LF definition used by the forum

I am trying to understand the logic behind what is considered or not LF in this forum, according to the FAQ.

If I read it correctly:
- Direct positives, regardless the size, are not considered LF because it is paper, not film. Unknown to AA, most of his work with Polaroid is not considered LF here.
- Scanning backs listed as 4x5 are considered LF, even if the image captured size can be as small as 2.8x3.8".
- The film in a 665 (3.25x4.25") is not considered LF because is smaller than 3.5x4.7" (9x12cm)

I hope the discussion will help to improve our understanding of what we should or not consider LF.

I don't understand how direct postives/paper negatives aren't LF. I mean it's shot in a LF camera and it's the same size as the film right? :confused:

AFAIK, scanning backs are not considered LF by the forum moderators - even though it takes more time to capture an image than 8x10 :)

Kumar

Agree. I do not know why the FAQ limits the media to "sheet film". IMHO, it should be open to any material and/or medium capable of capturing an image of certain size regardless of technology. I also don't understand why digital backs with smaller image area are included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.S.Kumar

AFAIK, scanning backs are not considered LF by the forum moderators - even though it takes more time to capture an image than 8x10 :)

Kumar

---

It's in the FAQ. It was a moderator the one who suggested to check the forum FAQ for the LF definition in the thread "May 2016 portraits".

Well, if you look in the image sharing forum (LF), you will find threads that include paper negatives and direct positive images of 4x5 or larger. You will also see digital sensor back captures 4x5 or larger considered "LF".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onnect17

I am trying to understand the logic behind what is considered or not LF in this forum, according to the FAQ.

If I read it correctly:
- Direct positives, regardless the size, are not considered LF because it is paper, not film. Unknown to AA, most of his work with Polaroid is not considered LF here.

---

No, film, digital, or paper are acceptable, as long as the capture area is nominally 4x5 (or the European 9x12 "equivalent") or larger.

Most applications of direct positive paper (and, paper negatives) use 4x5 film holders for convenience, but the same size of paper taped in a shoe box would also suffice.

And, Ansel never posted here (he died before the forum was started), and no longer cares about where the LF line is drawn. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onnect17

- Scanning backs listed as 4x5 are considered LF, even if the image captured size can be as small as 2.8x3.8".

---

No. Again, it is the actual capture area that matters, not marketing materials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onnect17

- The film in a 665 (3.25x4.25") is not considered LF because is smaller than 3.5x4.7" (9x12cm)

---

More or less. The 3¼ x 4¼ format is smaller than both 4x5 and the European 9x12, so it's not "LF" within the definition used by this forum. Plus, it has long been considered "medium format" - even when sheet-film cameras were commonly manufactured in that size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onnect17

I hope the discussion will help to improve our understanding of what we should or not consider LF.

---

Everyone is free to consider whatever they wish as LF. The forum rules only govern where things are appropriately posted on this forum.

It should be noted that this issue has been "litigated" numerous times over the years, with arguments all over the map. We think the current definition of "LF" (established in September of 2014 ) used for this forum is pretty clear, and is consistent with traditional definitions used within the industry. We do, however, accommodate smaller formats in selected sub-forums.

Agree with the approach but if I am reading it correctly, it does not match the FAQ. Here's a copy and paste:

...Commonly accepted definitions base large format photography on 4"x5" and larger sheet film (or the 9x12 cm metric equivalent), regardless of the style of camera being used. This is the definition we will use. We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well, regardless of technology....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onnect17

Agree with the approach but if I am reading it correctly, it does not match the FAQ.

---

Can you clarify specifically what it is that you see as a mismatch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oren Grad

Can you clarify specifically what it is that you see as a mismatch?

---

Sure. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the use of the term "sheet film" should be replaced by "material or medium".

Also making sure all the images from the digital backs marketed as 4x5 are forwarded to the MF area because none have a scanning area equal or larger than 9x12cm.

hi onnect17


5 or 10 years ago or when this site was on lusenet, or even on Pnet the membership would have
all stood up and left the room or it would have been a bar-fight like in a hollywood western
if they were told smaller than 4x5 was permitted here.
( the moderators would have had to moderate )

not so much now.

while the faq might say " it has to be 4x5 or euro equiv. sheet film"
there's stuff of every size and genre here. even submini can be posted here in the lounge.
( its kind of non-exclusive nowadays )

there's always the lounge and yes some small format stuff gets sensible answers in there, sometimes.

Must I repeat? Large Format is a state of mind, not a camera size.

Just to make it clear, I have nothing against smaller formats, which I like as much as any other. It's the discrepancy between the criteria stated in the FAQ and the sorting of the images in the corresponding forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill_1856

Must I repeat? Large Format is a state of mind, not a camera size.

---

Well I want to make LF prints using small format negatives and that is considered not LF so I think its more a taking capture size. But then again if you print a LF digital neg from a 35mm film frame to then use as a LF contact sheet it gets confusing. So I think the definition should be original taking equipment capturing a minimum 4x5 image area which covers it without needing to specify film, paper, digital or any other medium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onnect17

Agree with the approach but if I am reading it correctly, it does not match the FAQ. Here's a copy and paste:

...Commonly accepted definitions base large format photography on 4"x5" and larger sheet film (or the 9x12 cm metric equivalent), regardless of the style of camera being used. This is the definition we will use. We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well, regardless of technology....

---

large sized roll film qualifies, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willie

large sized roll film qualifies, right?

---

Sure. If you had, say, an aerial camera that made 4x5" or larger pictures on large rolls, that would qualify. Cirkut cameras, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oren Grad

Sure. If you had, say, an aerial camera that made 4x5" or larger pictures on large rolls, that would qualify. Cirkut cameras, too.

---

Or a 110 camera :D

Ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanG

Or a 110 camera :D

---

Yup. And 53, 54, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 123, 126, 515, 523, 526... :)

Thanks to all for the posts but it seems like somebody carved the FAQ in stone. I found a thread on the same subject here: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...-LF-definition

In any case, thank to Sandy King for make it clear what was/is going on.

the rules of what is or isn't large format don't even matter anymore.
cats living with dogs and pigs flying and all that ..
i like cajun food too.

21 posts with this one and 6000 views in 2 days.

Lurkers love to watch us bicker.

:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnanian

the rules of what is or isn't large format don't even matter anymore.
cats living with dogs and pigs flying and all that ..
i like cajun food too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy Moe

21 posts with this one and 6000 views in 2 days.

Lurkers love to watch us bicker.

:(

---

I have to confess that five or six of those views were me.

I'm just mystified why this thread even exists. :(

Sad to see my favourite part of the internet repetitively trolled:(