Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,332   Posts: 1,537,358   Online: 1123
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    coigach's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Inverness-shire, Scotland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,485
    Images
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle View Post
    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.

  2. #12
    Thingy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    189
    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, Hasselblad 503CW
    35mm/Små format: Nikon: F4, D800 (yes digital, I know)

  3. #13
    flatulent1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,285
    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


    I am beginning to resent being referred to as 'half-fast'.
    Whatever that's supposed to mean.

  4. #14
    Joe VanCleave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    483
    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

  5. #15
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,029
    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?

  6. #16
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,555
    Images
    15
    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.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,036
    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.


  8. #18
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    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?

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS View Post
    ... 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.

  10. #20
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,029
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    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"

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin