Will I get beaten up if ...

[wentbackward]

... I post images on the forum shot using a Linhof Techno and a digital back?

I'm having an identity crisis as the techno largely replaces my Toyo 45AII. I'll be shooting 6x7 roll film, plus digital. Am I considered large format still? as the techno certainly similar features to the Toyo.

Thanks
Paul

[MIke Sherck]

Oh, let's get all nerdy! Is it a 4x5 back, or 6x7cm or what? ;)

Mike

[E. von Hoegh]

If it's not 4x5, it's not large format. Others will argue with me on this, but they're wrong.

Which is not to say you can't post the images. Try "safe haven for tiny formats" in the lounge.

Just don't try to post them at APUG. (winking smiley)

[Leigh]

If it's not 4x5, it's not large format.
Which is not to say you can't post the images. Try "safe haven for small formats" in the lounge.
I agree.

- Leigh

[Daniel Stone]

Not beat up, but you'll probably get tongue-lashed and publicly branded as "one of the masses". Not like many of the "elitists" here(not myself, I shoot both film and digi for work and pleasure) ;).

Just kidding. Its great that you'd like to share your photographs with us, however, the smallest format generally accepted here is 4x5 sheet film, so I have a feeling that digitally-captured photographs, or those made on rollfilm(despite being on a "view camera") will be considered "uncouth". There are a great deal of other forums where that would be great, feel free to link to it.

But now that the "cats out of the bag" so to speak, you might want to make sure to label which is which, film capture or digital.

Here we're all about film, and many of us relish a bit of solidarity despite the onslaught of digital mania and the invasive nature it can have on our lives :D

-Dan

p.s. how you liking the Techno? I got to fondle one at Samy's here in LA, but haven't used one. Seemed great for digital, but for film(even rollfilm) it seemed a bit overkill IMO. But very nicely thought out overkill :)

[E. von Hoegh]

Actually he may get dragged out into the noon sun, drowned in a vat of warm exhausted D76, and buried at a crossroads at midnight with a tripod leg through his heart.

But no, no one will actually beat him up.

[sanking]

"What is the Large Format Photography Forum all about?

The purpose of the forum is to provide a place for discussion of topics of particular interest to large format photographers. We especially encourage questions which will help build a repository of knowledge about the tools and techniques of large format photography, as opposed to "shopping" questions. For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras)."

I believe digital "medium format sizes", if exposed on a view camera, have been allowed here in the main forums.

So no need for an identity crisis, getting beat up, or even a tongue lashing for that matter.

Sandy King

[Brian C. Miller]

Actually he may get dragged out into the noon sun, drowned in a vat of warm exhausted D76, and buried at a crossroads at midnight with a tripod leg through his heart.

But no, no one will actually beat him up.

Unless he uses a 4x5 sensor, and then everything's juuuuust fine. Or how about a scanning back using mirrors and an "electric eye" tube, with the output going to either punch cards or paper tape.

[E. von Hoegh]

Unless he uses a 4x5 sensor, and then everything's juuuuust fine. Or how about a scanning back using mirrors and an "electric eye" tube, with the output going to either punch cards or paper tape.
Yep! That sounds perfect! I have a few of those tubes, also a couple photomultiplier tubes.

[Old-N-Feeble]

So... if I shoot 4x5in sheet film and crop to 6x12cm that's LF. But if I shoot 6x12cm roll film with a 4x5 camera that's not LF. Hmm... yeah, I guess that's technically correct.

[E. von Hoegh]

So... if I shoot 4x5in sheet film and crop to 6x12cm that's LF. But if I shoot 6x12cm roll film with a 4x5 camera that's not LF. Hmm... yeah, I guess that's technically correct.

Is the film you are exposing in the camera 20 square inches or larger? If yes, you are using LF. If no, you are using medium format. QED.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Is the film you are exposing in the camera 20 square inches or larger? If yes, you are using LF. If no, you are using medium format. QED.

So I can shoot 4x5in then crop to 6x7cm and that's LF? :)

[Leigh]

So I can shoot 4x5in then crop to 6x7cm and that's LF? :)
It WAS LF. Now it's a waste of LF. :D

Personally, I think LF means sheet film.

- Leigh

[D. Bryant]

But if I shoot 6x12cm roll film with a 4x5 camera that's not LF.

Just don't use a roll film back ...

[Old-N-Feeble]

It WAS LF. Now it's a waste of LF. :D

- Leigh

LOL!! Yeah, okay. :D I'm just trying to wrap my head around this concept. So please... please... all us smaller folk want to know. Is 4x5in film, cropped smaller, still LF? If so, then is 4x5in film cropped to 6x7cm still LF? If it's not then when does 4x5in cease to be LF? Cropped 10 precent? Twenty percent? More? :)

[E. von Hoegh]

Large format means a negative size of 20 square inches or larger. Period. 4x5 cropped to 19.5 square inches is not LF.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Ahh... okay. Then 4x5in isn't large format because the film holder crops it in-camera to 17.8125 square inches. :D

BTW, I'm mostly playing here... just being facetious... mostly. ;)

[Leigh]

... with the output going to either punch cards or paper tape.
The problem with paper tape is that it's impregnated with oil, which can escape and foul the optics.

