What do you consider large format?

[Michael Ray]

What do you consider large format? I use a 6x9 arca with a digital back for food photography. I see that many, if not most of the posts are related to film cameras. How many of you guys use digital backs on your view cameras? It's the best of both worlds!

Thanks

MR

http://www.professionalphotography101.com

[KenM]

I consider 4x5 and larger large format.

Regarding digital backs, sorry, there's no point. There is no way to lug a laptop, batteries, and the digital back in to the backcountry. Just too heavy. For commercial work in the studio, I'm sure it's fine, but it just wouldn't work in the field where I go.

As with most things, digital backs have their place, but they're not good for all things.

[Ole Tjugen]

I consider my 6.5x9cm VAG a LF camera, since it has basic movements and takes sheet film. I'll reconsider if I get a rollfilm holder for it...

As for digital, I agree with Ken M. A sheet film holder is far more practical for field work than a digital back, a PC, a small tent, and 5000 meters of extension cord.

[Steven Dusk]

This question comes up every now and again. If it's got movements, then it's LF...

[mark blackman]

Ole,
he'll need more that 5KM of extension cord, at a standard 220 VAC there would be an awful lot of power loss. I suggest a couple of transformers at each end to set up/down to 50KV. These come in at around €5000 each and have a shipping weight of 500Kg. I'm not sure if Lowepro make a backpack capable of carry such a load?

It might just be easier to use film.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

There are probably two issues here
1/ image quality related to a minimum detector size,
2/ camera movements and how easily they can be controlled and fine-tuned.

As of 1/ image quality, we should probably acknowledge that, when the
final destination of the image is a digital file (printed images for
catalogues, newpapers, magazines, books etc, are processed 100%
digitally) half of the surface is sufficient to a silicon detector vs.
a film detector+scan. In other words, and again if the final image has to
be processed digitally, a 24x36mm silicon detector matches the
quality of a 4,5x6cm film detector + scan, a 4,5x6 cm silicon detector
will probably yield the same quality as a scanned 2"x3" (6x7 - 6x8 - 6x9 - 6,5x9cm) film
image. So as soon as we get one-shot 6x8cm silicon detectors, a 4"x5"
scanned film image will not be better if we demand digital files as
the final output. And very probably, for perfectly still subjects in colour, a
4"x5" digital scanning back is already better than a scanned 8"x10"
'chrome.

As of 2/ precise control of camera movements, it is probably easier
with the direct view of a traditional big ground glass, the larger the
better, 6x9 cm being considered a bit small by LF aficionados. Of
course you may use a binocular viewer on a 6x9, this is really more
comfortable.
But on this issue Michael could tell us more about what
kind of work he does with a silicon detector, and how he uses camera
movements, if needed.

When tethered to a high quality computer screen, the actual silicon detector size becomes irrelevant if all adjustments are made from a monitor. In many optical instruments, direct view of the optical image is combined to or even replaced by a control monitor with digitally-generated reticles and alignment marks. For example fine alignment in photolithography is made easier and more precise by looking at a computer monitor instead as a direct view through an eyepiece. Of course as an amateur I support the idea of the direct optical image with no batteries and no computers in the field... but some day for sure energy supply and image storage in digital backs will no longer be an issue. Whether I could afford such a system soon for amateur use on my family budget is another story.

Another issue is direct contact print in a 100% hand-made and analog
photochemical and optical process, 100% silicon- and computer-free.
Here LF starts probably with the 13x18cm - 5"x7" format... and no upper limit ;-);-)

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

I consider any camera that can take sheet film to be LF. Most 6X9s can take either sheet film or roll film so they count for me. A dedicated roll film camera like the fuji SW690, or whatever it is called, is MF. As for digital backs, you are probably using the same back as someone with a 4X5 so I don't see that as an issue. The extent of my digital use is scanning of 4X5 transparencies.

[Jay DeFehr]

If pressed, I'd say that LF begins where the smallest dimension of the format is over 6cm, although I don't consider 70mm LF. For me, the smallest LF is 3x4.

