LF Clarification

[Tin Can]

It is done and settled and I can live with the new rules.

Thank you all, especially our benefactor Q T Luong!

[Corran]

I agree with the moderators. The size of the film should be the major consideration. If not the now lost in history 35mm camera with almost full movements would have to be considered as LF. They are providing an area for other formats in the "everything else" area. It finally relieves having to work through the smaller formats to see what is up in LF. If some are unhappy with this, why don't they start a "Smaller than Large Format" forum.

Frankly I would love to see a 35mm camera with movements, ha!
But what are you talking about , "work through the smaller formats to see what is up in LF?" The number of rollfilm back images being posted before was never that huge, or significant at all, in my opinion.

And I'm sorry but if we can't "discuss" this change in policy, why should we even have a post about it? This is a forum, not state-run media. 6x12 and 6x17 is large format as far as I'm concerned, considering I use a traditional LF camera for it, so, I'm giving my opinion.

[Ken Lee]

...I'm sorry but if we can't "discuss" this change in policy, why should we even have a post about it? This is a forum, not state-run media.

The most recent discussion of the topic was within the last month or so, and there were 200 posts.

See Request clarification of large format.

[Kirk Gittings]

And I'm sorry but if we can't "discuss" this change in policy, why should we even have a post about it? This is a forum, not state-run media. 6x12 and 6x17 is large format as far as I'm concerned, considering I use a traditional LF camera for it, so, I'm giving my opinion.

Who said we can't discuss it-I can't find it? I don't think our discussions will change anything. This forum is not a democracy-but that is another question.

[Corran]

Clarification: Jim said if we (I) were unhappy, go start a "smaller than LF" forum. I took that statement to mean he thinks I should not be expressing my opinion. Sorry. Of course he is not a mod, so I didn't mean to imply the moderators made that statement/implication.

[Mark Sawyer]

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...

So a "4x5" Better Light scanning back that actually has a slightly smaller than 3x4-inch scanning area will no longer be considered large format?

[DannL]

I won't argue LFF's reasoning for using the term to describe Large Format, But, I think if the research was accomplish to locate the origins of the term and it's reason for being it will be discovered that . . . a Linhof engineer coined the term specifically for advertising their 6x9 view cameras around 1951/1952 . Stating that 6x9 was the threshold for between Large Format film and all smaller format.

I consider 6x9 as the threshold between LF and the smaller formats. Referring to the frame size, and not the films structure. It's better to be inclusive than exclusive, and it allows for at least one film, 120, both sheet and roll into the arena.

[Ken Lee]

So a "4x5" Better Light scanning back that actually has a slightly smaller than 3x4-inch scanning area will no longer be considered large format?

Correct.

We had to draw the line somewhere and 4x5 is where the line was drawn.

If the Better Light "4x5" sensor were actually 4x5 inches in size, it would be considered Large Format by the forum moderators.

Going forward, images made with that back are welcome here, just not in the Large Format section.

[Bill_1856]

I've said it before, and I'll insist on it again:
"Large Format is not about film size -- it's about state of mind."

(What The Forum is about may be something entirely different.)

[jcoldslabs]

If an image is shot on 4x5 (or larger) film but the portion of the negative used in the final crop is less than 4" in its shortest dimension, what then?

Jonathan