Digital hate overmoderating?

[Corran]

The new clarifications basically precludes any talk of digital imaging in the main forum, at least at this time, other than the one person posting images from the 8x10 digital camera back prototype he is working on*.

While there might not be "hate" specifically towards digital, the targeted segregation can certainly feel that way to some, I imagine.

Furthermore, stitching images from digital sure seems like a grey area. Especially if you were to, say, use a MF digital back and a 4x5 camera, and stitch images at basically the size of a nominal 4x5 sheet of film.

*Perhaps scanning backs are acceptable, if anyone actually uses them much anymore, though technically the image area is only 1 pixel x whatever the image area is set at, right?!

[Sal Santamaura]

...Furthermore, stitching images from digital sure seems like a grey area...

I find no ambiguity whatsoever. If the sensor is nominally 4x5 or larger, OK. If not, the Lounge.

[prendt]

No, that discussion of a rollfilm back on a LF camera will be moved, too, if we see it or it draws a complaint.

Rick "mode agnostic, but 4x5 means 4x5, well, at least nominally" Denney

How about if the scanner doesn't take 4x5 size film. Will it be moved to the Lounge if it draws a complaint? Can it be discussed on the main forum outside the Lounge then? Please clarify.

[Corran]

Sal, the world is simply not black and white.

Technically speaking, tell me what the difference is between a 4x5 sensor (which doesn't exist) and taking however many images using a sliding back adapter and stitching them together to form an image that would have been made with a 4x5-sized sensor?

And how about if in the future they actually make a 4x5-sized sensor out of, say, 6 smaller sensors in a series? Is that still not a "nominal 4x5" sensor size?

There will always be a grey area, in pretty much any set of rules.

[prendt]

Furthermore, stitching images from digital sure seems like a grey area. Especially if you were to, say, use a MF digital back and a 4x5 camera, and stitch images at basically the size of a nominal 4x5 sheet of film.

*Perhaps scanning backs are acceptable, if anyone actually uses them much anymore, though technically the image area is only 1 pixel x whatever the image area is set at, right?!

That's my understanding too. See the new thread - Scanning & stitching troubles. Where does it belong and why? The scanner is not 4x5 size.

[Oren Grad]

How about if the scanner doesn't take 4x5 size film. Will it be moved to the Lounge if it draws a complaint? Can it be discussed on the main forum outside the Lounge then? Please clarify.

The scanner is not being used as an original image capture device.

[Oren Grad]

Technically speaking, tell me what the difference is between a 4x5 sensor (which doesn't exist) and taking however many images using a sliding back adapter and stitching them together to form an image that would have been made with a 4x5-sized sensor?

The size of the original capture device.

Stitching is not strictly a digital issue. One could stitch scans from small-format film. Some have done this.

We have had this discussion. Stitching of small-format digital captures is a large and growing field with extensive discussion taking place in other venues. For now, the capture-device-size criterion serves us well in maintaining the distinctive focus of this forum. If and when technology and practice change in a way that poses new challenges for us, we will consider the particulars and decide what to do about it.

[Sal Santamaura]

...the world is simply not black and white...

No, I hear some people shoot in color too.

...tell me what the difference is between a 4x5 sensor (which doesn't exist) and taking however many images using a sliding back adapter and stitching them together to form an image that would have been made with a 4x5-sized sensor?...

Since your question involves something that doesn't exist, I have no way to know the answer. However, you're asking me something irrelevant to my prior post.

I've not expressed any opinion on whether the Usage Guidelines are optimum with respect to this forum's sensor size definition. I simply said that they're clear and unambiguous. No matter who likes or dislikes them.

...And how about if in the future they actually make a 4x5-sized sensor out of, say, 6 smaller sensors in a series? Is that still not a "nominal 4x5" sensor size?...

That's yet another hypothetical I'll leave for Tuan and the moderators to figure out if and when it happens.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't think digital photographers should be allowed to marry. It's just not natural, and not what the Bible intended.

How does one pronounce analog?

[Corran]

The size of the original capture device.

Stitching is not strictly a digital issue. One could stitch scans from small-format film. Some have done this.

We have had this discussion. Stitching of small-format digital captures is a large and growing field with extensive discussion taking place in other venues. For now, the capture-device-size criterion serves us well in maintaining the distinctive focus of this forum. If and when technology and practice change in a way that poses new challenges for us, we will consider the particulars and decide what to do about it.

However, at least in my opinion, there is a very big difference between stitching done hand-held with a DSLR or even one of those Gigapan things and stitching done with a LF camera by moving the sensor around. The images will be distinctly different due to the nature of the capture, with the DSLR handheld/gigapan having the image plane moving, while the sliding back has a static image plane. The image from that and a single piece of film would be indistinguishable.

My point was the complete and total segregation inherent with this change of digital and film, which only fans the flames of perceived elitism.

I am also keenly aware of this discussion having been made, and I still disagree with it completely. Images made with LF cameras or LF-like cameras, such as smaller Linhofs/Graphics that use roll film or any roll film back, 6x17, etc., should be classified as LF, just as they were before, as should digital cameras with full movement capability that many use on their LF cameras or technical cameras. In my opinion, of course.