When does LF become LF?

[dphill]

This might be a sophmoric question, but at what size of the negative/transparency does Medium Format become Large Format?
When the size exceeds 6x9 inches? Or does it relate to roll film vs. sheet film. I'm not going anywhere with this, but all of a sudden after 30 years of varying degrees of involvement in photography, this question pops into my head for the first time.


Just wondering,
Dan

 

[Dave Parker]

I have always been told and assumed it started with 3.25 x 4.25 sheet films and up, then at 11x14 it is refered to Ultra Large Format

 

[dphill]

When the size exceeds 6x9 inches?
Dan

I meant 6x9 cm, sorry

Dan

 

[Dave Parker]

I meant 6x9 cm, sorry

Dan

Of course, there is 6x12 and 6x17 formats as well, normally considered panoramics...

Dave

 

[Dave Parker]

J,

That don't surprise me, it is pretty amazing the different topics that can produce heated debates..



Dave

 

[dphill]

Egad! Do the worms fit back into the can?

I had forgotten about the 6x12, 6x17, etc.

But then there are the Cirkut cameras, they use roll film....

Why do I feel like I just entered a maze of many twisted passages, all going in different directions but ending in the same place?

Dan

 

[claytume]

Dan

I've heard a number of people call RB 67's large format...........I never bother getting into arguments over it.........if they want to call it large format that's fine with me.

Yes if you deny roll film as large format that cancels out Cirkut cameras...........if you've ever seen a 6 foot long Cirkut neg you'd wonder why they call 8x10 large format!


Clayton

 

[Dave Parker]

I don't think I have ever heard anyone say roll film was a determining factor, although I would say the cirkut is a pretty specialized piece of equipment, but definately a large format, if not the ultimate panoramic!



Dave

 

[Soeren]

Dan

I've heard a number of people call RB 67's large format...........I never bother getting into arguments over it.........if they want to call it large format that's fine with me.

Yes if you deny roll film as large format that cancels out Cirkut cameras...........if you've ever seen a 6 foot long Cirkut neg you'd wonder why they call 8x10 large format!


Clayton

Wauv so my Pentax 6X7 is a LF camera too !!! I just have a problem with the movements. I can't find either front or back tilt
I have even heard 645 mentioned as LF but then again if people don't know better.
I would say that LF refers to filmformat ruling out rollfim and thereby panoramics. Leaving the "odd" formats (as 6.5X9 or ?) out I would consider 4X5" the smallest LF.
Cheers Søren

 

[nworth]

Most people think that large format means 3-1/4 X 4-1/4 or bigger, sheet film, and a camera capable of at least some adjustments. But there are 8X10 cameras that are not capable of adjustments, and few would dispute that 8X10 is large. There are also 2-1/4 X 3-1/4 sheet film cameras with adjustments. That would be medium format, but the cameras and film are handled like large format. There are also aerial cameras - no adjustments, roll film, but 5 or 9-1/2 inch negatives. Those, while big, are not usually considered to be large format. Some of the old Cirkut cameras took roll film about 8 inches wide and had some adjustments. They are usually considered to be large or ultra-large format. There are no rules that work.

 

[Ole]

I count my little 6.5x9cm plate cameras as LF - they take sheet film and have movements. I may change my mind if I come across a 4.5x6cm plate camera though - they do exist!

As to ULF I'd say it's "Bigger than 8x10". So my 9.5x12" is a ULF, albeit barely.

 

[JohnArs]

Hi all
For me it starts from the old 9x12 today its 4x5 inch. 6x9cm is for me a MF format even if they in sheets.
Because it is the format which counts and not the single sheet in my opinion.
Take care, Armin

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

6x9cm is for me a MF format even if they in sheets

Disagree if the camera has movements.

 

[Ole]

Right next to me here I have two Voigtländer Bergheil cameras. One is a 6.5x9cm, the other a 9x12cm. They both have ground glass, the same movements, the same type plate holders, and even the same type lens: Slightly long Heliar f:4.5 (120mm and 150mm), in bayonet mount.

We can all agree that they're both plate cameras - but if one is LF, then so is the other.

 

[Soeren]

Disagree if the camera has movements.

So how about the Hasselblad Flexbody, LF or MF ?
I say it's the format that determines if it's LF or not. Isn't the Litmann 45 a Large format camera even thought it's a rangefinder.
Cheers Søren

 

[Soeren]

Right next to me here I have two Voigtländer Bergheil cameras. One is a 6.5x9cm, the other a 9x12cm. They both have ground glass, the same movements, the same type plate holders, and even the same type lens: Slightly long Heliar f:4.5 (120mm and 150mm), in bayonet mount.

We can all agree that they're both plate cameras - but if one is LF, then so is the other.

Hmm I'm not sure I agree on that one. They are the same type camera, Field or monrail or whatever, but they differ in format unless you can shoot 9X12 on the 6,5X9 camera.
I think the direction on this subject turns to whether its sheet- or platefilm vs rollfilm more than the size of things.
Cheers Søren

 

[Joe Lipka]

Those guys that do ULF think that 8 x 10 is "medium format".

It all depends on where you start.

 

[Ole]

Those guys that do ULF think that 8 x 10 is "medium format".

It all depends on where you start.

