Please show your 6x17 pictures

[Aender Brepsom]

Lets show those wide panoramics.

The first two images were taken in Belgium, one in the Hallerbos near Brussels, the other one is from the Hautes Fagnes. The third image was taken in Luxembourg.

[IanG]

As you asked :D

Stadium - Aprodisias, Theatre - Knidos, Machu Piccu, Botallack - Cornwall, all shot with a 75mm f8 SA on 6x17.

Ian

[David Hedley]

I like this format a lot, and there are some very nice pictures above. Here are a couple more;

Mount Fuji wreathed in cloud;
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3164/3068469094_249faf7588_b.jpg
Fuji GX617 / 300mm

Night descends over Mount Fuji;
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3326/3204771954_902275f38a_b.jpg
Fuji G617 / 105mm

[Peter Collins]

Very, very nice, guys!

[Eugene van der Merwe]

I haven't had the 6 x 17 out in a couple of years, so here are a couple of not very recent ones. Tomiyama Art Panorama with an old 90mm super angulon on Velvia 50 and 100 F.

[Shailendra]

Taken in Damme, Belgium on a recent work related trip with Fotoman 6x17 and 90mm Nikkor/180mm rodenstock on Tmax and Tri-X..All inspired by Brett Weston's famous Holland Canal image.

[Frank Petronio]

People count as panos, right? Cropped from a Fuji 617/90mm

[David Hedley]

Another 6x17, from (a very cold) yesterday;

Brunnen
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2518/4105494442_d1b0806043_b.jpg
Fuji G617 105mm, TMax 100 / PMK Pyro, orange filter

[Aender Brepsom]

Very beautiful images.
Please keep posting them.

[Vladik]

How about some pinhole 6x17?

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8166/dsc1365lff.jpg

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/633/dsc1639lff.jpg

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/8260/dsc02454lff.jpg/

[Rodney Polden]

Great work, Vladik! Some of the most memorable pinhole images I've ever seen.

[ljsegil]

Vladik,
Wonderful images, very moody, with a look of antiquated beauty many of us strive to achieve. If I may ask, what film/developer are your using, and how do you achieve your setup?
Once more, lovely and most unusual work.
Larry

[Vladik]

Thanks for your appreciation.

I use just fairly common films - mainly Acros and Neopan 400 exposed at nominal speed and developed in Rodinal 1+50. These are great as they have no or low reciprocity failure.
For the the jewish cemetery picture, ADOX CHM 125 (Ilford FP4+ in fact) was used. Again developed in Rodinal 1+50.
I usually develop my films for a plain condensor enlarger, so the times are little bit shorter - 8 min, 20°C with continuos agitation during first 30s and 2 inversions every minute, really nothing special.

[Vladik]

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/4149/dsc02456lff.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/743/cameraobscurabalklff.jpg

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6570/dsc02447lff.jpg

[Phil Hudson]

Walker Titan 5x7XL, 300mm, Canham 6x17 back, rubbish scan.....

[bbarna]

my first trial...

[Shailendra]

A few images from recent travels...

[IanG]

St Ansel would have had 4 great images out of that last negative :D

Nice. . . . . .

Ian

[Matt_Bigwood]

Hi Vladik - love those first pinhole pictures. Where were they taken?

[h2oman]

Beautiful images, shailendra - nice work!

[john wood]

santa cruz county coast...fotoman 617 mkII, nikkor 90mm/f8...disneychrome 50...

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q278/johnhwood/3869296587_b8bb85518e_b.jpg

[eddie]

santa cruz county coast...fotoman 617 mkII, nikkor 90mm/f8...disneychrome 50...



awesome!

[john wood]

thanks eddie...had some fun with a big scan on this one:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3525/3869296587_982f22b87d_o.jpg, and the print is above my 3-yr-old's bed

[emo supremo]

Just got this toy and boy am I lovin it.

[Brian_A]

http://www.AkersonStudios.com/temp/chess2.jpg

http://www.AkersonStudios.com/panos/images/lillypano.jpg

http://www.AkersonStudios.com/panos/images/openlillypano.jpg

http://www.akersonstudios.com/waterfalls/images/lowerfalls.jpg

[SocalAstro]

Brian,

those are nice shots - you guys are going to make me go out a get a 6x17 camera :-)

Actually I have been contemplating one for a while now.

Is that last shot taken at Darwin Falls? It looks familiar to me.

-Leon

[SMBooth]

How about some pinhole 6x17?

Snip images

Fantastic images, I notice there is not a lot of light falloff at the edges, is a back curved or is it a fairly big pinhole to film distance.

Cheers
Shane

[Jay DeFehr]

How about some pinhole 6x17?

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8166/dsc1365lff.jpg

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/633/dsc1639lff.jpg

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/8260/dsc02454lff.jpg/

Very nice work!

[Brian_A]

Leon,

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. I actually don't have a true 6x17. I use a DaYi 6x17 back for my 4x5. It extends the back out to cover it, although you're limited by the lenses you can use (Like 72-210mm). It's a lot cheaper than an actual 6x17 and gets the job done. Plus you don't have to buy the nose cones like you would with a dedicated system and you can do more macro types of shots as the minimum focus distance is shorter. Some complain that it doesn't hold the film flat enough, but I haven't had any issues with that. You can find them on here every so often or on fleaBay for around $500+/- with the holder and ground glass attachments. (There's actually one on there right now for like $139 used with a day and a half left if you search '6x17'. Should be on the first page or two, depending on your view.)

The last shot is of one of the many waterfalls in Hocking Hills State Park in Ohio. It's a really neat park if you ever get out that way. Here I always thought that Ohio was nice and flat but boy was I wrong! :rolleyes:

Thanks Again,

-Brian



Brian,

those are nice shots - you guys are going to make me go out a get a 6x17 camera :-)

Actually I have been contemplating one for a while now.

Is that last shot taken at Darwin Falls? It looks familiar to me.

-Leon

[SocalAstro]

Brian,

thanks for the heads-up on the 6x17 back - I'll keep an eye on it as it may be an inexpensive way to start shooting some pano's.

I know what you mean about miscsonceptions of what a place looks like. I spent some time in Princeton NJ and would have never thought NJ would look so lush with vegetation :-) Unfortunately for me I was only shooting 35mm at that time :-)

Looking forward to seeing more great 6x17 shots - keep 'em coming folks .

-Leon

[Lachlan 717]

Leon and Brian,

Check the lens range for the 6x17 backs on 4x5. I have significant doubts that they will cover the 72-210mm that Brian mentions. I would think that mechanical vignetting will kick in around 150mm, and I'd think that you'd need a deep recessed lens board to use a 72mm. 72mm is more likely than 210mm, I would think, but I'd also think it's going to be limited to centred, straight-on use.

