What is Large Format Photography

[jeffacme]

I propose a new definition of Large Format Photography and ask all to participate.

What does it mean to you? How can we reach an understanding that allows discussion and difference of opinion without flaming each other over those differences?

First off I fully accept the traditional film and view camera definition.

I also consider the following to be part of the new large format.

1. A digital back, 39mp minimum, on a view camera is large format.

2. Stitching captures in post, 150mb minimum, is large format.

3. Output by inkjet, Lambda, or silver halide more than 16" in one dimension is large format.

That's it, what do you think?

[Kirk Gittings]

Dude, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but before proposing a new definition for a 9 year old forum that you have participated in for what? a week?.............have you done any searches on these topics and read the volumes of discussions on this topic that have gone on for years? Personally I have participated in dozens of related threads. Your point number #3 is the only one that has not been beaten to death multiple times, but it is irrelevant as this Large Format Photography Forum refers to camera size, not print size.

[jeffacme]

Nope, I am interested in what people think today.

[Greg Lockrey]

How about banning troublemakers?

[sanking]

Nope, I am interested in what people think today.

See what Kirk said for what I think.

Sandy King

[Dave Parker]

Duck!!!!!

Incoming!

:eek:

[Walter Calahan]

If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

Grin.

I don't think today. I'm grading students' portfolios. Ask me on Friday if I can think, once I'm through grading final exams.

[sanking]

How about banning troublemakers?

See what Greg said about troublemakers.

Sandy King

[Jan Pedersen]

Kirk said it spot on and output size does not determine format.

jan

[Jay Wolfe]

Nope, I am interested in what people think today.

I refer to this stuff as "fraternity house talk." A real waste to time.

[Keith Pitman]

The outcome of American Idol is more interesting.

[sanking]

I refer to this stuff as "fraternity house talk." A real waste to time.

Perhaps you need to shut down the internet and get back to the things that do not waste your time to sort out the logic.

Makes no sense, in terms of logic, to complain that an activity in which you chose to participate is a waste of time!!!


Sandy King

[sanking]

The outcome of American Idol is more interesting.

See my comment to Jay Wolfe.

Sandy

[Greg Lockrey]

How is this topic "Business"?

[sanking]

How is this topic "Business"?

Great question!!

Sandy

[Brian Ellis]

What do I think? I don't think about those kinds of things.

[jeffacme]

Quite a "tool show" you all have going here.

Thanks,

[Bill_1856]

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

[Greg Lockrey]

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

Wealth is a state of mind. Large Format is big negatives.

[Donald Miller]

Quite a "tool show" you all have going here.

Thanks,


Yep, pretty amazing when you look at it..."We don't need no stinking oil paints"...one artist to another. Another incarnation of Apug...

Supposed creative people getting hung up on the tool rather than creating something worthwhile...I guess that must be less effort.

[Donald Miller]

Wealth is a state of mind. Large Format is big negatives.


Or medium format negatives scanned at high resolutions...

Why is that different than a high MP stitched image output as an enlarged negative?

[jnantz]

<yawn>

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

<yawn>

:D

[r.e.]

I think that the interesting question is why we have three pages of people trashing jeffacme for asking the question.

It seems clear that his post arises directly from the current thread about whether people are making money from large format, in which he posted some of the more interesting comments.

It also seems clear that his question raises directly an issue that underlies, rightly or wrongly, a lot of the discussion that goes on in this forum.

The eruption of hostility toward him and his question is quite odd.

[Donald Miller]

I think that Jeffacme asked some very pertinant questions. I present the following link for consideration of the participants to this forum.

http://xrez.com/services/3d/res_comp.jpg

This will require that you copy the above link and post it into a fresh browser to open the link if you want to see why it appears that the questions Jeffacme posed are pertinant.

[Vaughn]

1. A digital back, 39mp minimum, on a view camera is large format.

2. Stitching captures in post, 150mb minimum, is large format.

3. Output by inkjet, Lambda, or silver halide more than 16" in one dimension is large format.


#1 and #2 would be Large File Photography. #3 would be Large Print Photography. None, IMO, are Large Format Photography, nor can the traditional definition of Large Format Photography be logically stretched to include them. That said, one's use of large format photography might include large files, stitching, and/or large prints somewhere in the work flow.

I am afraid my working knowledge of digital capture is very limited...but I have read that using movements on a view camera with a digital back has limitations -- something about the angle the light hits the light receptors of the digital back. Even if this is not correct, I would not consider #1 as true Large Format Photography -- but as digital photography incorporating a view camera as a platform for the digital back.

Unless some limitation is hit, I suspect that handheld cameras capable of 40+ MP are in our future. Using MP to define LF seems to be too changable...today's "large format" will be tomorrow's "small format".

In the end, I would just have to say that true Large Format Photography is based on film capture (tho the size of the LF film is and probably always will be debatable -- as well as the use of roll film in a LF camera, LOL!). Your new definitions just don't fit, and trying to fit them into the definition of LF limits them...like trying to shove an elephant into a crate designed for a lion. They are a subset of digital photography, not of large format photography.

Vaughn

[Greg Lockrey]

I think that Jeffacme asked some very pertinant questions. I present the following link for consideration of the participants to this forum.

http://xrez.com/services/3d/res_comp.jpg

This will require that you copy the above link and post it into a fresh browser to open the link if you want to see why it appears that the questions Jeffacme posed are pertinant.

Very impressive. Now I get you. I was thinking that this thread was going to get into another "us vs them" again. Extreme resolution is a whole new way to make images, but I won't call it large format, but somewhere beyond like a rocket compared to a biplane. It too needs it's own forum. I for one am not apposed to learning this new technology since I use similar methods albeit on a lesser scale in my practice, but here on this forum I wish to learn of the older techniques that have been in use for years and that I haven't had time or opportunity to try. I don't have a problem with mixing the two technologies either.

I wouldn't mind getting one of those Pix-Orb gizmos. ;)

[Vaughn]

I think that Jeffacme asked some very pertinant questions. I present the following link for consideration of the participants to this forum...snip...

I would call that high definition photography -- not necessarily large format photography. If the file source of the image of Half Dome was a transparency, or negative, created by using a large format camera then it is also LF photography.

The LFPF is artificially limited by its definition of LF...which is not a bad thing as it allows us to concentrate on one aspect of photography without being flooded with information.

Vaughn

[Ole Tjugen]

http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen.html

High resolution, large file - and taken in one single exposure with a Large Format camera. Somtimes the old-fashioned method is simpler.

[Donald Miller]

http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen.html

High resolution, large file - and taken in one single exposure with a Large Format camera. Somtimes the old-fashioned method is simpler.

Ole, It might be nice to know what we are comparing to what here. A single image on the internet doesn't convey much.

[Donald Miller]

Since the subject of lens resolution invariably finds it's way into these conversations at some point, and since an individual here recently purported that DSLR lenses could not resolve over 60 LP/MM I thought that it might be appropriate to lnclude this link to the resolution tests on the Canon 85 mm mark II F 1.2 L lens. (One of the L lenses that I use)

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/

[Greg Lockrey]

This is way beyond the scope of this forum. http://www.xrez.com/contact/res_comp.jpg

The contact/res_comp.jpg gets lost if you direct link to the url. You can copy and paste the link to get there directly. Worth the effort.

I'm impressed and I've seen nuclear testing.

[Ole Tjugen]

I fail to see the relevance of DSLR lens resolution to the question here - except that LF lenses don't need to resolve over 60 lppmm.

The picture I linked to can be compared to the one Donald Miller linked to. Note that this is only a scan of the original slide, so to produce the original I used equipment that cost less than $1000 - and a lens that is not exactly famous for its high resolution.

I prefer to keep the term "Large Format Photography" limited to mean "photography with a Large Format camera". There are other ways to making high resolution pictures, or very large files if that is the goal, but they are not Large Format Photography.

[Donald Miller]

This is way beyond the scope of this forum. http://www.xrez.com/contact/res_comp.jpg

The contact/res_comp.jpg gets lost if you direct link to the url. You can copy and paste the link to get there directly. Worth the effort.

I'm impressed and I've seen nuclear testing.

Greg,

You are probably correct that this is beyond the scope of this forum. But please understand that the large print that this link leads you to is eighteen feet by six feet in dimension. Judging from the scale of the other images, I would say that all are represented as being enlarged and not simply the film of the respective formats. This image was made from stitched digitally captured images. My reason for posting this information is to indicate to those who think that digital photography is someone's weak stepchild is simply not true. In fact digital (using what is available today) can far outstrip large format in terms of resolution, tonal distribution, and it can produce prints that are better or I would not be using it.

I certainly don't want my contribution to this matter to be from a position of contentiousness but I would rather it be from the standpoint of informing those who probably don't have all of the information when they make some really contentious and misinformed statements.

I have shot large format for almost thirty years (everything from 4X5 to 12X20). So I am not some new kid on the block when it comes to understanding large format, the use of the camera, and arriving at exhibition quality prints.

That having been said, I will shut up and let the rest that want to contribute in a positive way do so.

[Donald Miller]

I fail to see the relevance of DSLR lens resolution to the question here - except that LF lenses don't need to resolve over 60 lppmm.

The picture I linked to can be compared to the one Donald Miller linked to. Note that this is only a scan of the original slide, so to produce the original I used equipment that cost less than $1000 - and a lens that is not exactly famous for its high resolution.

I prefer to keep the term "Large Format Photography" limited to mean "photography with a Large Format camera". There are other ways to making high resolution pictures, or very large files if that is the goal, but they are not Large Format Photography.

Ole,

If you fail to see the relevance than I am not sure that I can explain it to you, but I will try. If one is using a lens like you used for a large negative it is not even in the same universe that a stitched image can be when you consider that when you stitch digital images you are making segments of the large image with lenses that have pretty incredible resolving ability. Certainly greater than a typical large format lens when you consider enlarging the LF negative.

O.K. I understand your position on large format photography and I respect it. However when one looks at the end result, from your perspective and in your opinion, what does large format have to offer other than tradition? If one is not concerned with the tonal gradations and the resolution of the details within the printed image why in the world would you shoot big film? If that were the case than everyone would be better off buying old 110 film cameras and get to it.

Obviously the reason that most of us shoot or shot LF film was to arrive at the best image possible and that has nothing at all to do with large files as the desired outcome.

[Don Hutton]

Since the subject of lens resolution invariably finds it's way into these conversations at some point, and since an individual here recently purported that DSLR lenses could not resolve over 60 LP/MM I thought that it might be appropriate to lnclude this link to the resolution tests on the Canon 85 mm mark II F 1.2 L lens. (One of the L lenses that I use)

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/I think you misread what had been typed - he suggested that the SENSOR was not capable of resolving much more than 60 LP/mm, which is simply math based on pixels. You can put a lens capable of resolving 300LP/mm infront of a sensor which is only capable of resolving 50Lp/mm, you're only going to be able to resolve 50Lp/mm...

You perhaps will also notice that in the link you referred to, the resolution test was done on Tech Pan film, not with a DSLR....

[Donald Miller]

I think you misread what had been typed - he suggested that the SENSOR was not capable of resolving much more than 60 LP/mm, which is simply math based on pixels. You can put a lens capable of resolving 300LP/mm infront of a sensor which is only capable of resolving 50Lp/mm, you're only going to be able to resolve 50Lp/mm...

You perhaps will also notice that in the link you referred to, the resolution test was done on Tech Pan film, not with a DSLR....


Don, I was taking the statement for what was said (I was reading the black stuff on the white background)...and it clearly stated lens...not sensor.

I do understand your point.

[D. Bryant]

I propose a new definition of Large Format Photography and ask all to participate.

What does it mean to you? How can we reach an understanding that allows discussion and difference of opinion without flaming each other over those differences?

First off I fully accept the traditional film and view camera definition.

I also consider the following to be part of the new large format.

1. A digital back, 39mp minimum, on a view camera is large format.

2. Stitching captures in post, 150mb minimum, is large format.

3. Output by inkjet, Lambda, or silver halide more than 16" in one dimension is large format.

That's it, what do you think?

First, this thread needs to be moved to Lounge where I won't see it.

Stitching images in my book doesn't define LF (even though I stitch multiple 4x5 scans).

A digital back is a digital back, a large format camera is a large format camera. One doesn't define the other.

Number 3 is totally irrelevant to your premise.

Go out and make photographs instead of contemplating the size of your your navel.

Don Bryant

[Don Hutton]

Don, I was taking the statement for what was said (I was reading the black stuff on the white background)...and it clearly stated lens...not sensor.

I do understand your point.Well, I just checked back in the "black stuff on the white background" and it clearly states that's the theoretical limit of the resolution of the sensor several times in different places... I'm obviously reading the wrong thread!

[Greg Lockrey]

Greg,

You are probably correct that this is beyond the scope of this forum. But please understand that the large print that this link leads you to is eighteen feet by six feet in dimension. Judging from the scale of the other images, I would say that all are represented as being enlarged and not simply the film of the respective formats. This image was made from stitched digitally captured images. My reason for posting this information is to indicate to those who think that digital photography is someone's weak stepchild is simply not true. In fact digital (using what is available today) can far outstrip large format in terms of resolution, tonal distribution, and it can produce prints that are better or I would not be using it.

I certainly don't want my contribution to this matter to be from a position of contentiousness but I would rather it be from the standpoint of informing those who probably don't have all of the information when they make some really contentious and misinformed statements.

