LF, VLF, ULF: What's Your Definition of Format Sizes?

[Reinhold Schable]

We all know "LF" format means anything larger than 120 roll film (Medium Format) size.
So far so good.
Is 4x5 Large Format? Yep. 5x7? Yep. 8x10? Sure. 11x14? Hey, not so fast... 11x14 is a lot more than "just" LF...

Where is the transition from LF to something bigger.
Do you folks caressing 11x14's consider youself in the transition between LF and ULF?
Now and then you hear the phrase VLF (Very Large Format) expressed for formats beyond the 4x5/5x7 universe.
Is VLF a valid category for 11x14??...

Where do the 7x17, 8x20, 12x20 folks fit into this question...?

16x20? I sure as heck consider it to be beyond "LF" territory.
But is 16x20 ULTRA Large Format?
Is 16x20 the entry price of admission to the ULF party?
20x24? Yep; ULF no questiones asked.

And then there are those folks conjuring up 24x30, 32x40, and larger wet plates.
What do we call that format?
The phrase "Mammoth" has been uses to describe such unimaginable formats.

The reason for this fuss is that I now have lenses suitable for a wide range of format sizes,
I'd like to assign descriptors for each segment of the LF community. (LF, VLF??, ULF).

Where do you see the lines?
Thanks a bunch.
Reinild

[Daniel Stone]

I'd consider anything larger than 8x10 as "ULF"

11x14 included, despite it being considered an ANSI-standard size

Dan

[Tin Can]

14x17 is also ANSI


I'd consider anything larger than 8x10 as "ULF"

11x14 included, despite it being considered an ANSI-standard size

Dan

[Leigh]

Why qualify or compartmentalize LF? What purpose does that serve?

Using your definition above, everything larger than 120 is LF.

I disagree, arguing that any format 4x5 or larger is LF; smaller than 4x5 is MF down to 6x4.5.

- Leigh

[Lachlan 717]

We all know "LF" format means anything larger than 120 roll film (Medium Format) size.
So far so good.

Reinild

So far, not so good. 6x24cm (on 120 film) is larger than 4x5". It requires circa 8x10 coverage. So, I for one do not agree with your definition.

Why not just define your lenses by the largest format they'll cover? Not sure that there's a need (nor necessarily a way) to compartmentalise…

[Sean Chilibeck]

I generally think of 6x12 and 6x17 as LF too. The approach to photography for these formats would be more similar to LF than MF, and require mainly LF equipment (and a significant portion of it is done with LF cameras). The total area of film is fairly high too, if that's how you wan't to define it.

What about 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheet film?

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I shoot one LF 8x10. Three ULF sizes. 11x14, 14x17 and 8x20! Done!

[Reinhold Schable]

[QUOTE=Lachlan 717;1055564]So far, not so good. 6x24cm (on 120 film) is larger than 4x5". It requires circa 8x10 coverage. So, I for one do not agree with your definition.

They are not my definitions, I'm referring to the defacto use of these terms in general. Try posting a 120 roll film format print anywhere other than on "Safe Haven for Tiny Formats" and see what sort of reaction ensues... The very phrase "tiny formats" is a bit demeaning. The implications on this forum seem to be 'my equipment is bigger than yours'.

This is not an attempt to write a dictionary on formats contrary to some acerbic reacions already posted. I'm only interested in how the community uses these terms. It's as simple as that.

Reinhold

[Vaughn]

"Large Format" as it relates to this forum is defined primarily by camera type, not film size. I have posted images taken using a 120 rollback on a 4x5 field view camera, and that is acceptable.

LF -- I can easily carry it.
VLF -- I can carry it, but not as far I as I use to.
ULF -- "Hey boys, help me with this!"

[Heroique]

LF -- I can easily carry it.
VLF -- I can carry it, but not as far I as I use to.
ULF -- "Hey boys, help me with this!"

And 15 or 20 years from now:

LF -- “Hey grand-kids, help me with this!”

