LF Clarification

[Darin Boville]

Could the mods offer one small clarification of the new sub-forum? The title is "Everything else" but then the explanatory text within the sub forum says "All roll film formats (rolls less than 4" wide) and medium-format digital formats belong here, regardless of camera used." which doesn't quite match.

The above discussion shows that the Fuji instant film should go here, despite being excluded by the explanatory text, for example.

My real question, though, is on the digital side. Is this the right time to allow stitched digital images, regardless of camera used? Stitched images seem to represent the same sort of slower, more contemplative photography that is the mainstay of this forum.

Just a thought...

--Darin

[StoneNYC]

Ian me mentioned what I was thinking, I'm surprised more people haven't.

Short and sweet.

1. It's their forum, not "ours" it is what they say it is, we don't have to like it.

2. The only problem I see is with the polaroid thread which now I can't post to because I don't have the 4x5's stocked and only FP100C is available.

3. Since polaroid is "quarter plate" why not make quarter plate the drawn line?

ON THE OTHER HAND.

4. (the main idea FOCUS ON THIS) - if 4x5 inches is the rule, why not make it about total surface area and not "size" because that gets confusing. A 6x17 piece of film is still only 3.25x4.25 inches ROUGHLY (if my math is right?) in actual surface area. (I actually used a ruler not math equations).

SO why not make the rule any film who's total surface area is 20 inches (50.8cm).

This cuts out any issue with 6x12 or 6x17 etc.

PERSONALLY I think it should include quarter plate, and the definition should be any film who's total surface area is 13 inches / 35cm but then we get back to issues of roll film backs etc.

Sandy King had some good points, I remember him once saying that he doesn't personally consider anything smaller than 8x10 to be large-format (but I think that might have been a joke?).

ULTIMATELY, I really think that you should make the definition about images that are 4x4 inches, this would allow normal 4x5 shooters to crop their images square without fear of "breaking the rules" but I THINK that would allow 6x17 and not 6x12 shooters so I guess sticking to 20" total surface area is the best compromise to keep it LF and not have lots of muck and questions.

Mod's, what do you think about my logic on surface area? It clears a lot of stuff up and makes it more definitive regardless of crop "shape" this would also clear up any confusion for those wanting to post ROOUND images mimicking the original kodak or oval images etc.

Surface area makes the most sense to me if you're going by size and not camera type.

[Ken Lee]

Stitched images seem to represent the same sort of slower, more contemplative photography that is the mainstay of this forum.

When Ansel made his famous Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico with an 8x10 camera (one of his most famous images), he was in such a hurry that he didn't have time to take a meter reading or expose a second sheet of film. We've probably all had a similar experience in the field.

The process wasn't slow or contemplative, but the film was 8x10. We can't divine the photographer's approach, so we have to rely on objective criteria to distinguish between Large Format and "everything else".

Please keep in mind that images made with other equipment are not prohibited. They just belong in the "everything else" sections.

[rdenney]

It’s reassuring that some of the people that make the rules recognize that large format in it’s essence is a state of mind. Slow photography. The product originates from the imagination. In the way AA describes as pre- visualization. For 2 decades ago the tool of the trade was a large piece of film. And as so easy identifiable. But times are changing. Obviously it’s still possible to use film. But everyone must have noticed that possibilities are dyeing down. So some people are looking for new tools to continue . To rigorous reject these attempts and place the side by side with hail shot formats is rude. In some way blinding the window that looks out into the future. Keep in mind the refusing to replace the beacon’s the island on which you stand will keep diminishing. Keep the past and stay open-minded towards the future.

In addition to Ken's comments, we should recognize that there is a whole school of large-format photography that is not necessarily taking the same deliberative approach. Weegee, for example, was a press photographer, and work like his defines a genre of photographer where large-format gives it a different look, but it is still essentially spontaneous and hand-held. The interest in the Travelwide extends well beyond those of us trained and comfortable with that slow approach. Weegee would probably laugh at the notion of a "large-format state of mind". But he was still a large-format photographer.

So, we recognize and share that state of mind, but we won't try to define a boundary condition based on it. It's just too subjective, and likely no less arbitrary than where we ended up.

