List of Formats in LF category? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Oren Grad

7-Jul-2010, 17:06

Wayne, it depends how exotic you want to get. Off the top of my head, I'm aware of cameras built to use sheet film in the following formats (in inches):

2.25x3.25
3.25x4.25 (quarter plate)
3.25x5.5 ("postcard")
4x5
4.75x6.5 (half plate)
5x7
4x10
5x8
6.5x8.5 (whole plate)
5x12
6x10
7x11
8x10
9x9 (aware of one custom-built camera / holder set only)
6x15
7x17
11x14
8x20
12x20
14x17
14x20 (aware of one camera / holder set in use, though supposedly more backs were made)
16x20
20x24

I'm sure others here will come up with more. Also, this doesn't include European sheet film formats in centimeter measures, and I'm probably missing some of the odd panoramic formats that for a while were coming from the Indian seller lexim2k via eBay.

Alan Davenport

7-Jul-2010, 17:12

Sheet film does not make a camera large format.

I was taught that 4x5 is the lower limit of "large" format; anything smaller than 4x5 is medium format or a small format.

Monty McCutchen

7-Jul-2010, 17:51

10 x 12 as well to Oren's excellent list

Monty

Bill_1856

7-Jul-2010, 17:57

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

Jason Greenberg Motamedi

7-Jul-2010, 18:44

Two more historical plate sizes (I don't think either were ever made in film):
Half plate; 4.25 x 5.5" (note that this is different from Oren's half plate film size) also 18x22.
There were a handful of smaller plate sizes as well.

Oren Grad

7-Jul-2010, 19:49

Thanks to Monty and Jason for catching me on those additional formats. 10x12 should have been obvious, because it's part of the Ilford special order. :o

If I recall correctly, Michael A Smith shot at least some film in 18x22.

Roger Thoms

7-Jul-2010, 19:59

My friend has a 9x9 that he bought off ebay, wonder if it is the same camera that Oren mentions in his list. The camera actually has a 9x9, 7x11, and a 8x10 back.

How about my pinhole camera that I'm just about done building, it's a panoramic designed to take half sheets of 11x14. No holders, you have to load the film or in my case the paper in the camera one sheet at a time in the dark.

Roger

Oren Grad

7-Jul-2010, 20:09

My friend has a 9x9 that he bought off ebay, wonder if it is the same camera that Oren mentions in his list. The camera actually has a 9x9, 7x11, and a 8x10 back.

I suspect it is. Butch Welch originally built a multiformat camera with those three formats; that's what I had in mind. He used to have a website showing the camera, but that's long gone. If I recall correctly, the project was also written up in View Camera. I wonder how many times the kit has changed hands since he sold it.

Michael Wynd

7-Jul-2010, 20:50

There was an Indian manufacturer who produced 6x15 and 8x15 cameras. the name began with Vag I think. Paul Ewins has one that he bought a couple of years ago on Ebay.
Mike

Jay DeFehr

7-Jul-2010, 21:35

Oren Grad

7-Jul-2010, 21:41

Oops - there's also Jim Galli's 5x14.

Oren Grad

7-Jul-2010, 21:45

I love the Postcard format! Which cameras used that format? Was the Kodak 3A one of them? Sorry to digress.

For sheet film, Speed Graphic and Compact Graflex. Anyone know of any others?

Kodak 3A too, but on 122 roll film.

Paul Ewins

7-Jul-2010, 21:52

The Vageeswari panoramics are really odd, 6.5 x 15 and 8.5 x15. Apparently the camera design is some British Government standard which is simply scaled up as required. The one traditional size that is definitely missing from the list is 12x15.

Hugo Zhang

7-Jul-2010, 22:12

My first panoramic is a 9.5" x 20".

Jay DeFehr

7-Jul-2010, 23:36

How did one shoot PC format with a Speed Graphic? How cool would it be to have 122 roll film?! I would love to be able to shot PC format on roll film with an SLR. Those old guys didn't know how good they had it!

Mark Sawyer

7-Jul-2010, 23:42

My friend has a 9x9 that he bought off ebay, wonder if it is the same camera that Oren mentions in his list.