:D

[Heroique]

I just left a thread that said LF is a state of mind.

All this talk about film or camera size contradicts everything I just read.

Guess I’ll just be tolerant of ambiguity and move along. ;^)

[Kodachrome25]

I consider 4x5 to be "SLF" or Small-ish Large Format or more accurately "ULMF" as in Ultra Large Medium Format. I can't run, jump, snowboard or mountain bike with 8x10 or larger but I sure as heck can and do with my 4x5...

[Vaughn]

I just left a thread that said LF is a state of mind...

Creating with LF is a state of mind...the film and cameras are just the tools. :cool:

[Lachlan 717]

Try posting a 120 roll film format print anywhere other than on "Safe Haven for Tiny Formats" and see what sort of reaction ensues...

This is where the water gets even muddier. You can, in fact, post 120 images anywhere here, as long as they are a) 6x17cm format and b) shot with a Technical-style/non-P&S camera (eg. Shen Hao 617, Pan 617, 4x5/5x7 et al camera with 617 roll film back).

Please don't get me wrong; I am not pushing any conclusion here. Unless, of course, the conclusion is that there is no conclusion is possible.

[John Kasaian]

I've always thought that an ULF is an ELF with arthiritis :rolleyes:

[evan clarke]

If you have a 20x24, everything else is small format unless you run into a 40x48!!

[Drew Bedo]

As long as it is *LF who really cares what the first letter is.

I propose leaving the size of the ground glass paramater out altogether and use a functionality based metric instead:

Any shooting kit you need dolly wheels to cary around is ULF.

Anything that must be transported in a utility trailer is ]Just Too Freaking Big Format[/B].

[Farside]

Haven't the boundaries shifted over the past century anyway?
I have a 100 year old pocket camera (nothing special) that uses 4x5 and back then I don't suppose it was considered LF, just fairly normal to compensate for its cheapy lens and give decent-sized contact prints. Until the advent of 35mm, sizes below 4x5 were Small Format, were they not? 35mm was thought of, disparagingly by some, as 'miniature'.
From what I can make out, it was only after 35mm became commonplace that format designators, elastic though they are, sort of shifted a bit, and anything above 6x9 on 120 became 'LF'. This kind of left 9x12 as an odd size - big enough to get the benefits of LF, yet not that hugely different from MF.
I'm glad 9x12 is still around; I rather like it.
Then, of course, after 35mm became the de-facto everyman's film size, there was a new miniature - courtesy of the 16mm fiends and their dastardly small cameras.

[Emil Schildt]

Haven't the boundaries shifted over the past century anyway?
.

Sure

I have seen an advertizing booklet from about 1901 and there it states that:

ALL formats up to 10x8 are small formats...

From 10x8 to 20x24 is medium format....

And above 20x24 they are large format...


so simple.. so I am mostly using small formats, but do have a couple of medium format cameras....:)

[IanG]

Coming from another angle Miniature format once covered 35mm 127 and 120 in many pre-WWII books, hand holdable formats like Quarter plate, Postcard, 5x4 etx were medium format and 10x8 and over Large format.

Times have changed and with the explosion of 35mm cameras perceptions cnaged elevating 120 to Medium format and 5x4 to large format, so the way we think of formatn size has changed from Gandolfi's example through an interim phase and finally our usual modern definitions.

Ian

[Drew Bedo]

[QUOTE=Reinhold Schable
This is not an attempt to write a dictionary on formats contrary to some acerbic reacions already posted. I'm only interested in how the community uses these terms. It's as simple as that.

Reinhold[/QUOTE]

Ok—seriously then:
35mm—"miniture" (or "Half Frame" if you are a cinimatographer)

Any format on 120 or 220 film—"Medium Format"

4x5 through 8x10 inch—"Large Format"

Anything larger than 8x10 is "Ultra-Large Format"

People will quibble over what to call some of the panoramic formats.

[Drew Bedo]

Reinild :

What everyou call your lenses is less important than knowing what they will do. I know that this is almost the same thing but it is not really true.