[Brian_A]

Leon,

You can always feel free to roll down here to San Diego and use mine on an outing to see if it fits your needs.

-Brian

[sanking]

Now let me remember. We can show 6X17 cm work here if the negative was made using a view camera, either on sheet film or in a MF back fitted to the view camera, but not if the negative was made in a dedicated camera with its own lens like Gaoerski, Fotoman or Noblex. Do I have that right?

Sandy

[Brian_A]

Sandy,

I'm sure if you went by the letter of the law that would be a correct assumption. I guess I'm safe in that respect. Although, I recall somewhere saying if it had movements of some sort it would be accepted. I know a few models have movements but not sure if all do. I also could be wrong :)

-Brian


Now let me remember. We can show 6X17 cm work here if the negative was made using a view camera, either on sheet film or in a MF back fitted to the view camera, but not if the negative was made in a dedicated camera with its own lens like Gaoerski, Fotoman or Noblex. Do I have that right?

Sandy

[David Rees]

Leon and Brian,

Check the lens range for the 6x17 backs on 4x5. I have significant doubts that they will cover the 72-210mm that Brian mentions. I would think that mechanical vignetting will kick in around 150mm, and I'd think that you'd need a deep recessed lens board to use a 72mm. 72mm is more likely than 210mm, I would think, but I'd also think it's going to be limited to centred, straight-on use.

FWIW, I use a Da Yi 6x17 back, on a 5x4 camera dedicated pretty much 100% to the 617 format (a Walker 5x4 XL), and the lenses in my kit are 72mm, 90mm, 120mm and 210mm. Lachlan 617 is correct to say that some mechanical vignetting occurs with the 210mm (becomes a 6x15 or 6x14), but his supposition that there are no movement possibilities with the 72mm XL is not correct with the Walker. I have the lens mounted on a 11mm recessed board, which permits infinity focus on the Walker with the Da Yi back, and though fiddly, rise/fall, tilt and swing on the front standard all work.

However, on my Ebony 45SU with the Da Yi back, the 72mm XL in a 11mm recessed board cannot focus at infinity. A deeper recessed board will allow focus, but the nature of the front cell of the 72mm prevents access to the controls within the recessed lensboard -- making it useless anyway. So the Da Yi and the 72mm will not work on all 5x4 cameras.

Note that I use Linhof/Technika style lensboards; the situation might be different with 5x4 cameras that use larger lensboards (more room for access to controls in recessed boards?).

[kdoco]

Hi Vladik - love those first pinhole pictures. Where were they taken?

first one is surely shooted in Prague.

This is from Rokycany, Czech Rep.

http://rapelik.wz.cz/rokycany1.jpg

[Brian_A]

Lachlan,

I don't have any problems with my 210mm... 72mm, I don't know. Just getting my 90mm on a recessed board to work with my camera setup is a pain so I'm not even attempting the 72mm. The lilly I shot and posted along with the chess players (I think it was in the On Photography section..) were both made with A Schneider APO-Symmar MC 210mm f/5.6.

-Brian

[Lachlan 717]

Lachlan,

I don't have any problems with my 210mm... 72mm, I don't know. Just getting my 90mm on a recessed board to work with my camera setup is a pain so I'm not even attempting the 72mm. The lilly I shot and posted along with the chess players (I think it was in the On Photography section..) were both made with A Schneider APO-Symmar MC 210mm f/5.6.

-Brian

Thanks for the update, Brian. All of the research I did a few years ago led me to conclude this wasn't possible for a 6x17 image. As David mentioned, I thought that the mechanical vignetting caused reduced usable image width.

What brand are you using?

Thanks again.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Thanks for the update, Brian. All of the research I did a few years ago led me to conclude this wasn't possible for a 6x17 image. As David mentioned, I thought that the mechanical vignetting caused reduced usable image width.

What brand are you using?

Thanks again.

My Dayi back has problems at 210mm, and it is more like a 6x15 at that range. I think 180mm is the longest that will give the full 6x17. Less if shooting closer than infinity.

[Brian_A]

Lachlan,

To be honest, I have never sat there and measured it... But for what it's worth, I don't get the circling at the edges.. I used a 400mm on it and it did, but that's to be expected. Maybe I don't see it as a big issue as others may - but if you've seen those images I mentioned before, that's what you can do with a 210. It may also have to do with the camera/back combination too... I use a Horseman Woodman. I've heard varying experiences depending on camera you use because near the back sometimes the camera body chokes off some of the image.

-Brian

[john wood]

first one is surely shooted in Prague.

This is from Rokycany, Czech Rep.

http://rapelik.wz.cz/rokycany1.jpg

That's really well done...I'm just now trying out this format on near objects/city streets; at first it seems more difficult than far-off landscape panoramas...I find myself paying much more attention to the edges.

[SocalAstro]

Thanks for the heads-up Lachlan, I'll know in about a week or so when I receive the 6x17 back; I'll be trying it on a Toyo 45AX with a 210mm lens.

From the info I've gathered in this informative thread I think I can forget about using my Nikkor 65mm SW :-)

-Leon



Leon and Brian,

Check the lens range for the 6x17 backs on 4x5. I have significant doubts that they will cover the 72-210mm that Brian mentions. I would think that mechanical vignetting will kick in around 150mm, and I'd think that you'd need a deep recessed lens board to use a 72mm. 72mm is more likely than 210mm, I would think, but I'd also think it's going to be limited to centred, straight-on use.

[SocalAstro]

Thanks for the kind offer Brian; I actually won the 6x17 back on **bay that you had pointed ou to me; Thanks again.

-Leon



Leon,

You can always feel free to roll down here to San Diego and use mine on an outing to see if it fits your needs.

-Brian

[Lachlan 717]

Thanks for the heads-up Lachlan, I'll know in about a week or so when I receive the 6x17 back; I'll be trying it on a Toyo 45AX with a 210mm lens.

From the info I've gathered in this informative thread I think I can forget about using my Nikkor 65mm SW :-)

-Leon

Thanks, Leon, and I hope that you really enjoy the format!

Hope to see some great results from you at some point.

[Brian_A]

Thanks for the kind offer Brian; I actually won the 6x17 back on **bay that you had pointed ou to me; Thanks again.

-Leon

Rock on, I hope you got it for a good price! Look forward to seeing your first tries with it!

-Brian

[WilliamF]

A few images from recent travels...

These shots are so nice that my reaction is to ask for more info. Location and/or technical details would be great.

[Shailendra]

These shots are so nice that my reaction is to ask for more info. Location and/or technical details would be great.