I agree that we have to be open-minded about the future, which is why we added a whole new image forum for non-LF images.

Rick "who considers carefully what makes this forum work uniquely among photography forums" Denney

[rdenney]

Could the mods offer one small clarification of the new sub-forum? The title is "Everything else" but then the explanatory text within the sub forum says "All roll film formats (rolls less than 4" wide) and medium-format digital formats belong here, regardless of camera used." which doesn't quite match.

The above discussion shows that the Fuji instant film should go here, despite being excluded by the explanatory text, for example.

My real question, though, is on the digital side. Is this the right time to allow stitched digital images, regardless of camera used? Stitched images seem to represent the same sort of slower, more contemplative photography that is the mainstay of this forum.

Just a thought...

--Darin

"Everything Else" was intended to be inclusive of everything smaller than (nominal) 4x5. The examples we gave just clarified those that provide the most question in practice, rather than those thrown up in this thread where everything is being questioned. We don't want to try to provide a comprehensive list. We think everyone will know what we mean by what we wrote, once they have a chance to think it through. We don't mean equivalent area, we don't mean equivalent resolution, we don't mean whatever camera it fits in. We mean nominally (as in, what's printed on the box, or its metric equivalent) 4x5 or bigger, or 4" rolls or bigger, for the forum for posting large-format images.

Stitched digital images were not made on film or sensors nominally 4x5 or larger. They were made on smaller sensors and then stitched. Thus, they should go in the Everything Else forum. We are not opposed to those images (or any other images on small-format or medium-format roll film or digital sensors); this is just where we drew the line.

There will be fast, spontaneous photography in both forums, and slow, contemplative photography in both forums. That's too fuzzy a dimension to use for drawing a boundary.

Rick "hoping that provides clarity" Denney

[Darin Boville]

Stitched digital images were not made on film or sensors nominally 4x5 or larger. They were made on smaller sensors and then stitched. Thus, they should go in the Everything Else forum. We are not opposed to those images (or any other images on small-format or medium-format roll film or digital sensors); this is just where we drew the line.

There will be fast, spontaneous photography in both forums, and slow, contemplative photography in both forums. That's too fuzzy a dimension to use for drawing a boundary.

Rick "hoping that provides clarity" Denney

That's great and just what I suspected. I just thought the explanatory text was perfectly unclear and contradictory to what you and the other mods were saying in this thread. Looking forward to seeing a wider breath of images in the sub forum.

--Darin

P.S. I think maybe you and Ken didn't take my comment about slow, deliberate photography as I wrote it. I think everyone here is aware of the Moonrise story--which is interesting precisely because in this one instance Ansel did not adopt the slow, deliberate approach that he otherwise advocated (and, indeed, came to embody). And we all know Weegee and many others who used 4x5 press cameras. But I think it's hard to argue that the mainstay of this forum--not photography in general, not LF photography in general--but of the forum, is a mode of photography that is slow and deliberate, though I would love to see examples of other modes of LF photography posted here.

[StoneNYC]

I still say 20 inch total surface area is the way to go rather than saying 4x5.

I also don't really like that there is a 6x6 or 35mm or whatever thread area, I think it should all be shut down and only LF period. There are other forums for tiny formats, don't need it clogging up the server with non-LF stuff. Simply separating the LF area from the "everything else" and it looks more like APUG in here, they have a LF section too.

[rdenney]

I still say 20 inch total surface area is the way to go rather than saying 4x5.

I also don't really like that there is a 6x6 or 35mm or whatever thread area, I think it should all be shut down and only LF period. There are other forums for tiny formats, don't need it clogging up the server with non-LF stuff. Simply separating the LF area from the "everything else" and it looks more like APUG in here, they have a LF section too.

Noted.

Rick "no further need to repeat" Denney

[StoneNYC]

Noted.

Rick "no further need to repeat" Denney

Whoops, sorry.

~Stone "feeling sheepish" JustStone

[Fred L]

Making the yardstick total sq area of film doesn't work as a roll of 35mm 36 exposure > real estate of 4x5 sheet film. fwiw, I've always considered LF to start at 4x5 and up and not equipment related (I also shoot 4x5 and 8x10 pinhole with no movements). ymmv