What is large format?

[rdenney]

I'm hoping to avoid stepping on toes in what can in my experience become a religious debate, and I have seen at least one case where someone complained of an image posted from a "small format" camera on this forum as being inappropriate.

Other than the thread devoted to posting small-format images, which is itself presented as a guilty pleasure, what constitutes formats too small to post on this forum? I have assumed that view camera images would be acceptable, even if made on roll film. So, a 6x7 image made using a view camera would be acceptable, but a 6x7 image from, say, a Pentax 6x7 would not.

But I saw another opinion expressed that both height and width should exceed 60mm.

So, what's the convention? Will I be frowned upon if I post, say, a 6x9 image made using a view camera? What about 6x12, which I've always considered large format? I expect my images to attract enough frowns for reasons unrelated to the format.

Rick "with no large-format images in the digital domain at present" Denney

[BrianShaw]

Sorry... I don't discuss religion, sex, politics, or rock-and-roll in public forums.

[darr]

Fanatics/purists will say that even a 6x17 cm made on a 4x5 is still a medium/small format piece of real estate. So, to be safe, large format is described by most starting at 8x10". :D

[Sevo]

There is no hard definition. Once upon a time, 4x5" and quarter plate were the most common "small formats". My soft definition would be "any view or optical bench camera, or any camera using sheet film". That places small sheet film cameras, like the Mamiya Press, Plaubel Makina or 6x9 plate cameras in general, in the LF domain where they historically did not belong. But as far as communicating on their proper use and maintenance is concerned, the LF community nowadays is the only one which still is capable of talking about such a camera...

[William McEwen]

I have a homemade pinhole camera that uses 8x10 sheets of film.

Does that count as LF? It uses LF film:) , but it's not a LF camera.:mad: ..



A group photo with my 8x10 pinhole camera (curved film plane!):

http://www.ddonovan.net/99-06-13sw-crew2wme-.html

[Bill_1856]

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

[panchro-press]

Sheet film: large format
Roll film: medium format
Weird ribbon film with holes on the edges: mini format

-30-

[rdenney]

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

I like that answer.

I don't like the answer that it divides on sheet film versus roll film, since it's my plan to mostly use roll film, and I can't shake the notion (call it a state of mind) that dragging a monorail view camera around constitutes large-format photography. The answer seems to be that there is no convention.

Rick "whose approach to religion can at times be pragmatic" Denney

[Lachlan 717]

Sheet film: large format
Roll film: medium format
Weird ribbon film with holes on the edges: mini format

-30-

Does that mean that these shots by Jim Galli (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Chamonix5X14/Chamonix_5X14.html)were made on medium format?

He quite clearly states that the images were from 5" roll film...

And what about 6x24cm panoramic? Even though shot on 120 (i.e.roll) film, the images are bigger than 4x5 sheet film.

I guess the point is that there seems to be no agreed standard as far as I can tell.

Lachlan.

[Scott Knowles]

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

I like it too, but I use "large format" to reflect the general catagory of cameras regardless of the film since you can duplicate the film on several different types of cameras, but you can't (fully) duplicate the camera controls on view camera with other types of cameras. Or not?

[clay harmon]

If the shot will be ruined because something moved during the exposure, it is large format.

[rdenney]

I like it too, but I use "large format" to reflect the general catagory of cameras regardless of the film since you can duplicate the film on several different types of cameras, but you can't (fully) duplicate the camera controls on view camera with other types of cameras. Or not?

It's not as if there is a distinct boundary. Some would class a Polaroid 110 as a large-format camera, and with Type 55 it would be hard to disprove it. There are 4x5 cameras of generally the same form factors as medium-format cameras. I remember Peter Gowland showing me his new invention--the Gowlandflex 4x5 TLR--at a lecture of his I attended in the 70's. Are those large-format cameras? Probably, yes, even though they don't have movements.

But I resist declaring my Pentax 6x7 as a large-format camera primarily because it's not intended to be one, and in the same breath seem at peace with declaring my Sinar with a 6x7 back to be a large-format camera. As Bill said, it's not about film size. The difference is in how I approach the photograph. The Pentax, like most medium-format cameras, is a compromize between the portability of small format and the negative size of large format. A view camera with a rollfilm back, or a rollfilm view camera, doesn't make that compromise--it takes as much effort to make a view-camera photo with rollfilm as with sheet film, especially when comparing to sheet-film products such as Quickloads. Portable large-format cameras such as press cameras make a different compromise. At the end of the day, wherever one draws the boundary will alienate those who draw it--with equal justification--in a different place.

So it becomes a matter of how the photograph is approached.

Rick "leaving it at that" Denney

[panchro-press]

Sorry, but I have to jump in again. I have never met anyone other than a photographer who even knows that there is such a thing as 'format' Mention 'large format' to a client and you'll get the blank stare to end all blank stares.

[Kirk Gittings]

Traditionally on this forum, large format has been defined as 4x5 or larger film or anything shot in a view camera.

[rdenney]

Traditionally on this forum, large format has been defined as 4x5 or larger film or anything shot in a view camera.

Thank you. Looks like my intentions just slide me into acceptability.

Rick "who now just needs images worth sharing" Denney

[Duane Polcou]

Large Format is any format where an onlooker exclaims
"That's a big camera"

[soeren]

Large Format is any format where an onlooker exclaims
"That's a big camera"

That just qualified my F100+85/1,4 :D

[ImSoNegative]

I agee with the above. Anthing shot with a view camera. Love some of the other answers too : ))

[Ben Syverson]

Anything shot with a view camera? Just to play Devil's advocate... If I use an adapter to shoot 35mm with a view camera, I'm shooting on large format?

I think I'm probably the jerk referred to in the first post, who defined LF as anything bigger than 60mm in both dimensions. It's tricky, because it seems fair to call 6x12 LF, but where do you draw the line? The Fuji 680 is basically a little view camera that shoots 6x8. And they make 6x12 Holgas.

Personally I don't care if a frame of 6x8 was shot in a sheet film holder by Ansel Adams using a Deardorff -- Large Format it ain't.

Either way, I don't think it's too big a deal. Everyone has their own feeling about what LF is/isn't, and as long as they don't try to hold other people to that definition, all is well.

[Paul Kierstead]

Sorry, but I have to jump in again. I have never met anyone other than a photographer who even knows that there is such a thing as 'format' Mention 'large format' to a client and you'll get the blank stare to end all blank stares.

True enough, but I'm not seeing many clients here. Although I've sometimes criticized material here as being photography-for-photographers, I think in a technical discussion amongst photographers, the client is pretty much irrelevant. I don't think this discussion is about marketing.

[Bill_1856]

“You approach with camera and tripod, and ask permission to photograph, and set up. “First you must focus through the camera’s ground-glass back, using a small pocket magnifier. Then, put in the metal plate holder with its glass plate, and remove the slide. Next you have to watch very closely. Click-click – about a half-second exposure.. Replace the slide, remove the plate and holder. ONE shot! You want another? Then you must repeat the whole procedure.
“Our formal clothes were specially tailored with reinforced pockets for the heavy metal holders and glass plates we used. I learned to follow an unvarying routine in the respect – unexposed film in my left pocket, exposed in my right so I couldn’t make a mistake.
“Needless to say, we didn’t tend to overshoot in those days.
“I developed the film myself, later that evening, in my hotel room,. I was using Ilford-Zenith glass plates, rated about the equivalent of ISO=32. They had a green antihalation backing that came off in the developer and turned it black. Terribly dirty and messy to work with, but I was delighted that the pictures had turned out.”

(The Eye of Eisenstaedt, The Viking Press, NY, 1969, quotation paraphrased.)

He was using an Ermanox, which produced negatives 4.5x6 cm!

[Sevo]

“
He was using an Ermanox, which produced negatives 4.5x6 cm!

It was indeed a intermediate between strut folders and the roll film/35mm cameras to come. It certainly was not large format in terms of its time, when even 9x12cm/4x5"/quarter plate folders and strut folders were not considered LF. But times do change, and given its handling, it would better be discussed along with LF nowadays, as it shares nothing beyond the image size with anything which Joe Average would today recognize as medium format.

Sevo

[rdenney]

Anything shot with a view camera? Just to play Devil's advocate... If I use an adapter to shoot 35mm with a view camera, I'm shooting on large format?

What if the 35mm camera is on a sliding mount and you make a series of images for later stitching? How many of those images does it require to make it "large format"?

But in any case, I asked the wrong question, partly on purpose as a means of invoking what has proved to be a worthy discussion. The real question was: What can I display on this forum without running afoul of unwritten rules? That has been answered by a moderator, fortunately in a way that doesn't preclude my intentions. The troll question was: What is large format? For that one, everyone has their own boundaries. And this discussion has revealed that all of those boundaries are arbitrary and can cause us to wish for a different definition in some specific circumstance.

