Request clarification of large format.

[sanking]

I am not entirely clear as to what constitutes "large format" photography for this group. The forum usage guidelines state that for the purposes of this forum "large format" is defined as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film.

BUT

"We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras)."

Question, is a medium format digital back used on a technical or press camera considered "large format" for this forum? And if so, how is "medium format" defined? By the actual size of the sensor, or by the size of the image file created?

Sandy

[Vaughn]

As discussed many times before -- LF here is defined more by the camera than it is by film size and type. If the camera is a view camera, then the resulting image is LF...with some some other cameras "grandfathered in" such a press cameras and P&S cameras using sheet film...and some smaller than 4x5 formats when used in view cameras.

So, I believe the answer to the first question would be 'Yes". The answer to the second question is "Who cares? If it is not on a LF camera, it does not create a LF image.":cool:

[Kirk Gittings]

Sandy, I assume you wants an opinion from the moderators?

[sanking]

Sandy, I assume you wants an opinion from the moderators?

Correct, I am not advocating any position but would like a clarification as to guidelines from the moderators.

Sandy

[Bill_1856]

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

[vinny]

check the faq page:http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_gen_rules_faq_item

[Kirk Gittings]

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

Agree completely though that is damn hard to moderate :)

[Tin Can]

I think our definition is a frustrating to those of us who shoot 2-1/4 X 3-3/4 Sheet film in a 2 X 3 View camera. I think of it as LF and the forum does not.

I can live with it, but I refuse to use 2X3 Sheet back on a bigger box. Seems silly to me.

And yes I know we have Lounge Tiny Format, which I seldom even look at.

[Kirk Gittings]

I think you are wrong Randy...........at least I think you would have been wrong when I was a moderator.

"We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras)."

[DrTang]

I think our definition is a frustrating to those of us who shoot 2-1/4 X 3-3/4 Sheet film in a 2 X 3 View camera. I think of it as LF and the forum does not.

I can live with it, but I refuse to use 2X3 Sheet back on a bigger box. Seems silly to me.

And yes I know we have Lounge Tiny Format, which I seldom even look at.

I shoot 2ish x 3ish fuji-roids on my 8x10 camera for testing..cracks me up when I do though

[Mark Sawyer]

And what of the sub-35mm dslr's adapted to the back of a 4x5 with multiple frames stitched together... Large format?

[Tin Can]

This has been addressed many times, only a few times in my short time here, but I am pretty certain that my 2x3 View camera images are banned if I mention I used that size camera. I was once admonished to not post those images in the general LF site, but to move them to Tiny Format. I do not recall which moderator told me that.

I mean my 2X3 Speeder, my Linhof Color Kardan 6X9 and my...


I think you are wrong Randy...........at least I think you would have been wrong when I was a moderator.

"We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras)."

[sanking]

This has been addressed many times, only a few times in my short time here, but I am pretty certain that my 2x3 View camera images are banned if I mention I used that size camera. I was once admonished to not post those images in the general LF site, but to move them to Tiny Format. I do not recall which moderator told me that.

I mean my 2X3 Speeder, my Linhof Color Kardan 6X9 and my...

I believe Kirk is right on this. If you look at the large format home page you will see articles on 2X3 and 6X9 view cameras/technical cameras, and lenses. The guidelines clearly state.

"We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras)."

That clearly applies to film, and if your posts have been banned for this reason the moderator erred IMO.

What is not clear to me whether the use of a digital device in combination with a view camera or technical camera is also considered large format "for this forum."

None of this has any impact on what I will personally use in my work, but clarification as to what can be discussed in the main forums is needed IMO.

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

Just an opinion, Sandy. But because this uses basic techniques just like in a view camera, and because it is often important to weigh one particular form of capture versus another in terms of practicality using analogous camera equipment, it would just seem to make sense to include that kind of discussion somewhere on this
forum for the benefit of others with similar needs. It's not like a DLSR discussion. But the moderators draw the line. I don't see any difference between what this
amounts to and what someone like me might do when I travel with both 4x5 sheet film holders and 6x9 roll film holders for the same view camera.

[Bill_1856]

I think our definition is a frustrating to those of us who shoot 2-1/4 X 3-3/4 Sheet film in a 2 X 3 View camera. I think of it as LF and the forum does not.

Where does one get 2 1/4x 3/1/4 sheet film? (I have one carefully apportioned box of HP5+ left in the freezer.)
Thanks,
W.

[Sal Santamaura]

Where does one get 2 1/4x 3/1/4 sheet film?...As part of the annual Ilford special sizes order program. See attached list.

Unfortunately, the cutoff for this year's orders was June 27, with deliveries to occur in the next month or six weeks. So, unless you find a dealer that ordered extra boxes to hold and sell, you're out of luck until next year.

[Kirk Gittings]

This has been addressed many times, only a few times in my short time here, but I am pretty certain that my 2x3 View camera images are banned if I mention I used that size camera. I was once admonished to not post those images in the general LF site, but to move them to Tiny Format. I do not recall which moderator told me that.

I mean my 2X3 Speeder, my Linhof Color Kardan 6X9 and my...


"We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras)."

They never got removed or challenged by me. I was part of trying to refine this definition that resulted in the phrasing above and by my understanding yours would pass. Note it does not say if exposed in 4x5 or larger VC.

[Ralph Barker]

Kirk is correct in his interpretation of the current rules. The exception for what would otherwise be considered "medium format" press, technical and view cameras was an historical accommodation for those film formats exposed in those cameras, and was not intended to be an extension of "large format" per se.

It does, however, create confusion, particularly if extended to digital capture devices attached to a view camera designed for the exposure of 4x5 or larger film. So, I would also agree with Sandy that a clarification is in order. I'll raise the question within the moderator group.

[Tin Can]

Freestyle stocks both Arista and Ilford. Here. (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/2-Film/Black-and-White-Film?attr%5B%5D=1-50)


Where does one get 2 1/4x 3/1/4 sheet film? (I have one carefully apportioned box of HP5+ left in the freezer.)
Thanks,
W.

[Bill_1856]

Freestyle stocks both Arista and Ilford. Here. (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/2-Film/Black-and-White-Film?attr%5B%5D=1-50)
Thanks, Randy.
W.

[Drew Wiley]

Heck. I know a fellow who attaches Nikon DLSR's and 35mm and 6x7 film SLR's to the film plane of a big Toyo 8x10 and uses process Apo Nikkors on the rig for taking telephotography shots superior to what ordinary gear is capable of. While elaboration on the small camera itself might be testing boundaries, I don't see why the mere discussion of an approach like this would rattle anyones nerves; and the even the shots themselves could hypothetically be posted in the Lounge section. Not everyone uses a traditional sheet film holder for every application a view camera is capable of. I've seen multiple lengths of Sinar bellows rigged up on steel structural beams to microscope lenses to get uber-photomicrographs. In other words, ultra-small ends up equalling large format, one way or the other. Why would something like that be off limits either. Even if something like that did not comprise a traditional portable view camera application, it does nonethess share many of the same equipment variables.

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting discussion.

I believe that deleted posts become invisible. This may explain why I'm not aware of posts on forbidden topics that have been deleted.

That said, the moderators' practice seems to be along the lines of "we'll tolerate quite a lot that breaks the rules as published as long as you don't make a spectacle of yourself." As far as I can see, few of us push the format limits by asking questions about care and feeding of small format cameras, properties of small format lenses, and so on.

But I have seen discussions of the relative merits of roll film cameras (strictly speaking, taboo) and cameras that take sheet film. I think I've posted comments to the effect that for some applications a 35 mm SLR is a better tool than a view camera of any size with no protests from the moderators.

Context matters.

[ic-racer]

If you asked me for a description of what goes on here, I'd call it the "Large Format and View Camera Photography Forum"

[rdenney]

As Ralph said, we are discussing it.

In the past, when we received complaints, we have moved discussions of roll-film cameras to the Lounge. We do not delete medium and small-format discussions. I won't say more until we've discussed it amongst ourselves, though I agree the current wording leaves a big opening for view cameras down to APS if such a thing could be devised. I do not believe that was ever the intent of this forum.

Rick "knowing that wherever we draw the line, it will be arbitrary and will annoy someone" Denney

[TXFZ1]

I am sure you guys will discuss it but one thing to think about is why have rules that cannot be consistantly enforced. There is inconsistancy of these guidelines being enforced, this is not just the format issue on this forum. I personally don't really care if the photo is made by a mammoth or 2x3, digital back or film, iphone or hubbel telescope. There is a lot of mis-information as noted above, people up in arms about rules that are not even rules. I can point to iphones in the main forum that have been commented by moderators and people as above claiming moderators are deleting their posts. This is not a dig at moderators but IMHO, whatever line in the sand set forth should be enforceable. My suggestion is freestyle it on the honor system.

David

[rdenney]

I am sure you guys will discuss it but one thing to think about is why have rules that cannot be consistantly enforced. There is inconsistancy of these guidelines being enforced, this is not just the format issue on this forum. I personally don't really care if the photo is made by a mammoth or 2x3, digital back or film, iphone or hubbel telescope. There is a lot of mis-information as noted above, people up in arms about rules that are not even rules. I can point to iphones in the main forum that have been commented by moderators and people as above claiming moderators are deleting their posts. This is not a dig at moderators but IMHO, whatever line in the sand set forth should be enforceable. My suggestion is freestyle it on the honor system.

David

We have always allowed photos that illustrate an equipment setup or even technical point, and as long as people don't complain. But photos that are examples rather than instructional are clearly off topic and we will remove those. Threads that ask about technique for smaller cameras will get moved to the lounge, not deleted.

Rick "preferring enough clarity so that enforcement isn't required" Denney

[Jac@stafford.net]

Rick "preferring enough clarity so that enforcement isn't required" Denney

Rick "knowing that wherever we draw the line, it will be arbitrary and will annoy someone" Denney

Well put. Attempts to have very specific language in such matters invites nit-picking which usually muddies the issue. Expressing the spirit of rule is best.

A funny aside - I once worked in Trinidad where they are particularly sensitive to possible exploitation from persons/companies outside the country. I drew up an agreement and their government attorney said, "Your agreement is acceptable; sufficiently ambiguous." It was the only way to do business with respect to the culture.

[sanking]

Well put. Attempts to have very specific language in such matters invites nit-picking which usually muddies the issue. Expressing the spirit of rule is best.
..........


I agree with the concept of spirit of rule. First principles as Marcus Aurelius would have said, look first to the essence of the thing, what it is and what it does.

For me the essence of view camera work, and what primarily sets it apart from other camera work, is the use of movements such as tilt/swing and rise/fall/shift to control perspective and focus.

Sandy

[toyotadesigner]

I know that an Arca Swiss 6x9 or a Linhof Technica 6x9 are 'large format' cameras according to the rules.

Besides this fact, a 6x9 is a large format camera compared to the postage stamp sized sensors around the world.

Uhm, I call a 6x9 Arca a (4x5)/2 or half size 4x5.

[BradS]

It is interesting to observe the on-going struggle to define the boundaries of the gray area of the community. Once again, I do not envy the moderators' job.

[Tin Can]

But my darn P&S Nikon P7000 sensor takes the best Macro handheld. Smaller the sensor the better the DOF and macro sharpness. Seems to me...imho.

Definity the total opposite of LF anything!

Perhaps we define by exclusion.




I know that an Arca Swiss 6x9 or a Linhof Technica 6x9 are 'large format' cameras according to the rules.

Besides this fact, a 6x9 is a large format camera compared to the postage stamp sized sensors around the world.

Uhm, I call a 6x9 Arca a (4x5)/2 or half size 4x5.

[StoneNYC]

So if I use an 8x10 or 11x14 but tape a 110(16mm) film strip taped inside the holder, does that count as a LF Ultra Panoramic?

For that matter if I take images with my iPhone of the GG does that count as a LF image?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Since the moderators are discussing it, here's my sense of a few ambiguous cases from being on the forum for a number of years:

That 35mm monorail camera distributed by Ilford many years ago: OK. It's small format, but LF in spirit.

T/S lenses on small and medium format cameras: maybe/maybe not, requires a case-by-case judgment by the moderators.

Sliding DSLR back on a 4x5" view camera: OK (you still have the perspective of a single lens in one position and are stretching the boundaries of the view camera, and it's not much different in principle from using a multishot back on a view camera)

DSLR on a panoramic tripod head: off-topic (this is more about stretching the boundaries of the 35mm SLR than about the view camera)

110 film taped into an 8x10" filmholder: OK. (again, stretching the boundaries of the view camera).

110 camera on a panoramic tripod head: off-topic (same as DSLR on a pano head)

LF point-and-shoots like the Hobo: On topic. It's LF.

So maybe the principles are that sheet film is on topic and view cameras on topic, including fixed cameras that shoot sheet film and view cameras that shoot other kinds of film/digital.

[Dave Wooten]

...would a 6x7 slr mounted on back of a 4 x 5 view camera be ULF? :)

[StoneNYC]

...would a 6x7 slr mounted on back of a 4 x 5 view camera be ULF? :)

No I think it only counts as ULF if it's on an 11x14 or larger ;)

[Tin Can]

I have a tilt shift Nikon bellows that mounts any lens (within reason) and fits right on any Nikon. Made for closeup and macro. Very handy and does Scheimpflug.