Jay

[Bruce Watson]

Large format to me means large image captures. I'm thinking at least 100 cm^2 here. Your 6x9 wouldn't quality under my definition.

[Donald Qualls]

Hmm.

There was a sheet film, single-frame adapter made for Contax 35 mm cameras at one time -- I see one every so often on eBay, though typically without the film holders. Presumably they could be used with cut strips of regular perforated 35 mm film as well, since the frame mask would still be 24x36 mm. There were also 6x4.5 cm sheet film backs sold on some Certo Dolly Super Sport cameras -- a 6x6 on 120 roll film camera with 6x4.5 vertical mask, the optional sheet film back would take 6x4.5 horizontal sheet film. Earlier still, there were cameras that took multiple tiny (1/4 inch circular) exposures on glass plates as small as 2x2 inches. And I don't think any of us would try to argue that the 9x18" roll film format used in the Gigapixl camera isn't "large format".

So, I have to say the definition of anything that takes sheet film being large format doesn't really fit, for me.

There have also been a number of roll film cameras with limited movements, some made as late as 1920 or so, and at least one using 120 film (most were 116 or the genuinely "large" 122 postcard format) -- and I think most of us would agree that 120 is medium format, not large. And never forget that almost every 35 mm SLR mount system has at least one shift/tilt lens available.

To me, "large format" requires a "large" negative -- nothing more. I usually draw the line at 9x12 cm, which (at 3 1/2 x 4 5/8 inches) is the common European format closest to American 4x5 inch. There were a large number of press cameras made for this format from before the First World War until the onset of the Second; they were loaded with sheet film or glass plates in single (or occasionally double) holders, with darkslides; many would accomodate roll film adapters, but in the same way a Speed Graphic or Arca Swiss would -- at the cost of severe cropping. All had at least limited movements -- rise, and often shift -- and a few had a drop bed that could act as tilt or had genuine front tilt. And all had provision for focusing on ground glass. And yes, I do include roll film formats with large negatives -- besides the relatively common A3 postcard format, I've seen roll film adapters for 4x5 cameras that took 5 inch wide paper backed film on perfectly conventional, if very large, spools, and I don't see any way to argue that if the sheet format is "large" the exactly same image on a roll isn't.

And what about the (relatively common) 4x5 box cameras, both the ones with slide-in film holders like modern ones, and the falling-plate variety? Not even to mention the dedicated film-pack type -- to me, those are all still large format, regardless of the lack of features on the camera -- they still produced negatives big enough to contact print and pass around the result without a magnifying glass. And then there are the pinhole 4x5 models -- just a box with a mount for a film holder and a pinhole at opposite sides, and one or two tripod sockets.

One might make a sensible argument that quarter plate, aka 3x4 format should be included in this reckoning -- though smaller than postcard, it's still a good bit bigger than 120 (about double the negative area of 6x9), and many of the cameras were functionally similar to the 9x12 plate cameras of the between-wars era -- but to me it's just not that much different from 116 (postcard format, OTOH, is actually a larger negative than 9x12 cm, and it was common for postcard cameras to accomodate both roll and sheet film).

[Bruce Watson]

Donald,

5" roll film, and roll film adapters, for 4x5.... interesting. Where can I learn more? And where can I learn more about this 116 postcard format and roll film for it? Not that I have an actual application for this information, but it's interesting stuff, and you never know....

[Bill_1856]

Large Format means negatives large enough to make effective contact prints. I'd say 6x9 cm for color and 3.25x4.25 for B&W.

[Robert Skeoch]

For me it would be 4x5 or larger..... ULF is larger than 8x10 in my books.

[Jay DeFehr]

Donald,

you wrote:

"One might make a sensible argument that quarter plate, aka 3x4 format should be included in this reckoning -- though smaller than postcard, it's still a good bit bigger than 120 (about double the negative area of 6x9), and many of the cameras were functionally similar to the 9x12 plate cameras of the between-wars era -- but to me it's just not that much different from 116 (postcard format, OTOH, is actually a larger negative than 9x12 cm, and it was common for postcard cameras to accomodate both roll and sheet film)."