I have shot large format for almost thirty years (everything from 4X5 to 12X20). So I am not some new kid on the block when it comes to understanding large format, the use of the camera, and arriving at exhibition quality prints.

That having been said, I will shut up and let the rest that want to contribute in a positive way do so.

I'm not being contentious either. I think that 18 foot high rez prints are very cool, but this needs to be on a forum type of it's own that's all I'm saying. You have me "keyed" since like I said before I do similar things but on a smaller scale. (I stitch 2x3 FF 35 mm digital to copy art work for life size reproduction.) Just for curiousity, how fast is that Pix-Orb when making images to stitch? Where do you stitch these files this size, I don't think PS can handle 3.8 gig byte files. Is PTGui that good? (I better shut up too, I don't want to raise the dead here.) ;)

[Donald Miller]

I'm not being contentious either. I think that 18 foot high rez prints are very cool, but this needs to be on a forum type of it's own that's all I'm saying. You have me "keyed" since like I said before I do similar things but on a smaller scale. (I stitch 2x3 FF 35 mm digital to copy art work for life size reproduction.) Just for curiousity, how fast is that Pix-Orb when making images to stitch? Where do you stitch these files this size, I don't think PS can handle 3.8 gig byte files. Is PTGui that good? (I better shut up too, I don't want to raise the dead here.) ;)

Greg, Rather than inflaming anyone by discussing this further on this thread, I will start a new thread under digital processing or digital equipment and will answer your questions there.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

However when one looks at the end result, from your perspective and in your opinion, what does large format have to offer other than tradition?

Nothing Donald, this is why perhaps you and Jeff should start a forum about super creative stitched images with ultra big files and leave those of us who still prefer to take our snapshots with big film enjoy the bliss of our ignorance.

Trying to re define the traditional name of this forum, and the tools we use for participation in this forum, to include dslr stitched images is simpy trying to impose your preferences on us close minded ignorant bufoons who prefer big sheets of film.

Just to be clear, you and Jeff are right, there is nothing I can do with my LF cameras that you cannot do better and more creatively with your stitched images and big files. None of my snapshot contact prints will ever be as good as any of your digital prints. So there, you have won, digital is the panacea in photography and nothing is equal to it. Can we move on now and talk about about snap shots taken with big cameras and big film?

[jetcode]

seems to me all the bucking in the world will not change a thing here

the case of cranky old coots versus headstrong young blood now in session, the honorable judge pixel grain presiding ...

[Greg Lockrey]

seems to me all the bucking in the world will not change a thing here

the case of cranky old coots versus headstrong young blood now in session, the honorable judge pixel grain presiding ...

How about if I add this to my reciept header:

LIMITED EDITION PRINTS
Custom Wide Format Pixelography

[David A. Goldfarb]

As I see it, attaching a DSLR or MF digital back to a view camera and using a sliding back or rise/fall/shift to compose a high resolution image is within the scope of the forum as I understand it. You still compose on the groundglass and use the same movements--only the sensor has changed (and the possibility of instantaneous capture for multishot backs).

Using a DSLR or MF SLR with a high resolution digital back and a pano head to compose stitched image is a different discipline in my opinion. It seems more like expanded 35mm or medium format photography to me, only related to traditional large format by virtue of the file size, but not by the method of composition or control of perspective and the focus plane. Of course some of these things can be done in post-processing, but we wouldn't say that when someone tilts the enlarging easel to square up a 35mm image that it becomes large format photography, just as I wouldn't say that skewing an image in PhotoShop or changing the projection of a stitched image digitally makes it large format.

[jetcode]

How about if I add this to my reciept header:

LIMITED EDITION PRINTS
Custom Wide Format Pixelagraphy

Judging by your watercolors (which I admire) I'm surprised you even use a camera.

I have an 8x20 landscape (print size) in the local art show and the show coordinator called me about my 2 hour slot to watch the gallery. He then proceeds to go on about how the art teachers are taking their classes to the show and teaching the kids "why painting is better than photography" ...

apparently the war on art is not limited to this forum ...

[Kirk Gittings]

I stitch dslr images all the time. It is a vital part of my tool kit, but by any definition that is realistic......it is not large format photography (4x5 or larger) or utilize some kind of view camera (the only two points of reference that have always mattered here).

I don't understand the desire to make this forum so all encompassing, which will simply dilute and weaken its focus.

[IanG]

Well put Kirk.

I've stitched digital images together for extremely wide format prints, but they aren't Large Format images, I'll never state they are either. It's a completely different ball game.

Ian

[h2oman]

Scroll to the top of this page. If your camera don't look pretty similar to the prehistoric monster there, it ain't large format photography!:D

[jetcode]

if anyone knows of a good forum on art or the art of photography with no restrictions on format let me know - while I certainly appreciate all things LF this forum does not cater to my global love of art - time to do some surfing to see what's out there

[Marko]

Unless some limitation is hit, I suspect that handheld cameras capable of 40+ MP are in our future. Using MP to define LF seems to be too changable...today's "large format" will be tomorrow's "small format".

In the end, I would just have to say that true Large Format Photography is based on film capture (tho the size of the LF film is and probably always will be debatable -- as well as the use of roll film in a LF camera, LOL!). Your new definitions just don't fit, and trying to fit them into the definition of LF limits them...like trying to shove an elephant into a crate designed for a lion. They are a subset of digital photography, not of large format photography.

If you are indeed saying, as it sounds, that in this case format equals size equals medium, than I can see why this question keeps popping up every once in a while.

You are right to say that today's large format will be tomorrow's small one. After all, didn't this exact transformation happen with 4x5 already? "Large" and "small" seem to be pretty relative qualifiers and as such should be considered in the contemporary context. The problem is that the window that defines contemporary seems to be moving faster than some people's ability or willingness to adopt the the change.

So:

Q1: Why film only?
Q2: Why not digital?
Q3: Why not new definitions?


As I see it, attaching a DSLR or MF digital back to a view camera and using a sliding back or rise/fall/shift to compose a high resolution image is within the scope of the forum as I understand it. You still compose on the groundglass and use the same movements--only the sensor has changed (and the possibility of instantaneous capture for multishot backs).

Q4: Why only the ground glass?
Q5: Why not the computer screen?



Using a DSLR or MF SLR with a high resolution digital back and a pano head to compose stitched image is a different discipline in my opinion. It seems more like expanded 35mm or medium format photography to me, only related to traditional large format by virtue of the file size, but not by the method of composition or control of perspective and the focus plane. Of course some of these things can be done in post-processing, but we wouldn't say that when someone tilts the enlarging easel to square up a 35mm image that it becomes large format photography, just as I wouldn't say that skewing an image in PhotoShop or changing the projection of a stitched image digitally makes it large format.

This is, IMO, probably the most relevant point in this discussion. But it still leaves the original question unanswered:

Q6: What exactly can be considered Large Format today?

As Vaughn has noted, the concept of "large" and "small" has been shifting historically, so why not today or in the future? The technology changes too, as most of us seem to be aware, so why fix the format in the past? Wouldn't that move the entire field into the history along the way? In that light, the OP's question is certainly very valid, and even though it's indeed been beaten to death and back, the point is that there's still no clear answer. Reading this (and other) threads, another question inevitably comes up:

Q7: Do we really want to find a good answer to the original question?

And finally, a question relating to Donald's excellent description:

Q8: Why does size matter at all?
Q9: Why not use concept as a qualifier? (such as View Camera photography)

The way I understand the OP the real question is how do we define the type of photography we are talking about here.

If the focus is indeed on the concept itself (i.e. using movements to control perspective and plane of focus), why do the capture medium and its size really matter?

If the focus is on film only, then a 11x14 point-and-shoot should also qualify, as well as the 110 and an asyl... err... forum dedicated to this line of thinking already exists. ;)

And if focus is on the size, we still need to determine what kind of size, since the size given in inches makes sense for only one of the two mediums currently used for capturing light. Or perhaps this is the main reason for insisting on the fixed size, since that would neatly eliminate the troublesome other?

Insisting that the Large Format Photography means only film of a certain minimum size in a view camera may have been justified a few years ago, but today it is rapidly becoming an incredibly narrow and outdated concept. What is more troubling is that people who are most vocal and who insist the most on this interpretation seem to be doing so mostly because they themselves are largely unskilled for using digital tools and unwilling to learn and adopt.

After all, what else would provoke the amount of scorn the OP's question elicited in the beginning?

[Marko]

if anyone knows of a good forum on art or the art of photography with no restrictions on format let me know - while I certainly appreciate all things LF this forum does not cater to my global love of art - time to do some surfing to see what's out there

Joe, if you find one, please let me know too.

[Ralph Barker]

Kirk's posts summarize the official position of the forum quite well. For the last 20-30 years, "large format" has been widely understood to mean 4x5 or larger film. We have traditionally included some smaller formats exposed with view and/or press cameras, even though they aren't technically large format. Similarly, discussions of roll film backs used on 4x5 cameras have been allowed, as are digital backs used on 4x5 cameras. Digital processing of large format negs is also clearly allowed by the structure of the forum.

The relatively tight focus of this forum is one of the reasons it has survived as long as it has. That doesn't diminish the value of other formats and other methods, it simply means that those formats and methods should be discussed elsewhere, or in The Lounge, since they are off-topic here.

New members are encouraged to read the FAQ/Guidelines (see the FAQ link in the blue navigation bar), since everyone agrees to comply with those provisions when they join the forum. The FAQ describes the scope of the forum and the type of behavior that is expected in reasonable detail. The FAQ also outlines what happens when a member repeatedly fails to comply. Pretty simple, really.

If a tightly-focused forum is not your cup of tea, by all means find another forum that better suits your objectives. Until Tuan decides to change the name of the forum to "Any Format Photography" and add DSLRs and camera phones to the logo, we'll remain dedicated to large format photography, as traditionally defined.

[Bruce Watson]

I propose a new definition of Large Format Photography...

Yawn...

[Don Hutton]

Kirk's posts summarize the official position of the forum quite well. For the last 20-30 years, "large format" has been widely understood to mean 4x5 or larger film. We have traditionally included some smaller formats exposed with view and/or press cameras, even though they aren't technically large format. Similarly, discussions of roll film backs used on 4x5 cameras have been allowed, as are digital backs used on 4x5 cameras. Digital processing of large format negs is also clearly allowed by the structure of the forum.

The relatively tight focus of this forum is one of the reasons it has survived as long as it has. That doesn't diminish the value of other formats and other methods, it simply means that those formats and methods should be discussed elsewhere, or in The Lounge, since they are off-topic here.

New members are encouraged to read the FAQ/Guidelines (see the FAQ link in the blue navigation bar), since everyone agrees to comply with those provisions when they join the forum. The FAQ describes the scope of the forum and the type of behavior that is expected in reasonable detail. The FAQ also outlines what happens when a member repeatedly fails to comply. Pretty simple, really.

If a tightly-focused forum is not your cup of tea, by all means find another forum that better suits your objectives. Until Tuan decides to change the name of the forum to "Any Format Photography" and add DSLRs and camera phones to the logo, we'll remain dedicated to large format photography, as traditionally defined.Ralph

I think it's worth pointing out, that while Tuan's own personal workflow has moved from LF to a DSLR (I believe anyway), he has not tried to move this forum over from it's tried and seemingly frequently tested subject matter to a more encompassing and less focused, anything goes photography forum...

There are hundreds of other forums devoted to stitching, DSLRs, photoshop, scanners etc etc. I'm extremely grateful that this forum is intent on fostering and preserving an extremely wealthy base of knowledge and experience around large format photography.

[Jan Pedersen]

Ralph, THANKS

[David A. Goldfarb]

If rollfilm today becomes sufficiently fine grained and detailed that it is as good as the 4x5" sheet film of yesterday, I wouldn't call medium format rollfilm photography large format, so I think the question of increasing digital resolution and sensor size isn't necessarily relevant. A Better Light scanning back to me on a view camera is large format, but the Sinar Hy6 is a digital medium format SLR in my opinion.

There are other things that I think of as LF that aren't view cameras, like Graflex SLRs, Hobos, and rangefinder press cameras, so I suppose the groundglass isn't the only option.

Computer screen with live view and sufficient resolution to make accurate camera adjustments using an appropriate camera (I'm thinking of something like a high-end digital back on a camera like a Linhof M679)?--I'd say that's in the ballpark--bearing in mind that groundglass composition is still an option in such a situation. The forum has been open to medium format work that is scaled-down from large format, like using rollfilm backs on LF cameras or 2x3" view and press cameras, so I'd see that in the same vein.

Medium format or DSLR with a T-S lens, Zoerk adapter, macro bellows with movements--I'd say that's more marginal to the LF forum. I have a bellows with full view-camera movements for my Bronica S2a, but I discuss that on the Bronica forum, not the LF forum.

[I started writing that before Ralph's post, which I thoroughly agree with.]

[Dave Parker]

Kirk's posts summarize the official position of the forum quite well. For the last 20-30 years, "large format" has been widely understood to mean 4x5 or larger film. We have traditionally included some smaller formats exposed with view and/or press cameras, even though they aren't technically large format. Similarly, discussions of roll film backs used on 4x5 cameras have been allowed, as are digital backs used on 4x5 cameras. Digital processing of large format negs is also clearly allowed by the structure of the forum.

The relatively tight focus of this forum is one of the reasons it has survived as long as it has. That doesn't diminish the value of other formats and other methods, it simply means that those formats and methods should be discussed elsewhere, or in The Lounge, since they are off-topic here.