My vote goes to punched cards. Be sure to punch the sequence number columns so the sorter will work right.

- Leigh

[E. von Hoegh]

Ahh... okay. Then 4x5in isn't large format because the film holder crops it in-camera to 17.8125 square inches. :D

But the film is still 4x5 inches, right? That's what matters.

[Old-N-Feeble]

But the film is still 4x5 inches, right? That's what matters.

Provided not even 10 percent of the image is cropped? If I shoot 8x10 and crop to 17.8125 square inches (full 4x5in image area) that's still LF but if I crop it to 16 square inches it's not?

[E. von Hoegh]

Provided not even 10 percent of the image is cropped? If I shoot 8x10 and crop to 17.8125 square inches (full 4x5in image area) that's still LF but if I crop it to 16 square inches it's not?

If you crop 8x10 at current prices, you're insane. But as long as you don't cut the sheet down, it's LF. Insane, but LF.

[Leigh]

It's the size of the film that matters, not the size of the image.

Following your argument, a 4x5 would cease to be LF if you used it with a lens
having an image circle too small to cover the film, resulting in vignetting.

A corollary to that:
If you use an adequate lens, but add enough rise that you get vignetting, are you still shooting LF?

- Leigh

[Old-N-Feeble]

If you crop 8x10 at current prices, you're insane. But as long as you don't cut the sheet down, it's LF. Insane, but LF.

I never claimed to be sane. My inquires are hypothetical anyway since my largest camera is 5x7. ;)

It was stated earlier that 4x5in film cropped to 6x12cm is not LF and this is still in question. If it's not then the other query was/is: At what point does 4x5in cease to be LF... cropped 10 percent, 20 percent, more?

[E. von Hoegh]

I never claimed to be sane. My inquires are hypothetical anyway since my largest camera is 5x7. ;)

It was stated earlier that 4x5in film cropped to 6x12cm is not LF and this still in question. If it's not then the other query was/is: At what point does 4x5in cease to be LF... cropped 10 percent, 20 percent, more?

I've already given you my opinion. I'm German, Swiss, Irish, and Scots. You don't really expect me to change the opinion, do you?

[Leigh]

It was stated earlier that 4x5in film cropped to 6x12cm is not LF and this is still in question.
Well, OnF...

Back in post #10 you acknowledged the difference between 6x12 done as sheet film v. 6x12 done as roll film.

I believe you answered your own question.

- Leigh

[Vaughn]

Gad, this again.

I believe the owner of this forum has the position that it is the camera that matters -- not the film size. Roll film backs on a view camera are perfectly acceptable. 6x17 back on a view camera is fine -- 6x17 on a non-view camera is not fine. Digital back on a view camera should be fine. Press cameras have been grandfathered in and are fine. Still lots of gray areas, but that basically is it.

Vaughn

[Old-N-Feeble]

EvonH / Leigh...

Now I understand. I can crop 4x5in or larger sheet film as much as I like and it will always be LF but roll film, regardless of size is never LF... at least not with the size of RF that's readily available today.

ETA: There was a member here (Jim Galli?) who had a custom 5x14 camera made (by Chamonix?) who cut 5 inch roll film to shoot in said camera? Is that LF?

[Vaughn]

If you crop 8x10 at current prices, you're insane. But as long as you don't cut the sheet down, it's LF. Insane, but LF.

I do two 4x10 images on a single sheet of 8x10 -- am I doublely insane? Or twice as smart?:rolleyes:

[Kirk Gittings]

... I post images on the forum shot using a Linhof Techno and a digital back?

I'm having an identity crisis as the techno largely replaces my Toyo 45AII. I'll be shooting 6x7 roll film, plus digital. Am I considered large format still? as the techno certainly similar features to the Toyo.

Thanks
Paul

If the question is whether you are allowed to post in the core LF forums? The answer is yes as Sandy quoted the guidelines above. Will you get crap for it from the diehards? Obviously but that's not the same question.

[E. von Hoegh]

I do two 4x10 images on a single sheet of 8x10 -- am I doublely insane? Or twice as smart?:rolleyes:

Neither. You're obviously making panoramas. Sheesh. I've done the same, and it's obvious I'm sane.

[Steve Smith]

... I post images on the forum shot using a Linhof Techno and a digital back?

No. Just make sure you add some film borders to them!


Steve.

[E. von Hoegh]

EvonH / Leigh...

Now I understand. I can crop 4x5in or larger sheet film as much as I like and it will always be LF but roll film, regardless of size is never LF... at least not with the size of RF that's readily available today.

ETA: There was a member here (Jim Galli?) who had a custom 5x14 camera made (by Chamonix?) who cut 5 inch roll film to shoot in said camera? Is that LF?

What's 5 times 14??? It ceased being rollfilm when he cut it! (bangs head on desk)

[E. von Hoegh]

Gad, this again.

I believe the owner of this forum has the position that it is the camera that matters -- not the film size. Roll film backs on a view camera are perfectly acceptable. 6x17 back on a view camera is fine -- 6x17 on a non-view camera is not fine. Digital back on a view camera should be fine. Press cameras have been grandfathered in and are fine. Still lots of gray areas, but that basically is it.

Vaughn

Yes, but that's for posting images, isn't it? I believe he sticks to the 20 square inch rule.

[Old-N-Feeble]

<snip>and it's obvious I'm sane.

There's never, ever, anything "obvious". ;) :D

[Old-N-Feeble]

What's 5 times 14??? It ceased being rollfilm when he cut it! (bangs head on desk)

LOL!! Okay EvonH. Me thinks I need to quit playing with you. :D

[Vaughn]

No "twenty inch rule" that I know of. View cameras such as a Gavin 6x7 are acceptable, I believe. I have posed 6cm x 7cm images. All images are "posted" -- not quite sure what you mean by that.

[E. von Hoegh]

No "twenty inch rule" that I know of. View cameras such as a Gavin 6x7 are acceptable, I believe. I have posed 6cm x 7cm images. All images are "posted" -- not quite sure what you mean by that.

I mean the definition of "Large Format" on the homepage.

[Vaughn]

I mean the definition of "Large Format" on the homepage.

I could not find the definition on the homepage.

[Leigh]

... and it's obvious I'm sane.
Obvious? To whom??? :D

- Leigh

[Brian Ellis]

LOL!! Yeah, okay. :D I'm just trying to wrap my head around this concept. So please... please... all us smaller folk want to know. Is 4x5in film, cropped smaller, still LF? If so, then is 4x5in film cropped to 6x7cm still LF? If it's not then when does 4x5in cease to be LF? Cropped 10 precent? Twenty percent? More? :)

What kind of cropping are you talking about? If you mean crops in making a print that has nothing to do with anything. If I expose 4x5 film in a 4x5 camera I've made a large format photograph. It's the size of the film that's relevant, not the size of the final print.

If you're talking about a film holder that crops the 4x5 film in camera, e.g. so that two images can be made on one sheet, that's irrelevant too it seems to me. You put 4x5 film in a 4x5 camera. You made a LF photograph. You put 6x7 film in a 4x5 camera and you've made a medium format photograph. I don't know what's "allowed" and what isn't and I doubt that everyone agrees but I don't see how a 6x7 negative can be considered "large format" regardless of what kind of camera was used to make it.

[Leigh]

I could not find the definition on the homepage.
It's in the FAQ.

Quoting: "For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film."

I suggest reading the entire FAQ.

- Leigh

[Drew Wiley]

It all depends. If you take 6x7 film and then put it in a film stretcher I think it still counts
as large format. Remember to soak the negative in mayonnaise and water overnight so the emulsion doesn't crack when you stretch it.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Well... I guess I'll never understand the definition of LF. While I'll agree that 120 roll film is not large format, I believe that shooting 4x5 sheet just so we can boldly state we shot an image in LF is silly. I'll (boldly) add that, in today's world of DSLR's and super-duper-high-quality films films that 6x12cm might be the new "smallest" LF. Why make such a fuss over 6x12cm cropped from 4x5 (a waste of LF as one stated) vs. shooting 6x12cm on roll film. After all, the latter produces better quality.


What kind of cropping are you talking about? If you mean crops in making a print that has nothing to do with anything. If I expose 4x5 film in a 4x5 camera I've made a large format photograph. It's the size of the film that's relevant, not the size of the final print.

If you're talking about a film holder that crops the 4x5 film in camera, e.g. so that two images can be made on one sheet, that's irrelevant too it seems to me. You put 4x5 film in a 4x5 camera. You made a LF photograph. You put 6x7 film in a 4x5 camera and you've made a medium format photograph. I don't know what's "allowed" and what isn't and I doubt that everyone agrees but I don't see how a 6x7 negative can be considered "large format" regardless of what kind of camera was used to make it.

[Shen45]

It's in the FAQ.

Quoting: "For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film."

I suggest reading the entire FAQ.

- Leigh

The answer to this on going stupidity has been provided a while back "Safe haven for tiny formats". Why does this keep coming up? There must be at least a hundred digital fora but still people want to take their pixelography graphic art and pollute a large format film only section. You won't get beaten up but you won't be respected in the morning.

[Leigh]

There must be at least a hundred digital fora but still people want to take their pixelography graphic art and pollute a large format film only section.
I agree.

Anybody interested in serious pixeolography should consider the forum at getdpi.com.
They have some very talented members, and great work.

- Leigh

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yeah, yeah... I can shoot six 6x12cm roll film images for the overall cost of a single sheet of 4x5 cropped to 6x12cm. FWIW, I'll also be shooting 5x7 and stitching to 5x10 or 5x12 when I want better quality and wider format than 4x5.

[Leigh]

I can shoot six 6x12cm roll film images for the overall cost of a single sheet of 4x5 cropped to 6x12cm.
Then why don't you go shoot some pictures instead of abusing that poor computer keyboard.

If money is an issue, you could save even more by not shooting at all.

- Leigh

[wentbackward]

The problem with paper tape is that it's impregnated with oil, which can escape and foul the optics.

My vote goes to punched cards. Be sure to punch the sequence number columns so the sorter will work right.

- Leigh

You had a sorter? A bit high tech, I had to sort them by hand, or maybe was just my shift leader having fun with me, better find out!

[Old-N-Feeble]

Then why don't you go shoot some pictures instead of abusing that poor computer keyboard.

If money is an issue, you could save even more by not shooting at all.

- Leigh

Leigh... you kill me. You really do. Yeah... I need to get off my byootox and shoot some film. :D

[BrianShaw]

You guys are too uptight. Let's just beat up a couple of small-format and-or digitoraphers and make examples of them. It might be fun, who knows?

[BrianShaw]

P.S. I've been cooped up in a conference room doing cerebral work. After days of no exercize and no fun I'm ready to drink and rumble!

[Old-N-Feeble]

Brian... In my day they called that rolling "*****" but I never did that and it's cruel. Drinkin' and rumblin'... I'm ready for.

[BrianShaw]

Too bad we are 1500 miles apart. We could hae some fun together, and thenshoot big film!

[wentbackward]

I agree.

Anybody interested in serious pixeolography should consider the forum at getdpi.com.
They have some very talented members, and great work.

- Leigh

I absolutely do not agree: I posted this question in a forum entitled Forum -> LF Forums -> Digital Hardware and want to clarify the position of view cameras that are dedicated to smaller format, in my case Linhof's Techno, but there are now many others. I've been a member here for many years I suppose during that time have received very valuable help and built great respect many of the members, some of whom I find inspirational.

LF photography was where it all started and was a revolution of science, the knowledge of people who work (and play) in this domain remains exceptional and to my mind the best lenses I have ever used are still Rodenstock and Schneider.

I exclude from the following, the people that actually tried a sensible reply

The responses make me very sad, I didn't intend to start a war between a bunch of mud slinging kids, but clearly that mentality has now polluted this forum too. I guess I never noticed this because I really only look at the image posting threads, i.e. where there are people that actually use their cameras for photography.

photo.net deteriorated like this and I left there never to post again, I have noticed very respected members here threatening to do the same, so perhaps just consider my question void, close or delete the whole thread.

So sorry to have troubled everyone. Bloody nonsense. Grow up.

[BrianShaw]

You need to spend a bit more time around here. Don't get your feelings hurt. This is one of the topics that brings out passion, parochialism, and diverse strongly-stated opinion. Don't get offended too fast.

[Leigh]

I didn't intend to start a war between a bunch of mud slinging kids, but clearly that mentality has now polluted this forum too.
You need to read what's being posted without applying your own interpretation.

My post which you quoted was an attempt to identify a resource for digital imaging that I think is quite good.
It was not a criticism of anyone or any process. It was just an attempt to convey information.
Sorry if you failed to understand that.


Grow up.
Perhaps you should heed your own advice.

- Leigh

[Kirk Gittings]

Wentbackward, once again, using a MF digital back on a view camera or technical camera is fine here as far as the guidelines are concerned. If a a couple of people don't like it simply put them on your ignore list.

[Joe Smigiel]

Sheet film? Roll film? What are those?

[Ari]

I think using a view camera, regardless of film or sensor size, is quite applicable to most of the conversation on this forum.
There's no reason for you to feel like less of a he-man.

[Brian C. Miller]

LF photography was where it all started and was a revolution of science, the knowledge of people who work (and play) in this domain remains exceptional and to my mind the best lenses I have ever used are still Rodenstock and Schneider.

And isn't it neat that it's still relevant? And oh-so kick ass?

Some of the guys are sticklers about the stuff on the front page. So if a MF sensor or a MF back is on a 4x5 camera (or better yet, a 4x5 reduction back on an 8x10 camera), then it's OK to post. But if the camera is a MF view camera, and it can only accept MF sensor or film, then it isn't acceptable to post images in the LF section, and the image must go in a Lounge thread (there's some nice stuff in the 6x17 thread), even though the film surface measurement is the same. Because the forum is ostensibly about large format cameras, not view cameras, and large format cameras are 4x5 and above.


I didn't intend to start a war between a bunch of mud slinging kids

For an example of a "war," go search on the older pyro threads. This one is yet another Monty Python sketch in the form of a Möbius strip which has, once again, gone rolling along. Imagine the "arguments" skit or the various "Spanish Inquisition" skits, then tape the ends together with a twist, and there you have it.

[Frank Petronio]

I'd like to see good medium and large sensor digital work, and to also hear about the workflow and your experiences using various higher-end digital systems. The Linhof Techno is very cool and some action/behind the scenes pix would be great.

The forum probably ought to start an entire section for digital, anything larger than full-frame FX 35mm sensors, even if they are using SLR bodies like H4s, Mamiyas, S2s... it is interesting and useful to everyone here and ultimately many of us will be moving towards those types of cameras sooner or later anyway. Not everyone wants to do wet plate or coat their own emulsions.

OK ban me again.

[Kirk Gittings]

"OK ban me again."

It wasn't like you didn't know it was coming. Here's one we missed after two official infractions and warnings.-scroll down to number 6.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?55131-FS-Bumper-Stickers!&highlight=frank+petronio+politics

[Frank Petronio]

I need an ankle bracelet like Bob Shell!

[wentbackward]

Thanks Frank and Kirk for making light of things, sorry for exploding, I'd been up since 5am taking care of my baby so the missus could get some sleep! Anyway, I shall post. I always note where it is roll film or sheet, so likewise will inform as and when it is digital. I'm certainly not turning my back on sheet film a friend has borrowed my Toyo, which I can't part with and in fact I recently bought my first lens that covers 10x8 in addition to upgrading to a 5 series Gitzo ... future plans!

[Brian Ellis]

Well... I guess I'll never understand the definition of LF. While I'll agree that 120 roll film is not large format, I believe that shooting 4x5 sheet just so we can boldly state we shot an image in LF is silly. I'll (boldly) add that, in today's world of DSLR's and super-duper-high-quality films films that 6x12cm might be the new "smallest" LF. Why make such a fuss over 6x12cm cropped from 4x5 (a waste of LF as one stated) vs. shooting 6x12cm on roll film. After all, the latter produces better quality.

You don't understand the definition of large format photography because there is no uniformly accepted definition for all purposes and in all contexts. Haven't you noticed that by now?

Nobody is trying to "boldly state we shot an image in LF." We're not talking about individual bragging rights. We're talking about how one defines "large format" for purposes of a forum devoted to "large format" photography and that has rules/guidelines relating to that type of photography.

You ask "why make such a fuss over 6x12 cropped from 4x5?" We make such a fuss about it because in a forum that has rules/guidelines relating to one particular type of photography, as this one does, there needs to be a way to distinguish that type of photography from other types. If you consider trying to do that a useless "fuss" then I really can't help you except to suggest that you might be happier participating in forums that don't make such distinctions.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Hey Brian... I intended no offense.:)

My arguments are purely academic and are only intended to provoke thoughtful conversation. FWIW, I too consider 4x5 sheet film the minimum size to be considered large format film.

If I'm one of those middle-of-the-road folk shooting 6x12cm with a 4x5in view camera... where else am I to go but here? You hurt my feelings, Brian, you really do.:( Oh but wait... I have no feelings to hurt.:D

Viva la Large Format 6x12cm roll film!!!;)

[Eric Ashcroft]

So... if I shoot 4x5in sheet film and crop to 6x12cm that's LF. But if I shoot 6x12cm roll film with a 4x5 camera that's not LF. Hmm... yeah, I guess that's technically correct.

Nope, If you take a Rose & pull the petals off, its its not a rose anymore. Likewise if one takes 4x5" & crops it (no matter which side or how much) it is not 4x5" anymore,even tho' you don't actually cut the negative/positive.
& besides,although I'm new here,I've accepted whole heartedly the idea What & that LF is!! about size.... the fact I've gotta develop some muscle & be not namby pamby about weight & too much trouble??? to carry heavy stuff about,
go read what Matthew Brady, Francis Frith, & others carried around 150yrs ago ,weep & be ashamed of yourself,...they were men.(I do dread to think what 50 glass collodian glass plates weighed,just for starters,not to mention 100's of
miles into the middle of nowhere,& no actual road.
To me one either wants 'that beautiful big neg/pos',.. or you do not.

[E. von Hoegh]

I absolutely do not agree: I posted this question in a forum entitled Forum -> LF Forums -> Digital Hardware and want to clarify the position of view cameras that are dedicated to smaller format, in my case Linhof's Techno, but there are now many others. I've been a member here for many years I suppose during that time have received very valuable help and built great respect many of the members, some of whom I find inspirational.

LF photography was where it all started and was a revolution of science, the knowledge of people who work (and play) in this domain remains exceptional and to my mind the best lenses I have ever used are still Rodenstock and Schneider.

I exclude from the following, the people that actually tried a sensible reply

The responses make me very sad, I didn't intend to start a war between a bunch of mud slinging kids, but clearly that mentality has now polluted this forum too. I guess I never noticed this because I really only look at the image posting threads, i.e. where there are people that actually use their cameras for photography.

photo.net deteriorated like this and I left there never to post again, I have noticed very respected members here threatening to do the same, so perhaps just consider my question void, close or delete the whole thread.

So sorry to have troubled everyone. Bloody nonsense. Grow up.

You started a thread with a rather hyperbolic title. Don't complain if some (OK, many) of the replies followed that lead.
I'd also like to add that my first reply was clear, informative, and an attempt to answer all your questions. I then joined the perennial digital/what is LF fray, because it was Friday and a beautiful one at that. Smile. Take some pictures. Post them.

[gliderbee]

You guys took some pictures lately? Might be a good idea, in whatever format... It might even be good for your mental health :)

[Old-N-Feeble]

Nope, If you take a Rose & pull the petals off, its its not a rose anymore. Likewise if one takes 4x5" & crops it (no matter which side or how much) it is not 4x5" anymore,even tho' you don't actually cut the negative/positive.
& besides,although I'm new here,I've accepted whole heartedly the idea What & that LF is!! about size.... the fact I've gotta develop some muscle & be not namby pamby about weight & too much trouble??? to carry heavy stuff about,
go read what Matthew Brady, Francis Frith, & others carried around 150yrs ago ,weep & be ashamed of yourself,...they were men.(I do dread to think what 50 glass collodian glass plates weighed,just for starters,not to mention 100's of
miles into the middle of nowhere,& no actual road.
To me one either wants 'that beautiful big neg/pos',.. or you do not.

I was a man once... then the neurologist told me I am no more so, most of the time, I'll be carrying a sissy little-girl 4x5 with RFB.:D

[Leigh]

I'll be carrying a sissy little-girl 4x5 with RFB.:D
Wow...

A pink Speed Graphic with lace around the bed and a little phony rose on top of the rangefinder.

The mind boggles. :D

- Leigh

[Old-N-Feeble]

It'th not pink... it'th THAMON!!

[Leigh]

Sorry, I sought it was pink. Must have been those *(**@# CFL lights.

- Leigh

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yeah, tho-th theeFL light-th meth thingth up for thure.

[paulr]

Anyone citing a twenty inch "rule," please remember that once upon a time 4x5 was considered a small format. Definitions evolve, and it's not just a question of standards getting erroded. Considering the relative quality of film and optics a hundred years ago, it makes sense that size expectations were higher.

Digital backs and the corresponding lenses strike me as an important evolution, one that should inspire us to rethink our size definitions.

The people I know who use these cameras call them Medium Format Digital. Most of them don't care if big camera people let them into the club. But for our own sake, I think we're short-changing the richness of content on this forum if we close our minds to these remarkable cameras. The slowness and fussiness of working with them should satisfy even the crustiest luddite, and the results are stunning enough to speak for themselves.

[Leigh]

... please remember that once upon a time 4x5 was considered a small format.
I've always thought that 4x5 was "invented" by Graflex, as being the largest size that could be conveniently carried and used in a "press camera" environment. I was easily created by quartering 8x10 film.

Just speculation on my part. I haven't researched the history.

- Leigh

On edit:
I believe the 4x5 format was popularized by the US military in WWII. Huge numbers of Graflex cameras
were used by combat photographers throughout the conflict, in all theaters of operation.

The 35mm format enjoyed a similar boost in popularity during the Korean war, for the same reason.

[Steve Smith]

I've always thought that 4x5 was "invented" by Graflex, as being the largest size that could be conveniently carried and used in a "press camera"

Didn't they also make a 5x7 press camera?


Steve

[Leigh]

Didn't they also make a 5x7 press camera?
One was mentioned here recently, in a different thread. It's possible.
I've never seen one, but I'm not a Graflex expert.

I have no idea where the 5x7 format came from. It's not an obvious derivation of 8x10.
Possibly from one of the plate sizes???

- Leigh

[Steve Smith]

I have always thought of it as a strange size too. 5x8 would make more sense.

Unless perhaps we think about contact printing to paper as 5x7 is a standard paper size. But is it standard because 5x7 film existed already or did the paper size come first?


Steve.

[Leigh]

I just realized that 5x7 contact-printed on an 8x10 sheet of paper yields a 1 1/2" border on all sides.

- Leigh

[E. von Hoegh]

I just realized that 5x7 contact-printed on an 8x10 sheet of paper yields a 1 1/2" border on all sides.

- Leigh

Yes, a black border.

[Old-N-Feeble]

...

[E. von Hoegh]

...

8 - 5 = 3
10 - 7 = 3

3 divided by 2 = 1.5

[Mike Anderson]

I post DSLR images all the time and pass them off as 4x5. Just crop it to the right aspect ratio and add some film emulation in Photoshop - no one can tell.

[Leigh]

Yes, a black border.
Or a white border if you use a 5x7 contact printing frame.

- Leigh

[vinny]

All of the images i've posted on this forum have been made with my iphone taped to the ground glass of my 4x5. So it's still large format, I don't care what you say.

[Leigh]

All of the images i've posted on this forum have been made with my iphone taped to the ground glass of my 4x5.
So that's why all your images look like duct tape (the sticky side).

Turn the iphone around. :D

- Leigh

[gth]

I have a question:

How much alcohol was consumed, in total, in the generation of this thread?

I am looking for an estimate!

Personally, it took me the better part of a bottle of wine, just to read it.

The thread got funnier at the end.