One important differnce between 3x4 and 116 is that 3x4 is currently available in a variety of emulsions, and nearly every type of camera that was made in 4x5 format was also made in 3x4 format, ie, Graflex SLRs, Graphic press cameras, folding field cameras, etc. For me, 3x4 is unquestionably LF, and I can think of no good argument to be made against its inclusion in that category. Where the question gets sticky for me, is with large area rollfilm formats, like 6x12, and 6x17, which use MF film, but are used with LF cameras. I suppose that my resistance to considering rollfilm formats, Large Format, is inconsistent, and should be revised. So, since 6x12, and 6x17 formats require the use of LF camera equipment (mostly), and LF enlargers or contact printing, I do consider those formats Large Format.

[Mark Sawyer]

To me, it's large format if it's sheet film, as opposed to roll film. So if you shoot 6x9, it could be either one. (6x9 film holders are just so darn cute!)

Then again, I shoot 8x10, so maybe I consider everything smaller a "miniature" format. (You guys with your little toy 4x5's just aren't serious about your negatives. Hmmph...)

[Gem Singer]

Hi Michael,

Ebony is one of the major producers of large format cameras in the world. They manufacture both a folding and a non-folding camera in the 2.25X3.25 inch format. Although they are primarily designed to be used with double sided sheet film holders, these cameras are also capable of accepting adapters for roll film. Ilford makes Hp-5+ sheet film in the 2.25X3.25 inch format, and Fidelity still makes double sided film holders for that size.

Therefore, I have to conclude that cameras that are capable of taking 2.25X3.25 inch (and larger) sheet film, are to be classified as large format cameras. However, cameras that only take 2.25 inch roll film are considered to be medium format.

[Kirk Gittings]

Large Format and View Cameras are obviously not the same thing. I shoot alot of 6x9 roll film in a view camera. That is shooting medium format film in a view camera. That to me still is simply not large format. 4x5 and larger is large format. However shooting 4x5 in a Graflex is large format but not view camera. I think anything related to view cameras or large format is proper to be discussed in this forum.

[Mark Sawyer]

Which raises the question, what is a view camera? Is your graflex an slr or press camera? Is a press camera a view camera if you use the ground glass and a tripod, but not if you use the rangefinder/viewfinder and hand-hold it?

[Donald Qualls]

5" roll film, and roll film adapters, for 4x5.... interesting. Where can I learn more? And where can I learn more about this 116 postcard format and roll film for it? Not that I have an actual application for this information, but it's interesting stuff, and you never know....



There were actually more than one format for 4x5 roll film -- one goes back to about the turn of the (20th) century, when Kodak made one of their 4x5 folding cameras to accommodate both 4" wide roll film and 4x5 glass plates in holders. The Graphlex adapters came in 3x4 and 4x5 format, and used film that was as wide as the large dimension of the plate/sheet it replaced -- I can' t imagine them getting more than eight shots on a roll, possibly as few as six, and it would have been a lot slower than a Grafmatic, but there was surely a lot to be said for being able to reload in daylight (or at least in the shade). I don't recall the format number for the 4" and 5" film widths, but there's a chart somewhere on the web with all the format sizes -- film width, frame dimension, number of frames per roll, and spool dimensions.



Postcard format wasn't the same as 116 -- 116 (and its sibling 616, which came on a thinner spool, same logic as 620 vs. 120) was 70 mm unperforated film with paper backing, otherwise pretty much the same as 120; originally 6 exposures, but with advances in film allowing thinner base, eventually gave 8 exposures, 2 1/2" by 3 3/4" (barely larger than the nominal 6x9 on 120). Postcard format (122 film), and 124 were the same width, 90 mm (a couple mm wider than a 9x12 sheet, which is undersize to allow for a film sheath in a glass plate holder). Production of 116 continued until the early 1970s. The 124 had framing marks for six exposures of 3 1/4" x 4 1/4" (nominally same as quarter plate, though the film was a few mm wider), while 122 had framing for six of 3 1/4" x 5 1/2" -- the largest roll film format that was ever common or popular with consumers. Postcard was so called because it was commonly contact printed on standardized precut paper printed on the back as a postal card -- you could literally make postcards in your home darkroom if you had a 3A camera.