Many lenses may cover several formats. There will be limitations and trade-offs. While I CAN mount a 15 inch (380mm) lense on my little Wista 4x5, it will not focus more closely than 30 feet or so (short bellows) . . .and it strains the front standard of this lightly built camera.

In the past, I have used a 75mm lens on my 8x10 Kodak 2-D. This is a lens formulated to cover 2 1/4 “square (6x6 cm) at infinity. I was using it for close macro work where the image circle actually did cover the 8x10 format.

These are both extreme examples to make the point. learn what your gear will and will-not do, and use that knowledge to create the images that match your inner vision.

[angusparker]

Ok—seriously then:
35mm—"miniture" (or "Half Frame" if you are a cinimatographer)

Any format on 120 or 220 film—"Medium Format"

4x5 through 8x10 inch—"Large Format"

Anything larger than 8x10 is "Ultra-Large Format"

People will quibble over what to call some of the panoramic formats.

This seems to be the way most people think - with a small group quibbling over 6x12-6x24 MF formats. Certainly availability of film and expense of running anything over 8x10 (camera, holders, film, processing) make ULF cut off pretty clear to me.

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's not too important, but I call anything on rollfilm "medium format," and I suppose I think of 2x3" sheet film also as "medium format."

4x5-8x10" I'd call "large format"

11x14" and up, today at least, is ULF, though maybe when it was more common as a format used for Hollywood portraiture, furniture photography, and such, it might have been thought of as "LF." I also think it's useful to consider the panoramic formats 7x17" and larger as ULF. There's an order of magnitude of difficulty that enters when you go from 8x10" to 11x14" like custom film orders and handmade filmholders (if you want new ones). There are also smaller formats that require a similar degree of customization, but if you wanted, at least you could cut 8x10" film down to 4x10" or whole plate, which is not true for 11x14" and larger.

Sometimes "custom format" makes more sense than "ULF," even if the formats that are now "custom" were once "standard."

[toyotadesigner]

That depends:

If you derive LF from the area of the involved film surface, your categories are ok with me.
If you derive it from the versatility and movements of a camera, then even a 6x9 Arca Swiss would belong into the LF category.

[ImSoNegative]

I agree that large format would probably start in the 6x12, 6x17 range and end at 8x10 ULF is everything after that

[ImSoNegative]

is there a Ultra Large Format Photography Forum? If there is, about i could do is be a lurker :p

[Tin Can]

+1

to the second thought

and aren't we calling digital capture LF with 645 digital backs, especially when mounted on full movement cameras?


That depends:

If you derive LF from the area of the involved film surface, your categories are ok with me.
If you derive it from the versatility and movements of a camera, then even a 6x9 Arca Swiss would belong into the LF category.

[NancyP]

I propose MLF, mammoth large format." Hey, you two! bring your forklifts over here, we need to move this thing."

George Lawrence, an adventurous self-trained photographer, made a giant photograph of the Chicago-Alton train line for the Paris Exposition.:
http://robroy.dyndns.info/lawrence/mammoth.html

Maybe you have seen this article, maybe not. It is local history for me. Alton is a 20 minute drive north of St. Louis, and the emulsion was made and processing/ contact printing done in St. Louis.

[Tin Can]

I just learned today and already lost the link, but it was the guy who posts the soft focus lens blog.

Somewhere in his discussion, Mammoth Format was 12/4 plate or 14x17" I believe.

Here is the link, http://antiquecameras.net/petzvallens.html


I propose MLF, mammoth large format." Hey, you two! bring your forklifts over here, we need to move this thing."

George Lawrence, an adventurous self-trained photographer, made a giant photograph of the Chicago-Alton train line for the Paris Exposition.:
http://robroy.dyndns.info/lawrence/mammoth.html

Maybe you have seen this article, maybe not. It is local history for me. Alton is a 20 minute drive north of St. Louis, and the emulsion was made and processing/ contact printing done in St. Louis.