New members are encouraged to read the FAQ/Guidelines (see the FAQ link in the blue navigation bar), since everyone agrees to comply with those provisions when they join the forum. The FAQ describes the scope of the forum and the type of behavior that is expected in reasonable detail. The FAQ also outlines what happens when a member repeatedly fails to comply. Pretty simple, really.

If a tightly-focused forum is not your cup of tea, by all means find another forum that better suits your objectives. Until Tuan decides to change the name of the forum to "Any Format Photography" and add DSLRs and camera phones to the logo, we'll remain dedicated to large format photography, as traditionally defined.

Well Ralph all I have to say is:

http://www.yellowstoneparkchat.com/hammer.jpg

You hit it directly on the Head!

[Bruce Watson]

Kirk's posts summarize the official position of the forum quite well. For the last 20-30 years, "large format" has been widely understood to mean 4x5 or larger film. We have traditionally included some smaller formats exposed with view and/or press cameras, even though they aren't technically large format. Similarly, discussions of roll film backs used on 4x5 cameras have been allowed, as are digital backs used on 4x5 cameras. Digital processing of large format negs is also clearly allowed by the structure of the forum.

The relatively tight focus of this forum is one of the reasons it has survived as long as it has. That doesn't diminish the value of other formats and other methods, it simply means that those formats and methods should be discussed elsewhere, or in The Lounge, since they are off-topic here.

New members are encouraged to read the FAQ/Guidelines (see the FAQ link in the blue navigation bar), since everyone agrees to comply with those provisions when they join the forum. The FAQ describes the scope of the forum and the type of behavior that is expected in reasonable detail. The FAQ also outlines what happens when a member repeatedly fails to comply. Pretty simple, really.

If a tightly-focused forum is not your cup of tea, by all means find another forum that better suits your objectives. Until Tuan decides to change the name of the forum to "Any Format Photography" and add DSLRs and camera phones to the logo, we'll remain dedicated to large format photography, as traditionally defined.

Yes! Well said!

[sanking]

If a tightly-focused forum is not your cup of tea, by all means find another forum that better suits your objectives. Until Tuan decides to change the name of the forum to "Any Format Photography" and add DSLRs and camera phones to the logo, we'll remain dedicated to large format photography, as traditionally defined.

Excellent advice. If you are not happy with the focus of the LF forum, there are plenty of alternative sites out there.

And besides, why would anyone want to waste valuable time and brain power debating something this silly? The forum is what it is. If you don't like the focus of the forum, move on. The internet is a big place. Learn to use it.

Sandy

[Gordon Moat]

If I looked at a pinhole camera that used 4x5 film, obviously that is low resolution, yet I think that would qualify as large format. Move slightly past that technology to a slightly better resolving lens, and my Voigtländer Bergheil (9x12 with 4x5 adapter), and that is something I also think is large format, though unfortunately not as good resolving a set-up as my Shen-Hao with modern Schneider and Nikkor lenses. When I mount my early 1850s Holmes, Booth & Haydens lens onto my Shen-Hao, and then mount my Linhof Super Rollex 56x72 rollfilm back, does the combination suddenly cease to be large format? After all the HB&H was originally for 1/4 plate, and the Linhof back is way smaller than 4x5. Anyway, I do think 9x12 cm should be included in large format, even if it is not widely used.

Weirdness in terminology alters usage of language: in machine vision, large format refers to 24mm by 36mm cameras, often with three chips installed; in very wide printing, large format refers to any prints wider than 72" on the shortest side. Neither of these things have any relevance on this forum, and anyone interested in this stuff can find out more somewhere else.

Several years ago I worked on an interesting project, and some technology discussions came out of that. The future perceived limit of sensor technology, at that time, was seen as a roughly 6x4.5 sized sensor of near 100MP . . . obviously we are not there yet, though surprisingly not too far away. Pixel density and cell site sizes are more of a limit of optical resolution (not file size) than file sizes and megapixels suggest, regardless of lenses. In large format, the capabilities of our films of choice are often lens limited, and sometimes scanner limited when we choose to post process in that way. Sometimes there is lens limited digital imaging, though I think more often the sensor is the limit.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD2X/page27.asp

A Nikon D2X resolves nearly 63 lp/mm in this comparison with a Canon 1DsMarkII (about 50 lp/mm)(some internet sites might indicate slightly better or worse). File sizes seem to suggest even greater resolution, though that ignores the anti-alias filter, Bayer interpolation, and the dead areas between pixels. About the only semi-constant observation of sensors is that pixel size does give a rough indication of optical resolving capability. So while that Canon 85mm lens can perform decently at f5.6 or f8.0, it can be sensor limited. Interestingly the newer 1DsMarkIII is not nearly as much improvement in optical resolution as the increase in file sizes would suggest (compared to a 1DsMarkII).

To answer a different question, the approach of using a large format camera, or a view camera, is very different from using smaller cameras. It is not just the larger film sizes, and certainly not resolution. Movements can be an advantage in many situations, though they are often subtle, and not always necessary. There can seem to be a blurring of techniques and technologies, but I think the main emphasis of this forum would suffer by diluting discussions with other formats, or other approaches, especially when those other approaches are too often considered in comparison, rather than on their own merits. In other words, if your images suck, it's not the camera.
:D

I enjoy the narrower emphasis here. That makes this forum such the great resource it has become. While expanding emphasis might please a few people, or lead to even more discussions, I think the end result would be to dilute the great information already here. I see no need for this forum to be all encompassing, and quite likely I would drift away from it in the event discussions went that direction.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Hugo Zhang]

There always are lots of sounds and fury on this subject. But for my private amusement, I like to look at upside down images reflected on my ground glass, the bigger the images, the better.:)

[Vaughn]

Question...is my cardboard box pinhole camera using 8x10 litho film "large format"?

No glass on either end of the camera, no bellows, no movements (except for me carrying it around). I had an 11x14 model, but I think a student used it to pack their stuff up at the end of the semester.

Warning it was a rhetorical question...

Vaughn

PS...Thanks Ralph.

[domenico Foschi]

This really is a no brainer.
Large format cameras are just that.
There is no need to re-interpret.
It is not a elitist position or, like has been mentioned before, a pissing match on who has the bigger tool.
Myself, I almost always use a 4x5 speed graphic with probably leaky bellows(I say probably because I prefer being in denial).
If I am interested in some info about 35mm or MF I go in another forum.

I am an Anarchist, I have nothing against Democracy,but I realize that this forum shouldn't be either.
The founder and moderators have drawn guidelines that should be respected.

[Vaughn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
Unless some limitation is hit, I suspect that handheld cameras capable of 40+ MP are in our future. Using MP to define LF seems to be too changable...today's "large format" will be tomorrow's "small format".

In the end, I would just have to say that true Large Format Photography is based on film capture (tho the size of the LF film is and probably always will be debatable -- as well as the use of roll film in a LF camera, LOL!). Your new definitions just don't fit, and trying to fit them into the definition of LF limits them...like trying to shove an elephant into a crate designed for a lion. They are a subset of digital photography, not of large format photography.
If you are indeed saying, as it sounds, that in this case format equals size equals medium, than I can see why this question keeps popping up every once in a while.

marco..."You are right to say that today's large format will be tomorrow's small one. After all, didn't this exact transformation happen with 4x5 already? "Large" and "small" seem to be pretty relative qualifiers and as such should be considered in the contemporary context. The problem is that the window that defines contemporary seems to be moving faster than some people's ability or willingness to adopt the the change.

So:

Q1: Why film only?
Q2: Why not digital?
Q3: Why not new definitions?"


I put small and large format in quotation marks to denote that they refer only to MP size -- not film size. Sorry this was not clear.

A1, A2 and A3 ..Ralph pretty much answered these. My comments should have been in relation to this forum and its purpose...not what the world in general wishes to call larger format.

Should a forum based on watercolor or oil painting include using digital drawing pads? Or are those painters just not willing to adapt to change? (I am assuming there are forums for just painters of different media.)

Vaughn

[Greg Lockrey]

Judging by your watercolors (which I admire) I'm surprised you even use a camera.

I have an 8x20 landscape (print size) in the local art show and the show coordinator called me about my 2 hour slot to watch the gallery. He then proceeds to go on about how the art teachers are taking their classes to the show and teaching the kids "why painting is better than photography" ...

apparently the war on art is not limited to this forum ...

Thank you Joe, for the nice comment. For the record I started with a camera. When I went to school, I had to take Art 101 and found out that "the art world" seemed to like my scribblings. ;) When I wanted some scans made and found out the price, I started to do it myself, thus a business was born.

[jetcode]

There always are lots of sounds and fury on this subject. But for my private amusement, I like to look at upside down images reflected on my ground glass, the bigger the images, the better.:)

I can't imagine trying to view an image on a 16x20 and 8x10 is a bit of a stretch and 4x5 too small but 5x7 and 4x10 are just right for me. That said if a scene is truly beautiful I'd rather spend time in it without my camera then to experience the scene from a reproduction, the best being when I get to have both experiences.

[jetcode]

Well Ralph all I have to say is:

http://www.yellowstoneparkchat.com/hammer.jpg

You hit it directly on the Head!

nice image ... is that from a 4x5 or 8x10?

[jetcode]

I don't think dilution is necessary or adding new topics I think I am truly interested in exploring art and composition, an expansion of my own creative processes.

I have no real interest in 35mm or MF or LF or Digital except as tools to express art through. I just saw some Gum Bichromates that were drop dead gorgeous. I get emails from LF members who don't post here and for mostly for one reason:

They don't want to get beat over the head for mentioning Tuna while we debate Salmon. It's all fish!

Many LF photographers have embraced digital technologies. At this point I am more interested in art, composition, and creativity, and am actively seeking this outside of this forum: no problem.

[Marko]

A1, A2 and A3 ..Ralph pretty much answered these. My comments should have been in relation to this forum and its purpose...not what the world in general wishes to call larger format.

Well, in his post Ralph is defining Large Format "as it has been understood over the last 20-30 years". My point is that digital started coming into the mainstream less than 10 years ago and it is now at the point where some old definitions cease making sense or are becoming historical at the very best. It is precisely how individual aspects of photography are understood that we are discussing here.

I still believe that the questions I raised are valid in the context of this forum, unless deus ex machina says they are not. The last paragraph in Ralph's post sounds very much like he is indeed saying just that. That may be the end of the discussion, but answer to the questions raised it is still not. ;)


Should a forum based on watercolor or oil painting include using digital drawing pads? Or are those painters just not willing to adapt to change? (I am assuming there are forums for just painters of different media.)

Probably not, but the forum on painting still should.

The last time I checked, film exclusivity was the mission statement over at apug but not here. Again, unless the powers that be decide that it is, but then a public announcement would be in order, or at least a nice touch.

BTW, it's MarKo...

[sanking]

Many LF photographers have embraced digital technologies. At this point I am more interested in art, composition, and creativity, and am actively seeking this outside of this forum: no problem.

If you really want to do great work with your art you will waste your time with any forum. If that is your goal, you should focus tightly on what it is you want to achieve, and work to make it happen. You can only find this force from within.

About 95&#37; of my real time is spent with the process of making carbon transfer prints. I rarely discuss the issue here, and not often on the other forums because people would not understand me, and there are only a handful of people in the world I could learn from. And I communicate with many of those persons directly. I engage with persons on this forum on other issues not primarily related to my own artistic passions. If you want to do outstanding work, focus, passion and a commitment to goals and methods are necessary IMHO.

Sandy King

[Kirk Gittings]

Marko, 20-30 years ago Ralph would have given a much narrow description of LF unless he was prescient. I don't know, 20 -30 years ago I don't remember LF discussions about digital backs, scanning, digital printing from LF negatives (except for presses), digitally enlarged negatives etc. etc. LF and this forum has changed allot, but when a forum treats DSLR technique on the same footing as 8x10 film it will be just another scattered photo forum.

[jetcode]

If you really want to do great work with your art you will waste your time with any forum. If that is your goal, you should focus tightly on what it is you want to achieve, and work to make it happen.

About 95% of my real time is spent with the process of making carbon transfer prints. I rarely discuss the issue here, and not often on the other forums because people would not understand me, and there are only a handful of people in the world I could learn from. And I communicate with many of those persons directly. I engage with persons on this forum on other issues primarily to pass the time between the various wet and dry operations of my work in printing with carbon transfer. This is a passion that few will understand, but if you want to do outstanding work, focus and passion is necessary IMHO.

Sandy King

Yes I hear you on dialing in a process and making it your own.

You might think this is nuts but in a site like flicker I can view a LOT of images and examine composition and that is what I am after at this point. Saturating my compositional palette. What makes an image work and why. I am finding that sites with a high concentration of images yield higher results more efficiently. I also find that web sites by professional photographers and artists of all schools very informative as well. I feel that I am in research mode right now.

[Ralph Barker]

My post above was intended to address both the original question (what is large format?) and address what falls within the scope of this forum. Developments in digital photography have not changed what is generally considered to be "large format" - it's still 4x5 and larger film-based cameras. For the unsure, a check of how retailers categorize their product offerings will confirm this. Ask Jeff at Badger Graphic Sales for a "large format" camera, and it's not likely that he'll serve you a high-MP DSLR with a side order of stitching software.

There are, however, some digital tools that have been embraced by traditional large format photographers, and the scope of this forum has adjusted to include those. Scanning with digital output and digitally-enlarged negatives are good examples. As such, we are not a "film-exclusive" forum like APUG. But, APUG has the perfect right to define their scope as they choose, and rightly expect that scope to be respected.

We're here to discuss matters that fall within the scope of the forum as we have defined it, not debate whether long-standing definitions should be changed.

[jetcode]

sorry dave - didn't mean to anger you - but to expose the reality we all live in now

[Marko]

I don't think anybody is saying that the forum should become free-for-all. But just as the 4x5 was once considered to be small format, so is technology changing what it means now and what it will mean in the future.

I still think that some of the questions I raised are perfectly valid in the context of this forum, especially those that pertain to the difference between the terms "Large Format" and "View Camera". I also think that digital has blurred some of the "traditional" boundaries almost beyond recognition while the others are still very clear.

After all, what's the harm in discussing it all?

As for APUG, yes they have the perfect right to define their scope as they choose, just like any other forum. They have both their scope and their boundaries clearly and unambiguously defined. While the scope of this forum - the use of view cameras - is clear, its boundaries are not, however, precisely because the actual medium is not defined. It was assumed that it would be film in the time when film was the only game in town. But the times are changing and insisting on strict physical dimensions of the medium now is therefore nothing else than restricting the medium itself without explicitly saying so.

All those oft-repeated attempts to define the Large Format are, therefore, nothing else than attempts to eliminate confusion.

Just my $0.02.

P.S.

And by "digital", I DO NOT mean DSLR or such. DSLR is just another SLR, only with a digital light-sensitive medium. It should be pretty clear that it is not LF. Could its output be compared to LF under certain circumstances? I don't know, but sounds like it might be worth discussing.

[Dave Parker]

Well it looks like the Original Poster, got his wish, 8 pages of posts, on a subject that has been discussed to death over the last few years...

Dave

[Marko]

Or perhaps only 3-4 pages if you don't count all those who claim it's already been discussed to death. Even less if you also discount all the posts that discuss whether it should be discussed or not. ;)

[Donald Miller]

I agree that this forum should have the right to establish the parameters under which it operates. More succinctly, appropriately, and accurately I might add would be to rename this forum as "The View Camera and Film Forum...a subset of Apug"...although in this sense Apug, rather than being cloistered and unduly restrictive, in my opinion, is actually more liberal it would now appear.

[David A. Goldfarb]

There seems to be a lot of interest in stitching and high-end digital capture on openphotographyforums.com (it's also monitored by a couple of Sinar guys, so I can get my Linhof info here and Sinar info there). Maybe that is a better place to discuss such topics. I'm sure there are others as well.

I follow a few different forums, and try to stay on topic in each one. The internet's a big place.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I agree that this forum should have the right to establish the parameters under which it operates. More succinctly, appropriately, and accurately I might add would be to rename this forum as "The View Camera and Film Forum...a subset of Apug"...although in this sense Apug, rather than being cloistered and unduly restrictive, in my opinion, is actually more liberal it would now appear.

You are way off base. Lets see, Jim Collum shoots a Betterlight back on a 4x5, Don Hutton I beleive stitches 4x5 photographs, Kirk Gittings, as he pointed out, stitches smaller format photographs but has the courtesy to limits his participation in this forum to LF photographs, Ken Lee uses 4x5 and scans, Sandy King frequently scans his LF negatives to make them even bigger or work on them, Michael Mutmansky scans a lot of his work. These are only a few that I know, I am sure there are plenty more who work with digital.

There is plenty of digital work and discussion in this forum including two dedicated digital forums, one for techniques and one for hardware. The only thing that is being ask of the members is that they have LF in common.

If you want to talk about what you do, lets do it. You have picked a very convinient comparison, yet I would like for you to show me any digital camera that can obtain the same quality I get with my 8x10 with one shot none of this stitching.

You want to talk about stitching and big files, I can do the same thing you do and get even bigger files. Choosing the proper focal lenght I can photograph sections of a scene, scan the 8x10 negatives and end up with a file in the gigabit range.

You want to talk about HDR, I can shoot a negative for the highlights and one for the shadows and blend them together, in the computer or darkroom.

You are way out of line accusing this forum of being a subset of APUG just because it does not wish to change it's focus and cater to the taste of a few members who insist on talking about dslrs.

[Alan Davenport]

Gee, I love these threads!


Q1: Why film only?
Q2: Why not digital?
Q3: Why not new definitions?
Q4: Why only the ground glass?
Q5: Why not the computer screen?
Q6: What exactly can be considered Large Format today?
Q7: Do we really want to find a good answer to the original question?
Q8: Why does size matter at all?
Q9: Why not use concept as a qualifier? (such as View Camera photography)

1. Because it's part of the definition. Even though I scan my large format films and end up with digital files, I can't call myself a digital photographer. Those who don't use film are, likewise, excluded from being Large Format Photographers.
2. See #1.
3. Why not new terms? Leave ours alone. Better yet, get a big ass camera and a box of film, and join us.
4. Groundglass is NOT required. It's about film size, and it's not our fault (collectively or individually) that most cameras for large format film, also have a groundglass viewing screen.
5. Great, if it uses film first.
6. Same as yesterday, and the day before: 4x5, and larger, film.
7. We've already found 8 pages of good answers to the original question. Unfortunately, some of us seem unwilling to accept answers that aren't what we want to hear.
8. Same as #1: it's in the definition.
9. Great concept! View camera photography is called "view camera photography," and it may or may not also be large format.


The problem is that some people are simply unwilling to accept that certain technical terms are fixed; unchanging; defined: such as "Large Format" when applied to photography. While these people may have marvelous photographic skills and mastery of the latest equipment and techniques, they lack the imagination to invent new terms to describe whatever it is they do.

Couple that with the je ne sais quoi of "large format" and some folks just can't resist trying to hijack the terminology.

Too bad: "Large format" means film, 4x5 or larger. Other than that, there are no restrictions on the type of camera, lenses (or lack thereof) or anything else; just use big sheets of film and you're a "large format" photographer.

If you don't use big sheets of film, you need to invent a new term. "Large format" is already taken.

[Andrew O'Neill]

:) !!!

[Kirk Gittings]

:) !!!

And that is their field outfit. You should see the studio camera!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Gee, I love these threads!



1. Because it's part of the definition. Even though I scan my large format films and end up with digital files, I can't call myself a digital photographer. Those who don't use film are, likewise, excluded from being Large Format Photographers.
2. See #1.
3. Why not new terms? Leave ours alone. Better yet, get a big ass camera and a box of film, and join us.
4. Groundglass is NOT required. It's about film size, and it's not our fault (collectively or individually) that most cameras for large format film, also have a groundglass viewing screen.
5. Great, if it uses film first.
6. Same as yesterday, and the day before: 4x5, and larger, film.
7. We've already found 8 pages of good answers to the original question. Unfortunately, some of us seem unwilling to accept answers that aren't what we want to hear.
8. Same as #1: it's in the definition.
9. Great concept! View camera photography is called "view camera photography," and it may or may not also be large format.