Rick "content with no clear answer to the second question" Denney

[Chris Strobel]

With processes like gigapan, traditional large format ain't looking so large anymore

http://www.gigapan.org/index.php

[Sevo]

Traditionally on this forum, large format has been defined as 4x5 or larger film or anything shot in a view camera.

Which has not yet caused any Europeans (where 9x12cm used to be the traditional 4x5" equivalent) to be banned... ;)

Sevo

[Ole Tjugen]

To me, it's anything with an image area of 100 cm^2 or larger. That covers 4x5" and 9x12cm. 6x17 is just a hair too small.

[Donald Miller]

Sorry, but I have to jump in again. I have never met anyone other than a photographer who even knows that there is such a thing as 'format' Mention 'large format' to a client and you'll get the blank stare to end all blank stares.

It's a male ego thing...well endowed male photographers don't find it particularly necessary to tell another how large the film is that they shoot. Less well endowed photographers engage in those inane discussions of the focal lengths of their longest lens. Those who are least endowed get into discussions about sizes of film...and last but certainly not least...but on second thought maybe so... those who have the greatest doubts about their manhood get into discussions of film and developer combinations.

[jb7]

Well in that case,
I'm really quite glad I never contributed a reply to the question...

[Ben Syverson]

To me, it's anything with an image area of 100 cm^2 or larger. That covers 4x5" and 9x12cm. 6x17 is just a hair too small.
I like that, Ole. Nice and metric. :)

To extend it, maybe we can agree that 1000 cm^2 and beyond is "Ultra Large Format." 11x14 is 993.5 cm^2, so we would just round it up and include it with ULF.

Somebody call the ISO and get them on this! :)

[Ben Syverson]

It's a male ego thing...well endowed male photographers don't find it particularly necessary to tell another how large the film is that they shoot.
You should work for the Leica marketing department! :D

[Lachlan 717]

To me, it's anything with an image area of 100 cm^2 or larger. That covers 4x5" and 9x12cm. 6x17 is just a hair too small.

Ole,

Doesn't 6x17=102?

Lachlan.

[Ben Syverson]

Doesn't 6x17=102?
Maybe he's using 58 x 170mm = 98,6 cm^2?

Either way, I think it's close enough to 100 to count as LF in this 100 sq cm definition

[Ole Tjugen]

I was using 56x168mm, which is closer to the real measurements and comes out as just about 94 cm^2.

Whether it's LF or not is debatable, but since it's invariably shot using rollfilm, and often in rollfilm-only cameras, I would put it as "slightly under the limit".

[jnantz]

it seems that a thread like this pop up every few months ...
(including stitching )

[Lachlan 717]

I was using 56x168mm, which is closer to the real measurements and comes out as just about 94 cm^2.

Whether it's LF or not is debatable, but since it's invariably shot using rollfilm, and often in rollfilm-only cameras, I would put it as "slightly under the limit".


Fair enough, but so too is 6x24, making it easily over 100cm2 on roll film...

Again, I don't think that there is an answer to this.

[Donald Miller]

it seems that a thread like this pop up every few months ...
(including stitching )


Hi John, I was just thinking the same thing...perhaps I should write a short app so that this loops ever so often...it would save all of the endless genuflecting and gesturing that invariably end up as some immature manifestation of "mine is bigger than yours".

Good to see you around.

Best wishes,
Donald Miller

[jnantz]

Hi John, I was just thinking the same thing...perhaps I should write a short app so that this loops ever so often...it would save all of the endless genuflecting and gesturing that invariably end up as some immature manifestation of "mine is bigger than yours".

Good to see you around.

Best wishes,
Donald Miller

hi donald

it sounds like a good idea to me!

great to see you here too ..

best,
john

[BrianShaw]

...it would save all of the endless genuflecting and gesturing that invariably end up as some immature manifestation of "mine is bigger than yours".

What's so immature about that?

Show me yours and I'll show you mine. :D

[Andrew O'Neill]

Traditionally on this forum, large format has been defined as 4x5 or larger film or anything shot in a view camera.

I'm of this camp except for the "anything" part. 4x5 or larger.

[Jiri Vasina]

I generally agree with Ole's 100cm^2 surface area distinction, although it excludes my 3 1/4 x 4 1/4" Graflex SLR (surface area being around 90cm^2). So I'll stop posting those medium format sheet film photos :) .

[Martin Miksch]

...although it excludes my 3 1/4 x 4 1/4" Graflex SLR ...
its just APS LF^^

[Jiri Vasina]

Yeah, but full frame is better :D

Jiri