LF Clarification

[StoneNYC]

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

Per single total image! Lol

[Fred L]

photographers have taped strips of film onto holders to create a single image across x number of strips of 35 or 120.

[analoguey]

And if they're longer than 4x5 / 9x12, that strip will be an LF allowable part of the forum is how I read it.
Either way - if you're taping it together to make it near 4x5 size - it qualifies under that heading (and I dont see why anyone who's gone thr length of taping and shooting would want it to be smaller 35mm or 120 anyhow.defeats purpose of taping it.

Think I Pre-empted a ' Rick "dont need to summarise everything" Denny' comment thr. Hmm.

[StoneNYC]

And if they're longer than 4x5 / 9x12, that strip will be an LF allowable part of the forum is how I read it.
Either way - if you're taping it together to make it near 4x5 size - it qualifies under that heading (and I dont see why anyone who's gone thr length of taping and shooting would want it to be smaller 35mm or 120 anyhow.defeats purpose of taping it.

Think I Pre-empted a ' Rick "dont need to summarise everything" Denny' comment thr. Hmm.

I don't know about that, those are separate strips... Tape doesn't equal acetate base material, they are still separate strips.

That's like saying if I shoot an Octapyct using 8 2.25x3.25 sheets that this is considered LF because it's total is bigger than 4x5 but they are still separate pieces of film.

~Stone "that's just silliness" JustStone

[analoguey]

Thats mistaking the medium for the result. Taped together - the 35/120 are shot as one exposure/negative, Not stitched together from multiple exposures.
The whole is bigger than the sum of parts.

[rdenney]

When someone tapes together strips into something 4x5 and bigger, and ends up with an image that works well enough for them to want to post it, we'll consider it then. Either way, we'll be able to see it.

But this could easily devolve to a thousand variations of "but what about...", identifying stuff almost nobody does in practice. Let's take things as they come.

Rick "hoping the theorizing stays in this thread" Denney

[BrianShaw]

ButWhatAbout#1: Does it have to be physically taped together to be considered? What about (conceptually speaking) a diptych or triptych of more-than-that-typh made of FP-100 images (made with a view camera, of course) that visually forms a singular image concept?

[gary mulder]

If taping together is accepted the whole exercise off intensifying the rules will be futile because obviously the whole purpose was to ban digital capture. Stitching is nothing more than the digital taping.

[Ken Lee]

obviously the whole purpose was to ban digital capture

There's no ban on digital capture. In fact, there's no ban on any kind of capture as far as I know.

Images made with non-Large Format equipment are not prohibited. They just belong in the "everything else" sections.

Speaking of digital capture, I look forward to seeing more images made with the LargeSense 8x10 digital back. Because it has an 8x10 sensor, images and discussion related to it will appear in the Large Format section of this forum.

[StoneNYC]

There's no ban on digital capture. In fact, there's no ban on any kind of capture as far as I know.

Images made with non-Large Format equipment are not prohibited. They just belong in the "everything else" sections.

Speaking of digital capture, I look forward to seeing more images made with the LargeSense 8x10 digital back. Because it has an 8x10 sensor, images and discussion related to it will appear in the Large Format section of this forum.

Is that a joke? 24 frames per second 8 x 10 digital image? That can't possibly be real... Wow!