William, the first image was taken in Edinburgh, Scotland last October and was a 30 second exposure I believe with Tmax 100. The 2nd image was taken just south of St Petersburg, FL looking north towards St Petersburg this past June. The final image was at Tunnel View in Yosemite in May. All were taken with a Fotoman 6x17 camera with the first 2 images taken with 180mm Rodenstock and the last with a 90mm F4.5 Nikkor.

Thanks for the feedback...

[h2oman]

And this one? (The image is Shailendra's, not mine!)

[Ezzie]

That was taken in Dinant, Belgium in September 2009. Used a Fotoman 617 with the 90mm Nikkor...

You do get around. Nice use of the format in all cases. Letting my Celtic genes run riot with my biases, I rather preferred the Edinburgh shot, but they are all good.

[Shailendra]

You do get around. Nice use of the format in all cases. Letting my Celtic genes run riot with my biases, I rather preferred the Edinburgh shot, but they are all good.

Thanks Ezzie, I've been fortunate to get some nice places to travel to from my work..I do prefer the Edinburgh one as well, and its not just because of my love for Scotch ;-).

[fenderbja]

What a great thread - Here are a couple black and white 6x17 shots - made with my Shen Hao 4x5 and 6x17 back.

http://www.brandonallenphotography.com/posts/black_and_white_seascape1.jpg

http://www.brandonallenphotography.com/posts/black_and_white_landscape1.jpg

[JumpParty]

Pictures are really very beautiful.

[dave_whatever]

Here's a shot from my first roll of velvia through my 6x17 back. I'm liking this thing so far.

http://www.daveparryphotography.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/recent-landscapes/higgar_hathersage.jpg

150mm Symmar-S, Velvia.

[h2oman]

nice dave

[dave_whatever]

nice dave

Thanks, I'll try and post up some more as and when I get chance to fire up the scanner again.

[D. Bryant]

The Remarkables in New Zealand at sunrise. Fotoman 617 90mm Nikkor, center filter, Fuji Acros

You certainly have a great eye for this format. I enjoyed your Flickr portfolio.

Don Bryant

[Kirk Keyes]

The Remarkables in New Zealand at sunrise. Fotoman 617 90mm Nikkor, center filter, Fuji Acros

Great shot! I love the framing of the branch.

[Shailendra]

You certainly have a great eye for this format. I enjoyed your Flickr portfolio.

Don Bryant

Thnak you, Don...So far I love the panoramic format.

[Shailendra]

Great shot! I love the framing of the branch.

Thanks Kirk!

[MikeIsaak]

http://www.AkersonStudios.com/temp/chess2.jpg

http://www.AkersonStudios.com/panos/images/lillypano.jpg

http://www.AkersonStudios.com/panos/images/openlillypano.jpg

http://www.akersonstudios.com/waterfalls/images/lowerfalls.jpg

Brian that chess shot is brilliant.

[Steve M Hostetter]

Sunset at Lake Wakatipu in Queensland, New Zealand.

Fotoman 617 180mm Rodenstock, Kodak Ektar 100..

well even though I don't consider 6x17 large format this is nice

[Donald Miller]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28647782@N06/4935306950/


Superstition Mountains Arizona

I would appreciate if someone would be so kind as to tell me how to link the image so that it is immediately viewable.

[Peter Mounier]

From your browser's menu bar, click on "View Source". From the html, that is the code for the web page that hosts your image, look for the image string. In your case the string is...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4935306950_8dc6e789e7_z.jpg

Insert that string between the image tags and. Be sure that the string contains .jpg at the end, and is not truncated like it is in the link above.


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4935306950_8dc6e789e7_z.jpg

I should add, that the picture in my reply to Donald is Donald's image, not mine.


Peter

[Donald Miller]

Thank you Peter

[Hovmod]

Or, go to the "all sizes" page, right click the image and copy the image url.

[JRFrench]

Sunset at Lake Wakatipu in Queensland, New Zealand.

Fotoman 617 180mm Rodenstock, Kodak Ektar 100..

Queenstown ;) Great shot!

[D. Bryant]

Siesta Key, Florida. 30 minute night shot with Fuji Acros during a full moon in June 2010. Taken with Fotoman 617 and 180mm Rodenstock.

I'm confused. Is a Fotoman 6x17 considered to be an allowable camera on the LF forum?

Seems like it's really a MF camera not Large Format.

Don Bryant

[JRFrench]

I'm confused. Is a Fotoman 6x17 considered to be an allowable camera on the LF forum?

Seems like it's really a MF camera not Large Format.

Don Bryant

This is a thread specifically for 6x17 photos, can't we just confine them to that and not go back to that age old debate?

[Kirk Gittings]

There is no debate as far as I know. There are just people who are either uninformed or who want to try and change the standing definition through subterfuge. This sub-forum is for LF images, and a Fotoman does not fit our parameters of LF. It is a medium format camera by any definition, however a 6x17 back used in a view camera does fit.

For those who don't know, we loosely define LF as anything that applies to 4x5 or larger film or anything that can be used in a view type camera, including role film backs.

[Shailendra]

There is no debate as far as I know. There are just people who are either uninformed or who want to try and change the standing definition through subterfuge. This sub-forum is for LF images, and a Fotoman does not fit our parameters of LF. It is a medium format camera by any definition, however a 6x17 back used in a view camera does fit.

For those who don't know, we loosely define LF as anything that applies to 4x5 or larger film or anything that can be used in a view type camera, including role film backs.

Frankly, I'm not going to even get into an argument about this, I'll let you gentleman define what you need to. I posted images that were 6x17, whether it was from Fotoman or view camera wasn't specified so I thought it was OK. There was no intention on my part to decieve as to how I took the images as I clearly stated that the images I took were from a Fotoman camera after someone had asked.

Now, before someone says, "well this is a Large Format forum", I will say that I do not have a rebuttal to that statement as the images I posted were not large format.

I only posted the images to showcases my wonderful experiences shooting in the 6x17 format and wanting to possibly inspire some of you, as I have been inspired by many of you. And yes, Kirk I am a big fan of your work also :).

In order to avoid future discussion on this matter, I will refrain from posting anymore images unless they are Large format....No hard feelings, whatsoever...

[Lachlan 717]

Shailendra,

Don't let this thread be hijacked by someone trolling via priggish points.

6x17cm is a tiny bit smaller than a 4x5" piece of film, so hardly small.

PLEASE keep posting your 617 images; they are, in my opinion (for what that's worth), worthy of this forum. Just make sure you mention that they were taken on an 8x20" with a 6x17cm reduction back!!

[Andrew O'Neill]

...or you could just post in the lounge.

[dave_whatever]

As far as I'm concerned shots that require a 170mm image circle, shot with a large format lens in leaf shutter using a camera with no automation has much more in common with large format than with a Mamiya or rolleiflex.

[Lachlan 717]

As far as I'm concerned shots that require a 170mm image circle, shot with a large format lens in leaf shutter using a camera with no automation has much more in common with large format than with a Mamiya or rolleiflex.

Can I please suggest that we don't get into this discussion in this thread.

Until ONE person decided to hijack this thread, it was enjoying good patronage and great images.

Please, please, keep it image-based!!

[D. Bryant]

Can I please suggest that we don't get into this discussion in this thread.

Until ONE person decided to hijack this thread, it was enjoying good patronage and great images.

Please, please, keep it image-based!!

I didn't hijack this thread, I just asked a simple question. Photographs made with non large format cameras can be posted in the Lounge.

Don Bryant

[SocalAstro]

IIRC this thread used to be in The Lounge and was moved here by the one of the Mod's so let's just chill and enjoy the pictures.

If they bother you that much, change the channel!

-Leon



I didn't hijack this thread, I just asked a simple question. Photographs made with non large format cameras can be posted in the Lounge.

Don Bryant

[mrladewig]

I have no problem with large format content coming from rollfilm being included here. We allow box truck pinhole cameras down to homemade 4X5 point and shoot cameras, to rangefinder conversions from Land cameras and images captured on rollfilm reduction backs on 4X5 view cameras. We allow square images to banquet/pano images. I don't think anyone here would have a problem with images captured in a 6X9 view camera either.

This is the Large Format forum, not the View Camera forum. We're not asking to include 645, 6X6 or 6X7 images shot in Mamiya or Pentax bodies here. Eliminating the inclusion of 617 format, which has a great deal more in common with other large formats is only robbing us of the ability to view and enjoy great photographs and alienating a group of users who have alot more in common with us than any other group of photographers.

I don't think I've commented in thread previously, but there is a wonderful collection of images here including the last on Ektar shared by Sailendra.

[Ezzie]

I for one would miss Shailandra´s 617 images very much, and even if they are off a 120 film camera, they can hardly be called MF in my book. I, myself use a DIY 4x5 P+S camera with LF optics and leaf shutter (and GG focusing) often with 6x12 rollfilm back, and since I get the impression that some people trip over themselves with indignance at the notion of such process as being deemed LF, I hardly ever post images here.

[David Aimone]

I'd really like to see more 6x17 photos now...

[Scott Walker]

I'd really like to see more 6x17 photos now...

Ditto

[Atul Mohidekar]

Great pictures, Shailendra!!!


There is no debate as far as I know. There are just people who are either uninformed or who want to try and change the standing definition through subterfuge. This sub-forum is for LF images, and a Fotoman does not fit our parameters of LF. It is a medium format camera by any definition, however a 6x17 back used in a view camera does fit.

For those who don't know, we loosely define LF as anything that applies to 4x5 or larger film or anything that can be used in a view type camera, including role film backs.


In order to avoid future discussion on this matter, I will refrain from posting anymore images unless they are Large format....No hard feelings, whatsoever...

Personally I think this is a loss for this forum.


// Atul

[Lachlan 717]

To Atul Mohidekar, Lachlan617, Dave_whatever, Leon (SocalAstro), mrladewig, David Aimone (iogdka), Ezzie, Scott Walker, and others....

You have all inspired me to repost images...believe me, I truly appreciate all of your support.

Image 1 (Queenstown, NZ) was taken with Fuji Acros (which is really a fantastic film, and cheap!), Image 2 (Mt Cook valley) desaturated Kodak Ektar 100....You can all guess on the camera :-)

Those cropped 8x20" shots look even better than those pesky old 6x17cm ones. Glad you upgraded your camera so quickly!

[Joe Forks]

Shailendra,
Awesome stuff, keep em coming, thanks for sharing.

[Ezzie]

Ooooooh, sweet Shailendra. NZ sure has some picturesque scenery.

[Momentz]

the top image has a 2 stop gnd but have never used a centre filter, the second pic is the only one i have noticed light fall off on the edges, i guess that because of shooting straight into the sun, apart from that i would get another gaoersi anyday, i managed to find a fuji 90mm f8 lens that had been factory refurbished and fully overhauled and it is tacksharp even when printing the images 1.8m wide :)

[gchu1970]

Taken at one of the most famous Chinese Ancient Town, Hong Cun.

[Liam:]

Taken at one of the most famous Chinese Ancient Town, Hong Cun.

Thats awesome, I love the mountains in the background and the light looks perfect just wish I could see it slightly larger...

[gchu1970]

Thats awesome, I love the mountains in the background and the light looks perfect just wish I could see it slightly larger...


I have larger pics but I don't know how to upload. The thread only accepts small pictures.

[David Aimone]

Lovely Work!


Lake Wanaka, New Zealand Aug. 2010

[LF4Fun]

Lake Wanaka, New Zealand Aug. 2010

sweet. :eek:

[jon.oman]

Both images are very nice!

Jon

[MikeIsaak]

Lake Wakatipu sunrise near Glenorchy, New Zealand

Wow, you seem to have a lot of shots of New Zealand!
I'll be going there for a month Dec 28-Jan 26. It would be greatly appreciated if I could pick your brain about the scenic locations!

[Shailendra]

Wow, you seem to have a lot of shots of New Zealand!
I'll be going there for a month Dec 28-Jan 26. It would be greatly appreciated if I could pick your brain about the scenic locations!


Mike , sure thing...just shoot me an email...

[Ezzie]

Lake Wanaka, New Zealand Aug. 2010

Holy guacamole. You´ve done it again. I´m in awe of your panoramas.

[MIke Sherck]

For those of you shooting color 6x17, where do you go for prints (either from negatives or transparencies)? In general terms, what does it cost you for prints?

Thanks!

Mike

[Jan Pedersen]

Ralph,
Since the thread now is 10 pages long and the title is 6x17 pictures, would it be possible to move it to the lounge?

Thanks.
jan

[SocalAstro]

Jan,

This thread used to be in the lounge originally. It was moved here and the rules changed somehow.

I suppose there's always the "safe haven for tiny formats" thread in one of the other sub-forums :-)

Cheers,
Leon


Ralph,
Since the thread now is 10 pages long and the title is 6x17 pictures, would it be possible to move it to the lounge?

Thanks.
jan

[Joe Forks]

I agree, put those posts back and move it to the lounge, especially if that's where it was to begin with. There are other fotoman and the like posts in this thread, let's be fair to everyone.

[onnect17]

The moderators should be embarrassed by their existing definition of what constitutes large format...