[Ralph Barker]

My opinion falls in the "4x5 and larger" column. Anything smaller is either medium format (both rolls and sheets) or miniature format, whether exposed in a view camera of some sort or a rollfilm camera.

[Dan Fromm]

Not to be impolite, but unless we're considering banishing individuals or barring topics, what's the point of this question? Who cares? Why should I care?

Cheers,

Dan

[tim atherton]

Exactly Dan, it raises the question - what's the point and who cares anyway.... ;-)

espcially as this site has a category for 6x9 cameras and lenses in the question topics....

[Graeme Hird]

>5x4 inches

[Jay DeFehr]

Eugene wrote:

"Therefore, I have to conclude that cameras that are capable of taking 2.25X3.25 inch (and larger) sheet film, are to be classified as large format cameras."

So, my RB67 is a Large Format camera? Who knew?!

[mark blackman]

Graeme,
You are not allowed to write 5x4 (or 4x5), that has already been claimed by Donald as an 'American'. Presumably because it was such a common film size in Brazil, Canada and other American countries. As an Australian, you are also barred from using European sized film, as demarked by Donald. You are just going to have to make up your own dimensioned format and then submit it here for all these experts to decide whether it's large format or not.

[Donald Qualls]

Mark, I'm sorry if you feel I'm "laying claim" to certain sizes -- I used those designations to clarify which were common where, not to say they were only permitted in certain locations. I'm American, live in America, and have never visited Europe, but I have two 9x12 cm plate cameras (which I consider large format) -- and it's something of a challenge to find film that fits them here, or I should say to have a choice of films. I can buy all I want, as long as it's ISO 100 B&W from either Efke or Foma.

It's simple fact, however, that 9x12, 10x15, 13x18 and 18x24 (cm) were and are more common on the Continent than the inch-based sizes or the fraction-plate sizes, though if you know where you can still buy quarter plate, half plate, and even full-plate sheet film in the UK, Europe, and the USA -- as well as centimeter size film in the USA and inch-size film in Germany or France (and both in the UK, of course). If you're willing to pay for it and don't wait too long, you may still be able to buy 9x12 cm glass plates (ISO 100) from Retro Photo in UK, part of a batch purchase from a Russian factory, the last on Earth still making glass plates AFAIK.

[Gem Singer]

Jay,

Is your RB67 capable of sliding a a Fidelity 2.25X3.25 double SHEET (cut) film holder under it's ground glass? If so, it is a very unique medium format camera.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Eugene. The Rolleiflex TLR and SL66 can take 6,5x9 glass plates & cut film. Of course only a 56x56 mm window will be exposed. The Hasselblad had, as an accessory, a 6x6 cut film holder shipped with a special pair of scissors required to pre-cut 6,5x9 film down to 63.5 squared (the story does not say if the special scissors could also cut glass plates, you never know : Sweden has a deserved reputation for top-quality steel products ;-). Ah the good old days of weird accessories in Braunschweig and Göteborg !! ;-);-)

[Gem Singer]

Emmanuel,

I'm well aware of the ability of medium format cameras to be adapted to use cut film in single-sided metal septums. I worked with Rollei TLR cameras for more than thirty years. My point is that medium format cameras do not utilize the standard double sided Fidelity-type of film holders that slide in under the ground glass after composing the picture on the ground glass. That's what makes medium format cameras different from cameras like the Ebony SV23, or the baby Speed Grapic, that are classified as large format cameras.

