Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 108 of 108

Thread: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

  1. #101

    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    160

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    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.

    This is our current definition. As far as Forum policy is concerned, it supersedes anything that was posted previously in this thread.
    That is exactly how Wikipedia sees it. Most interesting from the OP: there not a specific reference to a camera or a film format. From there it wandered from apples to pears.

  2. #102
    multiplex
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    local
    Posts
    5,358

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    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.

    This is our current definition. As far as Forum policy is concerned, it supersedes anything that was posted previously in this thread.
    great to know

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,908

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    I'd call it a medium format view camera, but still fair game for this forum (unlike the old f32.net forum that was strictly 4x5" and larger).
    When I got my first 4x5, in 1938, it was considered Medium Format. Time brings changes to most things.

  4. #104
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,387

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    The Mods also allow any format in the CORRECT category
    Tin Can

  5. #105
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    9,211

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Noel View Post
    When I got my first 4x5, in 1938, it was considered Medium Format. Time brings changes to most things.
    I didn't know the words "Large Format" were of any great significance until I joined the LFPF.

    PS...as I aged and increased in girth, I slowly went from Rolleiflex to 4x5 and onward to 11x14. I found that the bigger the camera, the smaller I looked next to it.
    Last edited by Vaughn; 13-Apr-2022 at 15:55.
    "Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China

  6. #106
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Noel View Post
    When I got my first 4x5, in 1938, it was considered Medium Format. Time brings changes to most things.
    By chance the first LF camera I had the opportunity to use on my own was an 8x10, so my perception of LF sizes was warped from the get-go - 4x5 has always seemed small to me.

  7. #107
    おせわに なります! Andrew O'Neill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Coquitlam, BC, Canada, eh!
    Posts
    5,136

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    I always thought that LF started at 4x5. That's 4x5 film. Shoot it in a shoe box, with a pin hole. It's LF. I do love that 6x9 negative I get with my Grand Dad's old Brownie Six-20!

  8. #108
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: so, do you guys consider my 6x9 to be "large format"?

    I don't mind the subject of roll-film backs being combined with large format gear discussions; sometimes I need to carry both conventional holders and a roll-film back or two for the same 4x5 camera. But I can't realistically consider the result to be in the same category, especially once I get in the darkroom. So I'm fine with the formal forum distinction between the two, yet at the same time, allowing certain provisions for relevant comparisons and cross-applications.

    I used to chuckle walking past a particular gallery in Carmel advertising big color prints from "GIANT Large Format" Hasselblad film shots.

Similar Threads

  1. Converting 5x4 roll film backs to 6x9 fitting
    By ADG in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28-Feb-2006, 05:40
  2. Using 4x5 lens on 6X9 camera
    By Terry Hull in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 1-Nov-2005, 07:26
  3. Difference between ARCA-SWISS 6x9 Front/Rear Frame
    By Kerry L. Thalmann in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 14-Oct-2004, 15:05
  4. 6x9: practicallity of holders and quality
    By Bill Smith in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-Oct-2000, 18:03
  5. Digital printing 6x9 vs 4x5
    By Glenn Kroeger in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 22-Feb-2000, 13:42

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •