dealing with medium format technical cameras here in the Forum

[paulr]

As Petronio showed us when I was a moderator, it's based on what you call something-not what it is always.

And in this case, what-it-is is based on what-you-call-it. "Large format" has never been a fixed definition. Once upon a time 4x5 was small format. Now we act like it's large format, as if the definition had been handed down by Zeus.

For all practical purposes, I think medium format technical cameras with digital backs are large format. I know that's a minority opinion. I just suspect that this opinion is based on prejudice rather than experience. People I know who's use these cameras describes them as fussier, slower, and harder to focus than 8x10. And in practice the results are as good or better than anything else I've seen, so I'm not sure what the protests are actually about.

(If they're about young upstarts with digital tech cameras taking over the forum, people really need to chill out. Not many people on planet earth can afford to use this stuff. I certainly can't. But I do enjoy learning about the technology)

[Corran]

I'm not sure what the protests are actually about.

I think the majority of it comes from the anti-digital brigade. Just look at the arguments that the forum should be film only.

[StoneNYC]

Stone........dude........who is debating the benefits of shooting LF vs. MF? The only question here is what is allowed in the main forum and the history of that.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear, my point was that it's not necessary because most people who would be shooting those obscure less-than-4x5 formats aren't a draw (or gateway format) and therefore don't need to be outside of the lounge. The OP was using the "gateway" idea as an argument for why it should be outside the lounge.

[Oren Grad]

For all practical purposes, I think medium format technical cameras with digital backs are large format. I know that's a minority opinion. I just suspect that this opinion is based on prejudice rather than experience. People I know who's use these cameras describes them as fussier, slower, and harder to focus than 8x10. And in practice the results are as good or better than anything else I've seen, so I'm not sure what the protests are actually about.

You don't even have to go to the technical cameras. My view, based on experience of using digital cameras with a wide range of specifications and working with the files to make prints, is that if the point is to make big prints and/or meet exceptionally demanding standards of print quality and character, a high-MP DSLR can demand levels of both capture and processing discipline that match or exceed those required by LF, though the practical details of what "discipline" means will necessarily differ in many respects. Every shortcoming in optical quality or shot technique is magnified; pixel-peep the results and suddenly depth of field vanishes as the size of the perceptible circle of confusion heads toward zero.

But this is a "Large Format Photography" forum, not a "High-Resolution Photography" forum or a "Photography with Cameras that are Exceptionally Demanding to Use" forum.

[Dan Fromm]

FWIW, folks, the French LF forum solved all this by calling itself the high resolution photography forum.

[StoneNYC]

FWIW, folks, the French LF forum solved all this by calling itself the high resolution photography forum.

That would mean those with a 50mp digital 35mm or 80mp digital MF back could post images etc, which would defeat the purpose of this forum.

[paulr]

You don't even have to go to the technical cameras. My view, based on experience of using digital cameras with a wide range of specifications and working with the files to make prints, is that if the point is to make big prints and/or meet exceptionally demanding standards of print quality and character, a high-MP DSLR can demand levels of both capture and processing discipline that match or exceed those required by LF, though the practical details of what "discipline" means will necessarily differ in many respects. Every shortcoming in optical quality or shot technique is magnified; pixel-peep the results and suddenly depth of field vanishes as the size of the perceptible circle of confusion heads toward zero.

But this is a "Large Format Photography" forum, not a "High-Resolution Photography" forum or a "Photography with Cameras that are Exceptionally Demanding to Use" forum.

I would agree with this, and would not be lobbying to include work with high res dslrs (which I happen to use for just about all my work now). But it seems to me that a technical camera is a kind of ultra-fussy view camera, with all the attendant qualities and concerns of a view camera, plus a whole lot more. And that the only thing keeping a PhaseOne back from being considered large format is a completely arbitrary line in the sand measured in square millimeters.

I don't have a pony in this race, not being a user of these cameras. But I do think that the forum would be a richer place if it included discussion of these things. It would likely be a very small minority of users, and the information exchange could helpful to everyone.

[Oren Grad]

Paul - that is a reasonable way to look at it.

Again speaking for myself, I think that the specialty end of digital capture is well served by LuLa and GetDPI, with the caveat that I haven't checked in to the LuLa forum in a while and don't have a feel for how the discussions there are currently going. I'm also pretty risk-averse when it comes to messing with the boundaries here, as such changes can sometimes go badly awry, and my first priority is sustaining those aspects of our mission that are distinctive and aren't served in the same way anywhere else.

[jcoldslabs]

Personally, I'd prefer this place to be a view camera forum, which would include the cameras Paul is talking about but ecxlude DSLRs.

But that dead horse has sailed.

Jonathan

[StoneNYC]

Personally, I'd prefer this place to be a view camera forum, which would include the cameras Paul is talking about but ecxlude DSLRs.

But that dead horse has sailed.

Jonathan

And then graflex D and speed graphic and pinhole and such would all not be included.