[Dan Fromm]

I have a tilt shift Nikon bellows that mounts any lens (within reason) and fits right on any Nikon. Made for closeup and macro. Very handy and does Scheimpflug.

Which one?

[Oren Grad]

So maybe the principles are that sheet film is on topic and view cameras on topic, including fixed cameras that shoot sheet film and view cameras that shoot other kinds of film/digital.

+1. That's more or less the way I think about it.

As it happens, I have sheet film on hand in sizes down to 2.25x3.25". There's nothing fundamental that distinguishes the cameras or methods I use to expose that film from those I use for 3.25x4.25" or 4x5".

[Dan Fromm]

+1. That's more or less the way I think about it.

As it happens, I have sheet film on hand in sizes down to 2.25x3.25". There's nothing fundamental that distinguishes the cameras or methods I use to expose that film from those I use for 3.25x4.25" or 4x5".

Oren, it pains me to disagree with you but roll film and sheet film shoot the same way on 2x3. Camera setup is the same and so is the act of taking the shot. The only difference is how the next frame/sheet of film is reached and that seems pretty trivial.

I long ago accepted that for this forum's purposes what I do (2x3, more recently 6x12) is medium format. My wife, who used to shoot 35 mm, says what I do is large format but she doesn't post here. I'm very happy that technique used with larger cameras is discussed here and that I can use the ideas with my gear.

I'm disappointed that so many of us can't live with a little ambiguity and can't let sleeping moderators lie. But as my wife sometimes says, oh well, ...

[StoneNYC]

Oren, it pains me to disagree with you but roll film and sheet film shoot the same way on 2x3. Camera setup is the same and so is the act of taking the shot. The only difference is how the next frame/sheet of film is reached and that seems pretty trivial.

I long ago accepted that for this forum's purposes what I do (2x3, more recently 6x12) is medium format. My wife, who used to shoot 35 mm, says what I do is large format but she doesn't post here. I'm very happy that technique used with larger cameras is discussed here and that I can use the ideas with my gear.

I'm disappointed that so many of us can't live with a little ambiguity and can't let sleeping moderators lie. But as my wife sometimes says, oh well, ...

Well if your wife says so, it must be true ;)

But really shouldn't just be more about the "spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law" kind of deal?

The idea is to help and share ideas about a type of photography that is unlike other kinds of photography, large-format an ultra large-format, the way we shoot the equipment we use it's all very specialized and very different from a 35mm or 120 SLR or rangefinder type camera.

Is a 122 format camera LF? No it's just another roll film camera, you hold it at your waist and use the finder and click the shutter, there's no movements or ground glass, or any real skill besides exposing properly. BUT now it's unique and "rare" to find and work with, and requires socialized skills to produce an image on because you have to either expose expired film, or re-roll your own, a skill that not all have...

So now-a-days I feel like it "fits in here" same with smaller sheet film view cameras, they might not be LARGE, but they are specialized in the same field as the others.

I guess I'm saying it would make sense to go with the spirit of the law in this regard?

[Tin Can]

PB4, and I want a Spiratone SST.


Which one?

[Oren Grad]

Oren, it pains me to disagree with you but roll film and sheet film shoot the same way on 2x3.

Dan, sorry for any confusion I created: we don't disagree. Although I called out sheet film size in particular, I didn't mean to exclude roll film by doing so. I happily accept not only the former but also the latter part of David's proposed definition - "and view cameras that shoot other kinds of film/digital". I use rollholders as well as cut sheet holders with my small technical / press / view cameras.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Whatever Dan Fromm implements resonates with my idea of LF.

[Dan Fromm]

Is a 122 format camera LF? No it's just another roll film camera, you hold it at your waist and use the finder and click the shutter, there's no movements or ground glass, or any real skill besides exposing properly. BUT now it's unique and "rare" to find and work with, and requires socialized skills to produce an image on because you have to either expose expired film, or re-roll your own, a skill that not all have...

Stone, I just asked Google to find instances of "122 film" or "folding pocket Kodak" on this site. It returned 43 hits. I didn't read all of the discussions but I'd be astonished to find warnings from the moderators in any of them.

As I said, its best to let sleeping moderators lie.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dan Fromm]

PB4, and I want a Spiratone SST.

Randy, I've had a PB-4 since 1970. I know why I bought it, can't imagine what possessed Nikon to make it. It is usable at infinity only with short mount lenses. Its movements are very limited. Mounted normally, shift and swing. Mounted on its side, rise/fall and tilt. Take your choice. You can't have shift and rise/fall. You can't have swing and tilt. Its movements might be usable for photomacrography, but it is so slow-working that the better alternative is to align the subject with the desired plane of best focus parallel to the film plane.

The PS-4 film holder -- I bought one with my PB-4 -- has limited rise/fall and shift so you don't even need the PB-4's shift to copy part of a slide on to a full 24x36 frame.

The Spiratone SST and other similar "35 mm view cameras" with L-shaped standards have more movements but the same big weakness. They're usable with 35 mm SLRs only with short mount lenses. My friend Charlie Barringer, who absolutely have to have one of everything, had one and saw it as a solution in search of a problem.

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I just asked Google to find instances of "122 film" or "folding pocket Kodak" on this site. It returned 43 hits. I didn't read all of the discussions but I'd be astonished to find warnings from the moderators in any of them.

As I said, its best to let sleeping moderators lie.

Cheers,

Dan

Right, that was my point, even though the 2x3 view camera is a heck of a lot more advanced and specialized than the 122, because it's bigger no one questions it.

I guess the question is, does size really matter? LOL

Sometimes it does ....

120746

But sometimes it doesn't... :)

But yea I agree to let sleeping mods lie :)

[Tin Can]

Too late for me now, I know I will not sell it and I have used it now and then. As I found out my P&S Nikon P7000 does a better job than D7000, PB-4 and a very good lens...

If I was smart, I never would have done a lot of things, but what fun is that?

Expiring minds want to know!

:)



Randy, I've had a PB-4 since 1970. I know why I bought it, can't imagine what possessed Nikon to make it. It is usable at infinity only with short mount lenses. Its movements are very limited. Mounted normally, shift and swing. Mounted on its side, rise/fall and tilt. Take your choice. You can't have shift and rise/fall. You can't have swing and tilt. Its movements might be usable for photomacrography, but it is so slow-working that the better alternative is to align the subject with the desired plane of best focus parallel to the film plane.

The PS-4 film holder -- I bought one with my PB-4 -- has limited rise/fall and shift so you don't even need the PB-4's shift to copy part of a slide on to a full 24x36 frame.

The Spiratone SST and other similar "35 mm view cameras" with L-shaped standards have more movements but the same big weakness. They're usable with 35 mm SLRs only with short mount lenses. My friend Charlie Barringer, who absolutely have to have one of everything, had one and saw it as a solution in search of a problem.

[Corran]

I've posted several 2x3 Graphic images clearly on roll film, and not gotten chastised.

No one complained about my 35mm-in-a-rollfilm-holder-on-a-4x5-camera photos either.

Have I been lucky?

[jnantz]

I've posted several 2x3 Graphic images clearly on roll film, and not gotten chastised.

No one complained about my 35mm-in-a-rollfilm-holder-on-a-4x5-camera photos either.

Have I been lucky?

naaah
i have posted roll film ( 2x3 ) images
from an adapter taped on the back of my 4x5 slr
as well as post card images ( graflex 3a 122 film )
for years never had trouble either ... its always been the policy
to let roll film on 4x5 camera images slide in, and 3.5x5.75
is bigger than 4x5 in square inches ...
i think "large format" is just a vague term that means " not medium/small format / 120 film 35mm format camera"
every few years threads pops like this and
it always ends up about the same ... vague to let in stragglers who use roll film on a 4x5 camera
but disqualifying a small/medium format cameras .. which sort of makes sense ...

[Oren Grad]

every few years threads pops like this and
it always ends up about the same ... vague to let in stragglers who use roll film on a 4x5 camera
but disqualifying a small/medium format cameras .. which sort of makes sense ...

Yeah... though the question Sandy raised to start this thread, which many of us haven't really addressed, is what to do about MFDBs mounted to cameras that are either the same ones we're using or are functionally closely analogous to them. I think what will keep it from being a huge issue one way or another here is that very few of us will ever own one. Even at Getdpi the buzz has largely shifted to the latest FF35 sensors.

[VictoriaPerelet]

I have couple random notes on subject:
1. "Very little" known author in "very little" known book(*) said this:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52900356/LfPics/aa-camera.jpg

defines it well enough inline with technology from mid of last century.

2. A lot of very interesting digital pics made by what's called technocams (Alpa, Linhoff techno, arca m2 etc), gets posted on getdpi. Those are modern view cameras. Is this website restricted to outdated hardware only? Quite few of analogue LF pics is reposted there, so it appears that too anti-digital attitude here drives people somewhere else.

(*)A. Adams, "Camera", Chapter 9, pg 29.

[DennisD]

Yeah... though the question Sandy raised to start this thread, which many of us haven't really addressed, is what to do about MFDBs mounted to cameras that are either the same ones we're using or are functionally closely analogous to them.

This is precisely the point I was questioning as I read this thread. However, it seems references to "sheet film" and "roll film" as noted in the quote below (from the forum rules) is the operative language with respect to the use of medium format digital backs attached to view cameras. I.e. MFDBs are not allowed because that's not "sheet film"


Quoted from opening paragraph of this forum's "Usage Guidelines":

For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras).

Perhaps it's time to reconsider that position because, in this day and age, there are photographers with MFDBs on view cameras or on technical cameras with view camera functionality. While there may not be many DB users on this forum, they do exist. And, as VictoriaPerelet so aptly points out in her post above, the "anti digital attitude here drives people somewhere else".

I, for one, would be happy to post images taken with a digital back / technical camera, but have refrained from doing so based on my own interpretation of forum policy as noted above.

I wonder whether this issue is one that the forum founder and site owner, Q.T. Luong, might voice his opinion, if not to clarify or pass ultimate judgment on, considering the following: 1) his original intentions when establishing the forum and 2) taking into account the current state of film vs. digital.

I make the above suggestion with all due respect and appreciation to the moderators who give very unselfishly of their time and effort.

[Daniel Stone]

"Drives people elsewhere"...
Ok, let them post elsewhere, maybe? I mean, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I use both digital and film, for different purposes.

I like being able to come here, and know(at least up until now I guess, if the rules change?) that the photographs being displayed ORIGINATED on film, not digital. Yes, it might not "matter" to some, as they(as I believe) that the end result is really what matters. When I read through the Luminous-Landscape forum, I'm there for certain reasons, and I read through Apug for certain reasons as well...

Personally, I'm for keeping this a "film only" forum(outside the lounge's "small formats" section), personally. But if a "digital" section was to be added down the line, it wouldn't drive me away entirely. Being different isn't a bad thing. In fact, I think it could help MAINTAIN the exclusivity of this forum as it currently stands. But being able to discern which section(s) allow which technology, I think it'll help keep this forum a bit more "traditional" to its original designation when founded and as currently laid-out in the sites main information page.

-Dan

[Pete Watkins]

I'm with Daniel!
Pete

[Struan Gray]

I would welcome a section devoted to LF-relevant digital tools. MFDBs on pancake cameras, DSLRs mounted on view cameras. Anything more complex than a box camera with helical focussing. This is where LF is headed for both commercial and personal work and I like to learn about it even if I can't afford it.

Bouncing threads to the Lounge seems to work well enough as a way to keep the main sections clear while allowing discussion of borderline cases. It would be nice if OPs could be less thin-skinned about 'relegation'.

I started reading and participating in the usenet group for large format film and cameras long before I owned an LF camera myself. It was where the people with a deep knowledge of lens optics, photochemistry, other arts and the history of the medium tended to hang out. That sophistication persists here. It can only be good to have discussion of new techniques, or the application of novel technology to established modes of LF image-making, within the context of that knowledge base.

[jnantz]

Yeah... though the question Sandy raised to start this thread, which many of us haven't really addressed, is what to do about MFDBs mounted to cameras that are either the same ones we're using or are functionally closely analogous to them. I think what will keep it from being a huge issue one way or another here is that very few of us will ever own one. Even at Getdpi the buzz has largely shifted to the latest FF35 sensors.

in my opinion ... ( which doesn't add up to much :) )
if it is attached to the back of a view camera i don't see that being any different than a roll film adapter ...
its always interesting to see what people do using large cameras, sensors, film, paper &c as building blocks ...
some make a "shotgun shack" others make things you couldn't have imagined

[StoneNYC]

"Drives people elsewhere"...
Ok, let them post elsewhere, maybe? I mean, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I use both digital and film, for different purposes.

I like being able to come here, and know(at least up until now I guess, if the rules change?) that the photographs being displayed ORIGINATED on film, not digital. Yes, it might not "matter" to some, as they(as I believe) that the end result is really what matters. When I read through the Luminous-Landscape forum, I'm there for certain reasons, and I read through Apug for certain reasons as well...