Van, I totally agree. I think the moderators step over the line with the delete button.
Only an "idiota" can deny some overlap between formats.
Perhaps they are able to tell me what camera I used for this shot ;)

Armando Vergara
Newton, MA

[Lachlan 717]

The moderators should be embarrassed by their existing definition of what constitutes large format. Who ever heard of a double standard like this (617 size is large format, but only with the right type of camera)?

I, too, agree with Van Camper's principle on this (although not the expression; can't have me agreeing to too much, Van Camper!!)

It seems that a stand on either size OR type of camera is fraught with danger.

After all, you can get a P&S Fotoman (45PS) (http://www.mainlinephoto.com.au/webcontent3.htm) that will qualify as LF here, but the 6x17 won't.

And a 624 Gaoersi has a greater film area than a 4x5, but, as a P&S design, does not qualify.

Perhaps the Moderators should have just left sleeping dogs to lie here. These 6x17 images were not hurting anyone, even the more priggish Members if we're truly honest with ourselves.

I think that we've lost some striking images that could have assisted people using 4x10, 5x12, 7x17, 8x20 et al...

[Scott Walker]

Gotta chime in...............I actually laughed out loud when I read that 6x17 was only acceptable as large format if you purchased the right camera to shoot it with.
If the format is acceptable with a dedicated size view camera such as the ShenHao TFC617 how can it not be with a Fotoman, that is like saying that any camera without the ability to adjust the film and lens plane such as an 8x10 pinhole is medium format.

I have no problem with you limiting the definition of large format to a specific minimum size of film such as 4x5 but do not tell me what brand of camera I have to use.

[Steve M Hostetter]

When you buy a roll of 120 or 220 film it doesn't say large format film on the package.

It says medium format film for medium format cameras. The fact that you can only get 4 exposures on one roll doesn't make it a different film. The fact that you use a LF camera to shoot the roll film doesn't change the film either.

[cjbroadbent]

well anyway... Segesta in Sicily.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_OR3U2BmIDuk/TNwi27lf14I/AAAAAAAAFuk/U9ET-PQzckY/s800/SEGESTA.jpg

[IanG]

What a farce we can post 6x7 & 6x9 images made with a Field/Technical camera, and often using the same (6x7) back as an Mamiya RB67.

6x17 is a Large format regardless of the camera used, if one type of camera is allowed so must the rest. That's not the same as saying any 6x7 or 6x9 image is large format.

Any image made with a converted Polaroid camera should also be banned as that is not a Large Format camera by the moderators definitions. It's a rangefinder polaroid camera.

Next you'll tell me my 9x12 and quarter plate cameras aren't large format.

Ian

[Bryan Lemasters]

When you buy a roll of 120 or 220 film it doesn't say large format film on the package.

Nope, sure doesn't.

It says medium format film for medium format cameras. The fact that you can only get 4 exposures on one roll doesn't make it a different film. The fact that you use a LF camera to shoot the roll film doesn't change the film either.

Hmm. No, none of the rolls of 120 film that I have say "medium format film for medium format cameras". Film type is not the deciding factor. This is the Large Format PHOTOGRAPHY Forum, not the Large Format FILM Forum.

I understand the controversy here and - being a 6x17/6x18 shooter - have mixed feelings about them myself, but the moderators have spoken. Over and over they have spoken. Only images using large format film or large format cameras using roll film holders (regardless of size) should be posted in the regular forum. Others have to be posted in the lounge. Maybe some of it seems a bit arbitrary, but that's often the way it is in the real world. So why are we still having this argument. The horse in laying motionless on the ground, it's gut is swollen to 3 times it's normal size, buzzards are flying overhead, flies are buzzing about, and the stench is beginning to get unbearable. Clearly the horse is dead. So why are so many still trying to put a saddle on it???????:eek:

Having said that, I very much enjoyed Shailendra's pics and also would like to see them re-posted. I don't personally have a problem with them in the regular forum but if it has to be in the lounge, then so be it.

OBTW, nice image, Christopher! Thanks for posting it.

[Kirk Gittings]

I did not invent this definition. It was the operating definition when I joined this forum-long before I became a moderator and this remains the consensus of the moderators and and the owner.


The moderators should be embarrassed by their existing definition of what constitutes large format. Who ever heard of a double standard like this (617 size is large format, but only with the right type of camera)? It is actually funny that adults can come up with this kind of stuff. This is the best the moderators could do? Kirk had the audacity to insult us by calling us uniformed, when it is the moderators that are themselves uninformed and confused . It is a strange message you are sending the community when you allow endless discussions on 617 dedicated cameras produced by Fotoman/Gaoersi/Fuji/Technorama/Widepan (as well as 617 field cameras by Ebony and Shen Hao), but at the same time do not allow the images to be posted from these same cameras. Whether I crop from 5x7 to 617, or buy a specialized 617 roll film camera should not matter, and is my business......the end result is the same. I still get 7 inches of film length and the same print size. I am not going to start shooting 617 roll backs on a 5x7 or 4x5 camera and be inconvenienced (weight, bulk, loss of wide lenses when using 617 roll back on 4x5) just to satisfy a bunch of moderators with strange ideas. The 617 film format, however you cut it (from 120 roll, 4x5 aerial roll, sheet film, etc), is always going to be 617........this is so basic. There is no arguing this, and since you allow discussions on 617 dedicated cameras, and allow images from 617 roll backs, then it's time you clean up your standing definition and allow images from 617 dedicated cameras. It definitely needs fixing. Kirk says 617 is definitely medium format by any definition....really? Have you "ever" seen a medium format camera mfr (eg- Hasselblad/Mamiya/Bronica/Rollei/etc) produce a 617 format camera?

[IanG]

A point no-one has raised is that to print a 6x17 negative requires a Large format enlarger not medium format.

The debate re-opened Bryan because moderators stepped in, and as was said below there's little logic.


The moderators should be embarrassed by their existing definition of what constitutes large format. Who ever heard of a double standard like this (617 size is large format, but only with the right type of camera)? It is actually funny that adults can come up with this kind of stuff.

The whole issue needs a serious rethink to get rid of the illogical double standards. Sometimes there need to be exceptions to hard & fast rules.

Ian

[CarstenW]

Kirk, rather than deleting a bunch of enjoyable photos, how about using the rule to push this thread into a forum where it is allowed, with a note left behind for those puzzled?

[Lachlan 717]

When you buy a roll of 120 or 220 film it doesn't say large format film on the package.

It says medium format film for medium format cameras. The fact that you can only get 4 exposures on one roll doesn't make it a different film. The fact that you use a LF camera to shoot the roll film doesn't change the film either.