[Jay DeFehr]

Eugene,

you wrote:

"Therefore, I have to conclude that cameras that are capable of taking 2.25X3.25 inch (and larger) sheet film, are to be classified as large format cameras."

The Mamiya RB67 does have that capability, despite using a camera-specific holder, and being of an SLR design, which precludes the necessity of sliding the holder under a ground glass. Graflex LF SLRs didn't use standard, Fidelity-type holders, or have a GG at the film plane either. I think that the argument that the type of filmholder used is determinant, is specious at best. There are several MF cameras that are capable of using 2x3 film in standard holders, but that doesn't make them LF cameras, in my book.

Jay

[Ole Tjugen]

Well, I've now found a rollfilm back for the 6.5x9 VAG I mentioned before...

Reading through all the responses here, it seems that the definition is vaguer than ever. 8x10" Deardorffs are definitely LF, 6x9cm Bessa I's are not. But I insist my 6.5x9cm VAG is LF, even if I have a rollfilm back.

So it seems that the difference is in the movements: A LF camera has movements built into the camera, not the lens. If it uses big sheet films, it's LF regardless - even a shoe box with a pinhole is LF. If the body has no movements, AND if the body is primarily built for rollfilm (small ones, less than 6cm wide), it isn't LF.

Anyone?

[Gem Singer]

Jay,

Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

When I look at the B&H and MPEX websites, I can easily ascertain which cameras they classify as medium format and which ones as large format. Both of those dealers place the Ebony SV23 and baby Speed Graphic in the large format category. Of course, there are other examples of crossover cameras in each format. However, I think of the Ebony SV23 and the baby Speed Graphic as compact large format cameras, and you think of them as medium format cameras.

[Jay DeFehr]

It might prove instructive to look at this question from another perspective. While LF might be difficult to define, MF is far simpler. If a format can be considered MF, can it be considered LF as well?

Jay

[mark blackman]

Donald,
is that the sound of something rushing over you head? :-)

I make light of this thread because it's rather like the question about how many angels can fit on a pinhead.

If someone *thinks* they are shooting LF, then who am I to argue with them? If they enjoy the process and are striving to better their enjoyment, then good for them. They have my support 100%, and I don't give a camel's fanny if someone else thinks they are *wrong*

[Jay DeFehr]

Eugene,

I think that you're emphasizing equipment in your consideration, while I'm thinking more directly about film format. Most LF cameras are capable of using MF films and formats, and some cameras limited to MF films are used much like any LF camera. When I think of what constitutes the differences in formats, I primarily consider the size and shape of the image captured on film, which is the literal definition of the term, "format". All Medium Formats share a common 2 1/4" dimension, and only vary in the other dimension, because all MF film is 2 1/4"wide, wether in rolls or sheets. 70mm film could be considered a departure form the above rule, even though the image area is common to 120/220 films. If a hard and fast rule is needed, logic suggests that Large Format is limited to LF films, and Medium Format to MF films.

Jay

[Gem Singer]

Jay,

Using my logic, when I use a 6X9 rollfilm back on my 4X5 camera, is the camera now considered to be a medium format camera?

Is 2.25 X 3.25 inch HP-5+ sheet film considered to be large format film, or is it medium format film?

This will be my last post on the subject. You can have the last word.

[Jay DeFehr]

Eugene, a given camera can be compatible with a variety of formats, so it is possible to shoot MF with a LF camera. Wether a film comes in a roll, or cut up into sheets doesn't affect its format, which is determined by the size and shape of the image area. Make sense?

[Graeme Hird]

Mark,



My packet of Velvia claims "10.2x12.7 (4x5)", but that's a hell of a mouthful. 5x4 will do.



But like you say, who really cares what my opinion is? If someone wants to cut up a perfectly good roll of film so they can call it LF photography, who am I to stop them?



The "large" in "large format" is a relative thing anyway, isn't it? If you take note of all that spam I get in my mail each day, 4 or 5 inches is most definitely inadequate!!!!! Anything less than 8 or 10 is laughable .....