No they don't! Here's the result from a poll on Mamut Photo:

Tiny (35mm and medium format) : 11 - 10%
Small (4x5 to 8x10) : 66 - 60%
Panoramic (5x12, 7x17, 8x20) : 11 - 10%
Medium (11x14, 12x20) : 10 - 9.1%
Large (14x17, 16x20) : 9 - 8.2%
Mamut (18x22, 20x24) : 3 - 2.7%

As you can see, 4x5" to 8x10" is "small".

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think of formats that use 120 and 220 film as medium format, even if they're 6x12, 6x17, or 6x24. I use 2x3 sheet film in my Technika 23, but I consider that medium format. 3x4?--I don't know--whatever.

I think of 4x5" and larger as LF, and larger than 8x10" as ULF (exclusive of 8x10" itself).

 

[df cardwell]

Words have more meaning to me. I try to understand the concept before I describe it, like an engineer who is careful to use the number "2" when he means "2" and NOT "3" -- however similar they may be in value.

Large Format describes a relationship rather than a specific size.

Relationships only make sense when we understand the context. If you have a client that likes looking at 'chromes on a lightbox and always describes 6x6 transparencies as "LARGE FORMAT" as opposed to 35, only a pedantic twit would insist the guy paying the mortgage was wrong.

For me, shooting 4x5 seems to have more in common with shooting 6x7 and 35 than it does 8x10. It is fastidious. The image must be enlarged. Diffraction is always an issue. A loupe is necessary. And so on.

With 8x10, I don't need a loupe to focus, I can set up a shot without a level and am generally relaxed when I'm working. I don't need to think about how the image will enlarge, and naturally enough don't think about grabbing the 8x10 kit ( bag of camera, bag of film, tripods, and ditty bag ) and running to catch a shot a quarter mile away.

I use a 35 rangefinder, a 35 SLR, a 120 TLR, a 120 RFDR, a 4x5 Press Camera, and a Monorail.

There is an intuitive relationship between each piece. There is a continuum: a progression from 35mm to 4x5 that has no breaking place. Outside that continuum is the world of Large Format.


For me, "Large Format" is 8x10 and bigger. Smaller than 8x10 is simply "Not Large Format".

The important thing is to establish for yourself what is Large Format and what is not. I know a few guys for whom an 8x10 Deardorff is their only camera, and the phrase 'Large Format' is without meaning.

Think about something you have only one of, and try to differentiate it from itself: "This is my favorite Left Ear, although THIS is my EXTREME RIGHT EAR."


And, ahem, the notion of "Ultra Large Format" is both redundant and silly. Unless one is describing a camera that is too big to be of practical use, there is no point in Ultra Describing It. "Large" signifies something ample and abundant; it can suggest something lavish or EXTRAVAGANT. A categorization for abundantly special cameras that are not merely AMPLE but "especially extravagant" is PRETENTIOUS.
.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

"Ultra" is considerably more impractical, I think than "Large." "Ultra" is outside the realm of stock film holders, stock enlargers, stock film, etc., so I think of it as a meaningful distinction. One is really doing something much more involved by shooting a sheet film format other than 4x5", 5x7", or 8x10".

Of course other formats that are smaller than or comparable to 8x10" have also experienced a revival in recent years, like full plate, 7x11", 4x10" and such, and those have the same issues, although if they are smaller than 8x10", they can be enlarged with an 8x10" enlarger. Maybe we should just call them all "custom formats" or some such, but usually they have some history behind them as non-custom formats. "Historical formats" maybe, but they are being used today, so what should we call them? Well, "LF" and "ULF" work for now.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

So how about the Hasselblad Flexbody, LF or MF ?
I say it's the format that determines if it's LF or not. Isn't the Litmann 45 a Large format camera even thought it's a rangefinder.
Cheers Søren

Which is the great step, the new thing to learn, the new technique to handle when stepping up to large format?

Contact printing? Come on, a proof sheet is a contact print.

Sheet film development? Is there any difference in developing a 6x6 sheet rather than a 4x5? Don't think so.

MOVEMENTS? Well, now we're talking.

 

[rbarker]

For me, "large format" is 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10, along with the European cm sizes that are similar. Larger than 8x10, in either or both dimensions, is ULF. Panoramic speaks to the aspect ratio, and is really independent of film size.

Note that there are several medium-format view, technical and press cameras that include movements. Some use roll film, and others sheet film. The presence of movements on the camera, or the use of sheet film, doesn't make it "large format" - even though similar techniques may be used.

 

[Ole]

We could of course introduce a whole range of special designations - from T(iny)LF for 6.5x9 through R(eal)LF (5x7") and B(ig)LF (8x10") to RR(Really Ridiculosly)LF (20x24" and above)?

In a way I agree that the designation "Ultra" should be reserved for cameras that are too big to be of practical use. But anyone who has used a ULF camera in the field knows that this is absolutely in accordance with current usage.

I'll stick to my TLF, SLF, RLF, BLF, VLF and U(gly)LF for a while longer.

 

[Wayne]

When was the term ULF invented? This is a recent invention I think, as most things became smaller and smaller during the latter 20th century the things at the other end of the scale were suddenly considered "ultra". I would really be interested to know when the term made its first appearance. I certainly dont ever recall 11x14 being called ULF in my younger days, though I could be wrong. I dont recall anyone ever calling Brett Weston's early work ULF.

Over most of photography's history I think large format was generally accepted as 4x5 through at least 11x14, or maybe just 4x5 and up. Individuals may have had their own personal definitions but that doesnt mean they were ever accepted by a larger audience.

Me, I have a hard time calling 4x5 LF after working with my 8x10, but it still is.

Wayne