Steve,

I have to call you on this claim (well, as far as Fuji Velvia, Provia, Astia and Acros is concerned). I checked both the individual roll packets and the Pro Packs I have here, and there is no mention of format AT ALL on them. So, can you please back this up with where you read this?

[dave_whatever]

When you buy a roll of 120 or 220 film it doesn't say large format film on the package.

Neither does it say "large format film" on a box of 4x5 Velvia. Looks like we're all shit out of luck.

[mandoman7]

While I'm not a fan of Kirk's management style, the distinction between sheet and roll film is clear. There are other sites for analog, digital cameras, etc., this one is reserved for sheet film.

I would guess many of us have a lot of work that's been shot in other formats. There may be other images that we feel the group will like, but that's just too bad, unfortunately. The 6x17 images I saw by Shallendra were better than a lot of what I've seen on this forum, but that doesn't change the agreed upon rules. Maybe it points to the need for a forum where good shooters can present work that's defined by its sophistication more than how it was produced?

[CarstenW]

While I'm not a fan of Kirk's management style, the distinction between sheet and roll film is clear. There are other sites for analog, digital cameras, etc., this one is reserved for sheet film.

Well, actually, those aren't the rules, and that is where it gets sticky. If you put 120 through a roll film holder on a 4x5, you may post the results. If you put the same film through a medium format camera, yielding negatives of the same size, you may not.

[Jan Pedersen]

While i applaud Kirk's management style in a time where everybody have and push their own agendas i basically agree with John, Large Format is sheet film.
Granted there are gray areas but roll film have as far as i am concerned never been used in what was traditional LF cameras.

Why not agree that anything else than sheet film no matter what the camera look and feels like is shown in the Lounge, is that such a big deal?

[Lachlan 717]

While i applaud Kirk's management style in a time where everybody have and push their own agendas i basically agree with John, Large Format is sheet film.
Granted there are gray areas but roll film have as far as i am concerned never been used in what was traditional LF cameras.

Why not agree that anything else than sheet film no matter what the camera look and feels like is shown in the Lounge, is that such a big deal?

Does that then rule out 5x12 images where the film was cut from Arial roll film?

Or, if I build a 6x17 film holder that I cut 120 film down to fit will be allowed?

Or, does 2.25x3.25" get a yes, whilst 6x17 (much bigger image area) get a no?

Why no reinstate the images and move it to the Lounge. If you have a look at the number of viewings the page has, surely there is enough interest in the size from many Members to keep them posted.

[mandoman7]

Well, actually, those aren't the rules, and that is where it gets sticky. If you put 120 through a roll film holder on a 4x5, you may post the results. If you put the same film through a medium format camera, yielding negatives of the same size, you may not.

I didn't realize that you could post roll film if its shot through a view camera. Maybe it would be more clear if they did stick with sheet film.

[Jan Pedersen]

Does that then rule out 5x12 images where the film was cut from Arial roll film?

Or, if I build a 6x17 film holder that I cut 120 film down to fit will be allowed?

Or, does 2.25x3.25" get a yes, whilst 6x17 (much bigger image area) get a no?

Why no reinstate the images and move it to the Lounge. If you have a look at the number of viewings the page has, surely there is enough interest in the size from many Members to keep them posted.


We can continue to argue over the size and wether it is roll or sheet film and that seems to be the main attraction to this thread.

I am one of the many viewers in the 6x17 group, in fact i bought a dedicated 6x17 camera after the thread was started.
Noone is going to take the 6x17 images away, it is merely a question about where they should be posted.
Get real and find something serious to bitch about, there's plenty of subject matter out in the real world that need some resolving.

[Vaughn]

Every time I see this topic title, I want to show off my latest 7x17 images -- inches instead of millimeters (okay, I have only made 4 images with the camera so far...):D

[Jan Pedersen]

Every time I see this topic title, I want to show off my latest 7x17 images -- inches instead of millimeters (okay, I have only made 4 images with the camera so far...)

I think i have a couple more but youre not going to see them here :p

[PViapiano]

I didn't realize that you could post roll film if its shot through a view camera. Maybe it would be more clear if they did stick with sheet film.

It doesn't even have to be film...digital scanning backs are allowed afaik.

But really...just decide where all other formats can go or just "don't ask, don't tell".

Life is too short for this crap, boys.

[PViapiano]

Kirk, rather than deleting a bunch of enjoyable photos, how about using the rule to push this thread into a forum where it is allowed, with a note left behind for those puzzled?

This is what should have happened. Absolutely.

[Lachlan 717]

Every time I see this topic title, I want to show off my latest 7x17 images -- inches instead of millimeters (okay, I have only made 4 images with the camera so far...):D

I think that this leads to an important phenomenon: moving up.

When I first bought a camera bigger than 35mm, it was a 6x17cm p&s.

I was intimidated by even that camera. So much to learn. So many mistakes to be made.

So, I got through those (kinda), and moved to a dedicated 6x17 field camera. Again, intimidated as it was my first view camera.

Now, I am ready for the challenge of bigger; perhaps 4x10, but more likely 7x17.

To my point: if I hadn't found this forum AND found 6x17 users and posters within, I doubt that I would have had the plums to move on.

I think that we need to be careful excluding one path to "true" LF by excluding what is clearly a grey (18%?) area between MF and LF.

After all, leaving these images isn't really hurting anyone, is it?

[IanG]

That's untrue because 120 & 220 images are allowable if shot in a roll film back with a field/monorail/technical camera.

It needs a proper debate and a rethink on the behalf of the owner, the moderators have shown extremely poor judgement moving the post from one forum to another then deleting posts.

6x17 and also 6x12 are formats that are quite distinct from the normal Medium formats 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 & 6x9.

We are talking about very specialised panoramic formats that are used with both LF roll film backs backs and dedicated cameras. They use Large Format lenses and require large format equipment for enlargement and in many cases LF capable scanners as well. That in itself is being disregarded.

If any 6x17 images are allowable then all should be, there are dedicated cameras that allow rise (an LF attribute), some with tilt (another LF attribute).

It's an issue that should not be fudged any longer. There's too much dragging heels and the site needs to just accept these borderline LF formats, they aren't going to swamp it :D

Ian


While I'm not a fan of Kirk's management style, the distinction between sheet and roll film is clear. There are other sites for analog, digital cameras, etc., this one is reserved for sheet film.

I would guess many of us have a lot of work that's been shot in other formats. There may be other images that we feel the group will like, but that's just too bad, unfortunately. The 6x17 images I saw by Shallendra were better than a lot of what I've seen on this forum, but that doesn't change the agreed upon rules. Maybe it points to the need for a forum where good shooters can present work that's defined by its sophistication more than how it was produced?