Personally, I'm for keeping this a "film only" forum(outside the lounge's "small formats" section), personally. But if a "digital" section was to be added down the line, it wouldn't drive me away entirely. Being different isn't a bad thing. In fact, I think it could help MAINTAIN the exclusivity of this forum as it currently stands. But being able to discern which section(s) allow which technology, I think it'll help keep this forum a bit more "traditional" to its original designation when founded and as currently laid-out in the sites main information page.

-Dan

I think that the one thing you may be forgetting Daniel is that there are many large-format backs like the scanning backs which are full large-format but are definitely not film, and so this format for him is about large-format images being taken with large format cameras and has nothing to do with the medium that is used in the image making. It just so happens that there are many more options for film versus digital scanning backs and the cost of which is much lower for film in the initial entrance, and more people are used to using film so of course they do, but this isn't a film forum it's a camera forum.

So I guess I'm contradicting my previous statement when I say that this forum is specifically for larger cameras.

Hmm a conundrum for sure!

I would venture to guess that part of Sandy King's question stems from his use of 35mm digital cameras which he then has put onto a larger film base with a special printer and then contact prints for carbon prints and things like that which the image itself in the film used as the secondary medium is certainly ultralarge, but the initial taking image format is 35mm digital.

At least I think that is Sandy, after a while all of you guys who are amazing and technical and have all the skills start to blur together into one amazing photographer in my brain and so sometimes I get confused, but I pretty sure that's Sandy's more recent adventures.

[goamules]

Let me explain how this could go with an analogy. Years ago I started a Flickr group called Petzval Lens Photographs. https://www.flickr.com/groups/868027@N25/ Over the years it was a place to view amazing photography made by these classic lenses. Of course, they were all large format. Many were wetplate, as those practitioners led the charge into readopting these lenses. The membership slowly grew to 100, 200, 300 members over 5 years or so.

Then the Lomography "petzval" came out (I've still never seen one disassembled to verify it even is a true Petzval). Suddenly the membership rapidly increased, and is now almost 700, it doubled in 1 year. Unfortunately 99% of the shots posted each day, week, month are from this new "Lomo" lens, shot on 35mm. As a moderator, I have to constantly weed out shots taken by other, normal 35mm lenses and digital cameras too, as people become confused as to what a Petzval is. It used to get 2 to 5 new Large Format shots posted a week, now it gets 10 a day. All Lomo.

Some of the shots show the distinction of a Petzval or Pseudo-petzval. Some you can't tell. Again, almost all are now 35mm. The few true Petzval shots (those lenses were made for Large Format only) are lost in the shuffle. I haven't decided if it's a good thing or bad thing. But the intent of the group was to showcase large format film shots with traditional Petzvals, not dozens of Lomo snapshots taken each day. I had to limit the number of posts to 2 a day, because I was getting "Lomo Spammed" by a few users who shot hundreds a week.

This is what happens with new technology. Classic race car drivers are pushed to allow replicas in their shows. Antique shops become furniture stores for modern made pieces. The 35mm film Rangefinder Forum now mostly discusses mirrorless digital cameras. Tradition is replaced by Technology, in many clubs, hobbies, lifestyles. My question is; does the Large Format Forum want to dilute, replace, and change the definition of Large Format Film Photography, so that a new Technology can take over?

[Christopher Barrett]

I'm new here, but I'm always opinionated so I'll just say, why does any of this even matter? Large format photography is a mindset, a methodology, a work practice that emphasizes a respect for craft and the medium of photography. It is an approach to image making that transcends the specifics of both format and capture medium. I've always taken the same care with every image I've captured whether I was shooting 8x10, 4x5, MF, 35mm, MFDB, DSLR or Digital Cinema cameras. I'd like to believe that it is particularly that care and respect for the craft that creates the camaraderie of this forum. Personally, if I had to pick, I'd rather discuss thoughtful and stunning images made with point and shoots than mediocre images made with an 8x10. Tools are awesome and God knows I love the gear, but it should only be a means to an end. That 'end' for me is the work... well crafted and provocative imagery.

Now, I would truly hate to ever see any '8x10 vs. d800' threads on this board, but I'd like to think that a bunch of artists can be open-minded when talking about art.

IMHO,
CB

[goamules]

I'm new here, but I'm always opinionated so I'll just say, why does any of this even matter? Large format photography is a mindset, a methodology, a work practice that emphasizes a respect for craft and the medium of photography. It is an approach to image making that transcends the specifics of both format and capture medium. I've always taken the same care with every image I've captured whether I was shooting 8x10, 4x5, MF, 35mm, MFDB, DSLR or Digital Cinema cameras. I'd like to believe that it is particularly that care and respect for the craft that creates the camaraderie of this forum. Personally, if I had to pick, I'd rather discuss thoughtful and stunning images made with point and shoots than mediocre images made with an 8x10. Tools are awesome and God knows I love the gear, but it should only be a means to an end. That 'end' for me is the work... well crafted and provocative imagery.

Now, I would truly hate to ever see any '8x10 vs. d800' threads on this board, but I'd like to think that a bunch of artists can be open-minded when talking about art.

IMHO,
CB

Discussions are great. There are perennially Digital vs Film discussions on most forums, often banned because it's too vague and subjective to ever reach a conclusion. But I disagree with your assumption that LF is a "mindset" and "....image making that transcends the specifics of both format and capture medium." LF is EXACTLY medium and specifics of capture, in movements, lenses, aspect ratios, film types, speeds, grain, resolution, etc.

You are trying to turn a tangible (Large Format) into an abstract ("art"). That's what the "transitional" adapters of new technology often do. Those I spoke about in my previous post, that change and replace hobbies, events, and forums. Mark my words, and my question above still holds, if the LF Forum allows DSLR shots and Medium Format digital backs to be posted as examples of Large Format, it will dilute the focus of this forum as hundreds of newly acceptable photographers and their non LF equipment join. It will merge the LF world into the generic, digital, mainstream, cell phone "camera" world.

You say the medium "...should only be a means to an end. That 'end' for me is the work... well crafted and provocative imagery." There are plenty of places to showcase and discuss your multiple-source photography. Flickr, Facebook groups, your gallery, ton's of websites for "photos by any means." This is a Large Format forum. Plain and simple.

We don't allow Photoshopped fake wetplates on the Collodion forum which I moderate either. Because they have nothing to do with wetplate.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I'm new here, but I'm always opinionated so I'll just say, why does any of this even matter? Large format photography is a mindset, a methodology, a work practice that emphasizes a respect for craft and the medium of photography. It is an approach to image making that transcends the specifics of both format and capture medium. [...]

That's a manifesto, not a guideline nor spirit of rule. There are such groups already. Look at them to see how you might fit in, but be ready to be inculturated, indoctrinated to please the im-moderator.
.

[jnantz]

huh ...
i never knew this was a "film only forum" especially
when so many images in the image sharing areas
are collodion, paper/digital negatives & other non-film media ...
and if that is the case even though i have been here for
more than a decade, seeing i don't usually shoot " film " these days
maybe my ( and other non film practitioners ) days are numbered ?

[StoneNYC]

Let me explain how this could go with an analogy. Years ago I started a Flickr group called Petzval Lens Photographs. https://www.flickr.com/groups/868027@N25/ Over the years it was a place to view amazing photography made by these classic lenses. Of course, they were all large format. Many were wetplate, as those practitioners led the charge into readopting these lenses. The membership slowly grew to 100, 200, 300 members over 5 years or so.

Then the Lomography "petzval" came out (I've still never seen one disassembled to verify it even is a true Petzval). Suddenly the membership rapidly increased, and is now almost 700, it doubled in 1 year. Unfortunately 99% of the shots posted each day, week, month are from this new "Lomo" lens, shot on 35mm. As a moderator, I have to constantly weed out shots taken by other, normal 35mm lenses and digital cameras too, as people become confused as to what a Petzval is. It used to get 2 to 5 new Large Format shots posted a week, now it gets 10 a day. All Lomo.

Some of the shots show the distinction of a Petzval or Pseudo-petzval. Some you can't tell. Again, almost all are now 35mm. The few true Petzval shots (those lenses were made for Large Format only) are lost in the shuffle. I haven't decided if it's a good thing or bad thing. But the intent of the group was to showcase large format film shots with traditional Petzvals, not dozens of Lomo snapshots taken each day. I had to limit the number of posts to 2 a day, because I was getting "Lomo Spammed" by a few users who shot hundreds a week.

This is what happens with new technology. Classic race car drivers are pushed to allow replicas in their shows. Antique shops become furniture stores for modern made pieces. The 35mm film Rangefinder Forum now mostly discusses mirrorless digital cameras. Tradition is replaced by Technology, in many clubs, hobbies, lifestyles. My question is; does the Large Format Forum want to dilute, replace, and change the definition of Large Format Film Photography, so that a new Technology can take over?

In your case you could simply change the name to "Traditional Petzvel Lens Photographs" or something to indicate it's not for the Lomo lens, also as far as I understand it is NOT a true Petzval and part has to do with having to design it differently to get the "effect" while covering a smaller surface area. So it's not a petzvel anyway, so you can delete all those images ;)

[Oren Grad]

in my opinion ... ( which doesn't add up to much :) )
if it is attached to the back of a view camera i don't see that being any different than a roll film adapter ...
its always interesting to see what people do using large cameras, sensors, film, paper &c as building blocks ...
some make a "shotgun shack" others make things you couldn't have imagined

I agree, pretty much. For now, I don't see a huge risk of a mob of people wielding unrelated new technologies driving out "good money" with "bad money". The use of digital backs or even ordinary DSLRs on something that looks and behaves like a view camera is a tiny, highly specialized niche within digital capture, because of the cost and/or technical burden it imposes. I don't think it's quite the same as Garrett's example of the Lomo Petzval, where the entry hurdle is just to have a few hundred bucks burning a hole in your pocket.

I'd be disappointed if LFF were overrun by people churning out humongous stitches using tools unrelated to view cameras - say, small format digital cameras on specialized shift-mounts - arguing that it's OK just because the files are huge. Best to launch an independent forum to cultivate that particular craft, I think. But I don't see any evidence of that happening here, and it could be easily addressed with a few words in the guidelines.

[TXFZ1]

We have always allowed photos that illustrate an equipment setup or even technical point, and as long as people don't complain. But photos that are examples rather than instructional are clearly off topic and we will remove those. Threads that ask about technique for smaller cameras will get moved to the lounge, not deleted.

Rick "preferring enough clarity so that enforcement isn't required" Denney

Just to be clear, these were not setup or technical points. My point is the current rule is not enforced consistantly and this should be considered if you are going to rewrite the rules.

David

[jnantz]

I agree, pretty much. For now, I don't see a huge risk of a mob of people wielding unrelated new technologies driving out "good money" with "bad money". The use of digital backs or even ordinary DSLRs on something that looks and behaves like a view camera is a tiny, highly specialized niche within digital capture, because of the cost and/or technical burden it imposes. I don't think it's quite the same as Garrett's example of the Lomo Petzval, where the entry hurdle is just to have a few hundred bucks burning a hole in your pocket.

I'd be disappointed if LFF were overrun by people churning out humongous stitches using tools unrelated to view cameras - say, small format digital cameras on specialized shift-mounts - arguing that it's OK just because the files are huge. Best to launch an independent forum to cultivate that particular craft, I think. But I don't see any evidence of that happening here, and it could be easily addressed with a few words in the guidelines.

couldnt agree more with what you said .....

[sanking]

I would venture to guess that part of Sandy King's question stems from his use of 35mm digital cameras which he then has put onto a larger film base with a special printer and then contact prints for carbon prints and things like that which the image itself in the film used as the secondary medium is certainly ultralarge, but the initial taking image format is 35mm digital.



Actually, not. My question is more in line with the opinions expressed by Victoria Perelet and Struan Gray. In many cases high end commercial and personal work is being done with view cameras/technical cameras with high resolution digital backs, including medium format backs as well as other high resolution digital cameras adapted to the technical camera. Look for example at the combo example of the Cambo Actus and Sony a7r. I would personally welcome a discussion group on this forum of this type of photography.

Sandy

[Richard Johnson]

Hmmm I wonder about larger rolls of aerial film used in fixed aerial cameras?

[tgtaylor]

I attended a LF meet-up last weekend in which 20 or so LF'ers showed up and all brought LF prints to share. One member brought several inkjet prints made with a self-made 8x10 digital camera with a CMOS sensor - 75 micron pixels I believe he said. One of the nicer things about that meet-up is than no one talked gear - it was all about the images.

Thomas

[Jac@stafford.net]

Hmmm I wonder about larger rolls of aerial film used in fixed aerial cameras?

The only handheld versions I know use 5" width rolls. I'd consider them the same as any pictures made with a 5x4 view camera using no movements. For the rare infrared I used to shoot I used a 5x4 all alloy body with steel focusing tube, no movements possible. Still large format.

[goamules]

I'm not sure what's being asked for really. We have a section for digital adaptations http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?7-Digital-Hardware We have sections for Lenses, Cameras, and the tools of the trade. What more is needed? The redefinition of Large Format to include digital photography done with large scanning backs? That's already accepted in the Image Sharing section. Or redefine LF to include "any equipment at all, as long as it feels large formatty?" I don't agree. LF is about the equipment, in a big way. This isn't an art photography critiquing site. That's what facebook and flicker are for. Because a digital 35mm with a Lensbaby adapter...is...not....large....format.

