What is Large Format??

[Andrew O'Neill]

Someone please tell me. Some people are saying using a digital slr is like large format just because they use large capture and/or using tilt shift lenses. I personally do not think that that is large format photography.

[Shen45]

I totally agree. Large format has always been "FILM" 5x4 and above.

I was very dissappointed to see a recent post with a stitched image. I make no comment on the content but it is not large format. I don't beleive the author was seriously claiming it as large format, well I hope he wasn't.

[Jim Noel]

Andrew,
I agree with you.
When I was young, in the 1930's and 40's, 35mm was called miniature. 120 through 5x7 was called medium format. Large format was 8x10 and bigger with the banquet cameras in a special category.

[Shen45]

Looks like I'm not as old as you Jim :)

[naturephoto1]

Hi Andrew,

As far as I am concerned and as far as I know, large format in todays terms refers to cameras of 4 X 5 or 9 cm X 12 cm or larger. When working with shift lenses as with the the Canon Tilt and Shift lens (and stitching), or shift lenses with medium format cameras they are simulating the movements offered by large format cameras. The same would apply to those medium format cameras with rise, fall, shift, swing, and tilt capabilities such as the Fuj 6 X 8 or the Linhof 6 X 9 Technikas and Technikardans.

Rich

[QT Luong]

Those people are saying it is *like* large format photography.

What exactly is disappointing in someone posting a stitched image ?

[Shen45]

It is dissappointing if it is pretending to be large format. Still every conterfeit is.

Steve

[Eric James]

Those people are saying it is *like* large format photography.

What exactly is disappointing in someone posting a stitched image ?

Hi Tuan,

I don't see anything wrong with stitched images or posting a stitched image, but for me, a stitched image is fundamentally and substantially different than an image derived from a single capture. Certainly, stitching images is a worthwhile and challenging pursuit. Some might view the distinction from an ethics perspective - I'm thinking of it as a style or esthetic issue. As an analogy you'll easily grasp (even from your European perspective:) ): free climbing is to aid climbing as single capture images are to composites. I think of free climbing as a purer pursuit; aid has it's own appeal, but I've always thought of aiding as a matter of necessity for a given route. Similarly, I think of single image capture as an esthetically purer pursuit - where the photographer is in the moment with the light, to make art.

Andrew,

I think of large format photography as 4X5 or larger. The Ebony 6X9 system, the Fuji 680 III system and the Horseman backs are on the other side of the line. I’m not sure where I think 6X17 belongs.

[BradS]

What exactly is disappointing in someone posting a stitched image ?

Are you serious? or are you baiting us?

[Chris Strobel]

I think that someone was me, and no I in no way claim it to be a large format shot even though the file is 297mb at 360ppi.I'm sorry you were dissapointed with it :( Oh well at least Grandma likes it :)




I totally agree. Large format has always been "FILM" 5x4 and above.

I was very dissappointed to see a recent post with a stitched image. I make no comment on the content but it is not large format. I don't beleive the author was seriously claiming it as large format, well I hope he wasn't.

[BradS]

Those people are saying it is *like* large format photography.


Yes, and eating fish that you bought in a super market is *like* eating fish that you caught yourself earlier that morning....

shot gunning a scene with a miniture format camera and having a computer program stitch the multiple, overlapping imgages together, whatever the result, is to my sensibilities fundamentally different from largeformat photogrphy. It is neat and can produce stunning images but, it is absolutely, certainly not what I think of when I think of large format photography.

[Marko]

Large Format in the sense that we have been using it on this board should mean any image taken with a view camera and using an image area common to these cameras, regardless of the capture medium and the number or duration of exposures needed for it.

A roll film back on a view camera would still produce a LF negative, provided it is 6x12 or larger. 6x7 or 6x9 roll film holders on a view camera are obviously borderline cases, although some still consider them LF, sort of, because of the movements. Anything 4x5 or larger is by default considered LF.

Attaching an adapter to the view camera that allows a MF digital back to capture either a single frame or a stitching series, under the same constrains, should therefore still technically be considered LF. Taking this thought further, why not apply the same logic to any capture medium that can be attached to the view camera back and that could produce the capture of the appropriate area?

Conversely, simply producing a stitched image using a regular small format (or MF) camera by itself (i.e. not attached to a view camera) would definitely NOT be LF, regardless of the medium. It would still be a small format (MF) image, only resulting from a BIG file.

I hope this makes sense.

[Eric James]

I think that someone was me, and no I in no way claim it to be a large format shot even though the file is 297mb at 360ppi.I'm sorry you were dissapointed with it :( Oh well at least Grandma likes it :)

I love this: "...I in no way claim it to be a large format shot..."

I suppose it doen't matter what it is - grandma like it!


Has anyone ever looked at a good Tango scan of their 11X14 negative or transperancy at max. res.? How big are those 16 bit files?


Marko, I understand partly why you believe 6X12 on a view camera constitutes LF. I can't say that I disagree with you - but the 6cm dimension bothers me.

[Brian Ellis]

I totally agree. Large format has always been "FILM" 5x4 and above..

That's an interesting notion. William Henry Jackson and many others of his era would certainly be surprised to learn that their 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20 cameras weren't large format cameras because they used wet plates rather than film. And if I put a digital back on my 4x5 camera then it's no longer large format? What if I make paper negatives with my 8x10 camera, wouldn't it be o.k. for me to call 8x10 LF even though I'm not using film?

[tim atherton]

I think of large format photography as 4X5 or larger. The Ebony 6X9 system, the Fuji 680 III system and the Horseman backs are on the other side of the line. I’m not sure where I think 6X17 belongs.

6x9 (and other similar formats) when using a view type camera with movements have always had a place on this forum. In the original version they even had their own section

There's also never been a problem dicussing the likes of current panning-lens cameras every now and then - which have pretty large area of film - and can even have shifts....

[tim atherton]

Are you serious? or are you baiting us?

why? is it that easy... :)

[tim atherton]

That's an interesting notion. William Henry Jackson and many others of his era would certainly be surprised to learn that their 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20 cameras weren't large format cameras because they used wet plates rather than film. And if I put a digital back on my 4x5 camera then it's no longer large format? What if I make paper negatives with my 8x10 camera, wouldn't it be o.k. for me to call 8x10 LF even though I'm not using film?

Just so long as you realise daguerreotypes aren't Large Format...

[Ole Tjugen]

Has anyone ever looked at a good Tango scan of their 11X14 negative or transperancy at max. res.? How big are those 16 bit files?

No, but I've looked at a good Imacon scan of a 5x7" transparency. The 8 bit file is 350 Mb.


Marko, I understand partly why you believe 6X12 on a view camera constitutes LF. I can't say that I disagree with you - but the 6cm dimension bothers me.

My own "borderline example" is the little old plate cameras. The 9x12cm Bergheil I would count as LF, even if it has limited movements (front rise and shift only). By analogy the 6.5x9cm Bergheil must also be LF.
But now I've got hold of a 4.5x6cm plate camera with the same movements - and there's no way I'd call that "Large" Format!

[tim atherton]

seriously though - as technology continues to change, there will always be some on this list who will experiment with it, especially in terms of seeing how it compares to existing technique (stitching, for example, while clunky, also removes some of the limitations traditional technology imposes - for some, that's an advantage)

As far as I know, this isn't a APUG, nor is it the Large Format Preservation Society. I'm not sure what the point is of getting all Amish about it?

I think there's plenty of room for it

[Saulius]

Those people are saying it is *like* large format photography.

What exactly is disappointing in someone posting a stitched image ?

An image may attain a large file size by stitching numerous images together, and although size does matter (more to some than others ;) ) it by itself does not make it large format. I think it's appropriate to talk about stitched large format negatives and post such images on this forum, but posting stitched non lf negatives and discussing it I don't really think belongs on a large format photography forum in my humble opinion.

Tuan, from your own home page:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/why.html


What is a Large format camera ?
That's grand-dad's bellows box-like camera, where you had to disappear under a dark cloth. The principle remains the same, however nowadays they have evolved into precise and sophisticated instruments.
With a few notable exceptions, these cameras share the following characteristics:

Large image size: 4x5 inches (10x12cm), the most popular format by far, up to 20x24 inches (the Polaroid camera, which can be rented on-site for a reasonable fee). The film comes in separate sheets rather than rolls, but see below.
Flexible bellows connecting the front and back: they allow the use of a range of focal lengths (with different lenses. there are no zooms in such formats) and focussing distances, as well as providing for lateral adjustments and angular adjustments between film plane and lens plane.
Ground glass viewing: makes it possible to assess the image with great accuracy once you get used to the dimness and inversion.
Interchangeable lenses: you are not limited to a particular mount.
By contrast, Medium format cameras use roll-film which is 6cm wide so that the format available on those cameras are (all in cm) 4.5x6, 6x6, 6x7,6x9,6x12,6x17. Therefore they produce image whose size is less than that produced by large format cameras (hence the name). The vast majority of medium format cameras operate a bit like 35mm cameras ("small format") and in particular don't have features 2,3,4. However, a few medium format cameras share these features, and are also considered on this web site, since they actually operate like large format cameras. On the other hand, with almost all the large format cameras it is possible to use roll-film holders of various sizes and to therefore produce medium-format images.
What are the main benefits of the large format camera ?
Larger image size. Results are sharper, have a better tonality, and are grain-free. A 4x5 has 13 times the area of a 35mm frame. A 5x7 has 25 times that area. Contact printing gives an image whose delicacy cannot be matched by any enlargment, and allow a number of "alternative" processes.
Camera movements. You have more control on the final geometry of the photographed objects and of the perspective as well as on the areas of sharpness.
Individual sheets of film. You can use as many types of film as you like easily, easily, including Polaroid, and process each sheet of film individually for optimum results. The latter point makes it possible to use Ansel Adams Zone System for black and white film.
Contemplative approach. You take your time for each image This is the flip-side of the drawbacks: you spend so much time on a single exposure, and invest so much effort in it that you're compelled to think it through carefully and do it right.

[Brian Ellis]

"What is Large Format??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone please tell me"

There is no precise, universally accepted definition of the term so no one can tell you. All you can get are expressions of opinion.

[Walter Calahan]

If Grandma likes it, then who cares what others think. Grin.

[Marko]

Marko, I understand partly why you believe 6X12 on a view camera constitutes LF. I can't say that I disagree with you - but the 6cm dimension bothers me.

The only reason why I consider 6x12 LF is because it is a derivative of the 4x5 as the smallest LF standard along the longer side. And then only if it is taken with a view camera. OK, 9x12cm is smaller, but for all practical purposes they are simply variants of the same format due to differences in measuring systems.

Speaking of formats, I don't think there is anything special about any of the existing "standards" - besides being (seemingly) arbitrary, they are also a matter of perspective. 6x7 is large compared to 35mm, small compared to 4x5 and positively tiny compared to ULF.

We are basically left with three possibilities defining what does and what does not belong to LF:

1. The size of the capture area - as noted above

2. Print size (how do we determine the bottom line?)

3. Camera type - this is the easiest constraint as the view camera is rather distinctive

And then there are new, digital formats that are different than the existing film formats - and by "format" I mean physical dimensions of the capture area - which are mostly smaller than comparable film formats but are generally capable of outperforming them.

So, keeping all this in mind, how do we define Large Format at the time when all the format boundaries are getting increasingly blurred? I don't know the answer, I barely know enough to formulate the question.

[Eric James]

Just to be on record: I not arguing where the line should rest, and as Brian E. points out, I'm not sure it matters. Great thread!

[roteague]

Those people are saying it is *like* large format photography.

What exactly is disappointing in someone posting a stitched image ?

I think you have lost touch....

[Capocheny]

Andrew,

I agree with you... stitching digital images isn't, IMHO, large format!

Frankly, if I wanted to talk about stitching digital images together... I would go to a digital forum.

I'll stay with 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and larger as "LARGE FORMAT".... and film!

Just my humble opinion. :)

Cheers

[domenico Foschi]

Great thread! :(

[QT Luong]

Instead of making "smart" comebacks, explain what you think is disappointing with Chris post, and maybe we can try to have a constructive dialogue. That is, if you have anything positive to say.

[Denis Pleic]

To me, "large format photography" refers to images produced using a large format camera.
"Large format camera" by general consent nowadays usually means cameras from 4x5 (or 9x12 cm) format upwards. Formats exceeding 8x10 (i.e. 11x14 an larger) nowadays are generally considered "ULF" cameras.
That's only my general feeling, from what I gathered since I joined Large Format Potography Forum two years ago.

Besides, Saulius has already provided the appropriate quote from LFF intro page (see above).

I visit LFF discussions because I'm interested in large format cameras of all types, and this is the forum dedicated to such cameras. If this forum continues to include and discuss more and more content related to digital (small and medium format) cameras, it will lose much of its appeal to me.

There are countless other sites and forums on the Internet dedicated to digital imaging, but LFF is the ONLY forum dedicated EXCLUSIVELY to large format cameras - that's what makes it worth visiting - at least to me. I'm also a member of apug, and I've always understood and accepted that LFF is not as strict as apug regarding digital content. As long as digital remains a minor part of the content and discussions offered here, that's OK with me. I never had any problems with posts related to scanning, digital backs for LF cameras, etc.

However, I draw a line at trying to pass a stitched image taken with a DSLR as "large format" image. IMHO, that's nonsense. The image was not taken using a large format camera - period. No need for further explanations.

Just my 2 cents....

Denis

[Struan Gray]

I think it is interesting to see what stitching can acheive, and to me it is valuable and interesting to see examples of the latest technology as interpreted by those with an LF background.

Chris' photo in the new photo posting thread is a nice example: unlike almost all stitches I have seen, the vanishing point is not dead centre. This gives the photo a flow, a gesture, that a more conventional pointing of the camera would not have. No big surprise for LF-ers who have played with shift on a wide-angle lens, but it is interesting for me to see how such effects can be had with a different technology.

But, I don't want this to become another digi forum, or one that is flooded with the latest fads in digital imaging. There's a line to be drawn *somewhere*. As with most issues I think we can trust to the restraint and good sense of the members, with the lounge and the moderators acting as buffers against the few who that lack those qualitites.

[Craig Griffiths]

If we define large format as being solely based on the film (or camera) size used, then the image is definately not a large format image, and while interesting, may not be relevant to the forum. However, if we define large format in a broader sense, then this stitched image is indeed a "large format" image.

I dont think there is a right answer to the question, it is one of those philosophical discussions I would love to have late at night in front of an open fire and a bottle of port.

[Greg Lockrey]

Large format is 108cm2 film on up. What should we call a 50mp and on up digital image verses a 12-16mp one? And then what should it be called at 100mp, 200mp, then 300mp or that 416mp? This is also whether it is stitched or non-stitched.

[Bill_1856]

If it's big enough to be contact printed and hung on a wall, then it's Large Format.

[Geert]

If it's big enough to be contact printed and hung on a wall, then it's Large Format.

You make it easy.

Make a digitally printed negative on , let's say, 8x10" from the stitched image and it will become Large Format (mind the capitals)? That way, I can turn a minox into LF.

A lot of people here don't contact print. They use LF gear and print by computer. You just stated that they don't work in/with Large Format.

For me, the nomen Large Format relates to the equipment used in making the source for a print, let it be film or a digital medium, AND the high qualities in resolution or lpm of the source.

That reminds me to the blister I saw at a supermarket counter last year (forgot the brand): "250 Mb film for your camera". Speaking of abusing naming conventions.

G

[Matus Kalisky]

- Bill -

hm, I shoot 4x5 and making a contact print and hang it on the wall might be a bit too small - maybe suitable for a home toilet.

Am I then shooting toilet Large format ..? :(

Matus

[Greg Lockrey]

- Bill -

hm, I shoot 4x5 and making a contact print and hang it on the wall might be a bit too small - maybe suitable for a home toilet.

Am I then shooting toilet Large format ..? :(

Matus

If you lived in a tent, 4x5, 8x10 would be big prints to hang on your walls.:)

[Henry Ambrose]

When I visit a forum whose subject is "wooden canoes" I don't really want to see a thread about fiberglass powerboats. That's not why I came.

If I visit that wooden canoe forum regularly, I may learn that the other folks there have and use fiberglass powerboats. I might even enjoy seeing photos of their powerboats, especially if they were using them in conjunction with wooden canoes. But a very little bit of powerboat talk on a wooden canoe forum can be plenty.

Kind of like black pepper, which might be a nice addition to my food, a little bit goes a long way.

[Jim Galli]

If you put a sliding back on a 4X5 camera similar to the ones that Burke and James used to offer and it slid a digital capture area to say 9 or 12 different areas within the 4X5 total and the rest was obviously a large format camera ie. bellows, and lens that covers the large format, then stitched all that stuff together to make a digital image of the LARGE total capture area combined, I'd have a lot easier time with it.

I just can't get my brain around a digital SLR the size of a 35mm camera being called large format. 6 years ago if I'd taken my 35mm Nikon FE and made 9 frames, scanned them and cobbled them together in photo shop and claimed it was a large format photo because the total capture area was, well, sort of large when it's all combined together............would that have flown? I don't think so.

You'll pummel me with your exceptions but I think I will always consider a LF camera as one with independent front and rear standard areas with a bellows in between and movements to aid the focus of a lens that covers a LARGE format area. You can fuss all you want about what that area is but I think 20 sq in is about the entry point with some exceptions noted.

So I'm saying front standard, rear standard, bellows, movements, lens that covers minimum 20 in sq. = large format. :cool:


Here's a large format shot of some mountain sheep. I did it with my 2.7 mp Nikon. The file is 284mb. So that makes it large format. Pardon the lossy jpeg please:

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/LargeFormatSheep.jpg

[Kirk Gittings]

To QT from Roteague
I think you have lost touch....

Say what? I think not.

Many of the people who are confused by the definition of LF appear to be fairly new to the forum. The fact is that this issue has been discussed in depth many many times in the past. Though it may be hard to define the parameters, do a search.

In addition......

Stitching is relevant to LF, even if it is not truly LF, because it is oftentimes compared to LF as a means of generating large, highly detail files. It is promoted as a suitable replacement to LF. Being able to discuss such issues is useful to understanding the value of LF in this rapidly changing technological environment.

Also....

If you look at the recent surveys of the members of this forum, you will also see that a film/digital hybrid workflow dominates the methods used by members. No matter how you define LF, whether you are old school film/chemical or are a scan back/injet techno wheenie, there has always been room for you here largely because of the vision of QT Luong. Not only is he not out of touch, he has always understood the history and potential of LF and incorporated that vision in how he has led this forum.

[jnantz]

So I'm saying front standard, rear standard, bellows, movements, lens that covers minimum 20 in sq. = large format. :cool:


hey jim

i have a box camera that shoots on 4x5 ...

no bellows, not front / rear standards
guess it isn't large format :)

john

[Jim Galli]

hey jim

i have a box camera that shoots on 4x5 ...

no bellows, not front / rear standards
guess it isn't large format :)

john


You'll pummel me with your exceptions but.....

[Struan Gray]

Chris' photo in the new photo posting thread....

I meant, of course, ageorge's photo. Apologies.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here's where I might split that hair.

Put a DSLR on the back of a 4x5" camera with a sliding back and use rear shift and rise to produce the composite image, and that's more like LF to me, because the image still has a single point of perspective and the movements of the view camera are still available to the sensor. There wouldn't be much difference between using a DSLR and a digital back in this application, and I think we would general consider the use of a digital back on an LF camera as within the topic of the forum.

Shoot a bunch of pictures with a DSLR and stitch them, so that the lens moves for each image, and that doesn't seem very much like LF to me. Often these images look a little off, because of this mobile perspective. Multiperspectivalism could be interesting in a David Hockney kind of way, but in most of the examples I've seen here, it just looks a little off, like someone couldn't be bothered to get the LF camera out of the case.

I don't regard any rollfilm format as LF, but the forum has traditionally and I think appropriately been open to discussion of view cameras of various formats, despite being called the "LF" forum. By contrast I think the f32.net forum was only open to 4x5" and larger.

[tim atherton]

Shoot a bunch of pictures with a DSLR and stitch them, so that the lens moves for each image, and that doesn't seem very much like LF to me. Often these images look a little off, because of this mobile perspective. Multiperspectivalism could be interesting in a David Hockney kind of way, but in most of the examples I've seen here, it just looks a little off, like someone just couldn't be bothered to get the LF camera out of the case.
.


To me (as a LF photographer) this is one of the potentialities that's so exciting and potentially productive about this.

Perspective is really just a social and historical construct and it's not inevitable. Photography has been bound tightly by perspective for far too long. Being able to make large (format...?) images that break out of this is very interesting to say the least.

Now, just because some of the practitioners are still grappling with how, in the early stages, to make use of this - "most of the examples I've seen here, it just looks a little off" - isn't to me, a reason to exclude it.

[Jim Galli]

Here's where I might split that hair.

Put a DSLR on the back of a 4x5" camera with a sliding back and use rear shift and rise to produce the composite image, and that's more like LF to me, because the image still has a single point of perspective and the movements of the view camera are still available to the sensor. There wouldn't be much difference between using a DSLR and a digital back in this application, and I think we would general consider the use of a digital back on an LF camera as within the topic of the forum.


This is exactly what I was trying to convey in my last post, except as always with David, said much better.

[jnantz]

You'll pummel me with your exceptions but.....

thing is jim, i have no expectations :)

[Brian C. Miller]

Does stitching really constitute large format? Imaging a scene with many moving objects. With one click of the shutter the entirety of the scene is captured. The relation between objects is retained.

Now consider the poor man's scanning back (inching a digital camera across the plane) or a professional scanning back, or a digital camera on a specialized tripod mount. How would the scene above be rendered? The same as the film camera? Of course not. A recent test in MAGNAchrom demonstrated that a scanning back can't even keep up with shadows, let alone a bird in flight.

I and some others on the forum use press cameras. It is easy for us to follow the spontaneity of life with LF.

[John Kasaian]

"Large Format" is really a pretty ambiguious term that pre-dates digital capture. In order to distiguish the difference it needs a modifier such as "Digital" Large Format. This would designate a difference between "digital large format" and "large format" which suggests the defining difference between large format and digital large format is properly the process used. I think the differences between conventional and digital processes are more than enough to support this.

[Jim Galli]

Wonder if Steve will start running stitched pics from DSLR's in View Camera magazine? Hey Steve, Whaddya say?

[Andrew O'Neill]

I certainly have no problem if someone stitches together 4x5 or larger negatives on their computer. I do have a problem when someone stitches digital slr...or 35mm film together for that matter, and says its like LF.
I am not confused about what LF is. I just wanted to hear what other people had to say.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Wonder if Steve will start running stitched pics from DSLR's in View Camera magazine? Hey Steve, Whaddya say?

I hope not. There are a million magazines on the rack that deal with this subject...but I wouldn't mind reading an article in VC about stitching LF negatives.

[Marko]

If it's big enough to be contact printed and hung on a wall, then it's Large Format.

I wonder how does one contact print an image from a Better Light back? :)

[Ash]

I wonder how does one contact print an image from a Better Light back? :)

Using Archive Inks and a VERY expensive printer :D

[Oren Grad]

I wonder how does one contact print an image from a Better Light back? :)

Now there's a product idea - a matching LED printing panel that gets sandwiched with the printing paper and scans across it to expose it with the image data recorded by the scan back... ;)

[ageorge]

Well I guess I am in the minority. For me, large format photography is defined by the amount of data collected at capture time. Whether it be 4x5, 8x10, etc. film/polariod/collodion/etc., a scanning back, large single shot digital sensors or stitching. Given the large amount of variation in equipment, process, techniques of what is traditionally called "large format", I don't see why stitching brings out such venom. I shoot both with a 4x5 and with stitching a 1dsII. I choose the equipment based on conditions, subject matter and previsualization, but the output is the same, large format B&W prints. I can easily equal, even surpass, the print quality of 4x5 with stitching, so there is no quality issues that come into play with the equipment choice. Actually, if subject matter permits and very large B&W prints at the highest quality are the goal, I would currently choose stitching over 4x5 film. I current choose film for dynamic subjects (eg moving water), long exposures, and high but not extreme dynamic range conditions (stitching and HDR for extreme DR). But I digress....

So, can anyone put forth a reasonable argument for excluding stitching from "large format" that does not exclude some other traditional large format equipment or technique? Luddites need not apply:-)~

[steve simmons]

For View Camera the defination is either

6x9 or larger

or one of the smaller cameras designed to use a 35mm body but with movements


steve simmos

[Ash]

Edit: nevermind, ignore me :)

[Marko]

ageorge,

It seems it is not stitching per se that draws the venom but digital. If you look closely, you'll notice that most if not all of the anti-stitching crowd is made up of film-only guys.

That being said, Large Format for me is primarily defined by the type of the camera used. The amount of data is a shifting quantity these days and so is the possible output size and quality.

View Camera is, IMO, what makes the biggest difference in the acquisition method and therefore the clearest identifier of Large Format.

Let's say you use a small or medium format camera as a sliding back on a view camera to cover the 4x5 area or its derivative as a minimum. You have movements with all they provide and you have the capture area, therefore it IS large format in the sense we all think of it.

But if you used the same camera alone to take equal amount of frames and then stitch them to end up with the image of the same size and amount of detail, it still would NOT be large format. It would only be a very large small format image.

[Nick_3536]

If I take a sleeve of 35mm negatives and contact print it. Is that large format?

[Brian C. Miller]

But Marko, then you use the PS controls and apply virtual movements to the virtual LF image, so you've wound up with a virtual LF camera, right?

[Matt Logue]

Hi - interesting discussion. I will drop a short note to the people who seem to disdain digital capture and stitching. Contrary to what seems to be a pretty widely held belief, there is serious work being done with stitching - we're not all running around with point and shoots, "shotgunning" a scene and seeing what comes out the other end. As someone who is doing a personal project that involves stitching (as well as making 4x5 negs, and panoramic film negs), stitching is just another tool in the toolbox for making images. It can be used to make compelling or boring images.

Having said all that, I can understand the frustration of wanting to read about large format images made with view cameras, and having digitally stitched images show up on the forum.

[ageorge]

If I take a sleeve of 35mm negatives and contact print it. Is that large format?

Would you consider the result a complete image? Probably not. A stitch is a complete image.

[ageorge]

For View Camera the defination is either

6x9 or larger

or one of the smaller cameras designed to use a 35mm body but with movements


steve simmos

So from this perspective, it would be more correct to rename this to the "View Camera Photography Forum", no?

[Nick_3536]

Would you consider the result a complete image? Probably not. A stitch is a complete image.

Of course it's an image.

[ageorge]

Large format camera???
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/media/product_size/UltProOPP-XT.jpg

[naturephoto1]

No.

[ageorge]

If I take a sleeve of 35mm negatives and contact print it. Is that large format?


Would you consider the result a complete image? Probably not. A stitch is a complete image.


Of course it's an image.

Not a complete one, it's just a contact sheet. Is it what you would consider a "finished" image? I mount and exhibit stitched images, are you doing the same with your contact sheets?

[tim atherton]

Of course it's an image.

is it a Picture?

[tim atherton]

Not a complete one, it's just a contact sheet. Is it what you would consider a "finished" image? I mount and exhibit stitched images, are you doing the same with your contact sheets?

some people have - the photograph taken in effect by moving the 35mm camera in "stitching" fashion and then the contact sheets exhibited

[SAShruby]

Large format is an archaic expression to define the area of capture. It is not a definition how... 4x5 and more is the area commonly defined as large format. Digitally or not, does not matter. Mutliple shots are not large formats. Stiching is process not a Large format.

I definitely would stick to old definition. With respect to process, It does not matter.
I the optical sensor larger or equal 4x5, it will be large format.

Cheers.

[Saulius]

Large format camera???
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/media/product_size/UltProOPP-XT.jpg

Nope.

[David A. Goldfarb]

There are artistic uses of the 35mm contact sheet, but they seem to be mainly "about" the smallformatness of the project or perhaps about the editing process or the process of photography.

One of the more interesting exercises of this sort that a lot of people who study at the Art Center in Pasadena seem to do is to shoot a whole roll of 35mm color film as a visual narrative or long sequenced composition and to contact print it as a single long strip.

These are interesting things, but they aren't large format.

[Alan Davenport]

Man, do I ever love these threads. Let's take a photographic term and argue about what it means. Never mind that the particular term, in this case "large format" has never had a universally agreed-upon definition. OK, I'm up for it!

I'm enough younger than Jim to consider 4x5 and larger to be "large" formats. Larger than 35mm, but smaller than 4x5, is "medium format." 35mm and smaller are not medium formats, and they are certainly not large.

A lot seems to be made of using view cameras, and cameras with view camera-like movements, to define what might be large format. There have been tilt/shift lenses for 35mm cameras for decades, but I never heard those called "large format." Nor does an adapter that lets us attache a 35mm or digital body behind the standards and bellows of a view camera, make the resulting photos large format; it creates a 35mm view camera! What about cameras like the Hobo -- with an 8x10 (or larger) piece of film, but no movements at all (except focus?) I submit that any camera that uses 8x10 film is large format by any workable definition, therefore we can't use camera movements to define LF.

Moving on to the next claim -- image size or file size. I can scan a 35mm negative at some ridiculous alleged resolution like 9,600 dpi (which my scanner's software offers even though the manufacturer doesn't claim anywhere near that resolution.) That's going to give me a rather large file, in fact over 400 MB. Since I've already eliminated camera movements from my criteria, it looks like I can now claim my Canon FTb is a large format camera. Wrong! The ability to generate huge files and huge images does not define those images, nor the cameras that make them, as large format!

Now to the next contender, stitched images. I'm certainly not disappointed in the quality of stitched photos! However, (see the previous paragraph) I don't see these as large format photography, since stitched images are almost without exception made with images from 35mm-sized, and smaller, digital sensors. (If someone has stitched together a bunch of BetterLight frames, that might qualify as LF.) Never mind the fact that image stitching is maturing into an available technology that is going to eliminate the need for the resolution and detail of large sheets of film. Digital image stitching is going to be the final nail in the coffin that buries mass-market film production from the big corporations. With the ability to generate billboard-sized prints that will require a magnifier to see the finest details, who's going to need film of any size? Only the photographers who want to use it. But the fact remains that stitched photos of any size, are still photographed using small format cameras. Large stitched images, like overly-enlarged 35mm photos, do not equate to large format.

No, image size and file size have nothing to do with whether it is large format. In fact the word "format" as used in large format, refers exclusively to the size of the media used in the camera. For me, "Large Format" is 4x5 or larger, but we all came into this discussion with our own definitions of this never-well-defined term, and there's never going to be consensus! Now this worm's gonna crawl back into the can.

Good light to you all.....

[SAShruby]

Man, do I ever love these threads. Let's take a photographic term and argue about what it means. Never mind that the particular term, in this case "large format" has never had a universally agreed-upon definition. OK, I'm up for it!

I'm enough younger than Jim to consider 4x5 and larger to be "large" formats. Larger than 35mm, but smaller than 4x5, is "medium format." 35mm and smaller are not medium formats, and they are certainly not large.

A lot seems to be made of using view cameras, and cameras with view camera-like movements, to define what might be large format. There have been tilt/shift lenses for 35mm cameras for decades, but I never heard those called "large format." Nor does an adapter that lets us attache a 35mm or digital body behind the standards and bellows of a view camera, make the resulting photos large format; it creates a 35mm view camera! What about cameras like the Hobo -- with an 8x10 (or larger) piece of film, but no movements at all (except focus?) I submit that any camera that uses 8x10 film is large format by any workable definition, therefore we can't use camera movements to define LF.

Moving on to the next claim -- image size or file size. I can scan a 35mm negative at some ridiculous alleged resolution like 9,600 dpi (which my scanner's software offers even though the manufacturer doesn't claim anywhere near that resolution.) That's going to give me a rather large file, in fact over 400 MB. Since I've already eliminated camera movements from my criteria, it looks like I can now claim my Canon FTb is a large format camera. Wrong! The ability to generate huge files and huge images does not define those images, nor the cameras that make them, as large format!

Now to the next contender, stitched images. I'm certainly not disappointed in the quality of stitched photos! However, (see the previous paragraph) I don't see these as large format photography, since stitched images are almost without exception made with images from 35mm-sized, and smaller, digital sensors. (If someone has stitched together a bunch of BetterLight frames, that might qualify as LF.) Never mind the fact that image stitching is maturing into an available technology that is going to eliminate the need for the resolution and detail of large sheets of film. Digital image stitching is going to be the final nail in the coffin that buries mass-market film production from the big corporations. With the ability to generate billboard-sized prints that will require a magnifier to see the finest details, who's going to need film of any size? Only the photographers who want to use it. But the fact remains that stitched photos of any size, are still photographed using small format cameras. Large stitched images, like overly-enlarged 35mm photos, do not equate to large format.

No, image size and file size have nothing to do with whether it is large format. In fact the word "format" as used in large format, refers exclusively to the size of the media used in the camera. For me, "Large Format" is 4x5 or larger, but we all came into this discussion with our own definitions of this never-well-defined term, and there's never going to be consensus! Now this worm's gonna crawl back into the can.

Good light to you all.....

Didn't I just said that?

[ageorge]

No, image size and file size have nothing to do with whether it is large format. In fact the word "format" as used in large format, refers exclusively to the size of the media used in the camera. For me, "Large Format" is 4x5 or larger, but we all came into this discussion with our own definitions of this never-well-defined term, and there's never going to be consensus! Now this worm's gonna crawl back into the can.


So using this definition there is no such thing as digital "large format". I hear the Luddites cheering already:) The closest thing would be the BetterLight back which is only 3x4 inches, but even if we made a exception for the BetterLight, it is a scanning back. It is effectively "stitching" an image together from each scan line. Which technically is not that much different that 35mm stitching.

[BradS]

Alan got it right!

[Dick Hilker]

When I want to make a panoramic shot with my 4 X 5, I might merge 2 or 3 frames in Photoshop, just as I would with smaller formats: does that disqualify them as LF?

[SAShruby]

When I want to make a panoramic shot with my 4 X 5, I might merge 2 or 3 frames in Photoshop, just as I would with smaller formats: does that disqualify them as LF?

No, you've met the criteria of minimum area of the capture.
Again, it does not matter what you do, how you do, why you do etc, at least one size of the capture meets the criteria, which is 4x5 or larger.

Cheers.

[Marko]

Again, it does not matter what you do, how you do, why you do etc, at least one size of the capture meets the criteria, which is 4x5 or larger.
Cheers.

But then again, 4x5 itself is entirely arbitrary to begin with, just as most of the other existing formats.

How do we classify Better Light? Its capture area is smaller, but it uses both the view camera with all the movements and the lens. On the other hand, it uses a laptop instead of the ground glass...

And what is the difference between a 35mm P&S and a 8x10 one? A P&S is a P&S, isn't it? What would be the merit of the later for discussing it in this forum as compared to the above mentioned BL back?

[SAShruby]

But then again, 4x5 itself is entirely arbitrary to begin with, just as most of the other existing formats.

How do we classify Better Light? Its capture area is smaller, but it uses both the view camera with all the movements and the lens. On the other hand, it uses a laptop instead of the ground glass...

And what is the difference between a 35mm P&S and a 8x10 one? A P&S is a P&S, isn't it? What would be the merit of the later for discussing it in this forum as compared to the above mentioned BL back?

Again,

is the Better Light image capture area equal or larger than 4x5? If yes, then it is. If not, it is not.
The difference between 35mm and 8x10 is the area of image capture area. I think it's self-explanatory.

The only problematic area I see is 6x17 panoramic cameras. The question would be if the definition of large format is relate to overall surface area which is minimum 20 square inches or is one side of the image capture area exceeding definition of large format which is commonly and historically acknowledged as minimum of 4x5?

OTOH, 6x17 or 6x15 or 6x12 is call medium panoramic camera, so archaicly my second statement should be modified to this one:

Large format is the any rectangle format of image capture area which meets of exceeds both sides of the 4x5 inches.
Cheers,

[tim atherton]

Again,

is the Better Light image capture area equal or larger than 4x5? If yes, then it is. If not, it is not.
The difference between 35mm and 8x10 is the area of image capture area. I think it's self-explanatory.

The only problematic area I see is 6x17 panoramic cameras. The question would be if the definition of large format is relate to overall surface area which is minimum 20 square inches or is one side of the image capture area exceeding definition of large format which is commonly and historically acknowledged as minimum of 4x5?

Cheers,

So by who and when was it decided 4x5 was the dividing line? (And why do we abide by that now?)

"historically acknowledged" so when do we pinpoint in history as the correct time for this to be established?

There was a time when 4x5 wouldn't really have been considered Large Format.

[Marko]

Again,

is the Better Light image capture area equal or larger than 4x5? If yes, then it is. If not, it is not.

I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't answer the question - 4x5 being arbitrary as it is, and as all the formats are, who is making the distinction between the formats and how?

The distinction between the formats may have been self-explanatory until a few years ago, but even then, was it the capture area size or the type of camera that defined the format delineation? After all, there was a time when 4x5 was not considered large format...

And then all the familiar boundaries changed with digital. If we stick to the rigid (and arbitrary) definitions of old, does it mean that digital is not (yet) large format, no matter what kind of camera is used, or is large format going to go extinct along with film in due course? ;)


The difference between 35mm and 8x10 is the area of image capture area. I think it's self-explanatory.

I don't know, but I have a hard time treating P&S as LF in the context of this board regardless of physical dimensions. Point and click may be obvious, but I don't think it is self-explanatory in these terms at all.

[SAShruby]

So by who and when was it decided 4x5 was the dividing line? (And why do we abide by that now?)

"historically acknowledged" so when do we pinpoint in history as the correct time for this to be established?

There was a time when 4x5 wouldn't really have been considered Large Format.

Well, it is today, isn't it?

[Ole Tjugen]

The German-language LF forum has defined LF as "more than 100 square centimeters". That's as good a definition as any.

[tim atherton]

Well, it is today, isn't it?

So then, there's no problem redefining things as they evolve then. And "today" the Betterlight back is broadly considered a LF digital back - and tomorrow - who knows...

[SAShruby]

I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't answer the question - 4x5 being arbitrary as it is, and as all the formats are, who is making the distinction between the formats and how?


Hard to tell who, but commonly used definitions are not good enough?



The distinction between the formats may have been self-explanatory until a few years ago, but even then, was it the capture area size or the type of camera that defined the format delineation? After all, there was a time when 4x5 was not considered large format...


Probably, true, but today it is. If not 65% of the threads here shouldn't be here then. Again, general and common definition comes from past.



And then all the familiar boundaries changed with digital. If we stick to the rigid (and arbitrary) definitions of old, does it mean that digital is not (yet) large format, no matter what kind of camera is used, or is large format going to go extinct along with film in due course? ;)


IMO digital needs to make the definitions on its own. It's a different technology of image capture. But lot's of people compares size of the chip to size of the film. So it looks like digital does not have it's own definitions yet, but it looks like it tries to compare itself film sizes definitions. Maybe digital shoudn't have small, medium or large format definitions and not being compared to film at all. But so far, it is otherwise.



I don't know, but I have a hard time treating P&S as LF in the context of this board regardless of physical dimensions. Point and click may be obvious, but I don't think it is self-explanatory in these terms at all.


IMHO it is. P&S is the system how to capture picture, does not define the size of it.
Also, I think it does not matter how much information is captured, it is a function of the camera, lens, film, chip and other features. Not the size of it.

Cheers,

[SAShruby]

So then, there's no problem redefining things as they evolve then. And "today" the Betterlight back is broadly considered a LF digital back - and tomorrow - who knows...

Yes, I agree, but for digital world, not film one.

Cheers,

[Alan Davenport]

So by who and when was it decided 4x5 was the dividing line? (And why do we abide by that now?)

"historically acknowledged" so when do we pinpoint in history as the correct time for this to be established?

I'll tell you who decided, and the exact date and time, after you tell me the date and time humans became bipedal and the name of the human who first walked. Just because nobody can cite the instant something happened, don't make it not so.



I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't answer the question - 4x5 being arbitrary as it is, and as all the formats are, who is making the distinction between the formats and how?

We are. (Meaning, photographers in general.) Or we would be, if we could ever agree on anything. As it is, I would expect an argument here if somebody alleged that it's daytime when the sun is up.


...was it the capture area size or the type of camera that defined the format delineation? After all, there was a time when 4x5 was not considered large format...

An excellent question, based on a valid point. Here's a capsule history as I understand it:

There was a time before photographers had enlargers. When all print processes were by contact, or even directly exposed in the camera, large sizes were de rigueur. Smaller formats came into being as the public (mainly photographers, I think) demanded more portable cameras. Press cameras appeared and settled down at mainly 4x5 size, with smaller 2¼x3¼ (and I suppose others.) Ansel Adams acknowledged 2x3 view cameras in The Camera. Over time, 2¼x3¼ sheet films have become difficult to find, as 120 and 220 roll films filled that niche. View cameras in that size range are also rare. Along with the switch to roll films, came a gradual domination of the medium sizes (i.e., cameras using formats covered by 120 roll films) by cameras that were (and are) largely without movements. A few, like the Pentax 67, even mimicked the design of the 35mm cameras that had come to dominate consumer photography. With practically all view cameras using 4x5 or larger films, and the vast majority of "smaller than 4x5" cameras NOT having view camera movements, the line was drawn. Arbitrarily. With 4x5 being the small end of "large."


If we stick to the rigid (and arbitrary) definitions of old, does it mean that digital is not (yet) large format, no matter what kind of camera is used, or is large format going to go extinct along with film in due course? ;)

It's true: digital is not (yet) large format, no matter what kind of camera is used. (Although I'll be happy to call BetterLight backs "large format" if only the rest of the digital community will admit that their cameras aren't.)

It's hard to say whether the term "large format" need necessarily die along with film. I saw something not long ago that a company has built a 4 inch by 4 inch digital sensor of something like 111 megapixels, which I would concede as large enough to be called large. (I think it was Texas Instruments. Anyone confirm or deny?) A question that needs to be asked then might be, "So what?" since anyone will soon be able to put a digital camera onto a panoramic head that will automatically pan and tilt the camera about the nodal point of the lens, and take as many shots as you might care to stitch. That still won't be a large format camera, but the final images will kill large film.


I don't know, but I have a hard time treating P&S as LF in the context of this board regardless of physical dimensions. Point and click may be obvious, but I don't think it is self-explanatory in these terms at all.

Well, that's what all this bickering comes down to: a bunch of people who ought to be out catching photons (politically correct?) but choose to rant about semantics. Yeah, me too...

BTW, there's nothing wrong with "rigid and arbitrary" definitions, especially when they apply to technical discussions.

Going back in my hole again...

[Marko]

Hard to tell who, but commonly used definitions are not good enough?

Apparently not, since there has been significant boundary blurring since the advent of digital.

Commonly used definitions are just that - loose, empirical definitions that came out of every day use, as opposed to formal, authority-set ones.


If not 65% of the threads here shouldn't be here then. Again, general and common definition comes from past.

So what do we do? Banish the remaining 35% or come up with something else?

The whole point of this discussion, as I understand it, is the need for redefining those common definitions, because those from the past do not seem to fit the current state of affairs very well any more.


IMO digital needs to make the definitions on its own. It's a different technology of image capture. But lot's of people compares size of the chip to size of the film. So it looks like digital does not have it's own definitions yet, but it looks like it tries to compare itself film sizes definitions. Maybe digital shoudn't have small, medium or large format definitions and not being compared to film at all. But so far, it is otherwise.

Well, yes, it IS a different technology and it does have different sizes. That IS the whole point of this discussion, once again. I don't see any reason why it should have its own definitions, it is all photography.

So what if it is a different technology? This is no APUG here.

[Marko]

There was a time before photographers had enlargers. When all print processes were by contact, or even directly exposed in the camera, large sizes were de rigueur. Smaller formats came into being as the public (mainly photographers, I think) demanded more portable cameras. Press cameras appeared and settled down at mainly 4x5 size, with smaller 2¼x3¼ (and I suppose others.) Ansel Adams acknowledged 2x3 view cameras in The Camera. Over time, 2¼x3¼ sheet films have become difficult to find, as 120 and 220 roll films filled that niche. View cameras in that size range are also rare. Along with the switch to roll films, came a gradual domination of the medium sizes (i.e., cameras using formats covered by 120 roll films) by cameras that were (and are) largely without movements. A few, like the Pentax 67, even mimicked the design of the 35mm cameras that had come to dominate consumer photography. With practically all view cameras using 4x5 or larger films, and the vast majority of "smaller than 4x5" cameras NOT having view camera movements, the line was drawn. Arbitrarily. With 4x5 being the small end of "large."/QUOTE]

So, the way I understand your understanding :), various formats and especially boundaries between them were invented to fit the possibilities and especially limitations of the day. They (both the formats and their definitions) were also occasionally modified in order to adjust to the way new technologies were moving those limitations.

My point is that 4x5 once was not considered large format at all, and so there is no hard rule that I know of requiring it to remain the smallest large format there is. In other words, that line you mention has been drawn in sand, not concrete.


[QUOTE=Alan Davenport;227799]It's true: digital is not (yet) large format, no matter what kind of camera is used. (Although I'll be happy to call BetterLight backs "large format" if only the rest of the digital community will admit that their cameras aren't.

I really don't understand all this fixation with digital lately. I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but there is no such thing as "digital community".

My original question still stands: WHO exactly is it that defines what is or what isn't this format or that format or indeed what is or is not photography? If anybody was ever elected or appointed to such a role, I don't remember being notified. Not that I would care anyway... ;)

As for this board, we can only put forward our opinions and reasons for them, but it is only the owner who gets to decide what is and what isn't Large Format and the rest of us then get to decide whether we want to keep hanging around and participate or should we go elsewhere.

[Jim Rice]

Large format photography is 4x5" (and the metric equivalent) or larger format. Film is nice but not required. The betterlight crowd (et alia) along with the baby Graphic and baby Technika guys are accepted as close enough (though strictly speaking, they are medium format). A Yashica-Mat is not.
Ultra-Large format photography is any format exceeding 80 square inches. It may be next to impossible to aquire materials for your format, but it it isn't >80"^2 you're just odd LF.
I'm sorry, you can stitch as many DSLR images together as you want to, but they will never come close to qualifying. (While I'm on this rant, aren't there twenty gazzilion forums out there actually designed for what ya'll are doing?)
I respectfully ask the moderators, "Why is this even an issue?'

[Greg Lockrey]

Large format photography is 4x5" (and the metric equivalent) or larger format. Film is nice but not required. The betterlight crowd (et alia) along with the baby Graphic and baby Technika guys are accepted as close enough (though strictly speaking, they are medium format). A Yashica-Mat is not.
Ultra-Large format photography is any format exceeding 80 square inches. It may be next to impossible to aquire materials for your format, but it it isn't >80"^2 you're just odd LF.
I'm sorry, you can stitch as many DSLR images together as you want to, but they will never come close to qualifying. (While I'm on this rant, aren't there twenty gazzilion forums out there actually designed for what ya'll are doing?)
I respectfully ask the moderators, "Why is this even an issue?'

Because somebody put a stitched photo on a Photo Posting Thread.

[Brian Ellis]

"My original question still stands: WHO exactly is it that defines what is or what isn't this format or that format or indeed what is or is not photography? "

How about me? I'll do it. But only for a year. After that someone else has to take over.

[Brian C. Miller]

Fine with me. But next year its my turn to define it, and the tape measure is marked off on my Yo-Yo and slinky.

[Jim Galli]

I like Ole's "European definition" 10cm sq. and larger. That way 9X12 and 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 are "in". I've always thought of 1/4 plate as LF.

[Greg Lockrey]

and Q.T. is apparently, OK with it.

From what I gather, not really.

[Alan Davenport]

Fire burn, and cauldron bubble......

[Eric James]

It is dissappointing if it is pretending to be large format. Still every conterfeit is.

Steve

I agree with Steve to the extent that I believe that the technique or technical approach should be made apparent to an audience of photographers - particularly in a forum such as this where people come to learn and teach and broaden their horizons (pun not intended). I don't however think of stitched images as fakes or counterfeits. To me, digital composition (stitching for example) is just a different form of expression.

[QT Luong]

Unlike "View Camera" (that was wisely chosen as a name for a magazine and a book), "Large Format Photography" is ill-defined, otherwise this discussion wouldn't be that long. Sure, it is possible to to delineate the term to a core, but one would always have to add special cases and exceptions. This is because there are always a number of techniques that are not strictly "core" large format, but will be of interest to open-minded practitioners of "core" large format photography. In the past, those included for instance 6x9 view cameras, roll-film backs, box cameras, enlarged negatives for contact printing. Many of the field questions, business issues, esthetic issues, darkroom and digital techniques are not really format specific.

One has to decide for himself what is more important in "large format photography". Is it the mechanics of image capture and camera operation, or the goal to produce an image of the highest possible technical quality, through a (relatively) lengthy and deliberate process ? Ignoring new methods that are relevant to that goal means that one puts the camera at the top of his priorities. There was certainly a period when that was just what I did, and this period is when the website was named. Maybe with better hindsight, our sister site in France, http://www.galerie-photo.com/ calls itself "the French site of high-resolution photography".

I now consider both to be important, but I see the camera as a tool to attain the goal. True, there is a certain purity and connection in using a film-based view camera, especially if one considers the transparency to be end-product, since the piece of film has been physically there. True, the way you get there is important. However, unlike free climbing at high levels, it's not difficult to use a view camera. Morever, there are quite a few common points in both techniques.

Both need to plan carefully, since the set-up is not instant.
Both need a way to previsualize the photograph before setting up.
Both need to work on a tripod.
Both need to meter the scene manually.
Both need to align their camera set-up carefully.
Both can have a session ruined by a single mistake.

What I found most valuable in the large format photography forum is that it tends to attract certain types of discerning photographers. However, some of them, and not the least, have apparently found that their vision is best realized with newer techniques. By the way, for those who have been wondering, today I sent out more than 200 sheets of film to my lab. I recently had more than a thousand sheets of film drum scanned.

[Henry Ambrose]

Well stated QT.

But for whatever its worth, there's nothing really new about stitching or multiple digital captures combined into one image. Current tools make it easier than ever and the quality can be higher than ever before but its not new. Around 1990 or '91 I started using multiple captures and stitching for product photography with the original Kodak AP B&W digital SLRs. I'm sure plenty more folks were doing this as soon as the cameras appeared on the market. Do it a while and it becomes simply tedious and something to look forward to with a grimace. (unless it gets you out of a problem you can't solve any other way)

In the March 2007 issue of The Smithsonian there's a spread of a somewhat famous Bert Hardy picture:
http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2007/march/indelible.php If difficulty has anything to do with merit, this may be one of the most meritorius photos made. Can you imagine putting this together in the traditional darkroom? But its still not Large Format.

Maybe the funniest part of this whole discussion is that when I take my old Kodak Master View out I get immediate and plentiful comments from the general public about the special old-time camera. The uninformed can spot that its a different kind of animal right off the bat. Here on the Large Format Forum, we sophisticates discuss for pages on end how to qualify what device is or isn't truly Large Format.

That kinda makes me chuckle.

[Jim Galli]

Is it the mechanics of image capture and camera operation, or the goal to produce an image of the highest possible technical quality,.


This too is wide open to different ideas. For 98+ % of LF practitioners the only goal is to make the worlds sharpest picture. If that's the only desired end result, there will be a lot of LF gear flooding the market in the next 5 years. Indeed, I think that's where we are heading. If however you feel there is some merit in pictorial work that can only be accomplished with large capture, 5X7 and above for reasons of tonality, and lenses with unique signature, there is no challenge what-so-ever from the modern electronic capture. And there will always be other hold out areas. Try to capture the drama of a steam locomotive passing by with a stitching program. Or set up a pictorial romantic nostalgic shot of the nameplate on the front of the same engine. Just 2 of zillions of possibilities where the DSLR will leave you cold. If anything, the DSLR's will weed out some who have less imagination in their art.

[Kirk Gittings]

What I found most valuable in the large format photography forum is that it tends to attract certain types of discerning photographers.

This is the essence of the strength of this forum.

[BradS]

This too is wide open to different ideas. For 98+ % of LF practitioners the only goal is to make the worlds sharpest picture. If that's the only desired end result, there will be a lot of LF gear flooding the market in the next 5 years. Indeed, I think that's where we are heading. If however you feel there is some merit in pictorial work that can only be accomplished with large capture, 5X7 and above for reasons of tonality, and lenses with unique signature, there is no challenge what-so-ever from the modern electronic capture. And there will always be other hold out areas. Try to capture the drama of a steam locomotive passing by with a stitching program. Or set up a pictorial romantic nostalgic shot of the nameplate on the front of the same engine. Just 2 of zillions of possibilities where the DSLR will leave you cold. If anything, the DSLR's will weed out some who have less imagination in their art.

Very well said Jim. Thank you. :)

[SAShruby]

"My original question still stands: WHO exactly is it that defines what is or what isn't this format or that format or indeed what is or is not photography? "


The answer is time.

As someone pointed that 4x5 used to be not considered large format, but the technology of making photograph was still evolving. Capture areas were still going down finally to APS which is smaller than 35mm. Evolution finished. Since then formats got their nemas and groups.

Digital is at beginning of the evolution and it wil for years to come. Also you compare digital photography to film photography like I would compare 100 years ago painting to film photography. Did Film assumed standards of paintings? No. Maybe yes, at the beginning. But not anymore.

Cheers,

[tim atherton]

Digital is at beginning of the evolution and it wil for years to come. Also you compare digital photography to film photography like I would compare 100 years ago painting to film photography. Did Film assumed standards of paintings? No. Maybe yes, at the beginning. But not anymore.

Cheers,

photography appropriated a whole bunch of painting (and drawing) terms, ideas and concepts that it still uses and are central to it today

[Marko]

photography appropriated a whole bunch of painting (and drawing) terms, ideas and concepts that it still uses and are central to it today

Including but not limited to the Camera and the Darkroom... :)

[SAShruby]

photography appropriated a whole bunch of painting (and drawing) terms, ideas and concepts that it still uses and are central to it today

Yes, but not with respect to format.

[ageorge]

If anything, the DSLR's will weed out some who have less imagination in their art.

Thanks for the good laugh.

[Jim Galli]

Thanks for the good laugh.

No problem. You should read all my idiotic posts. You'll be howling all day.

[Greg Miller]

So, can anyone put forth a reasonable argument for excluding
stitching from "large format" that does not exclude some other traditional large format equipment or technique? Luddites need not apply:-)~

I find that many there is a healthy population in this forum that are more about the process than the image. It seems to me that many of of the people who are process oriented only care about [I]their[I] process and don't like it when threads exist that include or discuss some other process.

I shoot LF film and print digitally. Somehow I don't feel the need to trash the people who create threads that deal with other methods of capture and/or printing. I just don't read those threads. I also enjoy any good image; I may be curious about how it was captured or printed but it does not affect my enjoyment of it.

[MIke Sherck]

No problem. You should read all my idiotic posts. You'll be howling all day.

Jim, if you did not exist it would be necessary to invent you. :rolleyes:

Mike

[Gordon Moat]

Cool! So I guess it is okay now to start threads about my Nikon F4S and shift lens, that Kodak DCS I use to shoot with, that Contax 645 with PhaseOne back I rented a few times . . . and oh yeah, that Shen-Hao that is so heavy/slow/tedious/inconvient/inferior-to-stitching . . . yeah team!!!

Personally I don't care if stitching is discussed, though it is irritating the way some people go to great lengths to convince others of how much better it is than large format. I seriously don't give a f*(% if some method is technically better; I like the flaws in my images, shooting wide open, or even tilting the plain of focus so skewed that only a slice of a scene is even in focus. Photography for me is way beyond achieving technical superiority. So okay, you (rhetorical) own a 1Ds Mark II, I guess your images will be way better than anything I can achieve with my ancient technology . . . so what.

QT please give all the stitching enthusiasts a section for posting. This is not going away, it is a future, even if it might not prove to be the future. Create that section, and end this ridiculous bickering.

Seriously, this is like saving for years to finally afford a nice Porsche, then you go to the Porsche club to run your car through the cones. Then suddenly some kid in riced out Civic shows up and claims his Honda simulates a Porsche, and in some ways is even better than a Porsche. So . . . no analogies, just let the kid with his Civic hang out here; maybe he might actually get to understand why anyone might want a Porsche.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[steve simmons]

For me part of the pleasure of lf is the process. I have other cameras but I still enjoy the process of using the bigger adjustable camera.

steve simmons

[tim atherton]

Seriously, this is like saving for years to finally afford a nice Porsche, then you go to the Porsche club to run your car through the cones. Then suddenly some kid in riced out Civic shows up and claims his Honda simulates a Porsche, and in some ways is even better than a Porsche. So . . . no analogies, just let the kid with his Civic hang out here; maybe he might actually get to understand why anyone might want a Porsche.


maybe the kid showed up with a TVR and they realised there was an awful lot of hype and hot air around the porsche...?
:)

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I think LF should be a definition of ones waist line, as I get older my format size continues to increase.

[Marko]

maybe the kid showed up with a TVR and they realised there was an awful lot of hype and hot air around the porsche...?
:)

Besides, I have a hard time making any connection between LF and a Porsche. In my mind, Porsche is more like a DSLR, small, nimble and powerful, while LF is more like a Bentley or a Rolce - rich, stately and sedate.

If this is politically correct enough, could we now all go back to whatever kind of photography each one of us enjoys and keep doing it?

:)

[Michael Graves]

Here, here. Now where did I put my Instamatic? Anybody know of a source for 110 film? I'm going to try the ULTIMATE stitch.


Besides, I have a hard time making any connection between LF and a Porsche. In my mind, Porsche is more like a DSLR, small, nimble and powerful, while LF is more like a Bentley or a Rolce - rich, stately and sedate.

If this is politically correct enough, could we now all go back to whatever kind of photography each one of us enjoys and keep doing it?

:)

[Gordon Moat]

I think Marko and Tim pointed out the problems with analogies. What I wanted to point out was that some choices people make are more about passion than logic. If I bought a Porsche, it would be because I like the style and the way that it drives; and not because the numbers matched some given technical level of prowess. I do own a Ducati, not because it is worse than many Japanese motorcycles (and technically those are better), but because I like the combination of style, power delivery, and handling. Besides, even if one thing was 1/10 second faster over some measured distance, it still provides no guarantee that the average person who can afford it will exploit that capability to the fullest. Oh, and I do like TVRs, though the pricing is not much better than for Porsches.

So stitching is bike-of-the-month, car-of-the-month, or flavour-of-the-month. Wow, that guy does stitching . . . hey, anyone seen my new phone/iPod/GPS . . . who cares. You want to impress me, show me some images.

So some chip in some camera clamped onto some tripod, all assembled in post with some software, is argueably technically superior to some ancient technology using chemical processes and inconvenient cameras. Perhaps that will sway the opinions of those who live by the numbers.

In a way this goes back to that thread about having too many lenses. When I was at a recent seminar, and discovered that my current gear is technically superior to the guy at the podium giving the presentation, I realized that it doesn't matter what camera or lenses I used. Sure is fun to get gear, discuss gear, or (for some) to collect gear, but at the end of the day the results are all that matter. Hopefully getting the results you want involves some passion of the gear you choose to use, because when you enjoy the gear it will not hold you back from expressing your creative vision.

The danger, and I hesitate to use that term, is opening up a stitching discussion leads to other discussions, like which D-SLR, the D-SLR-of-the-month, software-of-the-month, spherical-tripod-of-the-month . . . say, wasn't there something about large format a few months ago . . .and on and on and on . . . . . So give the technology-of-the-month guys a section to measurebate in.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[John Kasaian]

I really have nothing to offer when it comes to defining "Large Format" though if you want to define "Large Format Photographer", how about any photographer who wears size 38 or larger trousers? "Ultra Large Format Photographer" might be size 44 or larger?:D

[Marko]

What I wanted to point out was that some choices people make are more about passion than logic. If I bought a Porsche, it would be because I like the style and the way that it drives; and not because the numbers matched some given technical level of prowess. I do own a Ducati, not because it is worse than many Japanese motorcycles (and technically those are better), but because I like the combination of style, power delivery, and handling.

Your point was well taken, hence the smiley at the end of my previous post. As the old saying goes: De gustibus non disputandum est.

Although I do admire your taste in motorcycles! :)


I realized that it doesn't matter what camera or lenses I used. Sure is fun to get gear, discuss gear, or (for some) to collect gear, but at the end of the day the results are all that matter.

Hear, hear, we just keep on agreeing today... :)


The danger, and I hesitate to use that term, is opening up a stitching discussion leads to other discussions, like which D-SLR, the D-SLR-of-the-month, software-of-the-month, spherical-tripod-of-the-month . . . say, wasn't there something about large format a few months ago . . .and on and on and on

Actually, we agree on this too. I don't think we should be discussing ANY SLRs here, digital or not, unless they are in the function of LF somehow. What really started these stitching discussions was a possibility of using them as a sort of digital back on a view camera to capture the area and stitch the results.

But then the discussion degenerated as expected because it provided certain participants too good of an opportunity for railing against anything new and unconventional to miss...

It seems that anything other than their own narrow choices bother those people more than they can bear. Why can't they simply ignore that which does not interest them will always remain mystery to me.

[Eric James]

By the way, for those who have been wondering, today I sent out more than 200 sheets of film to my lab. I recently had more than a thousand sheets of film drum scanned.

Mega, giga ,tera...what comes after tera...because it looks like you're headed in that direction.

First in your neighborhood to own a petabyte drive, or two:)

[tim atherton]

maybe like QT, I should also point out that I spent much of the morning developing 4x5 film and much of the afternoon out photographing with FP4 and HP5....

[chris jordan]

Hi guys, I just checked in and see that you're all up to your old shenanigans. The thing I wonder about is why everyone CARES so much what is LF and what isn't. If you are all LF camera freaks, then fine, it matters-- in fact it's the whole point. But if you are interested in photography, then what does it matter how a particular image was made, so long as the print looks gorgeous and sublime?

But wait, don't bother answering me, though-- by most standards I'm not even a photographer anymore, much less a LF photographer...

~cj

[John Voss]

The thing I wonder about is why everyone CARES so much what is LF and what isn't. If you are all LF camera freaks, then fine, it matters-- in fact it's the whole point.

Geez, you should read the rancorous exchanges on ABACUS.org about slide rules. And then there's the calculator crowd. All the ABACUS folks want to do is sit around a well stoked hash pipe and compute with their beads, but the new-agey '60s era NASA types and later day electronic and ....gasp!...digital computer mavens want to bring the conversation into the late 20th century. Well!!!........Pshaw to that!!! The conservative and traditional wing of ABACUS.org have decided to erect a fully extended digit (out of respect, don't ya know, to the new-agers)....the special 'we're number one!!' digit, to all who would compromise the integrity of their tradition.

Now let that be a lesson to all of us here at the LF forum. Yesiree!!

[Marko]

maybe like QT, I should also point out that I spent much of the morning developing 4x5 film and much of the afternoon out photographing with FP4 and HP5....

Why? One APUG is quite enough. One of the biggest attractions of this place is that we don't have to chant the mandatory mantra each time we decide to say something positive about digital... ;)

[tim atherton]

Why? One APUG is quite enough. One of the biggest attractions of this place is that we don't have to chant the mandatory mantra each time we decide to say something positive about digital... ;)

Damn right this ain't APUG - I've been scanning the ones I developed this morning... :D

[Henry Ambrose]

Yeah well I'm taking my motorcycle to a bicycle race. I'll show those guys a thing or two about fast. Think they'll let me race? Then next weekend I'll show those folks on horses how much better my motorcycle is than a stinky old horse.

Next thing ya' know it'll be dogs sleepin' with cats.

Then what are we gonna do?

[Greg Lockrey]

Yeah well I'm taking my motorcycle to a bicycle race. I'll show those guys a thing or two about fast. Think they'll let me race? Then next weekend I'll show those folks on horses how much better my motorcycle is than a stinky old horse.

Next thing ya' know it'll be dogs sleepin' with cats.

Then what are we gonna do?

I'll race your scooter with my bike.....when it's about 15 degrees.:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Robert Hughes]

I'm reading William Mortenson's 1940 book, "Mortenson On the Negative". Interesting historical material. In his book he clearly states that large format is 5" x 7" or larger, medium format is anything from 6 x 9 cm to 4" x 5", and small format is anything smaller than 6 x 9. He calls 35mm "miniature" format.

So there you have it, from one of the experts in the field. All you 4" x 5" shooters can pack up your medium format cameras and get off this forum right now.;)

Of course, Mortenson also says that out-of-focus backgrounds are a sign of poor photography, so you have to take some of his opinions with a grain of salt. But he has a few rather fetching (and well-focussed) nudes in his examples, so I guess I better keep reading...

[Alan Davenport]

The thing I wonder about is why everyone CARES so much what is LF and what isn't.

I think it's analogous to what you'd have if some rap singers showed up at the Met and demanded to be recognized as opera. I've come to accept rap as a valid musical form (though I'll admit my understanding and enjoyment of the genre lag behind) but even with as little as I know about rap, I know it sure as hell ain't opera.

My secret belief (no longer secret, I guess) is that we've all come to associate "fine art" photography with large format. Now the digital gang want to be considered fine art photographers, so they have to become large format. Hubris.

If Ansel Adams were still alive, I'm sure he'd eagerly embrace digital photography and would be on top of mastering the new medium. But he wouldn't call it large format.

[tim atherton]

I think it's analogous to what you'd have if some rap singers showed up at the Met and demanded to be recognized as opera. I've come to accept rap as a valid musical form (though I'll admit my understanding and enjoyment of the genre lag behind) but even with as little as I know about rap, I know it sure as hell ain't opera.

My secret belief (no longer secret, I guess) is that we've all come to associate "fine art" photography with large format. Now the digital gang want to be considered fine art photographers, so they have to become large format. Hubris.

If Ansel Adams were still alive, I'm sure he'd eagerly embrace digital photography and would be on top of mastering the new medium. But he wouldn't call it large format.

Damn - I just spurted coffee out of my nose all over the monitor - that's pretty funny.

Talk about massive exaggeration (rap and opera...? mind you both make a pretty appalling racket so I guess they do have something in common)

huge overgeneralization - fine art = LF... ? (Eggleston, Friedlander, Gossage, Barth etc etc- or maybe that's just Art Photography?)

The Digital gang needs the LF imprimatur to be considered (fine) artists? Gursky, Wall...?

talk about siege mentality - remember the Alamo boys

(now give me a moment while I wipe the hyperbole of my monitor)

[Colin Robertson]

Actualy, Alan, some of us understand exactly what you're saying. AGeorge has a lovely web site, with some beautiful images, but for some reason that isn't enough. It seems the rest of us must accept computer post-processing of digital images from a little camera as 'large format photography'. Go figure.

[Gordon Moat]

Is the acceptance due to movements on a 3D pano head somehow replicating movements on a view camera? Or is it the time element, the idea that using a view camera is slow, and stitching is slow?

Why does stitching need to emulate or be termed large format? Is it too weak a practice to not have a distinctly separate genre of imaging? Perhaps there should be a stitching forum? Why should any digital imaging need to be compared to film? Isn't digital imaging, at least at the high end, good enough to stand on its' own merits, and not be compared to film?

Does the implied message of something technically better always imply that an older method is now too inferior to consider continued usage? Should those of us using film tell people we use an inferior technology? Should anyone using film (large format or smaller) only judge the merits of their images on their inferior usage of technology?

In a commercial imaging portfolio, the type of gear used is not mentioned. The images stand on their own merits, either compelling or not. The creative vision is what is expressed, and not the technical superiority (or inferiority) of the photographer's gear.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Alan Davenport]

Why does stitching need to emulate or be termed large format? Is it too weak a practice to not have a distinctly separate genre of imaging? Perhaps there should be a stitching forum? Why should any digital imaging need to be compared to film? Isn't digital imaging, at least at the high end, good enough to stand on its' own merits, and not be compared to film?

Exactly! The digistitchers simply need to invent their own jargon, instead of highjacking ours! You may go to the front of the class!

[tim atherton]

Exactly! The digistitchers simply need to invent their own jargon, instead of highjacking ours! You may go to the front of the class!

so why didn't photography invent it's own instead of hijacking so much form painting and drawing...?

(hint - because that's usually the way it works)

[Jim collum]

I
Why does stitching need to emulate or be termed large format? Is it too weak a practice to not have a distinctly separate genre of imaging? Perhaps there should be a stitching forum? Why should any digital imaging need to be compared to film? Isn't digital imaging, at least at the high end, good enough to stand on its' own merits, and not be compared to film?


i don't see this is a digital vs analog issue.. since stitching can and has been done with film. ... and i don't see why something captured digitally couldn't be referred to as large format photography. when i use a scanning back in my 4x5, the result is a photograph taken from a view camera... it's not a digistitch/digitoy/digithingamabob.. or whatever other silly phrase i've seen used to degrade a photograph taken with a digital cameara.. (how silly is the reference to a film-a-stitch, film-a-toy, film-a-ma-bob.). A digital camera is a professional tool used to capture images as photographs. The end result is the usually the same as that of a film workflow.

[Gordon Moat]

i don't see this is a digital vs analog issue.. since stitching can and has been done with film. ... and i don't see why something captured digitally couldn't be referred to as large format photography. when i use a scanning back in my 4x5, the result is a photograph taken from a view camera... it's not a digistitch/digitoy/digithingamabob.. or whatever other silly phrase i've seen used to degrade a photograph taken with a digital cameara.. (how silly is the reference to a film-a-stitch, film-a-toy, film-a-ma-bob.). A digital camera is a professional tool used to capture images as photographs. The end result is the usually the same as that of a film workflow.

Hello Jim,

Undoutedy a large capture area could be considered large format, regardless of which camera it would be used on. The term large format is then ill defined, and only then represents large.

I agree that I could just as easily take my Nikon F4S and fire it on continuous frames while rotating my body to cover a scene. Then the resulting frames of film could be scanned and reassembled. Going further, I could take that stitched result and have it output on a film recorder at a 4" by 5" size (or larger). Thus I could rightly (perhaps) claim that the way I used my F4S actually made it a large format camera.

It is my opinion that a final printed image should never be referred to as the type of method or camera used to originate the source. If a silver gelatin print can be made from a digital file, then I don't care to know that the source was digital; a silver gelatin print is a silver gelatin print. Likewise if I see an interesting image and find out it was done on 35mm, or 4x5, I don't think that should have any context in the description, nor any impact upon how I choose to regard an image.

It should not matter that I use Winsor & Newton paints to do my oil paintings, nor that what brushes I used. However, when the completed work is shown, it is described as oil on canvas. Someone who uses acrylics often puts that indication onto the description of their works of art. To further blur this issue, I know a very talented individual who uses a mouse and software called Painter to generate some Pigment Prints; interestingly he calls that painting, and he calls himself a painter. I like the guy, and his work, but I stop short of calling him a painter, or calling what he does painting. Even if his inkjet prints went onto canvas, that still does not make it a painting, in my opinion.

I am reminded of a supposed meeting between Picasso and Matisse. The event was a showing of some of Matisse's artwork, the cuttings and reassembly of elements for which he is known. Picasso, perhaps not liking Matisse nor his artwork, tried to hand Matisse a sketchbook and pencil, and demanded Matisse actually draw something. The implied message of this story (true or not) was that some skill came from being a painter, and the value of that skill should not be diminished by types of works that merely emulated painting. Anyway, this is a separate issue, much like the bridge between painting and illustration, though I thought it important to mention in light of Tim Atherton's references to photography appropriating terms from painting and drawing to describe processes.

I have used up to 22 MP digital backs, and several D-SLRs, so I know what good gear is capable of generating (on a technical level). I have also worked on a project for a future D-SLR, as a sub-contractor, though my NDA has yet to expire, so I cannot give details about that. I don't immediately assume some hack amateur with a point and shoot held in one hand at arms length, generating some forgettable moment, whenever I hear (or read) the term digital photography. I completely understand the various ways to use image files to generate very large single image files.

If I went into Calument and asked for Large Format, would the guy show me 4GB memory cards, a box of 4" by 5" film, a 3D pano head, or some full frame D-SLR. I get a monthly publication called Advanced Imaging, which mostly covers scientific, machine vision, and surveillance technology. In that publication, large format is used in many articles and advertisements to mean 24mm by 36mm imaging chips. I suppose in that context a Canon 1DsMarkII or 5D, Kodak DCS-14 or SLR/N, or a few digital backs from PhaseOne, Leaf, JenOptik, Sinar, or MegaVision could be called large format. The problem of context is that digital imaging chips are a moving target; we will see imaging chips that are 4" by 5" or larger at some point in the future (they already exist in very low numbers for very specialized applications, usually somehow government connected). So anyone who wants to (today) call something large format when it is at least 24mm by 36mm in initial capture area, that is fine by me, but I do not agree with that.

Yes, stitching can produce some really compelling final images. Yes, it is a valid method of working. Yes, the resultsing images can be beautiful, aesthetic, compelling, or intriguing. No, I don't care if you can fit more pixels into an image than you can put onto a CD-R, nor onto a DVD-R. Just because you can generate huge file sizes does not make it large format. I could just as easily take one of those high resolution Zeiss images from their 35mm lenses, have it drum scanned at an extremely large file size, or even generate some vastly large print from that; it is not large format. I could shoot a 1Ds Mark II at the greatest file setting, but even though I might have 16MP in a tripod dervived shot, and 16MP in a hand held shot, the true resolution (optical) will rarely match, despite that file sizes match.

So what I (and maybe others) are lacking is a clear explanation of what makes stitching large format. It is not resolution, nor some technical superiority. A Betterlight back only functions across the opening area that allows light to strike the (moving) sensor, and since that is near Polaroid pack film size, I do think that is large format. Let's take this to an extreme: if I took an HD video camcorder, panned across a scene, took individual frames from that panning footage, then reassembled the entire thing into a stitched final image, is that large format? If so, were does this end, how small a camera can I use with how many stitched frames for it to be called large format?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Kirk Gittings]

I think in general large format will always connote 4x5 or larger capture, not large file creation as a product separately. It suggests big cameras with bellows and there is and always will be a historical depth to that definition. Scanner backs like Betterlight will be seen as LF because they are large and are designed to work in view cameras predominantly. If you do not think Jim Collum's Betterlight work is large format. I think you are bogged down in petty paranoid semantics. When DSLR stitchers talk about their product, they talk about creating large files that are comparable or superior to (that is another discussion) large format. They do not call stitching large format. DSLR stitching gets talked about here in relation to LF (whether it is equal to in quality, etc. etc.) not as LF. see my thread on "DSLR Stitching Again" and that is entirely appropriate.

One of the reasons I like to use a 4x5 and film for my personal work is that I like the feeling of working within a tradition with vintage technology. It is the same reason I like double barreled shotguns instead of auto loaders or flyfish with my dad's hand tied flies and homemade bamboo rod. In my youth, all my photographic heroes used view cameras and I have never gotten over that. When I am in the field with the 4x5, I feel a strong sense of belonging. The people who collect my art work appreciate that aspect too as I have overheard at openings numerous comments about the fact that "he still is using film blah blah.." That is cool. I like being seen as someone upholding many aspects of traditional craft (that is even as I have had to go fully digital for my commercial photography and print much of my work digitally). The term Large Format will always reflect that history.

[Marko]

Undoutedy a large capture area could be considered large format, regardless of which camera it would be used on. The term large format is then ill defined, and only then represents large.

[...]

Yes, stitching can produce some really compelling final images. Yes, it is a valid method of working. Yes, the resultsing images can be beautiful, aesthetic, compelling, or intriguing. No, I don't care if you can fit more pixels into an image than you can put onto a CD-R, nor onto a DVD-R. Just because you can generate huge file sizes does not make it large format. I could just as easily take one of those high resolution Zeiss images from their 35mm lenses, have it drum scanned at an extremely large file size, or even generate some vastly large print from that; it is not large format. I could shoot a 1Ds Mark II at the greatest file setting, but even though I might have 16MP in a tripod dervived shot, and 16MP in a hand held shot, the true resolution (optical) will rarely match, despite that file sizes match.

So what I (and maybe others) are lacking is a clear explanation of what makes stitching large format. It is not resolution, nor some technical superiority. A Betterlight back only functions across the opening area that allows light to strike the (moving) sensor, and since that is near Polaroid pack film size, I do think that is large format. Let's take this to an extreme: if I took an HD video camcorder, panned across a scene, took individual frames from that panning footage, then reassembled the entire thing into a stitched final image, is that large format? If so, were does this end, how small a camera can I use with how many stitched frames for it to be called large format?

Hi Gordon,

Yes, you are correct in many things you say, and yet so is Jim and others...

The problem is one of definition, really, and we don't seem to have gotten any closer to the right definition than we were at the beginning of this thread.

The reason is simple: in an era when even many LF film users scan their negatives/transparencies and proceed to process and print their images digitally, how exactly does one define Large Format? And how does one compare between various images, once in digital form?

The term Large Format itself did make sense when film - or glass ;) - was the only game in town and area was a characteristic property. And even then, the notion of format size would change now and then to accommodate advances in technology. But it is now losing its traditional sense and needs to be redefined or renamed. Either that or it will lose its meaning in a (relatively) short while.

So here we are again with the same $64,000 question. Print size, obviously won't resolve anything here for obvious reasons and area has become significantly dependent on the output method. Capture area also does not make much sense, since sensors come in many different sizes and pixel densities. So which property common to both mediums do we use for meaningful definition?

And no, I don't think either that DSLR on a pano-head represents Large Format. The term you are referring to is Full Frame, not Large Format. It is likely that whoever wrote the article simply confused the terms without actually meaning to redefine terms. It's the magazine, after all, it happens all too often... :)

[Bob Bell]

There was a revolution in photography in the last 2-3 years. In the past there were photographers and picture takers. When the Drebel's came out, and digicams started growing in MP size, all of those picture takers became photographers in their mind. It's like little man syndrome or justify your purchase with your ego and it will all be okay. A lot of new photographers are using the fake it til you make it or say the lower end technology is as good as its big brothers and cousins because they cannot afford it or don't have the technique to use it.

I have been looking around at the photo's posted on this site and they are outstanding. You should be happy that people are trying to emulate you with computers and stitching rather than trying to defend your space. LF will never be able to replace my 300/2.8 IS or 500/4 IS but it will definately replace my MF kit and wide angle 35mm lenses.

And unless Canon or Nikon licenses the lens technology from Leica or Zeiss or does the billion dollar investment into R&D, the LF space is very safe. Even if they did find a way to make an Auto Focus 20mm with the optical performace of the Zeiss 21mm, they still don't have movements nor the size of the frame with drum scanning resulting in 320meg files.

[Steffani]

I've been a large format photographer and active participant in several online large format discussions areas for a year. A large format describes large photographic films, large cameras, view cameras and process that a uses a film or digital sensor, generally 4 x 5 inches.

[GPS]

Welcome Steffani! Here you can be an active member for years and still you will have enough people ready to discuss this question for weeks to go...

[scrichton]

God help anyone who ever tries to make an autofocus 5x4 or above camera in this life.. You guys will all castrate him, then proceed to argue whether he was castrated to the correct standards.

I take it no-one has taken the view that a DSLR in comparison to a camera phone is thoeretically a LArge format with many multiples the area of the sensor and a much bigger resolution.

We are all here in this forum as Large Format photographers. People who ask the question either have tried to start learning about it or stirring up the fire pot of a thread that is currently at 15 pages.

I belive quite strongly a large format camera ( excuse all the speed graphic and 5x4 / 8x10 PS users here ) is one that very awkward to handhold easily or requires a changed film back focus method. There exceptions to this rule. But 6x9 is outside the commonly used formats and getting bigger. In the 30's / 40's etc ... an efficient car was 6-8 litres in engine displacement and film's resolution was far less than today. I has a techinka 23 for a month. It was as slow as my MPP so I traded in straight for a nikon F4. The technica had a grip/ RF/ Rollfilm back etc .. plus movments and al the rest but was physically impractical to be used as a 6x7 as it was too " large" to be handheld in ideal conditions.

Steven

[gregstidham]

My Kalart rangefinder manual from the 50's says I am shooting "Man Size Negatives" with my crown graphic.

Because the need for a new definition of "Large Format" has arose, I suggest photographers who use sensors or film the size of 4x5, 5x7, 4x10, or 8x10 no longer use the term "large format", but use the new term - "Man Size".

For photographers that choose to use negatives or digital arrays larger than 8"x10", they should use the term "Ultra Man Size".

Anyone shooting with a sensor or film 6x7, 6x6, or 645 can use the term "Lessor Man Size"

If you shoot using a sensor or film that is 35mm, APS, or DSLR, that photographer can use the term "Small Man Size"

I hope this helps as we re-define photographic format terminology :)

[Lazybones]

What is "Large Format?"

Your mother.

[Alan Davenport]

For photographers that choose to use negatives or digital arrays larger than 8"x10", they should use the term "Ultra Man Size".

Anyone shooting with a sensor or film 6x7, 6x6, or 645 can use the term "Lessor Man Size"

If you shoot using a sensor or film that is 35mm, APS, or DSLR, that photographer can use the term "Small Man Size"

You forgot cell phone cameras. Would those be "Girlie Man Size?"

:D :D :D :D

[Marko]

You forgot cell phone cameras. Would those be "Girlie Man Size?"

I take "Girlie Man" in this particular example to mean "someone able to go out with girls", although somehow I doubt that's what you had in mind...

;)

[gregstidham]

I did forget a couple formats in my expansion of the Kalart definition of "Large Format"

Sensors and film sized 1/3", 2/3", and 110 or under would use the term "Tiny Man Size" This would include camera phones.

Polaroid formats are somewhat unique. The single sheet film format and 10 exposure packs would be defined as "Almost Man Size". 8x10 size Polaroid sheets would fall under "Man Size"