[onnect17]

Moderators, PLEASEEEEE!!! restore all the images posted by Shailendra until the forum reach a consensus where the 6x17s should be posted. Everybody will appreciate it.
Sometimes is better being flexible than right.

[Kirk Gittings]

The forum moderators and the owner have had a consensus for years about this. It has been stated above. Nothing has changed for years in regards to this.

[IanG]

The forum moderators and the owner have had a consensus for years about this. It has been stated above. Nothing has changed for years in regards to this.

So what, this thread shows it's time for a re-evaluation and a rethink.

Ian

[IanG]

Maybe it's time there's new Moderators who better reflect the mood of the Forum than some posting in this thread.

Ian

[onnect17]

Last year in the Eastman House in Rochester a rep from Kodak stated that the production of film will continue as long Hollywood was in business. Why? It's 80% of their output. Now, think how much of the rest is 35mm, 120, and sheets.
IMHO, the self called LF elite should be the first in line embracing and keeping the most popular sizes in the market.
Regarding the definition of LF, don't worry. I will grab the microphone next time QT stop by New England and ask him in front of an audience of 300 how to draw a line between LF and MF. I can't wait :)

[CarstenW]

The forum moderators and the owner have had a consensus for years about this. It has been stated above. Nothing has changed for years in regards to this.

You make it sound like you can't change this. Where do we go and who do we talk to if we would like to reach a new consensus?

By the way, why was the thread moved from another forum to here, when the photos in the thread aren't allowed here?

[rguinter]

Maybe it's time there's new Moderators who better reflect the mood of the Forum than some posting in this thread.

Ian

I find I agree with Ian. With 133 posts and counting... "round and round it goes and where it stops nobody knows."

What's happening here is a classic example of chauvinism. Totally ridiculous to see so much argument about maintaining the status quo for something that, to 99.99+ percent of the population, is DOA.

Time for change and to start climbing out of the old ruts.

My opinion.

Bob G.

[Vaughn]

"It's not fair!"

Boy, do I get tired of that phrase -- I get it all the time from my three boys. My usual response is, "That's why there's no Ferris wheel here." A stupid response, of course, but it usually matches the situation. Then I try to explain what is going on.

As we know, the world is not black or white, so the owner/moderators are left with the job of sorting out the shades of gray. Even by defining LF as a camera that can take sheet film is not cut and dried -- my Rollei TLR camera is capable of using a sheet film adapter.

So it looks that we have put the moderators between a rock and a hard place. If this thread was moved to the lounge, the those using view cameras with 120 roll backs would be misplaced according to the working definition of a LF camera. And allowing images made with dedicated roll film cameras in the main forum goes against the basic premise of the site.

I am glad that we all can express our opinions here without fear of getting kicked off. I was kicked off a site for fathers of triplets because I dared to question a moderator's post saying that all Muslims are evil because of their beliefs.

Keep up the great work, moderators! And Thank you!

[Marko]

You make it sound like you can't change this. Where do we go and who do we talk to if we would like to reach a new consensus?

By the way, why was the thread moved from another forum to here, when the photos in the thread aren't allowed here?

If you read that message as carefully as it was written, you'll notice that it is not at all about whether they can change it nor whether we can reach a new consensus. What it actually says is that they are not going to change it and that consensus is for the owner and the moderators to reach, not the users.

They've been very consistent in this kind of inconsistency, be it about camera types, film formats, politics, trolling or what not, and they have every right to be - it is their board. We can talk about it all we want (or at least until they say it was enough) and if we still don't like it we are free to go away (as many have done).

Simple as that.

[CarstenW]

I am not about to go anywhere, but I do think that the rules could be improved in this area, or at least the enforcing. Moving a thread to where many images aren't allowed, and then removing those images just makes little sense.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I did not invent this definition. It was the operating definition when I joined this forum-long before I became a moderator and this remains the consensus of the moderators and and the owner.

Just following orders...

But I guess I can see the reasoning. If they let in photos shot on 6x17 roll film, then a flood of non-large format 6x17 people will swamp the forum and cause disorder. If there are indeed enough 6x17 shooters to cause a flood or even the occasional drop of dew, and oh, but I guess it isn't the film that is the problem as even 6x7 roll-film is OK. So it is those pesky shooters with no tilts and swings that are the problem - oh well except for those who have large format cameras without tilts and swings. So it must be the people without darkslides that we must be vigilant against!

Darkslides or die!

[Kirk Gittings]

You folks are welcome to put your complaints directly to the all the mods and owner. People do it all the time. But in all honesty we just reviewed this policy in February and we are not likely to review it again so soon. Those of you who think this is a moderation problem should know that we are alerted to these non-LF postings every time by numerous concerned members. Neither I nor anyone else goes looking for them. We don't have time.

I am reminded of a situation a couple of years ago. We were under considerable pressure to allow DSLR stitches in the core forums. There was a "consensus" of 20-30 people for that change too (we have about 2800 active members at any given time). We believe that the limited scope of this forum is what gives it character distinct from the ubiquitous photo forums out there. And for what doesn't fit the definition there is the Lounge. We instituted the Lounge just so we could provide a bigger umbrella without diluting out mission, which is LF film and View Cameras. I have never felt personally that there was any lack of discussion or feedback when posting in the Lounge. So I don't get the reluctance. A large portion of my work is MF and DSLR, but I don't see the need to post it within the core forums. If I have a show that is not LF, I post that announcement too in the Lounge.

Amy said said once, "the moderators are all that stands between this forum and total chaos (she said this shortly after Ted's death)". It is quite frankly a pretty thankless job. The rewards are having a place to come and discuss LF film and VC issues which is civil and knowledgeable. Despite our many imperfections, I think we are unsurpassed in that.

[IanG]

Another point missed by the "Tamperers" in this thread is the meaning of the word Moderate or Moderator.

Aside from this thread there's been some extremely clumsy Moderating by just one or two on this board in recent months, to be fair there's also other moderators who have the right attitude and approach.

But this 6x17 issue needs sorting out, if any 6x17 images are disallowed then all threads on smaller formats should be closed, along with any roll film LF threads.

It's the nonsensical approach that riles everyone.

It's extremely easy to justify why 6x17 and possibly 6x12 (& 6x15) should be treated as large format on this forum, without any ambiguity.

Do we stamp certain Moderators as being like Nazi's who claimed they just followed Hitlers orders, that's how they seem to see their role judging by behaviour. The only flaw is the owner of this site Q. Tuang Luong is not that kind of person.

Realism needs to prevail, 6x17 isn't that prevalent, so why doesn't the site embrace it totally, instead of saying if it this camera it's OK but that not.