[StoneNYC]

Actually, not. My question is more in line with the opinions expressed by Victoria Perelet and Struan Gray. In many cases high end commercial and personal work is being done with view cameras/technical cameras with high resolution digital backs, including medium format backs as well as other high resolution digital cameras adapted to the technical camera. Look for example at the combo example of the Cambo Actus and Sony a7r. I would personally welcome a discussion group on this forum of this type of photography.

Sandy

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Dan Fromm]

The only handheld versions I know use 5" width rolls. I'd consider them the same as any pictures made with a 5x4 view camera using no movements. For the rare infrared I used to shoot I used a 5x4 all alloy body with steel focusing tube, no movements possible. Still large format.

AGI F134, F139, and Agiflite; Vinten F96; Maurer (and others) KE28A/B shot nominal 6x6 on 70 mm roll film. S.F.O.M. 680/1 shot 6x7 on 70 mm film. The German (Hitler war) Volk Handkammer shot 7x9 on I know not what size of roll film. All handheld, although the F95 was best and primarily used mounted in a camera pod. I'm sure there were others. AFAIK the Soviet AFA-39 wasn't intended to be handheld but I could be mistaken.

[rdenney]

Just to be clear, these were not setup or technical points. My point is the current rule is not enforced consistantly and this should be considered if you are going to rewrite the rules.

David

No rule is ever enforced consistently, and we moderators are volunteers who don't read every post on the forum. Stuff slips through. When we notice it, or when people complain, then we interpret our guidelines as closely as we can. Sometimes we get it wrong.

Rick "reading these responses from our most thoughtful members carefully" Denney

[Vaughn]

... Look for example at the combo example of the Cambo Actus and Sony a7r. I would personally welcome a discussion group on this forum of this type of photography. Sandy

I would not mind there being that type of discussion here either. If the digital capture (with LF cameras, of course) component on the forum grows, we may wish to start regularly identifying our posted images as to which medium was originally exposed to create the image (to be helpful for the viewer).

[Kirk Gittings]

me too very ditto.....

[lecarp]

So I prop the back of my 8x10 up with a stick and put peanuts inside, place it in the yard and "capture" a Squirrel with my camera.
Would that fit the parameters of the more liberal and open description of large format. I would be using large format, apparently the end product does not matter.

[goamules]

When a newcomer wants to learn the archaic art of large format photography (and it is archaic), what do they think of? Old wooden view cameras. Men standing under dark cloths. A sense it is more serious and professional. If they know a tiny bit more, what do they come hear to learn? The historic process. To shoot film. A reason why it's different. A purpose to be different.

Won't a new photographer be confused, if he comes to the Large Format Photography forum, and discovers sections and posts on digital capturing, Hassleblads with digital backs, people stitching together tiny digital thumbnail images to approximate, simulate, and replicate what we all know is large format? Old, almost obscure analog cameras and film, which a small set of practitioners still do, for some odd reason? If this site is about "leading edge" photography, we should call it that for a site name. Or Anything Goes Avante Guarde Photography?

[Dan Fromm]

www.galerie-photo.com, which I see as the French large format site, styles itself the French high resolution photography site. Participants in the site's forum have no trouble with discussions of what can be done with digital cameras, in fact their Emmanuel Bigler, who also posts here, has published a well-reasoned discussion of the relative merits of film and silicon there.

I don't think that many of the regulars there are particularly interested in soft-focus photography. I can't see how that would fit on a site dedicated to high resolution, but they're happy to discuss pinhole photography so I think there's room for it. Participants don't seem to have the periodic attacks of the cosmic self-definition blues that we do.

Apparent lack of a firm definition of what the site is about notwithstanding, the barbarian hordes (define barbarian and horde however you'd like) don't seem to be overwhelming the serious photographers. Barbarians aren't even much in evidence.

[goamules]

You are right. It's a solution looking for a problem.

[lecarp]

When a newcomer wants to learn the archaic art of large format photography (and it is archaic), what do they think of? Old wooden view cameras. Men standing under dark cloths. A sense it is more serious and professional. If they know a tiny bit more, what do they come hear to learn? The historic process. To shoot film. A reason why it's different. A purpose to be different.

Won't a new photographer be confused, if he comes to the Large Format Photography forum, and discovers sections and posts on digital capturing, Hassleblads with digital backs, people stitching together tiny digital thumbnail images to approximate, simulate, and replicate what we all know is large format? Old, almost obscure analog cameras and film, which a small set of practitioners still do, for some odd reason? If this site is about "leading edge" photography, we should call it that for a site name. Or Anything Goes Avante Guarde Photography?

Agreed.

There is not a thing wrong with keeping the forum true to real large format photography. I believe it has already strayed too far.
If you want digital large format why not follow the example of apug's formation of dpug (digital users group) and start a separate forum.

[Tin Can]

I have to agree with the last 3 posts. I came here without any knowledge of LF 3 years ago and I come here now only for LF knowledge of film and wet printing. I do scan, but I hate it and I am doing my best to revert to analog first principles of LF as defined however our wonderful mods define it.

Maybe I need to break my computers...

[evan clarke]

I am not entirely clear as to what constitutes "large format" photography for this group. The forum usage guidelines state that for the purposes of this forum "large format" is defined as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film.

BUT

"We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras)."

Question, is a medium format digital back used on a technical or press camera considered "large format" for this forum? And if so, how is "medium format" defined? By the actual size of the sensor, or by the size of the image file created?

Sandy

First, who,cares? Second, it should be a view camera forum...

[Ken Lee]

Let's say a person uses one of the current technologies for making images of very high fidelity: for example a high end digital back on a technical camera, or stitching multiple frames from a 36MP camera. Let's say that for whatever reason, the person has also never used a view camera, shot or developed large sheets of film, etc. The person has never worked in a darkroom, doesn't work with "alternative processes" like Pt/Pd etc. In short, the person is passionate about big, beautiful images, but has no connection or experience whatsoever with what was commonly known as "Large Format" several decades ago.

Given that there are other photography forums, would such a person post their images here ? Would that person come here to discuss current technology ? If so, why ?

[lecarp]

Let's say a person uses one of the current technologies for making images of very high fidelity: for example a high end digital back on a technical camera, or stitching multiple frames from a 36MP camera. Let's say that for whatever reason, the person has also never used a view camera, shot or developed large sheets of film, etc. The person has never worked in a darkroom, doesn't work with "alternative processes" like Pt/Pd etc. In short, the person is passionate about big, beautiful images, but has no connection or experience whatsoever with what was commonly known as "Large Format" several decades ago.

Given that there are other photography forums, would such a person post their images here ? Would that person come here to discuss current technology ? If so, why ?

I would hope not. A digital based forum would be the proper place.

[jnantz]

First, who,cares? Second, it should be a view camera forum...

wow ... that is pretty drastic ... almost as drastic as the previous posters who said "film only" ...

[lecarp]

Let's say a person uses one of the current technologies for making images of very high fidelity: for example a high end digital back on a technical camera, or stitching multiple frames from a 36MP camera. Let's say that for whatever reason, the person has also never used a view camera, shot or developed large sheets of film, etc. The person has never worked in a darkroom, doesn't work with "alternative processes" like Pt/Pd etc. In short, the person is passionate about big, beautiful images, but has no connection or experience whatsoever with what was commonly known as "Large Format" several decades ago.

Given that there are other photography forums, would such a person post their images here ? Would that person come here to discuss current technology ? If so, why ?

And "what was commonly known as "Large Format" several decades ago" is still commonly known as "Large Format" today. Digital capture is however Digital capture. Period.

P.S. Sorry Ken I agree with you on most issues.

[StoneNYC]

First, who,cares? Second, it should be a view camera forum...

Does that encompass all LF? Pinhole for example? I made an 11x14 pinhole, not a view camera, yet takes 11x14 film and film holders.

So "view camera" doesn't work either.

[TXFZ1]

No rule is ever enforced consistently, and we moderators are volunteers who don't read every post on the forum. Stuff slips through. When we notice it, or when people complain, then we interpret our guidelines as closely as we can. Sometimes we get it wrong.

Rick "reading these responses from our most thoughtful members carefully" Denney

Don't know whether that is an insult or compliment. Again, I am not digging at the moderators and could care less what equipment was used to make the photos.

David

[jnantz]

Does that encompass all LF? Pinhole for example? I made an 11x14 pinhole, not a view camera, yet takes 11x14 film and film holders.

So "view camera" doesn't work either.

you can put a pinhole on a view camera, the pinhole replaces the lens, not the camera,
view camera is drastic ( a camera with movements ) i understand evans perspective .. it is what
a lot of people think of when thinking of large format ...
unfortunately, it disenfranchises people who use slrs, press, hand made, box, falling plate, portrait ( stiff front standard )
and a bunch of other cameras that do not offer full movements, but use 4x5 or larger sheet film.

[Tin Can]

Looking in the FAQ, I see this forum was started in 1997, which almost predates digital as I know it. I bought my first http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/others/100/ that year for a film based college course I was enrolled in. I told the instructor, who is still a close friend, I would do every assignment in digital and film. Click on that link and check out how simple a device it was.

I was paying to learn 35mm film shooting, processing and printing, yet I could tell that little Nikon was going to start a revolution. The instructor asked me if I thought digital was going to take off. I told him of course it was and he better duck.

After that 1997 class I quit film and did digital until recently. I now see the error in my ways and realize, for me, a consummate hobbyist, film is where I want to be. (I am pretty sure I have written that here before, but my memory is fading.)

So what is Large Format? For me it is film and paper, and includes all historical processes back to the beginning. I see a demarcation coming and we can't know the future like I thought I did in 1997, but I sure hope I can see a future of LF traditional process photography. I don't see this site/forum becoming a cutting edge of digital anything. We are in too deep and I like it that way.

As an aside, I sold a rare thing today and thought, gee, I could replace my failing DSLR, but then I realized how sad that would make me, and instead made an offer for an old lens. That old lens will be useful to me for LF for as long as I live, but another digital anything will be garbage in a much shorter time. That's depressing.

Who knows what this all means, I obviously don't. That's why I will rely on the Mods to steer this ship.

Good luck Mods and I mean that.

[Sal Santamaura]

No rule is ever enforced consistently, and we moderators are volunteers who don't read every post on the forum. Stuff slips through. When we notice it, or when people complain, then we interpret our guidelines as closely as we can. Sometimes we get it wrong.

Rick "reading these responses from our most thoughtful members carefully" Denney


Don't know whether that is an insult or compliment...If you think you're one of the most thoughtful forum members, I'd consider it a compliment. If you don't, it appears rather neutral, not an insult.


...I...could care less what equipment was used to make the photos...How much less could you care? Conversely, how much do you care about the specific equipment used?: :D:D

[rdenney]

Don't know whether that is an insult or compliment. Again, I am not digging at the moderators and could care less what equipment was used to make the photos.

David

Neither, and I know you weren't digging at us. It's an explanation that explains why you don't see consistent "enforcement". The mods don't see themselves as enforcers, but rather as protectors of the forum owner's vision, even though he has delegated much of the understanding of that vision to the moderators. We believe that vision has made this forum special, and we don't want to undermine that. Thus, we don't look at every post with an eye for what breaks the rules. We act when it's obvious, and we'll look more closely when we get complaints, but generally we leave things alone.

Edit: after reading Sal's post, you'll interpret my "neither" as excluding you from the "thoughtful" camp. Don't. All these posts have been thoughtful, and we appreciate the input.

Rick "we are in listening mode right now" Denney

[Corran]

These anti-digital posts are pretty sad. It doesn't matter what the medium is. You should be able to use a MFDB with a technical camera and post here. Obviously small DSLR cameras and stitching is not the same thing. That argument is a classic strawman fallacy. And we aren't going to have a deluge of posters shooting MFDBs simply due to the costs involved.

[Kirk Gittings]

And "what was commonly known as "Large Format" several decades ago" is still commonly known as "Large Format" today. Digital capture is however Digital capture. Period.

"Large Format" [film] has never been the guide for what can be posted here since I have been here (2004). Its a name of the forum-not a definition of what can be talked about. And 4x5 did not used to be considered LF BTW. Things evolve. That ship sailed a long time ago-hence the numerous attempts to clarify what is acceptable to post here.

A LF film straight jacket I don't believe is what is needed here, interests are clearly broader than they used to be and some clarification is due. I actually appreciate the breath of discussions here as I work in what is a very diverse and wonderful field of photography today. Just split it off into a separate sub forum so people can ignore it if they so desire. Don't like it-don't read it. How is that substantially different than what we have now?

[StoneNYC]

"Large Format" [film] has never been the guide for what can be posted here since I have been here (2004). Its a name of the forum-not a definition of what can be talked about. And 4x5 did not used to be considered LF BTW. That ship sailed a long time ago-hence the numerous attempts to clarify what is acceptable to post here.

Yea I think Sandy or another one of the "modern famous bunch" said they didn't consider anything LF until 8x10 haha that would actually solve a lot of problems. But wouldn't have as many contributors ;)

[Ken Lee]

When it comes to forum members being rude, it's often best not to take the bait. Simply report it to the moderators.

When forum members are frequently rude they get banned for short periods of time. When they persist in their rudeness they get banned permanently.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Going back to Sandy's proposition for topics like the Cambo Actus + Sony a7r, I'd be interested in that, and think it would appropriate for the LF forum, just like a discussion of that Ilford 35mm monorail camera would be. It satisfies what I see as the main topics of the forum: either sheet film or view camera. Cambo is a traditional view camera manufacturer and has created a mini-version of their studio camera to attach to a mirrorless camera, so to me, that looks like making the view camera do new things. If Sony started selling T/S lenses, I'd think of that as extending the range of the 35mm camera and its derivatives, so not on topic for the LF forum, even if it is interesting.

[Vaughn]

So I prop the back of my 8x10 up with a stick and put peanuts inside, place it in the yard and "capture" a Squirrel with my camera.
Would that fit the parameters of the more liberal and open description of large format. I would be using large format, apparently the end product does not matter.

Getting it to hold still on a scanner might prove interesting...

I guess the result of your capture would be a positive. ;)

[ic-racer]

Why do we allow any digital at all when, to my knowledge, there are no large format digital cameras? Sorry if my last post read as being rude but the "Unified View" is clogged with posts on computer graphics and digital image manipulation, all of which I have no interest and are better covered on other internet sites dedicated to those topics.

Perhaps I'll offer up a constructive criticism to upgrade to software like APUG uses that allows for one to ignore threads or individual forums. That way posts, forums and threads the I consider internet garbage don't keep getting downloaded to my computer over and over again when using "Unified View." Maybe I'm the only one using OSX but it also has a bug where the default search function (for finding files and documents on one's personal computer) delivers long lists of web page results from one's internet browsing. As far as I know there is no way to turn that off.

Or how about just a bug fix on the Search function. One can theoretically make one's own "Unified View" with the Search function but there are two bugs. First, the "Save Search Preferences" does not work, so every time one wants to look for new posts since last visit you have to fill all the blanks in. Second, the unnusual "Multiple Content Types" is the search default (again irrespective of how many times one clicks the "Save Search Preferences")

Thanks for reading.

120902

[StoneNYC]

Why do we allow any digital at all when, to my knowledge, there are no large format digital cameras? I don't mean to be rude, just curious.

As I mentioned earlier there are scanning backs that do exist that are 4x5 and I believe 8x10 as well.

There's this one that is actually just a normal 8x10 digital back and only costs $250,000

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/08/23/mitchell-feinbergs-8x10-digital-capture-back/

And these are the normal 4x5 scanning backs often used ...

http://www.betterlight.com/why_better.html

[Vaughn]

Getting it to hold still on a scanner might prove interesting...

I guess the result of your capture would be a positive. ;)

Icracer -- traditionally we have used film 'capture' here, but increasingly, there is more digital out-put (printing) and also hybrid methods (such as scanned 4x5 neg used to create an enlarged inkjet negative for Alt processes) being used by members. I believe there is nothing in the guidelines concerning what happens with the image once you have captured it with a view camera.

[Corran]

Why do we allow any digital at all when, to my knowledge, there are no large format digital cameras?

There is a member right now working on an 8x10 and 4x5 digital back for commercial sale. Some of his posts are in the August Portrait thread. There are also the scanning backs as Stone mentions. I am firm in my belief that one day, someone or some company will make a ~4x5-sized sensor camera. Furthermore, there are already smaller backs that can be used on full technical cameras with appropriate lenses with a smaller image circle.

If you don't care for digital imaging, that's your prerogative, but you don't have to use pejorative terms, and you don't have to post here. And considering the large number (majority?) of users here scanning and outputting digitally, I would say your view is in the minority, if we include the "output medium" into the equation.

Personally I think it's an asinine thing to argue. No matter what, if you are viewing images on this forum, they are digital. Perhaps you choose not to post/look at images, I don't know, but there needs to be less of this "us vs. them" mentality IMO regarding film vs. digital. Despite shooting 95% film outside of commercial work, I still know and see the merits of digital and can admit to them.

[ic-racer]

Yes, people using film are in the minority. One advantage of the internet is to allow those people to communicate with each other.

If you are implying this is a "Mostly Digital" web site, then I agree with you my posts have no value here. Sorry but I find it confusing that a Large Format web site caters to a medium (large format digital photography) that either has yet to be invented or is in one's imagination.

BTW the 'ignore user' function works so I invite all that don't care to read opinions regarding large format film photography, to use it. My posts are intended to be read by the film users here.

[Corran]

I think you have misunderstood my post. Perhaps you should re-read the part pertaining to digital output.

This is not the "Large Format Film Forum" btw.

[jnantz]

digital backs bigger than 4x5 and 8x10 exists they are usually custom made.
or experimental ( scanner attached to a camera back ) or like that guy did 8-10 years ago
where he made an enormous ulf digital camera so he could have the ultimate in photography and dof
he made the tv, internet, pri circuit and he spoke about how the grass at his feet were in focus and he could count
the pine needles on the trees 100 miles away if he looked at the image with a loupe ...
( and he now gives lectures all over the world and consults for imax & other types of digital film making )
there are very long threads about the guy, and his camera here on this website even ... i can't remember his name ...
or i would post links to the threads and the both love and hate for the topic of digital large / ulf format.

-------
=====

couldn't agree with your post more kirk ...

[Jac@stafford.net]

digital backs bigger than 4x5 and 8x10 exists they are usually custom made.
or experimental ( scanner attached to a camera back ) or like that guy did 8-10 years ago
where he made an enormous ulf digital camera so he could have the ultimate in photography...

You are addressing scanning backs. Do not they take us back to the days of very long exposures? How do they perform for subjects that move?

[StoneNYC]

There is a member right now working on an 8x10 and 4x5 digital back for commercial sale. Some of his posts are in the August Portrait thread. There are also the scanning backs as Stone mentions. I am firm in my belief that one day, someone or some company will make a ~4x5-sized sensor camera. Furthermore, there are already smaller backs that can be used on full technical cameras with appropriate lenses with a smaller image circle.

If you don't care for digital imaging, that's your prerogative, but you don't have to use pejorative terms, and you don't have to post here. And considering the large number (majority?) of users here scanning and outputting digitally, I would say your view is in the minority, if we include the "output medium" into the equation.

Personally I think it's an asinine thing to argue. No matter what, if you are viewing images on this forum, they are digital. Perhaps you choose not to post/look at images, I don't know, but there needs to be less of this "us vs. them" mentality IMO regarding film vs. digital. Despite shooting 95% film outside of commercial work, I still know and see the merits of digital and can admit to them.

+1 well said

I do believe one day sooner than you might think there will be a molecularly designed liquid emulsion that can be layed into a base spread itself out and make all the connections of molecules and then connected to an output source and you could make a digital 8x10 or even 20x24 back that can be used over and over again just like digital but programmed to spread itself out upon coating and essentially any size film sheet you would want could be created for very little cost.

It's only a matter of time...

Liquid digital will replace "sensors" and so on...

[Kirk Fry]

Seems to me if we talk about any camera with movements with a capture area larger than say 6 square inches, or any camera with a capture area larger than 20 square inches we are safe (just think Wanderlust Travelwide).

[sanking]

"It's only a matter of time...

Liquid digital will replace "sensors" and so on..."


Yes, and when that happens meek lambs will make their beds with ferocious wolves, and snakes will sleep in the nest with young birds. And all over the world there will be peace as people everywhere will finally understand the true meaning of large format.

Sandy

[StoneNYC]

"It's only a matter of time...

Liquid digital will replace "sensors" and so on..."


Yes, and when that happens meek lambs will make their beds with ferocious wolves, and snakes will sleep in the nest with young birds. And all over the world there will be peace as people everywhere will finally understand the true meaning of large format.

Sandy

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here Sandy, but they are already doing it with a spray on solar panel design where the mixture is simply sprayed onto a base material and then the compounds themselves connect each other together to the light energy and pass it on to the battery, so it's not all that far-fetched to think that they could use the same technology for image capture.

My point was simply that you can't exclude digital technology for any newer technology from the idea of large-format just like the olden days people wouldn't say well film isn't really large format because the only true large-format is collodion... Remember that film is also a new technology compared to older image taking technologies, photography will always change and progress and sometimes if we're lucky we get to keep some of the nostalgia and the feel of old world techniques and meld them with newer technologies to create an even more breathtaking image.

[DennisD]

Below is Sandy King's original question starting this thread. It still remains unanswered in terms of a formal clarification by whatever "powers" that be, i. e. either the forum founder or moderators.



Question, is a medium format digital back used on a technical or press camera considered "large format" for this forum? And if so, how is "medium format" defined? By the actual size of the sensor, or by the size of the image file created?

Sandy

The question is a valid one and deserves a direct clarification considering the state of photography today and the many opinions expressed here by forum participants. I personally would be accepting of a decision on either side of the fence, but think a conclusion should be reached for the benefit of members and posting procedure.

The guidelines clearly associate "Large Format" with sheet film or, in the case of "medium format", roll film. There is no mention of digital technology and for that reason it would appear that digital image capture is not included within the realm of "large format" as far as this forum is concerned.

Times have changed, so isn't it appropriate that forum governance at least consider and clarify this point for the benefit of all.

So for this forum - Is "large format" based on film only as per the stated guidelines or are other types of capture welcomed (without being relegated to a "safe haven") ?

If medium format digital capture (on whatever qualifies as a view camera) is accepted, do we need to define a size standard for a medium format sensor ?

[sanking]

......
My point was simply that you can't exclude digital technology for any newer technology from the idea of large-format just like the olden days people wouldn't say well film isn't really large format because the only true large-format is collodion...


Sorry about the misunderstanding. I agree with your point.

Sandy

[Micah Marty]

Though a long-time member, I don't post here often, and I certainly wouldn't presume to suggest what should be included and excluded. But simply weighing in as one reader, I'll note that something David Goldfarb said in #98 resonated with me: I look to this website for discussions involving

"view cameras and/or sheet film." (I would extend "sheet film" in this context to include any non-digital, or pre-digital, capture medium.)

Threads that involve neither of those things are of little interest to me personally on this website,* acknowledging again that I am just one vote.

__________________

*I routinely shoot 2,000-3,000 digital images per day as part of my day job, so I'm certainly not "anti-digital." But there are thousands of websites that cover digital, while none cover "view cameras" and "sheet film" as thoroughly as this one does.

[David A. Goldfarb]

"view cameras and/or sheet film." (I would extend "sheet film" in this context to include any non-digital, or pre-digital, capture medium.)


Certainly.

[Tin Can]

I may come across as anti-digital, but I spent my evening cleaning DSLR sensors, oily rear DSLR lens glass and getting my digital gear in shape. I must use it enough to require this sort of effort. I packed up a few Pre AI Nikkors for conversion with John White and may be buying some new PS plugins.

As for Stone's chemical sensor's we may very well find out technology comes full circle and the avant garde of digital may prove to be organic chemistry, rethought.

[StoneNYC]

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I agree with your point.

Sandy

No worries, I figured you were just being creatively playful with your answer, just that I couldn't tell which way you were leaning haha :)

Good luck with getting your answer from the powers that be ;)

[Struan Gray]

APUG has a large format section with enforced no digital content. I see no need to reproduce that here. LF.info has traditionally been inclusive and fuzzy around the edges, and I have benefited from that open attitude many, many times. Defining yourself by what you are not simply limits your options for no good reason: the people from whom I have truly learnt things in my photographic life have been those with a broad range of interests who are able to put photography into a wider context than just their own personal artistic or technological preferences.

Most posters in this thread have concentrated on equipment, but LF photography is much more than just the tools we use. I love well-made things, and tinkering with gear and sheet film, but it's not the reason I hump twenty-odd kilos of rucksack over the moonlit bogs of Northwest Scotland. The reason I do that is the image characteristics that using LF tools allow me to employ and manipulate. I've never been a big fan of sharpness and detail, but you get them for free with LF, in a way which is graceful and effortless, and they can be used in a wide number of ways to draw viewers into an image, or to slap them about the chops with a sense of authority. Movements are the thing I would find hardest to give up, both as a way of directing attention or enhancing a mood of concentration, and as a way of overcoming the technical limitations of fixed-focal-plan box cameras. The reason I started using LF was the purity and subtlety of the colour reproduction it provides. This too is a descriptive tool I find hard to live without in smaller formats.

The point, as I see it, is that a concern with LF photography - as opposed to LF equipment and processes - must be interested in these descriptive aspects of the final image. It is there that I most value a broad perspective, whether from painters talking about the psychology of colour, or from DSLR users talking about manipulations of time perception by combining multiple exposures. There are often lessons to be learned in the most unlikely places, and although you must draw a boundary line somewhere, there is no need to make it too constrictive, or to get too pernickety about exactly how wide or fuzzy it should be. Far better to rely on your own judgement and ability to assess information than to box yourself into a safe, confirmative subset of the world where you are never challenged or made to think.

We are not going to get swamped with MFDB users - there aren't that many of them out there. Neither are we going to get inundated with newbies bleating about how their full frame übermaschine is light years better than any thing else this side of the galactic center - we already get those, and they are either deleted or shunted to the Lounge where they belong. Grown ups should be able to get along with people who think differently from themselves, and to indulge with kindness the odd child who stumbles into their exalted midst, and to simply ignore or skip over conversations they find boring or even distasteful. LF.info has always been a grown up forum. I would like to see it stay that way.

