|
|
|
-
 Originally Posted by Danielle
I say no (personally of course). I agree that large format is sheet film, the way I always saw it.
Panoramic formats are just that. They still use 120 film though.
I agree.
I use 6x17 and consider it medium rather than large format.
-
I use a 5x4 LF camera with a 6x9 and 6x12 rollfilm backs, both of which I consider to be medium format. I would consider LF to cover any film sized 10cm x 10cm and above. This is a more satisfactory definition than defining LF as being sheet film. I have an adaptor which enables one to take two seperate photographs on a single sheet of 5x4 - photographs I would define as MF.
The Thing
Portfolio
Film Cameras currently used:
Large/Stort-format: Ebony 45SU (field camera), Medium/Medlem-format: Mamiya 7, Mamiya 645 Pro TL (for macro work)
35mm/Små format: Nikon F4
-
Is using a roll film back on a 4x5 body considered large format photography?
Is using a 35mm film back on a Mamiya 645 considered medium format photography?
Which matters more, the tool or the image? From my perspective, MF = 120/220, LF = sheet film.
It's all just labels, really. The only time I can conceive where it's relevant would be if you were wanting to join a large-format users' group on the basis of owning and using a 6x9 folder. Depends entirely on their interpretation, not yours.
Fred Latchaw
Seattle WA
Mildew Capital of the World
-
In my darkroom, I've have to use the Beseller 4x5 enlarger to print by enlargement those 6x12cm negatives, as they can't be accomidated in the 23C enlarger. So, in this respect they're LF negatives; but I have to agree with most of the others that LF generally implies sheet film, not roll film. (Ignoring such exceptions as 9.5" aerial surveillance roll-film cameras, and using a MF back on a 4x5, etc.)
~Joe
-
120 roll film is not large format.
but, I really don't know why it matters. If you make photos with this camera or that...or another, and the result lightens your spirits...who cares if it is large format or meduim format or pano? Why does it matter?
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
What about 6 x 17 and 6 x 24 on 120? I do consider that large format. It doesn't equate to any measurement within the MF spectrum.
.::Garyh
♦
Canon EOS1N ('Brutus', 1993—), TS-E 24mm f3.5L, 20mm f2.8, 17-40 f4L, 70-200 f2.8L
Pentax 67 ('Pentaximus', 2010—) + SMCP 45mm f4, 55mm f4 & 165mm f4LS;
Zero Image 6x9 multi-format pinhole (2008—); Sekonic L758D;
Olympus XA, Nikon Coolpix P7700
"If you're not having fun, then you're not doing it right!"
♦
-
With all due respect to the OP... Oh my, it must be Thursday again! This discussion comes up periodically and ALWAYS raises opinion and hackles.
-
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
What about 6 x 17 and 6 x 24 on 120? I do consider that large format. It doesn't equate to any measurement within the MF spectrum.
those are panoramic formats done on 120 film...they are not large format.
but, again, why does it matter? Why can't one be satisfied to call 'em what they are and let it be?
-
Originally Posted by BradS
... but, again, why does it matter? Why can't one be satisfied to call 'em what they are and let it be?
Brad, I agree.. but for some people calling anything on roll film LF is as offensive as calling a porpoise a fish.
-
Originally Posted by BrianShaw
Brad, I agree.. but for some people calling anything on roll film LF is as offensive as calling a porpoise a fish.
<chuckle> reminds me of a trip I made to the jungle with a group of biologists. I found a cicada on deck one night, and having never seen a grasshopper(?) that big I caught it and preented it to one of the bio guys saying...."What kind of bug is this?"
to which he replied..."this insect is a cicada"
|
|
Adv Reply