9x9 and 5x5 were standard sizes for aerial photography.

brianam

8-Jul-2010, 00:42

Argentum sells an 8x8 square camera.
http://www.argentumcamera.com/eng/pages/cameras/excursor_eng.htm
(bottom of page)

miss_emma_jade

8-Jul-2010, 01:02

I have a 9x7 cm.. its sheet film, but wouldnt call it LF..
EMMA

Steven Tribe

8-Jul-2010, 01:47

Continuing on from 10x12, there was.
12x15
16x18
20x22
and the odd 21x25

GPS

8-Jul-2010, 03:49

Sheet film does not make a camera large format.

I was taught that 4x5 is the lower limit of "large" format; anything smaller than 4x5 is medium format or a small format.

Quite correct. In the same logic, I wonder that nobody minds the fact that whatever format over 8x10 size is basically often regarded as ULF - thus eliminating a half of Oren's list from the contest...:)

Steven Tribe

8-Jul-2010, 04:46

True enough. But when did the term "ULF" come into being? When purchase of these film sizes became "ultra" difficult!?

Monty McCutchen

8-Jul-2010, 04:54

Oren,

Do you know what happened to Butch. I thought his work was wonderful. Can't find any way to see any more of it. Did he get out of photography. If so, a shame. I enjoyed his work a great deal.

Monty

I suspect it is. Butch Welch originally built a multiformat camera with those three formats; that's what I had in mind. He used to have a website showing the camera, but that's long gone. If I recall correctly, the project was also written up in View Camera. I wonder how many times the kit has changed hands since he sold it.

D. Bryant

8-Jul-2010, 06:15

Oren,

Do you know what happened to Butch. I thought his work was wonderful. Can't find any way to see any more of it. Did he get out of photography. If so, a shame. I enjoyed his work a great deal.

Monty

Hi Monty,

Butch seemed to have gotten burned out with photography after building all of his cameras and left photography. I met Butch at APIS years ago and his work was very nice.

BTW, Sandy King, Sam Wang, and Christina Anderson were very impressed with your work and camera.

Don Bryant

Dan Fromm

8-Jul-2010, 06:39

9x9 and 5x5 were standard sizes for aerial photography.
9x18, too

Monty McCutchen

8-Jul-2010, 07:32

Don,

that's very kind of both them and you to say.

thank you

Monty

Hi Monty,

Butch seemed to have gotten burned out with photography after building all of his cameras and left photography. I met Butch at APIS years ago and his work was very nice.

BTW, Sandy King, Sam Wang, and Christina Anderson were very impressed with your work and camera.

Don Bryant

Sal Santamaura

8-Jul-2010, 07:46

Large Format is a state of mind, not a camera size.Bill, haven't we been here before?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=595329&postcount=11

Oren Grad

8-Jul-2010, 08:04

Do you know what happened to Butch. I thought his work was wonderful. Can't find any way to see any more of it. Did he get out of photography. If so, a shame. I enjoyed his work a great deal.

Once in a very great while he posts something on one or another photography forum. He was doing digital stuff for a while, then posted about going back to B&W film, but I don't know where he's at just now.

Not his own site, but left over from the old days:

http://www.photographywest.com/pages/welch_photos.html

aduncanson

8-Jul-2010, 08:20

I've just been thinking, why is there no 10x16? It would seem to be a good compromise.

Jay DeFehr

8-Jul-2010, 08:38

Quite correct. In the same logic, I wonder that nobody minds the fact that whatever format over 8x10 size is basically often regarded as ULF - thus eliminating a half of Oren's list from the contest...:)

If so, what's the criteria? Film area? If that's the case it would mean panoramic roll film cameras are LF cameras that use MF film, but 1/4 plate cameras are MF cameras that use LF film. That logic doesn't hold up very well, for me.

sanking

8-Jul-2010, 08:55

How about 10"X24"? We recently made a custom batch of film holders that size, and it is definitely pretty big.

Sandy King

QCC

8-Jul-2010, 08:56

We have had holders made for two different customers in 20"X20".
New York based commercial people who for whatever reason would not consider 20"X24".

Oren Grad

8-Jul-2010, 08:59

I've just been thinking, why is there no 10x16? It would seem to be a good compromise.