[Dan Fromm]

But Struan, children need limits and we can't/shouldn't exclude children.

[Struan Gray]

Old Fife proverb:

Let the laddie play with the knife.
He'll learn.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Let the laddie play with the knife.
He'll learn.

You'll shoot your eye out!

120936

[Dan Fromm]

Old Fife proverb:

Let the laddie play with the knife.
He'll learn.

This proverb hath been taught in schools,
It is no jesting with edged tools.

[evan clarke]

Why is this important?

[BradS]

.....something David Goldfarb said in #98 resonated with me: I look to this website for discussions involving

"view cameras and/or sheet film." (I would extend "sheet film" in this context to include any non-digital, or pre-digital, capture medium.)

Threads that involve neither of those things are of little interest to me personally on this website,* acknowledging again that I am just one vote.



This perfectly sums up my opinion of the matter. Thanks. I will only add that I fully understand and accept that this is not ademocracy and my "vote" probably counts for naught.

[BradS]

....upgrade to software like APUG uses that allows for one to ignore threads or individual forums. That way posts, forums and threads the I consider internet garbage


YES! I too wish that these features were available here. I especially appreciate the ability to ignore individual threads. Sometimes even threads start out interesting wander off into the weeds and become tedious....then there are the threads that are just plain dumb from the get go...but that never seem to die (the "what film did you shoot today" thread for example).

[Racer X 69]

Question, is a medium format digital back used on a technical or press camera considered "large format" for this forum? And if so, how is "medium format" defined? By the actual size of the sensor, or by the size of the image file created?

Sandy


check the faq page:http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_gen_rules_faq_item

Vinny made this suggestion in post number 6, and only one member (DennisD) has referenced it in all 125 posts that have constituted this discussion thus far.


So I trotted on over to the FAQ page and right there, at the top of that page is the following:


The purpose of the forum is to provide a place for discussion of topics of particular interest to large format photographers. We especially encourage questions which will help build a repository of knowledge about the tools and techniques of large format photography, as opposed to "shopping" questions. For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras).

And as I observed, Dennis has read the guidelines and pointed out quite well how they apply here.


The guidelines clearly associate "Large Format" with sheet film or, in the case of "medium format", roll film. There is no mention of digital technology and for that reason it would appear that digital image capture is not included within the realm of "large format" as far as this forum is concerned.

And just as I did, he observed that the guidelines are clear.

Digital image capture using LF equipment is not considered "Large Format" at this discussion group. Although I would like to see it included, it is not by the rules, and I am OK with that. I don't make the rules here, I am only expected to know and abide by them.


If medium format digital capture (on whatever qualifies as a view camera) is accepted, do we need to define a size standard for a medium format sensor ?

There has been considerable divergence of discussion from the initial question, and in part of that discussion about the digital scanning backs available for LF cameras was mentioned and briefly discussed. Actually the rules seem to have not kept pace with the growth of the forum, as there is an area of discussion in the LF section here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?7-Digital-Hardware

Anyway, for me at least, the rules are quite clear. If anything they might need some tweaking to more closely reflect the growth of the forum since they were put in place.

Or the discussion areas in the LF section that don't actually fit the rules may need to be placed in a different (possibly new) section.

[VictoriaPerelet]

... Remember that film is also a new technology compared to older image taking technologies, photography will always change and progress and sometimes if we're lucky we get to keep some of the nostalgia and the feel of old world techniques and meld them with newer technologies to create an even more breathtaking image.


To put that in todays perpective. Here's interesting link about current commercial imaging:

http://www.dezeen.com/2013/11/27/cgi-renderings-for-catalogue-images/

There's no camera, no lens, no sensor, no studio lights, no monkey who presses shutter to take selfies.
And "it" produces images of as many megapixels as one wants - "larger" than any physical camera can produce:)

[Bill_1856]

It's pretty simple: Anything that would have been photographed on a solid plate (glass, tin sheet, etc) in the 19th century is Large Format.

[StoneNYC]

To put that in todays perpective. Here's interesting link about current commercial imaging:

http://www.dezeen.com/2013/11/27/cgi-renderings-for-catalogue-images/

There's no camera, no lens, no sensor, no studio lights, no monkey who presses shutter to take selfies.
And "it" produces images of as many megapixels as one wants - "larger" than any physical camera can produce:)

I knew this, I got most of my Profoto lighting from a product photographer that was retiring as all his work was lost to renderings, he did stuff like BMW car adds, all of those are renderings now, not actual cars.

Such is the world, mannequin people and digital cars....

[sanking]

Interesting how people interpret a set of facts in different ways. I looked at the same set of facts as others and came to the conclusion that the rules are not clear.

On the one hand, you have a FAQ which does not mention digital of any kind, which could lead one to believe that digital is not within the rules . . .

But on the other hand there are forum groups that treat both digital hardware, and digital processing . . .

I see this an inconsistency that needs clarification. It is impossible for a community to abide by the rules if the rules themselves are not mostly clear to all.

Sandy

[StoneNYC]

Interesting how people interpret a set of facts in different ways. I looked at the same set of facts as others and came to the conclusion that the rules are not clear.

On the one hand, you have a FAQ which does not mention digital of any kind, which could lead one to believe that digital is not within the rules . . .

But on the other hand there are forum groups that treat both digital hardware, and digital processing . . .

I see this an inconsistency that needs clarification. It is impossible for a community to abide by the rules if the rules themselves are not mostly clear to all.

Sandy

I agree, I also see the sentence about using roll film "and other type backs" on view cameras, as the "loophole" that allows for digital.

So I guess my interpretation is different also.

[Tin Can]

Jac, my cousin shot his own eye out in Minnesota in the 50's with a BB gun shot at rough wood floor at 45 degree angle. The BB caught the wood grain and came right back into his eye. He was the age of the child in your image.


You'll shoot your eye out!

120936

[IanG]

It's a crazy question to ask on this forum,

Moderators won't even accept that 6x17cm is LF despite the fact it's too large to print with a 5"x4" enlarger.

It's about common sense, a digital back with a view camera is what this forum should include, so is the Ilford 35mm view camera (but it's so rare). It's really about cameras larger than 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 MF though unless they have movements.

There's no easy answer but it does need resolving.

Ian

[Kirk Gittings]

Vinny made this suggestion in post number 6, and only one member (DennisD) has referenced it in all 125 posts that have constituted this discussion thus far.


So I trotted on over to the FAQ page and right there, at the top of that page is the following:



And as I observed, Dennis has read the guidelines and pointed out quite well how they apply here.



And just as I did, he observed that the guidelines are clear.

Digital image capture using LF equipment is not considered "Large Format" at this discussion group. Although I would like to see it included, it is not by the rules, and I am OK with that. I don't make the rules here, I am only expected to know and abide by them.



There has been considerable divergence of discussion from the initial question, and in part of that discussion about the digital scanning backs available for LF cameras was mentioned and briefly discussed. Actually the rules seem to have not kept pace with the growth of the forum, as there is an area of discussion in the LF section here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?7-Digital-Hardware

Anyway, for me at least, the rules are quite clear. If anything they might need some tweaking to more closely reflect the growth of the forum since they were put in place.

Or the discussion areas in the LF section that don't actually fit the rules may need to be placed in a different (possibly new) section.

Actually I was part of that discussion and if I remember right (I may not FWIW and I can't go back anymore and check). My interpretation of the wording was that it was left somewhat vague and could allow MF digital backs if used on an allowed camera.

[StoneNYC]

It's a crazy question to ask on this forum,

Moderators won't even accept that 6x17cm is LF despite the fact it's too large to print with a 5"x4" enlarger.

It's about common sense, a digital back with a view camera is what this forum should include, so is the Ilford 35mm view camera (but it's so rare). It's really about cameras larger than 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 MF though unless they have movements.

There's no easy answer but it does need resolving.

Ian

That part about the 4x5 enlarger made a lot of sense.

[Tin Can]

Last week, an active member contacted me and indicated he was signing out of forum permanently as this forum has lost it's way.

No, I will not identify that person. Nor will I make a judgement.

Don't shoot the messenger!

[Kirk Gittings]

No matter what the moderators do somebody will take this path. There is absolutely nothing they can do that will keep EVERYONE happy. It is impossible. Since this is not a commercially motivated site, active member numbers have little real meaning beyond bragging rights. IMHO we should always opt for quality over quantity in terms of membership.

[Tin Can]

I know, but I was shocked I was the one to be contacted. It weighs on me, so I pass it along to share the pain.

Sin Eater


No matter what the moderators do somebody will take this path. There is absolutely nothing they can do that will keep EVERYONE happy.

[jnantz]

You are addressing scanning backs. Do not they take us back to the days of very long exposures? How do they perform for subjects that move?


i don't have any idea how they perform with moving subjects. i was just pointing out that large scan-backs have been around for a long time.
and i worked with a guy who started selling them 10+ years ago ...
i think it is funny you are asking about short exposures because the majority of the people who post here ... traditionally have
been people who photograph rocks and trees and mountains and landscape stuff so from what i can figure out
it doesn't matter much if they are able to make long or short exposures. i think sandy's question is a good one
because for a lot of people it is the way of the future ...

it'll be interesting what the moderators have to say once it all comes out of the wash



Last week, an active member contacted me and indicated he was signing out of forum permanently as this forum has lost it's way.

No, I will not identify that person. Nor will I make a judgement.

Don't shoot the messenger!

hi randy,

people have been saying the forum has lost its way since the it when to and then came back from photo.net where it lived for a little while
and then again after the new software was installed ... and when the moderators "moderated" and then again ...

john

[Jac@stafford.net]

Moderators won't even accept that 6x17cm is LF despite the fact it's too large to print with a 5"x4" enlarger. Ian

Ian, 6x17cm is acceptable.

[Corran]

...an active member contacted me and indicated he was signing out of forum permanently as this forum has lost it's way.

Who cares? I hate seeing the "I'm leaving FOREVER!" threads. So the forum didn't confirm to their vision or their bias. Too bad for them. The forum doesn't exist for them solely.

[Tin Can]

Well, I do care what that person did, I consider him a friend, just as I consider you a friend.

We are a small tribe of contributors with a large group of observers.

Always the way it goes.


Who cares? I hate seeing the "I'm leaving FOREVER!" threads. So the forum didn't confirm to their vision or their bias. Too bad for them. The forum doesn't exist for them solely.

[DennisD]

Racer X 69 Thank you for understanding my point.



I agree, I also see the sentence about using roll film "and other type backs" on view cameras, as the "loophole" that allows for digital.

So I guess my interpretation is different also.

Stone, the guidelines say nothing about "other type backs"', those are your words / interpretation.

I'm not so sure the loophole you speak of really exists, though I wish it did.

The "guidelines" speak only of medium format sizes. The general reference to large format clearly refers to "sheet film" or, in the case of other medium format sizes, to "a roll film" adapter but not other type backs. See below.



We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras).

I would simply like to see a clarification of the stated guidelines that either recognizes digital backs along with sheet or other film / media (or clearly discourages same) as far as the LF Forum is concerned.

As others have mentioned, threads discussing other digital related issues are welcomed.
The question about digital media as raised in Sandy's original post is most relevant in today's world of photography.

In fairness to members speaking on both sides of this issue, the guidelines ambiguity should be cleared up for the benefit of the forum.

The issue is an important one. It deals with the changing technology and how the Forum wishes to accept the evolution.

[Racer X 69]

You'll shoot your eye out!

120936

Great movie!

I really liked the table lamp that Darrin McGavin's character obsessed over. Priceless.

http://www.redriderleglamps.com/images/products/26-Leg-lamp-christmas-story.jpg

[Racer X 69]

Racer X 69 Thank you for understanding my point.

Hey, no problem. I guess there really is that thing called "parallel thought".

With regard to Stone's "interpretation", I am reminded of the rules for the amateur road racing club I have been racing with since the late 1980's. The club has been around since the mid 1950's and the rulebook has evolved and changed many times over the years.

But.

One rule that has been there since the beginning (or so I was told by one of the guys who was there when the club was born) and has never changed is this:


The preparation rules regarding the specific classes (Production, GT, SP) of racing cars specifically state 'Allowable Modifications'. This means that it it does not expressly say it is allowed, then it is not allowed.

There will be no gray areas, no 'interpretations'.

If it does not say you can, that means you can't.

So I would say that the same thing would apply here. The forum owner has been gracious enough to provide a place for us to come and engage in discussion of our hobby (or profession for those fortunate enough to actually earn a living with it!), and to share the results if we so choose. And like any such forum there must be some ground rules, and a few people who are tasked with moderating the activities here (and as has been said many times they do so without compensation for their efforts).

Sandy does make a great point with his post that began this discussion. The rules generally have not kept pace with the growth of the forum, and the changes to our craft. This is something that until now has been left to the discretion of the moderation staff, and by my observation they have tended to err on the lenient side of the rules.

For sure it would be great if they could update the rules to reflect the changes since the inception of this discussion group, but hey, they have other things to do too. I'm sure they have lives outside of this forum, and like me, responsibilities.

