Do 6x12 negatives on 120 constitute enough surface area to be considered LF?

[EASmithV]

Do 6x12 negatives on 120 constitute enough surface area to be considered LF? How about 6x17?

6x12 has more surface area than 3x4 inches.

 

[Jerevan]

I think it depends on who you ask, really. If LF means sheet film only, no. But then there are cameras that take sheet film sizes from 4x6.5 cm, which is considered a medium format size... It's one of those zen koans - it's something that bends your mind out of shape.

 

[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.

 

[lxdude]

I agree that it's how you look at it. Many people consider the Hasslblad XPan to be medium format; some say because one dimension is long enough to qualify as medium format; some say it is because the lens has to have a medium format sized image circle.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I don't care about the film size. When I think of large format, I think of view cameras. I have owned a 5x7 point and shoot (Hobo) and it was very far from my view cameras (kept the lens and sold the body for what I paid for the both, which was the reason for buying it). When I shoot 6x17 or 6x12 on my 4x5 I think of it as large format because the camera setup is the same with the possibility of full movements. I imagine if I had a 6x17 that used a focus helical it wouldn't feel like large format.

To me it's the camera that makes LF. To others it's the film area, and to others it's the use of sheet film. I say don't worry about it and buy the camera you want, irregardless of how other people label it.

 

[Dan Henderson]

When I expose 4x5" film with my Linhof I say "large format." When I shoot 120 roll film through my Hasselblad, I say "medium format." Fortunately the distinction is easy for me to make.

I suspect that my friend John Powers and his 7x17 camera scoff inwardly at my definition of LF!

 

[michaelbsc]

In my mind the LF, MF, and miniature format designations are more about the camera body design and handling than about the film substrate.

I think of film classified by size. 120 is 120. Sheet film is sheet film. I don't think the distinctions make as much sense for the film. I have often wondered why people spend hundreds of dollars for a 6 x 12 roll film adapter when there is a perfectly usable 6 x 12 image in a 4 x 5 film holder. but my place is not to judge others.

 

[Hikari]

6x12 is a medium-format format, as is 6x17 and 6x24. Format is not defined simply by area.

 

[Steve Smith]

When 120n roll film was first used, probably on 6x9 format, it was considered to be miniature.


Steve.

 

[michaelbsc]

When 120n roll film was first used, probably on 6x9 format, it was considered to be miniature.


Steve.

Maybe. I don't know for sure. But I thought the language usage was more like

A) In the early days the various sheet film sizes were called by their size.

B) Roll film arrived and was designated by various numbers, like the surviving 120 and barely surviving 127 and dead 116. The 127 size got the moniker "vest pocket" size.

C) Barnack uses cine film and it becomes known as miniature format.

Of course, I might have that totally screwed up. Counting on me to be the historian is a fools game.

 

[coigach]

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.

 

[Thingy]

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.

 

[flatulent1]

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.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

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

 

[BradS]

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?

 

[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.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

:munch:

 

[BradS]

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?

 

[BrianShaw]

... 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.

 

[BradS]

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"

 

[Hikari]

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.

Funny, all the equipment manufacturers that makes them say they are medium-format panoramic cameras. In fact, things like Roundshots are billed as medium-format panoramic cameras and I believe they can make images larger than 6x24.

 

[erikg]

It doesn't really matter much, but what about 2x3 sheet film shot in a small view camera? Not very large but it depends on what you are comparing it to.

 

[Jeff Searust]

Does it really matter?

I would consider it medium format since it's on a roll--- My 6x17 camera I consider medium format and the long side of it is nearly 7 inches.

 

[BradS]

It doesn't really matter much, but what about 2x3 sheet film shot in a small view camera? Not very large but it depends on what you are comparing it to.

I'd just call that 2-1/4 X 3-1/4 and be done with it.

The way I see it ...if you have to ask...it's not large format.

 

[EASmithV]

2.25x3.25 sheet film is definitely medium format, as it's the same size as 6x9.