Which reminds me, Dick Phillips built a few 8x16 cameras too.

ic-racer

8-Jul-2010, 09:22

EdWorkman

8-Jul-2010, 10:14

What is this site's definition of LF? please.
Is it defined by WxL or gross area or net image area?
and thankyou

Sal Santamaura

8-Jul-2010, 10:28

What is this site's definition of LF?...As I linked in post 27:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=595329&postcount=11

IanG

8-Jul-2010, 10:49

IanG

8-Jul-2010, 10:52

As I linked in post 27:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=595329&postcount=11

Perhaps a book I have "The Miniature Camera" offers another perspective, it includes 35mm & 120 cameras. The term medium format is quite recent.

Ian

EdWorkman

8-Jul-2010, 11:03

OOPS NOW I see the link posted by Sal

Jay DeFehr

8-Jul-2010, 11:15

These threads come up frequently. What is "large" anyway?

My two cents:

Its easier to categorize technique or cameras as VIEW CAMERAS or not. So, in my mind when I see "Large Format" I just think "view camera" and/or "sheet/plate film" photography.

I suppose we all have our own ways of thinking about it. I categorize by film type; MF= 120/220 roll film, and this seems to be the popular consensus.That some of the same formats are available in sheets doesn't seem to confuse me. Any film larger than 120/220 roll film is LF, for me, whether it's used in an SLR, a pinhole camera, or a view camera. Correlating format to camera type seems arbitrary, since format refers only to the dimensions of the film, and not to the form (rolls or sheets), or the equipment in which it's used.

Please understand I don't criticize other views, and I certainly don't see this as anything more than a bit of fun trivia.

Jay DeFehr

8-Jul-2010, 11:22

OOPS NOW I see the link posted by Sal

Sal's link is to Tuan's definition (with which I disagree on fairly firm grounds) of a LF camera, and not a definition of LF itself.

My definition of LF has only to do with film format. Film format describes only a film's dimensions, and nothing more. A LF camera, then, is one that uses LF film. Simple!

rdenney

8-Jul-2010, 12:08

My definition of LF has only to do with film format. Film format describes only a film's dimensions, and nothing more. A LF camera, then, is one that uses LF film. Simple!

Oh, it's never simple. When I shoot 6x12, I use a 4x5 camera. Now, that 4x5 camera meets anyone's definition of a large-format camera. So, by your statement above, is that a large format camera is one that uses large format film. That includes my Sinar. But you are still using the camera as the basis of the definition, not the film. When I put a roll-film holder on the Sinar, it's still a camera that uses large-format film.

Given that this will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, we have only one choice, and that's to comply with what the site owner enforces. That boundary can be tested by posting pictures and seeing what gets deleted by the moderators.

The 6x12 images I have made with my Sinar have not been deleted, so I can only assume it meets their standard. Also, the other users of the forum haven't beaten me down for posting them. But I think posting 6x9 images made in my Sinar might be more of a challenge to the collective sensibility. Posting 6x9 images from my Moscow folder, even though it has bellows, etc., is clearly going to get deleted. And my Pentax 6x7? I'm not even going there.

Thus, there is a mix in the collective sensibility, as represented by responses to posts and moderator actions, of both the camera being used and the size of the film.

Given that any technical definition is elusive, we might as well go with de facto standards.

You should see the arguments on the tuba forums about what constitutes a 6/4 versus 5/4 versus 4/4 contrabass tuba (all of which are pitched the same and vary only in volume). There is a continuum of sizes for Bb and C contrabass tubas, and a continuum of sizes for Eb and F bass tubas. Those sizes overlap substantially between the two. Substitute "sheet film" for "contrabass" and "roll film" for "bass" and you get the analogue.

Rick "nomenclature is always a problem" Denney

Jay DeFehr

8-Jul-2010, 12:35

Rick,

Your 4x5 camera uses LF film, and that's what makes it a LF camera (by my definition). If it only used roll film, it would be a MF camera (by my definition). My definition of LF is based solely on film format, and my definition of LF camera is based solely on the provision that is uses LF film. In other words, LF cameras can also use MF film, but MF cameras can't also use LF film; if they did, they'd be LF cameras.

As for which images are accepted here, I'm liberal to the extreme- nothing bothers me. I understand others view the issue differently, and I respect their views, even if I don't share them.

GPS

8-Jul-2010, 15:06

Jay DeFehr

8-Jul-2010, 16:02

GPS,

MF film is 6cm wide, so yes, any length of MF film is still MF film. I think this is the popular consensus, since one will never find roll film listed as LF film by any manufacturer/supplier, regardless of the way the film is used. MF films are 120 or 220, and nothing else (currently). If there was a camera that used only MF roll film to make 6x24cm images, that camera would be a MF camera (by my definition, which is at least consistent). I have no idea if such a camera exists, but I imagine it's far more likely that format is exposed in a LF camera (8x10), that also uses LF film. An 8x10 camera is always an 8x10 camera, whatever reducing backs are used. If, however, it is modified in such a way that it is no longer capable of exposing 8x10 film, then it ceases to be an 8x10 camera. Cameras are typically categorized by the largest film format they're designed to use, which is consistent with my definition.

If films and cameras must be categorized as either LF or MF, standard practice dictates MF films are 120/220, and larger films are LF. Cameras, as I noted above, are categorized and classified by the largest film format they're designed to use. By this definition an 8x10 camera does not become a 4x5 camera by the use of a 4x5 reducing back, nor does it become an 11x14 camera by the use of an 11x14 enlarging back; it is always an 8x10 camera, because that's the largest format it was designed to use.

By Tuan's definition (which defines MF cameras by their use of roll film), this site might better have been called the View Camera Forum. Tuan's definition is self contradictory, since some roll film formats are indeed larger than 4x5. I think it would be just as much fun to argue about what constitutes a view camera!

Rui Morais de Sousa

8-Jul-2010, 16:15

Hello everybody,
Leaving behind some more disputable issues (like 6x12, 6x17 or 6x24), one thing seems clear to me: people who think in inches seem to have a hard time accepting that many people in other parts of the world think in centimeters. So the, theorecticaly wide accepted, 4x5inches reference seems to be very wrong with me. Why not consider the european format of 9x12cm, also a LF size? In my both 4x5" cameras (Sinar and Gandolfi) I interchange at will between both formats, depending if I wish a more square photograph, or if I prefer a somewhat more "slim" view. Sometimes my choice just simply depends on existing film at hand. Both sheet film holders fit the same cameras in a similar way. Should I feel a "less photographer" when I do 9x12?
And btw, why should I feel a "even lesser photographer" when I have aplied all my corrections and movements with the same (view) cameras and decide to put a 6x12 Horseman back, mainly because I want a somewhat more panoramic view, or simply because I want the convenience of 120 film, or maybe even because I simply run out of sheet film?
It is time for us photographers to liberate our minds. We should be happy that we still have film at all... What do I care if my photographs are measured in inches or centimeters or milimiters or whatever. As long as they are good photographs...
(Yes, I didn't forget this is a LF forum).
Cheers,
Rui
AL-MOST-LY PHOTOGRAPHY (http://ruimoraisdesousa.blogspot.com/)

Oren Grad

8-Jul-2010, 16:16

If there was a camera that used only MF roll film to make 6x24cm images, that camera would be a MF camera (by my definition, which is at least consistent). I have no idea if such a camera exists...

Tomiyama Art Panorama 240
Fotoman 6x24
Gaoersi 6x24

Rui Morais de Sousa

8-Jul-2010, 16:19

Just to reinforce my point of view:
I don't shoot 5x7inches. I shoot 13x18cm!
(For no special reason, that was the size of film holders I got).
Greetings,
Rui

Jay DeFehr

8-Jul-2010, 16:30

Oren,

I think we need a new category for those camera/formats. How about "XMF" (eXtreme Medium Format)?! Or just, Extra-Medium Format? Hahahhahah!

GPS

8-Jul-2010, 17:19

GPS,

...

Tuan's definition is self contradictory, since some roll film formats are indeed larger than 4x5. I think it would be just as much fun to argue about what constitutes a view camera!

Yet you call the 4x5 a LF film and the "larger" 6x24 a MF film...:)

Jay DeFehr

8-Jul-2010, 17:39

GPS,

That's my point; I don't categorize by the area of the format, but by the type of film used. Tuan used size as a criteria in his definition, which is self contradictory (for him), because some roll film formats are actually larger in area than 4x5. My definition is simple, consistent, and non-contradictory: MF films are 120/220. LF films are larger than 6cm on their smallest dimension. MF cameras are designed to use MF film, and LF cameras are designed to use LF film. Simple!

