Just what is LF ?

[W K Longcor]

The question came up - on the posting of church photos ---is it OK to post medium format photos. The concensus seemed to be NO. But, as far as this forum is concerned what is OK? Is a 2x3 view camera medium or large ? What about a 4x5 camera with a roll film back? Is sheet film of any size OK but roll not? I am relatively new on the forum, so if this has already been hashed out - just ignore me. Please realize that as a "retired" photographer, I have too much time on my hands and like to stir things up. Sorry.:D

[Dave Wooten]

14 x 17 is minumum size for large format, IMNSHO :)

[BrianShaw]

Contact me off-line... I can suggest a far more fun place to stir the pot!

edit: Please accept my apology for my smart-aleck answer. Don is right, for anyone not previously engaged in this type of discussion it is a valid question. I agree with what Don and Bruce have said.

[D. Bryant]

The question came up - on the posting of church photos ---is it OK to post medium format photos. The concensus seemed to be NO. But, as far as this forum is concerned what is OK? Is a 2x3 view camera medium or large ? What about a 4x5 camera with a roll film back? Is sheet film of any size OK but roll not? I am relatively new on the forum, so if this has already been hashed out - just ignore me. Please realize that as a "retired" photographer, I have too much time on my hands and like to stir things up. Sorry.:D

I think you ask a fair question.

I think it depends on the camera used to start with. If you are using a view camera with 2x3 cut sheet film, I can hang with that.

So what if you use a roll film back on a view camera? I think I'm amenable to that as well. And there are other variations on that theme, like a 35 mm camera mounted to a view camera. So for a general rule of thumb, if a shot is made with a view camera then I would say yeah go for it.

But I say no to regular roll film cameras, stitched digital, etc.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

[Bruce Watson]

The question came up - on the posting of church photos ---is it OK to post medium format photos. The concensus seemed to be NO. But, as far as this forum is concerned what is OK? Is a 2x3 view camera medium or large ? What about a 4x5 camera with a roll film back? Is sheet film of any size OK but roll not? I am relatively new on the forum, so if this has already been hashed out - just ignore me. Please realize that as a "retired" photographer, I have too much time on my hands and like to stir things up. Sorry.:D

I tend to take the "large" in LF literally. I think a good cut off point would be 100 square centimeters of film area. Maybe as low as 70 sqcm (which would let in 6x12). No lower for me.

Others will say it's about the camera -- separation of the film plane from the lens plane and the resulting movement capabilities.

Bottom line, you'll never get a consensus on this issue. So perhaps a good rule of thumb would be at least one of either view camera or sheet film. How's that for a definition?

[domenico Foschi]

Anything that makes you feel adequate and that doesn't dwell in politics

[Kuzano]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0ta32g9M6c

While the video clip reaches out to the extremes of Large Format, there are some medium format cameras that introduce one to the realm of larger formats.

For instance, the Century series of Graflex cameras, that have all the facets of larger Graflex cameras, ie. bellows, movements, ground glass focus, etc. Many other manufactures over the years have offered both monorail and field or press cameras in the 2X3 inch/6X9Cm formats.

Are they large format.... ?????????

Well, if I have to work as hard to get a perspective controlled image in 2X3 inch, as I would for 4X5 or bigger, don't whine to me about my not offering large format images.

[CG]

Maybe we can do like the astronomers and come up with an unneeded definition that annoys almost everyone.

I'm OK with any camera basically designed for sheet film, used with sheet holders or 120 roll film backs or really big digital chips. Or any camera with movements used with or converted to sheet film or the same list of options above.

Somehow 35mm or itsy bitsy chips do seem like they belong elsewhere.

C

[BarryS]

Occasionally someone wanders in here with a large format *printer* question and they're civilly answered, so for practical purposes the forum is very welcoming.

[W K Longcor]

OK - Having started this mess -- I should put in my own thoughts. When I owned a studio, I thought ( in my own slightly askew brain) that Hasselblad negs. (6x6cm) were SMALL format. 4X5 was MEDIUM format -- and honestly, the size I enjoyed working with the most. In thirty years in business, I think I only used 5X7 (LARGE format , at this point) a dozen times. 8X10 got used quite a bit -- LARGE format- of course. Since I was working for ad agencies and the like - and not doing "ARTISTIC" work, 8X10 was as large as I went. I did own a very old F&S 11X14 copy camera, but only used it with 8X10 film. And then -- 35mm -- I did use it ( did NOT like it) - but only when color slides were requested. If the slide in question was to be the same as an image made with a larger camera - I'd do a slide copy from the larger size.:o

[Glenn Thoreson]

Well, if you wander back through photographic history, you will find that pretty much anything with a film size of less than 3X4 was considered "miniature" and unworthy of consideration for serious photography. 3X4 and larger was "normal" size for the day, when contact prints were the norm. All that has changed over the last 100 years or so with the advent of better equipment and materials. The term "large format" seems to be a fairly recent thing. In ancient literature you will not see that term, as a general rule. When you do run across it, it is normally used in a somewhat different context from what you see today. So, in conclusion, I think of large format as anything using film that's 3X4 or larger. Why? Simply because it's not "miniature". :D

[jnantz]

"large format" is all relative.

[Bill_1856]

Large Format is a state of mind.
(Anyone who owns, has owned, or wants to own a camera which takes glass or metal plates or sheet film as its primary recording media is definitely a Large Format Photographer. There may be others.)

[Bill_1856]

Lage Format is purely a state of mind.

[Hector.Navarro]

even though a lot of times (before I had an LF camera) I did a lot of carefully composed and tripod leveled long exposures with 35mm (in color!) I can not claim that they are LF, serious images yes, LF not exactly.

After almost a year of practicing and learning the use of an LF camera, I can tell you that even with the camera mounted on the tripod I can be sloppy with technique in sort of the same way I could do it hand-holding a 35mm.

I agree with Bill, Large Format is purely a state of mind.

[Ralph Barker]

As an "official" answer, LF here is considered to be 4x5 or larger. Medium-format is allowed, however, if done with a view camera (defined loosely to include monorails, antique press cameras, etc.)

Non-LF images can be posted in the Lounge, however.

[paulr]

I confess to having snuck some images made with small cameras into a thread or two, but no one cared enough yet to kick me off the island. as long as you're in a large format state of mind when you click the shutter ...

[BrianShaw]

OK - Having started this mess -- I should put in my own thoughts. When I owned a studio, I thought ( in my own slightly askew brain) that Hasselblad negs. (6x6cm) were SMALL format. 4X5 was MEDIUM format -- and honestly, the size I enjoyed working with the most. In thirty years in business, I think I only used 5X7 (LARGE format , at this point) a dozen times. 8X10 got used quite a bit -- LARGE format- of course. Since I was working for ad agencies and the like - and not doing "ARTISTIC" work, 8X10 was as large as I went. I did own a very old F&S 11X14 copy camera, but only used it with 8X10 film. And then -- 35mm -- I did use it ( did NOT like it) - but only when color slides were requested. If the slide in question was to be the same as an image made with a larger camera - I'd do a slide copy from the larger size.:o

Wow... why are you using an 'embarassed' smiley? I'm impressed... I really am!

[Alan Davenport]

Let's start by analyzing what we're talking about. We are talking about a "format" in photography. There are many formats: 35mm format, 6x6 format, 6x9 format, 4x5 format, 8x10 format, etc. ad nauseum. Obviously, all of these formats use a different size film (or a different sized area in roll films) and we want to know where we've reached the threshold of "large" format. When I got started in photography 36 years ago, "large format" meant 4x5 or bigger. I don't think that's changed over the years. Films smaller than 4x5 are "medium" or "small" formats.

And it don't make no difference what kind of camera it's in. A 2x3 monorail camera with every movement possible is still a medium format camera, using medium format film. A pinhole camera made from an oatmeal box, with a sheet of 4x5 film stuck inside, is large format.

It's all about the film. It's ONLY about the film. It's 4x5 or larger to qualify. Wee dinky cameras need not apply. :D

[roteague]

No one has explicitly defined what the term "large format" refers to in this forum. Is it cameras or film? If it is camera, then I would say that using a roll film back is acceptable. If film, then it probably should be 4x5 or bigger. Either way, I would think a minimum of a 4x5 camera would be needed.