For me, this weekend has kept me busy with stuff Mrs. Racer has been after me to do for months. And since I recently changed jobs (I hung up the keys to the Big Truck and now I am Building Wings for the Big Silver Buses that fly through the skies!) I now have time to try and knock a few things off of her list.

In fact she is nagging at me again to get off the 'puter and get something else done.

So back to it I go!

[StoneNYC]

Racer X 69 Thank you for understanding my point.




Stone, the guidelines say nothing about "other type backs"', those are your words / interpretation.

I'm not so sure the loophole you speak of really exists, though I wish it did.

The "guidelines" speak only of medium format sizes. The general reference to large format clearly refers to "sheet film" or, in the case of other medium format sizes, to "a roll film" adapter but not other type backs. See below.



I would simply like to see a clarification of the stated guidelines that either recognizes digital backs along with sheet or other film / media (or clearly discourages same) as far as the LF Forum is concerned.

As others have mentioned, threads discussing other digital related issues are welcomed.
The question about digital media as raised in Sandy's original post is most relevant in today's world of photography.

In fairness to members speaking on both sides of this issue, the guidelines ambiguity should be cleared up for the benefit of the forum.

The issue is an important one. It deals with the changing technology and how the Forum wishes to accept the evolution.

All it says is "exposed" in "medium format sizes using a view camera" it says nothing about it having to be film, it only gives an example of a roll of film back, but that is an example, it doesn't specifically state what is being exposed so from a legal standpoint at least, this is open to interpretation as anything that can be exposed.... whether it's film or glass plates or tintypes or paper negatives or even a digital back, anything that can be exposed in a view camera can be used, at least that's how the law (in the US at least) would interpret that.

That's what I was saying.

[StoneNYC]

Hey, no problem. I guess there really is that thing called "parallel thought".

With regard to Stone's "interpretation", I am reminded of the rules for the amateur road racing club I have been racing with since the late 1980's. The club has been around since the mid 1950's and the rulebook has evolved and changed many times over the years.

But.

One rule that has been there since the beginning (or so I was told by one of the guys who was there when the club was born) and has never changed is this:



So I would say that the same thing would apply here. The forum owner has been gracious enough to provide a place for us to come and engage in discussion of our hobby (or profession for those fortunate enough to actually earn a living with it!), and to share the results if we so choose. And like any such forum there must be some ground rules, and a few people who are tasked with moderating the activities here (and as has been said many times they do so without compensation for their efforts).

Sandy does make a great point with his post that began this discussion. The rules generally have not kept pace with the growth of the forum, and the changes to our craft. This is something that until now has been left to the discretion of the moderation staff, and by my observation they have tended to err on the lenient side of the rules.

For sure it would be great if they could update the rules to reflect the changes since the inception of this discussion group, but hey, they have other things to do too. I'm sure they have lives outside of this forum, and like me, responsibilities.

For me, this weekend has kept me busy with stuff Mrs. Racer has been after me to do for months. And since I recently changed jobs (I hung up the keys to the Big Truck and now I am Building Wings for the Big Silver Buses that fly through the skies!) I now have time to try and knock a few things off of her list.

In fact she is nagging at me again to get off the 'puter and get something else done.

So back to it I go!

To your point, because as far as I know, the rules don't have that phasing in them that say what your club has said in the bylaws, that what you're saying DOESN'T exist here, so it's different than your club.

[Jody_S]

My personal view, not that anyone asked, is that photography isn't about rules. And I don't believe discussion boards should be bogged down with 'purity' rules. Other rules about civility and congeniality, yes, but not purity.

[Racer X 69]

My personal view, not that anyone asked, is that photography isn't about rules.


Not even the "rule of thirds"? :)

[Racer X 69]

All it says is "exposed" in "medium format sizes using a view camera" it says nothing about it having to be film, it only gives an example of a roll of film back, but that is an example, it doesn't specifically state what is being exposed so from a legal standpoint at least, this is open to interpretation as anything that can be exposed.... whether it's film or glass plates or tintypes or paper negatives or even a digital back, anything that can be exposed in a view camera can be used, at least that's how the law (in the US at least) would interpret that.

That's what I was saying.

And that is probably why Sandy started this thread. Because there is ambiguity in the rules, and to a degree some uncertainty. I do believe that he (as well as many of us) would appreciate some adjustment and clarification to them.

Surely there will be the purists who are going to resist the changes, just as they resist the advent of the digital backs for LF cameras. And as long as there are alternatives to the ever decreasing options to factory produced medium, those purists will continue to resist the digital solutions.

There is no reason for them to be excluded, or for them to exclude themselves. There should be room enough for everyone to pursue whatever avenue they choose, be it following the more modern alternatives or regressing back to the methods and techniques that were in use at the beginning of LF photography.

[Len Middleton]

I am a little perplexed with the discussion...

Are we looking at removing the sections on Digital Hardware with "Large format digital hardware (cameras, backs, scanners, printers, etc.)" and Digital Processing?

Unless I am looking for a particular answer to a scanning question, I typically do not go there, nor has my browser or the BBS software driven me there and obliged me to view its contents...

I did re-read Sandy's initial question and found it interesting, but I do not see value in limiting the scope of this forum to excluding digital capture with a medium format back that can be used on a view camera. Certainly many are involved in multiple forums as I recognize the names elsewhere, and should I want or need additional information beyond what is here on digital, I will seek it out.

I have no issues with the current level of ambiguity and as someone who has written documents that may require legal interpretation from a third party, understand the value of both precision and of ambiguity...

My thoughts.

Len

[Corran]

Well, I do care what that person did, I consider him a friend, just as I consider you a friend.

We are a small tribe of contributors with a large group of observers.

Always the way it goes.

Fair enough, what I mean to say is, people shouldn't leave because the forum doesn't conform to their personal view of what it should be. I don't know what the person in question left for (i.e. what they defined as having "lost it's way") but if it was, say, because they didn't like digital images*/discussion, that's ridiculous. IMO, of course.

*within the guidelines, in the appropriate place...

[goamules]

This debate could be endless without clarity. What is the goal of "redefining large format to mean xyz?" What exactly would redefining Large Format to: "Any image taken by any means other than 35mm or Full Frame sensors...." do for this forum? It sounds like some people are saying digital photographers should be allowed to show work, and not state that they used digital cameras when they post a picture in the Image Sharing and Discussion section. It's about posting pictures, not discussing equipment.

Because all other worries and debates are moot. We already have digital equipment sections, for discussion, learning, and promotion of modern, transitional techniques. It's allowed.

I can bet there is a large, silent majority, probably 9 out of 10 members, that come here because they love the distinction large format. They take that to mean large pieces of film and wetplate shot with cameras with movements. They want to learn an archaic skill, see how "good it can be", and compare it to what they see shot by the "rest of the world" (digital).

And there is a vocal group of new technology users, that want to showcase their work. Because all they can do is talk about digital equipment and process now. You want to show photos taken with non-traditional large format equipment. Fine, just state that's what it is. Because I don't want to be looking at a portrait and thinking about how you got it and how it renders on film, when it's not on film.....

[goamules]

By the way, people that leave forums, or clubs, or any social groups in a overt, dramatic way, are just bitter and uncompromising most of the time. They try to get allies to fight their fight for them. We've all seen forums and clubs change direction. A mature person advocates for what they believe is right, attempts leadership, and gives it their best shot. If they lose, they quietly move to other places in their lives. Maybe for a while. Maybe only visiting the forum once a month instead of once a day. Because a mature person knows the winds change, and it could revert again back like they liked it after a period. And that they can still gain some knowledge, enjoyment, and offer some advice to the different status quo after the change.

I'm sad a person decides to be less involved here, but that happens, people change. But it's sadder telling people you are taking your bat and ball and going home and making a big production of it.

[DennisD]

All it says is "exposed" in "medium format sizes using a view camera" it says nothing about it having to be film, it only gives an example of a roll of film back, but that is an example, it doesn't specifically state what is being exposed so from a legal standpoint at least, this is open to interpretation as anything that can be exposed.... whether it's film or glass plates or tintypes or paper negatives or even a digital back, anything that can be exposed in a view camera can be used, at least that's how the law (in the US at least) would interpret that.

That's what I was saying.

Stone,

Thank you. Your comment about "exposed" is well taken and very correct specifically in relation to medium format. You are the first to make this point, but it certainly helps to answer the question !

The Forum Guidelines introductory wording specifically provides that medium format sizes are permissible "if exposed in a view camera, technical camera..., etc."

Digital backs are, by definition, medium format in size and typically attached to technical or view cameras where "exposure" takes place. Therefore related images, equipment, etc. would fall within the purview of large format by this reasoning. Likewise, medium format DSLR cameras sporting a digital back would not.

The logic is reasonable and works within the already established guidelines.

I've been involved with large format for over 35 years. I also enjoy what new technology offers in combination with LF. For that reason, I was looking for clarification on the point the OP raised.

[StoneNYC]

Stone,

Thank you. Your comment about "exposed" is well taken and very correct specifically in relation to medium format. You are the first to make this point, but it certainly helps to answer the question !

The Forum Guidelines introductory wording specifically provides that medium format sizes are permissible "if exposed in a view camera, technical camera..., etc."

Digital backs are, by definition, medium format in size and typically attached to technical or view cameras where "exposure" takes place. Therefore related images, equipment, etc. would fall within the purview of large format by this reasoning. Likewise medium format DSLR cameras sporting a digital back would not.

The logic is reasonable and works within the already established guidelines.

Wow you explained it WAY better than me! Good job!

[Racer X 69]

By the way, people that leave forums, or clubs, or any social groups in a overt, dramatic way, are just bitter and uncompromising most of the time. They try to get allies to fight their fight for them. We've all seen forums and clubs change direction. A mature person advocates for what they believe is right, attempts leadership, and gives it their best shot. If they lose, they quietly move to other places in their lives. Maybe for a while. Maybe only visiting the forum once a month instead of once a day. Because a mature person knows the winds change, and it could revert again back like they liked it after a period. And that they can still gain some knowledge, enjoyment, and offer some advice to the different status quo after the change.

I'm sad a person decides to be less involved here, but that happens, people change. But it's sadder telling people you are taking your bat and ball and going home and making a big production of it.

Nicely put Garrett.

[DennisD]

Wow you explained it WAY better than me! Good job!

But You provided the KEY !

(I can't believe it took 150+ posts to get to this point !)

[DennisD]

Nicely put Garrett.

+1

Dennis

[IanG]

Ian, 6x17cm is acceptable.

It is if it's a 6x17 back on a view camera but not if it's a dedicated camera like a Linhof, Fuji, Goaerso etc.

Ian

[hoffner]

By the way, people that leave forums, or clubs, or any social groups in a overt, dramatic way, are just bitter and uncompromising most of the time. They try to get allies to fight their fight for them. We've all seen forums and clubs change direction. A mature person advocates for what they believe is right, attempts leadership, and gives it their best shot. If they lose, they quietly move to other places in their lives. Maybe for a while. Maybe only visiting the forum once a month instead of once a day. Because a mature person knows the winds change, and it could revert again back like they liked it after a period. And that they can still gain some knowledge, enjoyment, and offer some advice to the different status quo after the change.

I'm sad a person decides to be less involved here, but that happens, people change. But it's sadder telling people you are taking your bat and ball and going home and making a big production of it.

And who are you talking about??
The person that left the forum did not even announce it on the forum. It was his friend who told us, and he could not do it in a less modest form. You're inventing someone to beat - there is no real enemy you talk about. Shame on you.

[goamules]

I'm speaking rhetorically, about others that have left.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I can't believe it took 150+ posts to get to this point...To me, the most interesting information was in post #67. I'd not heard of the Cambo Actus before that, but mention of it prompted some research. I'm now looking forward to first-hand reports on how usable it, in combination with a Sony A7R, might be when substituting for small view cameras. Whether such posts are made here or at other forums. Thanks, Sandy.

[ic-racer]

How about some reorganization of the forums to improve morale. One nice thing about software is the ability to be flexible and adapt to change.

Currently, we have, for example, discussion about scanning in the Darkroom section. Simple policing and moving to digital forum should help here without upset feelings on either side.

Currently, we have discussions of digital 35mm cameras and medium format film cameras in the "Large Format Cameras & Camera Accessories" section. That could be rectified by separation into a "Digital View Camera Photography" and "Sheet and Plate Film View Camera Photography" and "Rollfilm View Camera Photography" forums. This would eliminate the need to define "Large Format" and perhaps satisfy many of the conflicting opinions expressed in this thread.

Also, for the sake of inclusion, pinhole cameras and 'Hobo' style point-and shoot cameras would be considered view cameras and put in their respective forums above. As with any view camera, no one is going to force you to check the ground glass before you insert the film. How one uses the camera would not define what it is.

Examples:
"Can't get this 6x9cm back to work on my 4x5 Wista" -- Rollfilm View Camera Photography
"Check out my new scan back for my Sinar" -- Digital View Camera Photography
"Building an 8x20" pinhole camera" -- Sheet and Plate Film View Camera Photography
"What does front tilt do?" -- Style and Technique
"Best wetplate adapter..." -- Sheet and Plate Film Photography
"Just bought a box of C-mount video lenses..." -- Lounge
"What is the crop factor if I put my APS-sensor camera on this old wood camera I found..." -- Digital View Camera Photography
Of course there will be special cases and un-classifiable cameras and discussions, but the above seems to be a good compromise.