The problem is that some people are simply unwilling to accept that certain technical terms are fixed; unchanging; defined: such as "Large Format" when applied to photography. While these people may have marvelous photographic skills and mastery of the latest equipment and techniques, they lack the imagination to invent new terms to describe whatever it is they do.

Couple that with the je ne sais quoi of "large format" and some folks just can't resist trying to hijack the terminology.

Too bad: "Large format" means film, 4x5 or larger. Other than that, there are no restrictions on the type of camera, lenses (or lack thereof) or anything else; just use big sheets of film and you're a "large format" photographer.

If you don't use big sheets of film, you need to invent a new term. "Large format" is already taken.

Thank you Alan! the only item I would change would be film or digital back for 4x5... :)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

:) !!!

Those gigapixel guys, they just have to show off!

[Kirk Gittings]

Just curious, does anyone know how many grains of silver are in an average 4x5 sheet of film? Each one of those grains represents in digital terms a kind of sample.

[Greg Lockrey]

Just curious, does anyone know how many grains of silver are in an average 4x5 sheet of film? Each one of those grains represents in digital terms a kind of sample.

They measure from 1 to 2 microns if this helps.

On paper they measure .01 to .02 microns.

[Marko]

The problem is that some people are simply unwilling to accept that certain technical terms are fixed; unchanging; defined: such as "Large Format" when applied to photography. While these people may have marvelous photographic skills and mastery of the latest equipment and techniques, they lack the imagination to invent new terms to describe whatever it is they do.

Couple that with the je ne sais quoi of "large format" and some folks just can't resist trying to hijack the terminology.

Ah, I see now! You mean original like "Camera" and "Darkroom"? These terms surely weren't hijacked, or were they?

Yeah, these threads can indeed be funny at times, despite all the silliness.

;) :rolleyes:

[Don Hutton]

They measure from 1 to 2 microns if this helps.
And the pixels on the H3D are 6.8 microns across - pretty clunky in comparison :eek:

[Merg Ross]

For a definition of large format photography, try this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_format

For a definition of the Large Format Photography Forum, read the comments posted earlier by Ralph Barker and Kirk Gittings.

This forum has, for many years, been very clear as to its intent. If you look back over those years, you will find contributions from practitioners who had no need to question their legitimacy as large format photographers. What is important to this forum, is its integrity. It is not the only forum available for discussing photography, but it has been one of the best for discussing large format photography. I hope that it will remain so.

[Greg Lockrey]

And the pixels on the H3D are 6.8 microns across - pretty clunky in comparison :eek:

Yep, I think you'd need more than a 10x magnifier to see the difference.:D

[Kirk Gittings]

And the pixels on the H3D are 6.8 microns across - pretty clunky in comparison :eek:

I am tripping over my terminology here but......If one stretches the analogy about sampling or SPI to film grain or a silver particle being equivalent to a single pixel ppi. I am trying to figure out how many whatevers that represents on 4x5 film. Is 4x5 film like 200 MPE (Mega Pixel Equivilent). Catch my train of thought?

Thanks Merg.

[Greg Lockrey]

I am tripping over my terminology here but......If one stretches the analogy about sampling or SPI to film grain or a silver particle being equivalent to a single pixel ppi. I am trying to figure out how many whatevers that represents on 4x5 film. Is 4x5 film like 200 MPE (Mega Pixel Equivilent). Catch my train of thought?

Thanks Merg.

1" = 25,400 microns

Average grain = 1.5 microns or 25,400/1.5 = 16,963 grains

4(16,963) x 5(16,963) = 5,754,867,380 ave grains

[jnantz]

large scale prints, stitched files sounds like fun.
BUT the more you stick around, the more you will understand
this forum is very rigid in its belief that certain things
are and are not for consideration ...

[Marko]

For a definition of large format photography, try this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_format

Personally, I would not rely on Wikipedia for anything other than mere pointers for serious research. It has certain informative value, but its credentials are inherently suspect - it can be and it is written by everybody. Literally.

And indeed, the article you link to has only one reference, Wegman's 20x24 studio and it further links APUG as one of the "related links" (sic!). It does not even mention this forum! Really makes one wonder who wrote that, doesn't it?

Looks like Donald may be on to something, after all...

[GPS]

Personally, I would not rely on Wikipedia for anything other than mere pointers for serious research. It has certain informative value, but its credentials are inherently suspect - it can be and it is written by everybody. Literally.

And indeed, the article you link to has only one reference, Wegman's 20x24 studio and it further links APUG as one of the "related links" (sic!). It does not even mention this forum! Really makes one wonder who wrote that, doesn't it?

..

Wikipedia referring to Apug? Tell me who your friend is and I tell you who you are...:)

[Merg Ross]

Marko, I agree.

Seriously, after fifty years of using large format cameras, I was not seeking a definition. I have my definition, others have theirs. My comments were related to the historical direction of this forum.

[Bruce Watson]

Just curious, does anyone know how many grains of silver are in an average 4x5 sheet of film? Each one of those grains represents in digital terms a kind of sample.

No idea really. The thing is, the majority of the silver is removed from the film during fixing. And it's a rather large variable because it depends largely on the image, exposure, developer.

For a really good look at what film grain really is, see Tim Vitale's paper. (http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2006-03-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf) Excellent research, this is.

Also, I should point out that "each one of those grains represents in digital terms a kind of sample" isn't an accurate presentation. The thing is, the emulsion has thickness. Film grains therefore overlap (sometimes called grain clumping). And I don't even want to think about the ramifications of the light scatter (controlled but not eliminated) in the emulsion during latent image formation. There's just not a good one-to-one representation between a metallic silver film grain and a pixel. I think trying to follow this path will lead to madness.

[sanking]

large scale prints, stitched files sounds like fun.
BUT the more you stick around, the more you will understand
this forum is very rigid in its belief that certain things
are and are not for consideration ...


I don't agree with you on this. The LF forum seems to me to be quite flexible, especially as it concerns digital issues. There are two different topics just for digital, and in the past people have posted there on a wide range of issues regarding digital. This includes scanning, digital backs for view cameras, digital processing, stitching, what have you. I think it reasonable to ask that the digital issue being discussed have some connection to LF cameras, but even that has not always been enforced. For example I can remember any number of threads about DSLRs.

So I just don't understand why anyone finds a problem, or perhaps it is like the proverbial "solution in search of a problem."

Sandy King

[Kirk Gittings]

I think trying to follow this path will lead to madness.

It may be too late.

[Vaughn]

It may be too late.

Way too late:p

vaughn (nuttier than squirrel poop)