Largely Yours,
Graeme

[Harry Smart]

How do you contact print a pixel?

You contact print digital images by outputting them onto paper or film and then making your contact the usual way, of course. There are at least two books devoted specifically to this way of making images, and it's now commonplace among alt.process printers.

Harry

www.harrysmart.net

[Carsten Wolff]

Easy: Large format is not Medium Format.

So your 6x9 Arca is a Medium Format view camera that becomes a Large Format camera once you put a Large Format back on it. Any monorail, or other view camera with a digital back is just that: A technical/studio digital (view) camera.

Even a 6x17 rollfilm negative doesn't turn magically into Large Format sheet film, just because its put into a Durst 138. :)

[Turner Reich]

Anything larger than 120 roll film, ie sheet film, except less than 4x5, so 4x5 and up is large format. Movements have nothing to do with it. A 35mm with a shift lens is not larger format. An 11x14 with no movements is large format.

[Vaughn]

Who woke up this old dog?!;)

Vaughn

[Alan Davenport]

Who woke up this old dog?!;)

Indeed... I saw the subject in the list of new posts, and my first thought was "here we go again." But it's just "here we go some more," so that's OK. :confused:

[Albert Lombardi]

Now if I could only get film for it.
11964
Maybe I can adapt a 4x5 film holder to it.

[cyrus]

There's no clean line between the formats - it depends on definitions.

Some people insist that use of 120 film means you're in MF territory.
However, some people use MF film in special holders for panoramic shots using LF cameras -- 6x20 backs for example. Is that still medium format?

Others insist that the nature of the camera defines the format -- if you have removable filmholders, for example, then your in LF territory. But my RB67 uses removable filmholders, and many LF cameras use rollfilm holders.

Yet others insist that movements make it LF. But there are 35mm cameras that have shift-tilt lenses.

The bottom line is - who cares? Use the camera you have and enjoy yourself.

[jetcode]

I have an equally important debate raging right now: get up or sleep in

[Ole Tjugen]

I now have a 4.5x6cm camera that uses removable single-sheet film holders and has built-in move,ments in the camera.

So I now say that LF starts at 100 square centimeters. ;)

[Ralph Barker]

I now have a 4.5x6cm camera that uses removable single-sheet film holders and has built-in move,ments in the camera.

So I now say that LF starts at 100 square centimeters. ;)

Hmmmm. Sounds like a medium-format view camera to me. :eek:

[Ole Tjugen]

Hmmmm. Sounds like a medium-format view camera to me. :eek:

It's an old plate camera, Ernemann "Lilliput". Looks just like a "proper" 9x12cm plate camera, only much much smaller. :)

[Kirk Fry]

So having thought about this very momentous question I have solution. How do you define "Large Format"? So lets take the two words apart. I think we all can agree "format" is something like rectangle or picture frame (I suppose it could be circular or some other shape, but let's not quibble). It's the word "large" that is the sticker. One person's "large" is another person's "small". You will notice it says nothing about film, rolled or otherwise, potato buds, tin, paper, scanner, or silicon chips as the light capturing medium, nor anything about movements, ground glass, lens, film holders or whether you can actually carry it. If we can agree on "large" we are all done. So I will define large as one side of the image capturing frame being a nominal size of at least 5 inches and an aspect ratio of no more than 5 to 1 with a film area of at least 20 square inches (yes 10 x 2 works). As far as I know, no digital capture device meets this definition yet, not even the scanning backs (well the panoramic Better Light probably does). Now we are all done here and everyone knows what large format is.

:-)

K

[Martin Miksch]

rollfilm is not LF, sheetfilm is.

[cyrus]

rollfilm is not LF, sheetfilm is.

Sorry but Kirk just settled this once and for all.
Incidentally my 6x6 Rolleicord uses sheet film. I'm trying to get it to use dryplates too, but it will take some convincing...

[Hollis]

in response to the initial digital v. film issue, just use a digi. back that takes CF cards. No cables, no laptop, no worries. Actually weighs less than film and film holders.