Ian

[Marko]

I am reminded of a situation a couple of years ago. We were under considerable pressure to allow DSLR stitches in the core forums. There was a "consensus" of 20-30 people for that change too (we have about 2800 active members at any given time). We believe that the limited scope of this forum is what gives it character distinct from the ubiquitous photo forums out there. And for what doesn't fit the definition there is the Lounge. We instituted the Lounge just so we could provide a bigger umbrella without diluting out mission, which is LF film and View Cameras. I have never felt personally that there was any lack of discussion or feedback when posting in the Lounge. So I don't get the reluctance. A large portion of my work is MF and DSLR, but I don't see the need to post it within the core forums. If I have a show that is not LF, I post that announcement too in the Lounge.

Kirk,

With all due respect, I believe it is the sheer number of high quality participants that makes this forum what it is, character and all, rather than the scope.

I also believe that the issue at hand is not 6x17 (or 12 or 24 or whatever) but - forgive me for being blunt, there's simply no other way to say this - the highly capricious and inconsistent way in which it has been "moderated" lately. And it is not limited to this particular issue, there have been a number of topics handled in the similar manner - extremely clumsy, as IanG put it.

It would be a shame to keep needlessly losing good participants over something like that.

[Lachlan 717]

Kirk,

Seems an easy way to solve this: have one of the Moderators start a poll as to the "worth", "value" and/or "acceptance" of [a minimum] roll film size of 6x17cm, regardless of camera type.

Coming from a Moderator, it will be sanctioned, and the result both unequivocal and not open to further consideration.

Put a timeframe on response.

Clearly state that this is a once-only poll. The results will form the paradigm going forward, ad infinitum.

Whilst I cannot speak for others, I can clearly say that, if you do this and the majority vote against 6x17cm (whatever camera), then I will not raise this topic, nor respond to threads on it, again.

If you feel that you have a clear gauge on Subscribers' feelings about this topic, then this will be a no-brainer thing for you to do.

However, if you don't, then I'd see that you don't have the courage of your convictions on this one.

Not a criticism if it the latter; that's your prerogative as a Moderator. This Forum is not a democracy. But you'll leave me wondering why you're not open to checks and balances on your decrees...

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry but this has nothing what so ever with the courage of my convictions. These are not just my convictions. They are the consensus of all the moderators and the owner. So I suggest you petition the owner and the moderators as a whole. That is how changes are made. It is super simple to do-send them an email. I personally put pretty much the same question to them all in February and after a thorough discussion we decided not to make a change. As far as I am concerned, for the foreseeable future, the question was settled in February.

[Lachlan 717]

Sorry but this has nothing what so ever with the courage of my convictions. These are not just my convictions. They are the consensus of all the moderators and the owner. So I suggest you petition the owner and the moderators as a whole. That is how changes are made. It is super simple to do-send them an email. I personally put pretty much the same question to them all in February and after a thorough discussion we decided not to make a change. As far as I am concerned, for the foreseeable future, the question was settled in February.

I would have thought the myriad negative responses to your decision would have been enough for you to realise that there was due cause to look into this.

Don't look over your shoulder, Kirk; you might see the elephant that's standing in the room with you…

[CarstenW]

Kirk did make the statement that he received numerous complaints from people who did not want to see the 617 camera photos in here, so as much I would prefer to say that LF is any negative/positive over a certain area, probably anything larger than 6x12, I cannot claim that the majority are with me, just the vocal members in this thread.

[IanG]

The most sensible post yet Carsten. Here's the logic for allowing all 6x12 and larger 120 formats.

ALL cameras use Large format lenses

All negatives or positives need printing with a Large Format enlarger

Negative need scanning with a Large Format capable scanner

Even Kirk should be able tom understand that logic, these are Large Format :D

Ian

[IanG]

Sorry but this has nothing what so ever with the courage of my convictions. These are not just my convictions. They are the consensus of all the moderators and the owner. So I suggest you petition the owner and the moderators as a whole. That is how changes are made. It is super simple to do-send them an email. I personally put pretty much the same question to them all in February and after a thorough discussion we decided not to make a change. As far as I am concerned, for the foreseeable future, the question was settled in February.

It's also your responsibility as a Moderator to get this issue re-opened now.

Either all 6x12 and larger 120 Formats are totally allowable or all threads and posts referring to other 120 film formats and 35mm etc should be moderated in the same way and closed.

Ian

[kht]

How about some pinhole 6x17?

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8166/dsc1365lff.jpg

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/633/dsc1639lff.jpg

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/8260/dsc02454lff.jpg/

I like the old look of there. What did you use? Something homemade?

[richard brown]

I can't believe that i just blew away half an hour of my life reading these dumb posts...
and now i have to waste more time trying to figure out which negs were done with an
artpan617, which with a fuji 617, which with my lovely new to me v-pan 617 OR the other problem is ... was that neg from a 612 horseman back on my ebony4x5 or god forbid, a 612 noblex? That vpan 617 sure looks like a large format camera but maybe these eyes are getting too old!!!
This is obviously a sore point yet we have to remember that the owner and the moderators are doing a great job ... without making the big bucks...and they are providing a wonderful venue for all of us who love "large" photography. Yes it does seem silly that all my large format lenses are used on the vpan and i have to find a 5x7+ enlarger to print.Oh, how about the fact that the nikon 9000scanner can not scan the 6x17, just 6x9.
I am so confused..... wahhhhhh!!!
And now a friend in Canmore who is the digital guru has asked for some advice as he is tired of the hassle of stitching and, praise the lord, is asking what his film options are.... i should send him to this thread! He would likely take up needlepoint! He is learning lots from this forum and is torn between the canham 57 option with 617 back
or the beautiful v-pan that chet hanchett built before his death a few years ago.
Great photographer and if he makes the right decision, he might get to show his images somewhere on this amazing forum.
Now I just have to figure out if i can post vpan images and then scan them.
Keep shooting that lovely film!
Richard Brown

[cjbroadbent]

Scanning:
Long after scuzzy went with the dodos I was still using The original Imacon "Foto" scanner which has magnetic film holders up to 6x18. The exposure strip is 6cm wide and the film holders come in all the usual sizes up to 6x18.

This being a LF forum, I can tell you that the holder takes 5x7 (13x18cm) sheet film just like roll film and scans a 'panoramic' strip. Over few years doing calendars and such, I downgraded from Seitz through Technorama and a 6x12 back on Cambo to a fixed-focus 5x7 box with a 120 SuperAngulon. The Imacon did the lot with ease.

It is worth a bit of Ebaying to get your hands on one, plus a scuzzy converter for modern Macs. I swapped mine - computer included for a Leica lens. So it goes cheap nowadays.