Mike Castles

8-Jul-2010, 18:02

for the many of the odd size LF films/cameras I think Michael Mutmansky described these best as ELF or Exotic Large Format...it's how I refer to my 7x11's Ritter and Kodak both with 8x10 backs.

Jay DeFehr

8-Jul-2010, 18:04

I just thought of an example that doesn't fit my definition: Polaroid! This is a stretch, of course, because it isn't really a film, but an instant print system. BUT, my RB67 comes with a Polaroid back that uses 1/4 plate format "materials". without the masks, I can get an 8cm x 8cm image on Polaroid from my RB67. Is it a LF image, or a MF format image? My RB67 has a bellows, interchangeable lenses, and GG viewing; do these things make it a LF camera? I don't think so, because of one of my provisos- the RB67 was designed to use MF film, and the Polaroid back is a clunky adaptation.

I think categorization is a fundamental human occupation.

Jay DeFehr

8-Jul-2010, 18:34

for the many of the odd size LF films/cameras I think Michael Mutmansky described these best as ELF or Exotic Large Format...it's how I refer to my 7x11's Ritter and Kodak both with 8x10 backs.

I guess ELF sounds better than, Odd Large Format (OLF), or Large Atypical Format (LAF)

Oren Grad

8-Jul-2010, 18:39

GPS

9-Jul-2010, 00:43

GPS,

That's my point; I don't categorize by the area of the format, but by the type of film used.
...

And doing so you're beating yourself on your own backside, because your definition of a MF film (according to a format) is contradictory. Don't you still realize than you're putting the definition problem from a frying pan and into the fire? :)

Ole Tjugen

9-Jul-2010, 01:34

One definition is a film area of 100 cm^2 or more.

So 9x12cm qualifies, as does 6x17 - but not 6x9cm or 6x12cm.

jb7

9-Jul-2010, 01:50

I like that. Or "Eccentric Large Format". :)

That would be the Polaroid 405 holder, (Quarter Plate)
which sits quite eccentrically in my 4x5 back.

Polaroid is film, in my opinion, and I'll continue to use it in whatever camera it fits-
but neither of my holders fit a medium format camera-

miss_emma_jade

9-Jul-2010, 02:42

I have a 9x7 cm.. its sheet film, but wouldnt call it LF..
EMMA

ooops. a friend pointed out a typo.. its 9 x 12 cm.. its still a toy camera compaired to a LF i think..

GPS

9-Jul-2010, 02:49

One definition is a film area of 100 cm^2 or more.

So 9x12cm qualifies, as does 6x17 - but not 6x9cm or 6x12cm.

That's more to my taste too. I gladly regard my 6x17 and 6x24 cameras as LF cameras - having the great advantage of using a 120 film...:)

Rickettles

9-Jul-2010, 11:49

I have the camera made by Butch Welch. I am the third owner and thrilled to have it. Besides 8*10 Butch made 7*11 and 9*9.

I am sorry Butch is not still photographing but glad to have the Camera. Now just to cut some film to size and get out there!

Richard

Jay DeFehr

9-Jul-2010, 12:18

And doing so you're beating yourself on your own backside, because your definition of a MF film (according to a format) is contradictory. Don't you still realize than you're putting the definition problem from a frying pan and into the fire? :)

I don't think my definition of MF film is controversial, since every manufacturer and supplier of the film concurs, and it seems a less arbitrary basis for categorization than Ole's 100cm basis, which allows for LF images to be made on MF film. Ole's definition has a kind of, line-in-the-sand simplicity that appeals to me, and 100cm is a nice, round number, arbitrary though it might be. Still, a definition that defines LF as any format in which the smallest dimension is greater than 70mm is equally simple, and more consistent with standard practice and industry terminology. Few (if any) would argue that 120 is a MF film, and it seems incongruous that LF images would be made on MF film. So, 1/4 plate is either the largest MF, or the smallest LF, depending on how one chooses to look at it. If it's MF, it's the only MF not made on roll film, which makes it unique among MFs, but typical of LFs. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

GPS

9-Jul-2010, 12:49

...
Few (if any) would argue that 120 is a MF film, and it seems incongruous that LF images would be made on MF film.
...

