photo - last week I acquired from a member a Baby Speed Graphic camera, and I have maybe 4 graflex roll film backs which I eventually use with my Sinar F2 view camera, and the only difference in the workflow I follow with a medium format view camera would be restricted to a different back and another developing tank. Just that: same chems, enlarger, etc.
That said, it's a lot more easy to me to maintain digital and analog each one with its own working space than to have both mixed, even if at certain point we'are forced to follow the hybrid path, scanning the prints or negatives; and I'm already aware that without it we hadn't have any pictures to share - a forum being a digital medium after all.
It's not a matter of any sort of analog credo, but only different workflow.
Oranges & apples, we can enjoy both, but I don't mix it, but it's only my taste,
Cheers,
Renato
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks