Back in the 19th century Watkin's 12x10" negatives were/are considered "medium format." I always thought that "medium format" was larger than 35mm but less than 4x5" which is considered "large format." When did this change?
Thomas
Printable View
Back in the 19th century Watkin's 12x10" negatives were/are considered "medium format." I always thought that "medium format" was larger than 35mm but less than 4x5" which is considered "large format." When did this change?
Thomas
Since in the 19th century photos were contact printed, it was probably after people started enlarging smaller formats to make their final prints.
35mm was once called 'miniature', as was 120 roll film when the Rollei was a new sensation (c.1930s-40s). I've heard reference to 5x7 being the smallest 'large format' size too. Of course I occasionally shoot 3-1/4x4-1/4, which doesn't qualify as 'large format' on this forum (but would many other places, including my house). So I'll suggest that such definitions are (and were) quite variable and not precisely defined.
Here's a website I just googled: http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_early/...hy_-_sizes.htm
It list 12x8" in the day as being Imperial size prints. No mention of "medium format."
Thomas