You first define the 120 film as MF according to the format of pictures on it and then you argue that LF pictures cannot be taken on MF film... still happily kicking yourself into your own backside...
Yet if you take LF pictures on 120 film it's not only MF film and then...:) Some things you don't get... Never mind.:)

rdenney

9-Jul-2010, 14:19

One definition is a film area of 100 cm^2 or more.

So 9x12cm qualifies, as does 6x17 - but not 6x9cm or 6x12cm.

Can you say "arbitrary"?

Fred "who wants credit for LF photography using a 4x5 camera even if using a 6x12 back" Rogers

Jay DeFehr

9-Jul-2010, 14:40

You first define the 120 film as MF according to the format of pictures on it and then you argue that LF pictures cannot be taken on MF film... still happily kicking yourself into your own backside...
Yet if you take LF pictures on 120 film it's not only MF film and then...:) Some things you don't get... Never mind.:)

I don't define MF film by the format of photos made on it, I define it the same way the manufacturers and retailers do; 120/220/70mm roll films.Where did you get the idea I define MF by the size of photos made on it? MF happens to be 6cm wide, and that's the common dimension of every MF. The other dimension varies, but there's one common dimension because they're all made on the same type of film- MF. All MF cameras use 120 and/or 220 film; not because of the way I define MF, but because it's the industry standard.

The format distinction is an abstract one, and not very important, or even relevant outside discussions like this one, or websites like this one, which makes format a part of its organizing principles. In the real world, films are categorized as rolls-35mm and MF, and sheets- whatever size they happen to be cut. The rest is just a question of conventions. One convention, American, and possibly the most popular, says LF begins at 4x5. This convention extends from the common practices of American commercial photographers of the past, who made up the bulk of sheet film consumers. The MF convention is universal, since there is/was no competing metric alternative to MF roll films; they're all 120/220, and every MF, or as they're often called- roll film camera- ever made was made to use this type of film precisely because it is an industry standard.

It's very difficult to argue that 120/220 are not MF films, and it's equally difficult to argue that other types of film are MF, based on standard industry practice. Of course, we're all free to make up our own categories on any basis we choose, and name them however we like. For instance, I prefer XLF (eXtra Large Format) to ULF (Ultra Large Format), but only on a linguistic basis.

I remain unconvinced there's any compelling reason to refer to any film larger than 6cm wide as MF, but I'm certainly not bothered by others who do.

Mike Castles

9-Jul-2010, 15:19

I like that. Or "Eccentric Large Format". :)

I think that may be closer to the truth than any Oren.. :)

jnantz

9-Jul-2010, 18:40

I think anything larger than 2-1/4" on its smallest dimension is Large format, even though some panoramic MF sizes are larger in film area than 4x5 inches.

I love the Postcard format! Which cameras used that format? Was the Kodak 3A one of them? Sorry to digress.

hi jay

there was someone selling a
pc format sheet film camera on ebay
just last week.
it came with 5 holders as well ...
there seems to be a few of these cameras on ebay each week or two ..

that format is one of my favorites as well !
john

Jay DeFehr

9-Jul-2010, 19:35

hi jay

there was someone selling a
pc format sheet film camera on ebay
just last week.
it came with 5 holders as well ...
there seems to be a few of these cameras on ebay each week or two ..

that format is one of my favorites as well !
john

Incredible! I'll definitely watch for one. Film would be a problem, though. You probably use paper for yours? I suppose I could cut down 11x14 and get 8 sheets of PC format, but that's a lot of cutting. Hmmmmm. When was the deadline for the special order? I think I missed it! Does Ilford still make PC paper? I just love this idea too much! Thanks, John!

Oren Grad

9-Jul-2010, 20:01

Does Ilford still make PC paper?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/122814-REG/Ilford_1834846_Multigrade_4_RC_Portfolio.html#reviews

Jay DeFehr

9-Jul-2010, 20:26

Thanks, Oren! I just love everything about the whole PC camera idea. It's absolutely charming, and precious in a way iPhone pix never could be. I had a quick look at the cameras on offer, and the Kodaks seem very common and inexpensive. Does anyone know how those cameras performed? I'm intrigued, to say the least!

Ole Tjugen

9-Jul-2010, 22:49

The European sizes are missing:

6.5 x9 cm
9 x 12 cm
10 × 15 cm
13 × 18 cm
18 × 24 cm
24 × 30 cm

and probably a few more. There's a huge no of pre-WWII German 9x12 camera models & manufacturers.