:cool:

[Leigh]

How much alcohol was consumed, in total, in the generation of this thread?
Well, I don't drink.

But I think some other members split my ration. :D

- Leigh

[gth]

Well, that explains your **sometimes** ornery post, right there...

;)

[Old-N-Feeble]

I post DSLR images all the time and pass them off as 4x5. Just crop it to the right aspect ratio and add some film emulation in Photoshop - no one can tell.

Dammit, Mike, you've exposed us ALL!!!

[JBAphoto]

... I post images on the forum shot using a Linhof Techno and a digital back?

I'm having an identity crisis as the techno largely replaces my Toyo 45AII. I'll be shooting 6x7 roll film, plus digital. Am I considered large format still? as the techno certainly similar features to the Toyo.

Thanks
Paul

Not for posting digipix, but you should be for making stupid posts and perhaps you deserve to be anyway

[BrianShaw]

But I think some other members split my ration. :D


Mine too.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Leigh / Brian... You guys need to chill out and have a brew... or two. ;)

[Kirk Gittings]

I post DSLR images all the time and pass them off as 4x5. Just crop it to the right aspect ratio and add some film emulation in Photoshop - no one can tell.

Absolutely pathetic.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Absolutely pathetic.

Like you and the other Mods weren't already aware of this issue.:rolleyes:

[Kirk Gittings]

Of course, but never-the-less it is pathetic. It shows total lack of respect to the members here who are actually dedicated to the challenges of making LF photographs and using View Cameras.

[bob carnie]

+1

Of course, but never-the-less it is pathetic. It shows total lack of respect to the members here who are actually dedicated to the challenges of making LF photographs and using View Cameras.

[Leigh]

Of course, but never-the-less it is pathetic. It shows total lack of respect to the members here who are actually dedicated to the challenges of making LF photographs and using View Cameras.
Hi Kirk,

I think it's the individuals who are pathetic, not their actions.

Liars are liars, no matter what the statement or activity.

- Leigh

[Old-N-Feeble]

Agreed... and the one time I posted a small format image as a "study" to be later recreated in LF I was sharply shat upon and made to feel small and insignificant. I didn't bother. Thank you. I deleted my post.

I didn't lie... and was crapped on. I will never again... ever. So I'll never be shat upon again here on LFPI. If/when I get out to shoot LF again then I'll post anything worth seeing. Until then... all you'll get from me is experience from 30+ years ago.


Of course, but never-the-less it is pathetic. It shows total lack of respect to the members here who are actually dedicated to the challenges of making LF photographs and using View Cameras.

[Frank Petronio]

He was probably trying to be funny, there isn't much point to doing it.

[Mike Anderson]

Of course, but never-the-less it is pathetic. It shows total lack of respect to the members here who are actually dedicated to the challenges of making LF photographs and using View Cameras.

It was a joke. It seemed like such an absurd thing to say, it might be funny. Sorry if it offended.

[Leigh]

Unfortunately the scenario is all too plausible.

- Leigh

[Heroique]

I suspect some of the shots in the “Safe haven for tiny formats” lounge thread are really LF shots.

Shame, I say.

Shame.

[Frank Petronio]

Well we can't show our units or our trucks/sports cars online so the only way to prove we're more manly than each other is to claim we have bigger cameras.

This thread is kind of embarrassing, showing pictures of our dicks would be more tasteful. Let's see some shots from that Techno and move on!?

[Greg Miller]

Well we can't show our units ...

Well, we can. But thankfully nobody does.

Bu you may be onto something with bigger cameras compensating for other deficiencies ;)

[gliderbee]

Well, I don't drink.

But I think some other members split my ration. :D

- Leigh

Smoking and sniffing also count !

[Brian Ellis]

Leigh / Brian... You guys need to chill out and have a brew... or two. ;)

Thanks but I quit drinking about 25 years ago. Looking at the quantity of banal nonsense you've posted here in only four months of participation, you might consider doing the same...;)

[Old-N-Feeble]

Wow... you may be right but that hurt none-the-less. :p

[Jim Andrada]

I keep a Minox in the case with my 5 x 7 Linhof. Just in case I come across something that's too big for LF.

Honestly :cool: I think the essence of LF has less to do with the area of the film and more to do with the way we visualize and work with the camera to realize our vision.

[Jim collum]

There's only a handful who's opinion you should listen to with regards to what you can and can't post (there's a list of moderators here somewhere)

As far as posting.. it would be good to have you here. I've used an Ebony 4x5 with an Aptus MF back and a Betterlight scanning back (neither of which pass the 20sq in rule..) a Horseman SWDII w. a medium format back, none of which were required to be put in a 'small format' thread. There are plenty here who use, as well as would welcome the feedback on your experiences... as well as seeing what you're doing with your work.

(... and there are a lot of Polaroid Type 55 users who are going to be disappointed that they shouldn't be here either.. 4.5 x 3.5" image area... :) )

welcome!

jim



... I post images on the forum shot using a Linhof Techno and a digital back?

I'm having an identity crisis as the techno largely replaces my Toyo 45AII. I'll be shooting 6x7 roll film, plus digital. Am I considered large format still? as the techno certainly similar features to the Toyo.

Thanks
Paul

[BrianShaw]

(... and there are a lot of Polaroid Type 55 users who are going to be disappointed that they shouldn't be here either.. 4.5 x 3.5" image area... :) )

That is hilarious Jim!

[jb7]

Polaroid 55 gives me the largest piece of 4x5 negative, it won't even fit in an Epson holder-
The print is just a crop from that.

[E. von Hoegh]

I have a question:

How much alcohol was consumed, in total, in the generation of this thread?

I am looking for an estimate!

Personally, it took me the better part of a bottle of wine, just to read it.

The thread got funnier at the end.

:cool:

For myself, none. I had a beer a few weeks ago, it may be lingering effects...

[jb7]

It was a joke. It seemed like such an absurd thing to say, it might be funny. Sorry if it offended.

I got it-

Not the funniest joke ever, but you can't be held responsible if others are too quick to judge...

[sully75]

Images are images to me. I couldn't give a sh1t how they are made. I just generally prefer LF images for a lot of things. I also kinda prefer using LF cameras even though they are totally a pita.

I liked Mr. Broadbent's confession that he could do everything he does with a Leica only. Lately I find my Mamiya C330 is a lot more capable than me. But I need to use my LF stuff or get rid of it.

P

[DennisD]

Now that all the opinions are on the table and the grandstanding has slowed, I'd love to see the images "wentbackward" would like to post, (wherever they should be posted), unless he's totally lost interest.

Was anything ever posted and, if so, where ?

[Shen45]

Now that all the opinions are on the table and the grandstanding has slowed, I'd love to see the images "wentbackward" would like to post, (wherever they should be posted), unless he's totally lost interest.

Was anything ever posted and, if so, where ?

As long as they are posted in Safe haven for tiny formats.

[Old-N-Feeble]

According to which rules?

[sanking]

According to which rules?

Check out the Usage Guidelines of the LF forum.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_gen_rules_faq_item

Better to be informed about the guidelines from the source than to argue about what they are with people who have not bothered to consult the guidelines.

Sandy

[Old-N-Feeble]

What part of...

"The purpose of the forum is to provide a place for discussion of topics of particular interest to large format photographers. We especially encourage questions which will help build a repository of knowledge about the tools and techniques of large format photography, as opposed to "shopping" questions. For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras)."

... indicates one must post in "Safe Haven For Tiny Formats" if using roll film with a 4x5 camera? There is the exception in bold (my emphasis).

[Frank Petronio]

The upcoming Google/Apple satellites can discern enough detail to tell us which film you used.

[DennisD]

TAKEN FROM THE LF FAQ PAGE
"For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras)."

Old-N-Feeble has it correct:

If read carefully, it is patently clear that "medium format" sizes are permissible if exposed in a VIEW CAMERA. The language does not specify the size of the view camera, I.e. "large format" or 4x5 view camera. It simply states "exposed in a view camera", not necessarily a "large format" camera. The camera in question, while it may be a medium
format camera, is, nonetheless, a "view camera" in every respect.

Based on the existing FAQ statement / policy, it does not seem appropriate to relegate
such posts (including images) to the "tiny format" category.

Can we move on ?

[Leigh]

It simply states "exposed in a view camera", not necessarily a "large format" camera.
So it all depends on your definition of "view camera".

Now we can start this thread all over, arguing about that definition rather than the definition of "LF".

Ain't we lucky?

- Leigh

[Old-N-Feeble]

No, Leigh, it depends on the rules.... not an individual's definition of LF. According to the rules even a Baby Graphic (6x7cm roll film) qualifies. The owners and Mods of this forum are far more open-minded than we elitist individuals... TG. :)

[E. von Hoegh]

So it all depends on your definition of "view camera".

Now we can start this thread all over, arguing about that definition rather than the definition of "LF".

Ain't we lucky?

- Leigh

A view camera is a camera with movements to allow perspective correction and control of the focal plane.

[Mike Anderson]

For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras)."



So it all depends on your definition of "view camera".


A view camera is a camera with movements to allow perspective correction and control of the focal plane.

Done. Thread closed.

[Vaughn]

Didn't they also make a 5x7 press camera?


Steve

Just saw one a few days ago. In wonderful condition, also. If anyone in the SF Bay Area would like to see it, it is part of a show at PhotoCentral in Hayward. The show has prints made from glass plate negatives of the building of the Golden Gate Bridge, along with recent images of the bridge taken by participants of a recent workshop who photographed the bridge for the show (I have a 4x10 carbon print and an 11x14 contact print onto silver gelatin in the show -- as well as a 30"x72" inkjet print from a 4x10 neg). One of my boys also has two prints in the show -- but taken with a Rolleiflex.

Worth seeing if you are anywhere near. http://www.photocentral.org/shows.html