Opinions??

[tgtaylor]

I am not entirely clear as to what constitutes "large format" photography for this group. The forum usage guidelines state that for the purposes of this forum "large format" is defined as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film.

BUT

...



Yeah, the Forum is questioning its raison d'etre....it has lost its soul.

[chorus:]
Well, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Tell me, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
'Cause I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)

[jnantz]

How about some reorganization of the forums to improve morale. One nice thing about software is the ability to be flexible and adapt to change.

Currently, we have, for example, discussion about scanning in the Darkroom section. Simple policing and moving to digital forum should help here without upset feelings on either side.

Currently, we have discussions of digital 35mm cameras and medium format film cameras in the "Large Format Cameras & Camera Accessories" section. That could be rectified by separation into a "Digital View Camera Photography" and "Sheet and Plate Film View Camera Photography" and "Rollfilm View Camera Photography" forums. This would eliminate the need to define "Large Format" and perhaps satisfy many of the conflicting opinions expressed in this thread.

Also, for the sake of inclusion, pinhole cameras and 'Hobo' style point-and shoot cameras would be considered view cameras and put in their respective forums above. As with any view camera, no one is going to force you to check the ground glass before you insert the film. How one uses the camera would not define what it is.

Examples:
"Can't get this 6x9cm back to work on my 4x5 Wista" -- Rollfilm View Camera Photography
"Check out my new scan back for my Sinar" -- Digital View Camera Photography
"Building an 8x20" pinhole camera" -- Sheet and Plate Film View Camera Photography
"What does front tilt do?" -- Style and Technique
"Best wetplate adapter..." -- Sheet and Plate Film Photography
"Just bought a box of C-mount video lenses..." -- Lounge
"What is the crop factor if I put my APS-sensor camera on this old wood camera I found..." -- Digital View Camera Photography
Of course there will be special cases and un-classifiable cameras and discussions, but the above seems to be a good compromise.

Opinions??

hi ic-racer
i think it is a good idea
but in the end does it really matter ?

maybe it is just me, but the forum doesn't really seem broken ...
it seems pretty much the same as it has been for the past 6-8, 10 years,
just different voices, but the same old stuff ...
the only difference between this thread and past " what is large format and does " ... " belong in this forum"
threads is that it involves modern / digital technology instead of old fashioned roll film, or press cameras or ..
otherwise it is the same question that pops up every 2-3 years because of the forum's title and charter / guidelines are vague enough to interpret a few different ways ...
just like on apug, every year folks ( sometimes the same, sometimes different ) suggest in merging dpug and apug ...

[Dan Fromm]

maybe it is just me, but the forum doesn't really seem broken ...
it seems pretty much the same as it has been for the past 6-8, 10 years,
just different voices, but the same old stuff ...

+1

[Kirk Gittings]

ditto, though a clarification on the OP's point would be nice-either way It won't affect my participation really one way or another.

[jcoldslabs]

Opinions??

Personally, I'm against more classification and division around here. My favorite thing about the "Small Formats" thread is that it still has the power to surprise me with its unintentional juxtapositions. In just the past few days we've seen photos of dogs, fairground rides, wall graffiti, landscapes, portraits and architecture. To get that same melange in the large format image sharing threads I have to navigate to the "Pets" thread, the "All Things Are Photographable" thread, the "Abstracts" thread, the "LF Landscapes" thread, the "Portraits" thread and the "Architecture" thread.

I say do away with the individual LF (however so defined) image sharing threads and go for one big melting pot. :)

Jonathan

[Corran]

Actually that's not a half-bad idea. I would love to see a well-implemented user gallery system with an integrated comment/critique engine. Similar to the rangefinder forum but not so clunky.

But this is off-topic so...

[Struan Gray]

... but then again i'm probably in a minority.

A minority of at least three :-)

[Ken Lee]

Please remember that members who insist on unprofessional and discourteous conversation get warned, then banned.

[sanking]

In the Large Format home page there is a discussion, authored by Q.-Tuan Luong, of small format (2X3) field and view cameras, "which operate like 4X5 and larger view/field cameras, with bellows, movements, and ground glass."

The article states, "Although technically these 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."

In my limited experience in working with digital capture devices (medium format backs and full frame cameras) on technical cameras equipped with bellows and movements I have the same impression, i.e. working with this type of equipment requires the same techniques and mindset as when working with larger film view cameras, and the experience is remarkably similar. And my experience with film view cameras covers almost four decades, and the use of cameras ranging in size from 2X3 to 20X24.

Sandy

[Tin Can]

+1.

[Kirk Gittings]

+2.

[Alan Gales]

I've never used one but my understanding is that if you put an 80 megapixel medium format digital back on a view camera the resolution exceeds that of 4x5 film. It doesn't matter if you call it medium format digital, if it meets or exceeds the resolution of the smallest large format film doesn't that make it large format?

[Oren Grad]

I've never used one but my understanding is that if you put an 80 megapixel medium format digital back on a view camera the resolution exceeds that of 4x5 film. It doesn't matter if you call it medium format digital, if it meets or exceeds the resolution of the smallest large format film doesn't that make it large format?

It's not necessarily about resolution. Even in digital: see what Jim Collum does with his BetterLight.

[Jim Noel]

The definition of "Large Format" has definitely changed very the years. When I was learning this craft in the 30's and 40's, 4x5 was considered "Medium Format". 8x10 was large format and 5x7 was kind of in limbo. Then suddenly, I think in the 50's, 4x5 began to be called large format probably because of the large number of cameras which were being introduced using 120 film which were called medium format.
For the purpose of this forum I consider a camera which is capable of using sheet film should be considered as large format because whether it be 2 1/4 x 3 1/3 or 16x20 similar problem exist wiht film loading, exposing and processing.

[jcoldslabs]

For the purpose of this forum I consider a camera which is capable of using sheet film should be considered as large format because whether it be 2 1/4 x 3 1/3 or 16x20 similar problem exist with film loading, exposing and processing.

I've got plate/sheet film holders for my Rolleiflex, but I would not consider posting the resulting images in a large format thread, yet I am also fond of taping 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 sheet film into my Kodak No. 3 Brownie, which I would consider large format. It's a can of worms, I tell ya!

Jonathan

[Dan Fromm]

It's a can of worms, I tell ya!

Jonathan

Well, then, let's all go fishing.

[jcoldslabs]

Well, then, let's all go fishing.

Haven't we been? (Fishing for a definition, that is.)

J.

[tgtaylor]

Here's a seemingly pertinent image that I just happen to print Saturday morning:

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3839/14937694919_2b57689978_z.jpg

It's the old Life Saving Station at the Golden Gate which now houses the Ocean Climate Center at Christy Field. Salted paper print toned in platinum and gold. I made the mistake of not measuring the board and will have to go back in with the x-acto.

Thomas

[StoneNYC]

Here's a seemingly pertinent image that I just happen to print Saturday morning:

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3839/14937694919_2b57689978_z.jpg

It's the old Life Saving Station at the Golden Gate which now houses the Ocean Climate Center at Christy Field. Salted paper print toned in platinum and gold. I made the mistake of not measuring the board and will have to go back in with the x-acto.

Thomas

How is this pertinent in any way? What does this have to do with anything discussed here?

Thanks. *confused*

[Dan Fromm]

How is this pertinent in any way? What does this have to do with anything discussed here?

Thanks. *confused*

We are poor lost sheep who have lost our way,
Baa, baa, baa

[jnantz]

Here's a seemingly pertinent image that I just happen to print Saturday morning:

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3839/14937694919_2b57689978_z.jpg

It's the old Life Saving Station at the Golden Gate which now houses the Ocean Climate Center at Christy Field. Salted paper print toned in platinum and gold. I made the mistake of not measuring the board and will have to go back in with the x-acto.

Thomas

nice salt print thomas!

[Sal Santamaura]

How is this pertinent in any way? What does this have to do with anything discussed here?

Thanks. *confused*Don't feed the trolls! ;)

[Dan Fromm]

Don't feed the trolls! ;)

But Sal, curry goat is on the menu.

[gary mulder]

In the Large Format home page there is a discussion, authored by Q.-Tuan Luong, of small format (2X3) field and view cameras, "which operate like 4X5 and larger view/field cameras, with bellows, movements, and ground glass."

The article states, "Although technically these 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."

In my limited experience in working with digital capture devices (medium format backs and full frame cameras) on technical cameras equipped with bellows and movements I have the same impression, i.e. working with this type of equipment requires the same techniques and mindset as when working with larger film view cameras, and the experience is remarkably similar. And my experience with film view cameras covers almost four decades, and the use of cameras ranging in size from 2X3 to 20X24.

Sandy

For 3 years now I am using a Linhof techno with a P65 back. Emotionally things have changed. But the technic it's more ore less the same as when I am using my master tech. Economics have changed. I don’t have to get it right in 1 shot. So there is less climax. On the other hand I can exploit the light in a different way. Taking multiple shots in a short time frame end learn the effects.

[BradS]

How is this pertinent in any way? What does this have to do with anything discussed here?

Thanks. *confused*

What does it matter? It is a nice print. Maybe the post has some deeper, subtle meaning, maybe it does not. Maybe it is just a little light hearted distraction from all this serious chatter. :)

[jnantz]

What does it matter? It is a nice print. Maybe the post has some deeper, subtle meaning, maybe it does not. Maybe it is just a little light hearted distraction from all this serious chatter. :)

and it is SERIOUS!

[Sal Santamaura]

...It is a nice print...That's unfortunately rotated/skewed with respect to its overmat.

[StoneNYC]

What does it matter? It is a nice print. Maybe the post has some deeper, subtle meaning, maybe it does not. Maybe it is just a little light hearted distraction from all this serious chatter. :)

I didn't realize it was someone trolling until now since someone pointed it out, I thought it was something like a contact print and an explanation or example of large-format in someway but the person forgot to add the information.

And to answer your question

It matters a great deal. Who cares if it's a salt print, it doesn't explain anything to do with the question of what exactly is large-format photography, in fact this could've been originally a 35mm image that was then scanned onto a computer, adjusted, printed onto a clear base material and contact printed... Which would make it NOT large format...

We don't know because the person didn't actually give any real information about the image, therefore it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and doesn't belong in this thread at all. Sure I could post an image of my own print that was shot on large-format, but what does that have anything to do with anything, it doesn't, it's not valuable and non-relevant. That's why I asked. Ansell Adams could've come on here and posted an image of his own making and I still would've asked the same question because relevancy actually matters in the real world, especially in art.

Three-man pushing the flag up that was leaning sideways doesn't mean anything unless you know that they were just blasted from a giant airplane and are trying to say that America still stands, relevancy always matters...

[jnantz]

could have been made with ... ink, pixels silver paper

maybe we'll never know ...
it's still a nice print no matter how it was made ..

[cowanw]

I think Thomas is a straight up guy.
I suspect he was using a form of humour to demonstrate that if the technology of the image was not classic enough (a daguerreotype would have been better) it shouldn't be acceptable here...not...
Humour is difficult on the web. Even spelling it is fraught with risk. Choosing the correct smiley is a major source of angst, should that be required to fully explain one's intent.
I usually default to :)
I think he was saying that the image is more important than the recording media.

[BradS]

I honestly thought that he was either trying to inject a little bit of levity or attempting to show that (in essence) a salt print made from a digital negative might properly be a topic of conversation entertained here.

I really do not know nor do I really care. It is a print...if it lifts his spirits, cool!

[Sal Santamaura]

...I think he was saying that the image is more important than the recording media.


I honestly thought that he was either trying to inject a little bit of levity or attempting to show that (in essence) a salt print made from a digital negative might properly be a topic of conversation entertained here...Based on his recent posts/threads, I don't think you guys could be further off base with those conclusions.

[BradS]

Doesn't really matter to me. If Thomas posted his print as a troll...it was not a very effective post...I am not moved to anger. If it was just some random levity...whatever. Really, it just isn't that important. One post in a thread containing nearly 200 posts...like rain drops on a duck pond.

FWIW, I don't see any problem with the forum as it is / has been. For my money, sandy asked a legitimate question and vaughn answered it in post #2. The rest of this thread has been noise...now, its just getting silly.

[tgtaylor]

FWIW, it's a contact print from an 8x10 negative that I printed Saturday morning and, no, it isn't a troll but an attempt at some subtle humor. Dan Fromm comes the closest to getting it in post 185:

We are poor lost sheep who have lost our way,
Baa, baa, baa

But again I ask you:

[chorus:]
Well, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Tell me, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
'Cause I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)

Thomas

[StoneNYC]

This picture is relevant because it has the words "large format" in it :)

121217

[Adamphotoman]

So is my 72mmX96mm Betterlight digital scan back allowed? I use it in 4X5 Sinars and on a Hobolike Globuscope.
Just asking.
I sometimes use movements and sometimes not. I expose pixels instead of silver.

When I did use film I used 35mm and medium format lenses on Sinar 8X10 film and I sometimes used Large format lenses with smaller formats.

Please clarify

[goamules]

Some moderator please lock this thread out of it's misery.