Ian

I had a 30x40cm camera, and I have a 4.5x6cm plate camera. There was also 40x50cm and larger too, but that's getting into the RLF sizes (Ridiculously Large Format)..

Oh - and I have plate cameras in all the sizes from 4.5x6cm to 24x30cm...

GPS

10-Jul-2010, 04:51

I don't define MF film by the format of photos made on it, I define it the same way the manufacturers and retailers do; 120/220/70mm roll films.Where did you get the idea I define MF by the size of photos made on it? MF happens to be 6cm wide, and that's the common dimension of every MF. The other dimension varies, but there's one common dimension because they're all made on the same type of film- MF. All MF cameras use 120 and/or 220 film; not because of the way I define MF, but because it's the industry standard.

...

First you said, that your MF definition is only based on the "film format" and the "film format describes only a film's dimensions" (see your post n.41)
Now you define the MF film by manufacturers and retailers naming habit... Don't you realise that their nomenclature is simply based on the prevalent number of camera types (MF cameras) for which the 120 film is used? Of course they don't give a damn to the fact that the 120 film is also used in more rare 6x17 and 6x24 cameras, them being closer to the LF than to the MF...:)
Your MF definition is as contradictory and arbitrary as the manufacturers nomenclature, is that simple. Not to speak about your illogical mesmerized attention to only the shorter (6) dimension of 120 film - as if the rest, so important for the camera construction and the picture dimension, did not exist at all. Why would the discerning characteristic of MF/LF film depend on one dimension of it only?
In this Ole's definition is much (!) more logical and simpler than yours.

jnantz

10-Jul-2010, 08:28

Incredible! I'll definitely watch for one. Film would be a problem, though. You probably use paper for yours? I suppose I could cut down 11x14 and get 8 sheets of PC format, but that's a lot of cutting. Hmmmmm. When was the deadline for the special order? I think I missed it! Does Ilford still make PC paper? I just love this idea too much! Thanks, John!

i wish i won it jay, but unfortunately
the end of the auction had someone
else bidding high and me bidding low ;)
there seem to be PC cameras that need roll film
... i figure rolling paper instead of film
would be a piece of cake ;)

the kodak folders used to come with
a film / plate back and holders
they tend to be kind of rare.

have fun!

john

Jay DeFehr

10-Jul-2010, 08:40

First you said, that your MF definition is only based on the "film format" and the "film format describes only a film's dimensions" (see your post n.41)
Now you define the MF film by manufacturers and retailers naming habit... Don't you realise that their nomenclature is simply based on the prevalent number of camera types (MF cameras) for which the 120 film is used? Of course they don't give a damn to the fact that the 120 film is also used in more rare 6x17 and 6x24 cameras, them being closer to the LF than to the MF...:)
Your MF definition is as contradictory and arbitrary as the manufacturers nomenclature, is that simple. Not to speak about your illogical mesmerized attention to only the shorter (6) dimension of 120 film - as if the rest, so important for the camera construction and the picture dimension, did not exist at all. Why would the discerning characteristic of MF/LF film depend on one dimension of it only?
In this Ole's definition is much (!) more logical and simpler than yours.

In post 41 I said my definition of LF is based on film format. Defining MF is a little different, because it's a roll film format. The manufacturer's 120/220 numbers refer not only to the width of the film, but the lengths and the spools, and a few other features that differentiate them from 620, (smaller spool, discontinued in 1995), and 70mm, which is wider to accommodate sprocket holes. All these films happen to share one, and only one common feature- a 6cm image width. That might be a coincidence, or it might define MF.

But, as I said, we're all free to make our own distinctions based on whatever criteria we choose, and the only danger is in being misunderstood by others who categorize things differently. I'm confident I'll be understood when I refer to 120/220 film, and the cameras that are designed to use them as MF. If some photographers want credit as LF photographers for their panoramic roll film formats, I have no objections, mostly because I don't understand how that credit earns them anything, and because acknowledging it certainly doesn't cost me anything. In short, it just doesn't matter much to me. If you like Ole's definition, by all means use it, and in good health!

