LF Clarification

[djdister]

But Bob they are not defining what a view camera is but what Large Format is.

Right, its not called the "View Camera Forum" its the Large Format Photography Forum. So size does matter...

[DannL]

I think it is important as a view-camera/box-camera/folding-camera/wooden-camera/plate-camera user that I know a bit about how things came into being within the realm of photography. Doing one's own research can be a daunting task. But, believe it or not Google's free online books has been a godsend. At one point my library of downloaded photography books published between ~1835 to ~1920 exceeded over 300 titles. Not a single book contained the words "large" and "format" together in referring to a large film. But that was not a surprise. But, if some does find reference to it, I would love to see it first hand.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I can manage with this definition, though it might make the archives a bit difficult to sort out, since there has been so much crossover in the past, and some of it will be unavoidable in the future. Let's see how it goes.

Frankly I would love to see a 35mm camera with movements, ha!

Here you go: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ilford_KI_Monobar

[jnantz]

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

i know jonathan

my 4x5 plates are 4x5" but my film isn't ... ( neither are my 4x5 [in camera] paper negatives )

all joking aside
it doesn't matter to me
whether i put things in a subform or the main forum, its just a heading


john

[ic-racer]

How about the Darkroom section? For example:

How to attach Omega lens to Omega B66 enlarger

[DannL]

I always thought it would be fun to create a challenge on the forum to make the smallest functional view-camera. Be it a group effort, or individual. But, that was years ago. I never pursued it because this was not a view-camera forum, or even a forum dedicated to view-cameras in general. At that time many of my plate cameras and view-cameras didn't exceed the 9x12cm standard. I really like the forum, but have found it restricted. Much like a cramped boat on a long journey. Things could be bigger and much better.

[Corran]

Here you go: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ilford_K...ord_KI_Monobar

Awesome.

[rdenney]

Look, guys, think of it this way...

Before we had an image-sharing forum for LF, and all other images were relegated to a couple of threads in the Lounge. People who used rollfilm backs on 4x5 cameras were allowed in the LF image sub-forum, but really on a technicality. There was just so much argument about the gray area that we had to be a little generous with the definition. But it still caused all sorts of problems over the last few years.

So, instead of tightening up the boundary and relegating everything else to a couple of threads in the Lounge, we have added a new sub-forum for smaller formats. This makes it possible to have all the diversity of image-sharing threads that we have in the LF image subforum--portraits, landscapes, etc., etc.--but still maintain the fundamental meaning of the forum.

Don't think of it as something that has been taken away, but rather something that has been added. Now, I can post images from my Pentax 67, or even my Canon 5D, in a regular image-sharing forum. This is actually more inclusive, but without undermining what it means to be a Large Format Photography Forum.

One of the reasons it took us weeks to work this out is because we tried several different approaches to rendering the definition. One approach was based on the camera rather than the film/sensor. There were other approaches, too. We tested each of these by writing test guidelines, which we then evaluated in terms of 1.) clarity, 2.) consistency with what users expect, 3.) brevity, 4.) consistency with the meaning of the forum, 5.) moderator consensus, and 6.) consistency with the wishes of the owner. Other approaches could be clear, but could not attract a consensus or would cut off users. Approaches that could gather consensus required paragraphs to explain clearly. Allowing everything would undermine the meaning of the forum and those who are here because of that meaning. And so on.

We ended up with this approach as performing best under all those considerations. It is based on the format used when the picture was made, not on the camera or image capture technology. What happens after the exposure is not used in the definition.

All boundaries are arbitrary. Perfection is unattainable. This is where we are.

But, like any change, it will work if we collectively make it work.

Rick "one of the 6x12 users who will now have to put those images in the new sub-forum" Denney

[Vaughn]

+1!!

[BrianShaw]

Don't you mean to sign: Rick "this is a good thing" Denny?

And I don't mean that to be critical, but more to reflect how I read your posts - from the bottom up.