It looks like the american way. Size matters most. In europe 90 x 120 mm lost the battle. For me it has always been about movements. The state of mind, not the quantity.
Printable View
It looks like the american way. Size matters most. In europe 90 x 120 mm lost the battle. For me it has always been about movements. The state of mind, not the quantity.
I must admit that I haven't read all the posts but can't the new thread be put into the Lounge? I don't think that it's appropriate for it to appear in the "Unified View" section.
Just an opinion.
Pete.
There's discrimination there against 9x12cm which is the Continental European equivalent of 5"x4", modern DDS for both sizes share the same outside dimensions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Lee
After all identical Linhof models sold in Germany and and also Zeiss, Schneider and Rodenstcock lenses were marketed as for 9x12 while in the US for 5x4.
Ian
It is not "my" American way. The ability to use movements for focus and perspective control is the essence of the large format experience for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by gary mulder
I believe the moderators really fumbled the ball in doubling down on film size as the "only" definition of large format. This "clarification" is both historically disruptive, in that it excludes equipment historically accepted by the forum, i.e. small 2X3 and 6X9 view and technical cameras using sheet and/or roll film, and it sets in stone, for all practical purposes, that in terms of equipment large format must be done with a sheet of film (or roll film over 4" on the short dimension that is no longer produced). And not just any sheet of film, but a sheet that has to be at least so many square centimeters or inches. By the new clarification, even a Better Light scanning device would not be called large format! Perfectly absurd. Way beyond absurd in fact.
The creation of the new image sub-forum was a good thing, mitigating to some extent the damage caused by doubling down on "size" as the primary definition. But on the whole I am profoundly disappointed with the "clarification" by this group of moderators, and believe they have done a significant disservice to the long term creative grown of the large format forum in being more exclusive. Arguments about how we can crop do not offer a good vision of the path forward in photography so far as I am concerned.
Sandy
Very valid points Sandy, I agree totally.
It reminds me of the 6x17 debate, where my 617ncamera uses the same LF lenses as my 5x4, but produces negatives too large to print with a 5x4 enlarger. Sometime there's a lack of common sense in having very rigid rules and excluding a a degree of flexibility.
Ian
In both images...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer X 69
Only thing else I will add to the discussion is; Thank you, moderators!
Or people who use split 57 for panoramics on a 57 camera.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanG
To inform you of the rules of the forum, they did not as far as I can see ask for your opinion of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
The discussion has concluded.
I don't really care. I'll give my opinion regardless.
This discussion continues to be quite lively and informative. We're up to 90 posts so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by lecarp
It follows in the wake of a recent discussion entitled Request clarification of large format which consisted of over 200 posts.
The question of just what constitutes Large Format in general, and the purpose of this forum in particular, is not a new one.