[Alan Davenport]

No one has explicitly defined what the term "large format" refers to in this forum. Is it cameras or film?

Read my previous post, where I explicitly defined it.

[aduncanson]

When I owned a studio, I thought ... that Hasselblad negs were SMALL format. 4X5 was MEDIUM format -- and honestly, the size I enjoyed working with the most. In thirty years in business, I think I only used 5X7 (LARGE format , at this point) a dozen times...

I would be reluctant to advance any definition of my own, and I would not dispute in any way the "official" definition given by moderator Ralph Barker in post #17, however as somebody who has worked in 35mm, 645, 6x6, 6x9, 4x5, 5x7 & 8x10; your characterization of 6x6 as SMALL and 4x5 as MEDIUM finds some resonance in me.

Advocates for the 5x7 format on this forum often describe it as the smallest format from which a contact print is an acceptable final product. They also frequently say that 5x7 cameras are not much larger than 4x5 ones. There will be some who will take issue with both of those claims. However, it is my feeling that a 4x5 negative almost always calls for enlargement to obtain its potential and that this is a difference in character between the two formats. But that difference is not necessarily the distinction which defines LF. By the way, I find a similar distinction in effect when viewing ground glass images on the two formats. The 5x7 is large enough to evaluate with both eyes and without powerful magnifiers. I have trouble doing that with 4x5.

I avow that 5x7 is my primary format, and yet I anticipate always owning a 4x5 press or field camera because the set IS appreciably smaller (contrary to the second claim above) and thus more convenient when traveling by any mode of transportation other than truck or van. I am now shooting more 4x5 because I am striving to establish consistency in my processes and I appreciate the lower material costs. In these ways I see 4x5 as a compromise available to me when 5x7 is not convenient.

None of this is intended to impugn 4x5 or those who prefer it. There are a great many 4x5 shooters on this forum who consistently stun me with their images. Most fundamentally, I agree with those who have posted above that "large format is a state of mind." The deliberate image making process is my reason for shooting LF and I am interested in the work of anybody who shares that with me.

[Capocheny]

Advocates for the 5x7 format on this forum often describe it as the smallest format from which a contact print is an acceptable final product.

When I first started using LF, it was based on a 4x5 sheet of film. So, for me, it holds that LF is a sheet of film 4x5 or larger.

I don't view LF as being "about the camera" since there are cameras in both MF and 35mm that allows some degree of moving the plane of focus. For example, the tilt-shift lenses made by both Nikon and Canon; or the finely-made Fuji 680 I, II, and III series. There is also the adapter made by Mamiya for their RB and RZ 6x7 cameras that provide for some movements similar to a LF camera.

I would accept "state of mind" as a definition only if it's linked to 4x5 as the absolute minimum film size.

That said, I think the statement, "...the smallest format from which a contact print is an acceptable final product" is an interesting and worthy notion for discussion.

[However, there are those folks who also prefer the intimacy of a 4x5 contact print and consider it as an acceptable final product for viewing.]

Just my 2 cents worth! :)

Cheers

[Pete Watkins]

Now and then I use 6x7 & 6x9 rollfilm backs on my 4x5 Wista DX. I am using roll film on a LF (field camera). I still need to understand the how camera movements can affect the final image, I still need understand about movements, I stil need to know about lens coverage. In my opuinion roll film backs on 4x5 's should still be regarded as l.F Photography.
Pete

[Brian ER]

Hi

Another view from an 'Old Fogey' with hypo in his veins. How long is a piece of string ? - Does it matter ?? - The common thread with members of this forum is (as I see it), to produce the best quality possible in the final print, and no one is going to give a definitive description of that. The base line to all this surely, is taking photographs is FUN just for some of us the fun is more so with bigger cameras.

Incidently I use everything from 35mm Digital + Film up to 5 x 4

Brian

[domenico Foschi]

It was about time that people would focus on Large Format Photography instead of useless ranting about politics and religion.

[Alan Davenport]

It was about time that people would focus on Large Format Photography instead of useless ranting about politics and religion.

Around here, Large Format Photography IS a religion......