Jay DeFehr

10-Jul-2010, 09:35

i wish i won it jay, but unfortunately
the end of the auction had someone
else bidding high and me bidding low ;)
there seem to be PC cameras that need roll film
... i figure rolling paper instead of film
would be a piece of cake ;)

the kodak folders used to come with
a film / plate back and holders
they tend to be kind of rare.

have fun!

john

Judging by a quick look at ebay, PC format cameras are not very common, except for the Kodak folders, which one can have for a few bucks. I just love the whole PC concept, and I'll definitely pick up a camera, of one kind or another. I think it might be simpler to spool one's own 122 rolls than to cut a lot of PC format sheets, provided one could get a roll of film the appropriate width. If 122 film is actually 3.24" wide, I could use the same roll to cut 3x4 sheets for my Graflex. I know Kodak spools up 500' lengths of 5" aero film; I wonder if they'd spool up 500' of TMY-2 at 3.25" width? I think there would be something poetic in shooting TMY-2 in a Kodak 3A! It's a shame Kodak doesn't still make their Azo PC paper, then the circle would be complete.

rdenney

10-Jul-2010, 14:38

If some photographers want credit as LF photographers for their panoramic roll film formats, I have no objections, mostly because I don't understand how that credit earns them anything, and because acknowledging it certainly doesn't cost me anything. In short, it just doesn't matter much to me. If you like Ole's definition, by all means use it, and in good health!

It matters in one small way: What is and is not allowed to be posted on this forum. Beyond that, it's more amusement than importance. Wherever one draws the line, it will exclude and therefore offend someone else.

How about this for a boundary? If you scan it in one piece on a Nikon 9000, then it's medium or small format. That's as arbitrary as any other definition, but it fits what I do better.

Here's another one: Large format is any film format for which the diagonal is greater than 120mm. That one fits my self-image better than others, too.

Rick "stirring the pot" Denney

sanking

10-Jul-2010, 14:49

Here's another one: Large format is any film format for which the diagonal is greater than 120mm. That one fits my self-image better than others, too.

Rick "stirring the pot" Denney

That one works for me as I love working with the 6X12 cm Noblex.

Sandy King

Jay DeFehr

10-Jul-2010, 14:58

It matters in one small way: What is and is not allowed to be posted on this forum. Beyond that, it's more amusement than importance. Wherever one draws the line, it will exclude and therefore offend someone else.

How about this for a boundary? If you scan it in one piece on a Nikon 9000, then it's medium or small format. That's as arbitrary as any other definition, but it fits what I do better.

Here's another one: Large format is any film format for which the diagonal is greater than 120mm. That one fits my self-image better than others, too.

Rick "stirring the pot" Denney

I'm not sure these kinds of discussions have any bearing on what the moderators allow, but I might be wrong. I think they've been very liberal with me in the past, and I try not to abuse their generosity. I'm always happy to see images posted, whatever their format.

samuraiwarrior2

11-Jul-2010, 17:11

Don't forget about 1.6 x 09m cameras. Here are some glass negatives from 1875:
http://www.onehundred.sl.nsw.gov.au/100-objects/Exhibit-050.aspx

Wayne Crider

11-Jul-2010, 20:36

Don't forget about 1.6 x 09m cameras. Here are some glass negatives from 1875:
http://www.onehundred.sl.nsw.gov.au/100-objects/Exhibit-050.aspx

Now were getting into room sized cameras. :) The list grows.

By the way, maybe I should have asked for sheet film formats.
And I see that there really aren't many square format sizes. I've always thought 1:1.25 was a weird perspective.

Craig Roberts

14-Jul-2010, 20:30

Wayne, What's the point of your question? What formats do you shot? What do you want to achieve? Craig

cheekygeek

14-Nov-2011, 14:36

I don't mean to "scratch the scab off" this discussion, but I have to add that I think it is a bit funny that most of the discussion is only camera/film oriented and not enlarger/darkroom oriented. For example: Some would call 6x17 medium format because of the use of roll-film, yet it would take a 5x7 enlarger to make anything more than a contact print from the negative.

An argument could be made that if the negative requires an enlarger bigger than 4x5, then it must be considered a large format.

I would suggest that if 4x5 is considered the smallest "large format" then the deciding dimension for comparison should be the diagonal measurement. The diagonal of a 4x5 is 6.4". The diagonal of a 6x17 is 7". It seems to me that the fact that it uses roll film is irrelevant. It's a large format.