When does LF become LF?

[avandesande]

The first part I agree heartily with. I have to disagree with ULF being silly though...

ultra expensive
ultra hard to get film
ultra heavy
ultra impossible to get film holders.
your wife thinks your ultra crazy....

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.
.

 

[JohnArs]

LF means LF not MF!
Large format does nothing say about camera movements, for example the Sinar handy with 4x5 inch back is LF as far as I remeber it only can shift same for the Linhof wich has a similar one like the handy!
Large format is defined as 9x12cm and above in old books.
I see I like David all RF formats are MF not LF.
To be large it has to be on booth sides not just on one side!
Just my opinion!

 

[df cardwell]

....

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

...edit...

And a sonnet is a poem.

 

[Ole]

Large format is defined as 9x12cm and above in old books.

My "old book" is old enough to deal with "cameras", and mention in passing the newfangled rollfilm cameras. In that book, 9x12cm is "sufficient for amateurs and snapshots", while at least 13x18cm is "needed for any kind of professional or exacting work"

 

[John Koehrer]

And a sonnet is a poem.

I had a Saab sonnet once, I'd tell you about it but you're probably notin the mood for a saab story.

 

[BrianShaw]

I had a Saab sonnet once, I'd tell you about it but you're probably notin the mood for a saab story.

Actually, yes... but only if it rhymes.


-----
Bigotry that lurks deep in the hearts of man is often expressed in words of categorization. Categorization is intended to be a method of inclusion, but is all too often used as a method of exclusion.

 

[df cardwell]

I had a Saab sonnet once, I'd tell you about it but you're probably notin the mood for a saab story.

2 stroke ???

 

[Allen Friday]

Several posters above have confused the type of camera being used with the size of that camera. When we describe cameras, we usually describe it both ways. For example, I would say I used a 35mm SLR. The 35mm refers to the size of film used, the SLR refers to the viewing system. There are also MF SLRs and and even a few large format SLRs. So, the size of the camera or film used is independent from the viewing system or if the camera has movements.

Lets discuss the movement issue for a second. There is currently a 16x20 camera built from a box for sale on ebay. It has no movements, other than allowing focus. Is anyone really going to agrue that it is not a LF or ULF camera? Sinar make a view camera for use with digital SLRs. Is anyone going to argue that because it has a full range of movments, that it is LF?

When I say I use an 8x10 (part one of decription) View Camera (part two), people have a good idea of what I am using. If I say I am using a Hobo 8x10 point and shoot camera, people understand this is different from a view camera, but it is still large format.

 

[Wayne]

Furthermore, I dont see the point of a seperate ULF forum if there is no such thing as ULF...How did this travesty ever come about? Was there an uproar from ULF seperatists?


Wayne

 

[bob01721]

"... When I say I use an 8x10 (part one of decription) View Camera (part two), people have a good idea of what I am using. If I say I am using a Hobo 8x10 point and shoot camera, people understand this is different from a view camera, but it is still large format..."

Yeah... I agree. But it still doesn't answer the original question of... heck, what was the question? Oh yeah. When does LF become LF?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Interesting discussion.

I have always been taught that the method of film handling is what describes the format.

For example, LF is sheet film of whatever size. All sheet films are generally processed by common means. MF is roll film on spools of some sort with paper backing of some sort, and 35mm is in the typical cassette. By this definition thought MF would then included 828 and 127 along with 616, 120 and 220 among others.

IDK if I agree with this way of thinking myself, but that is one school of thought that I have long accpeted without any real question as it seemed logical, but now I'm thinking it through.

Actually, in the 'really old days' there were really only two divisions, and that made more sense. There was LF and everything else. LF was sheet film and everything else was roll film. Even though MF cameras existed, they were classed as roll film cameras, but the 35mm were classed as miniatures. Sometimes they were classed as sub-miniatures, but then the 16 mm cameras came out.

Then, the asteroid hit the earth and all of the dinousaurs were killed and the present age of cameras started.

PE

 

[Drew B.]

The US government (National Park Service-HABS) considers large format to begin at 4x5 and supposedly will not accept anything smaller for their archives. this is due to the fact that one small component of the image can be enlarged without loss of detail.

 

[bob01721]

"... The US government (National Park Service-HABS) considers large format to begin at 4x5..."

I believe most photo shops on the web do, too. B&H, Calumet, Adorama... I always thought that's what "format" referred to -- the format (size) of the negative. I always thought -- as Allen said -- that terms like "rangefinder," "SLR," and "GG" referred to types of viewing. That's not the same as format. But sheet film, roll film, and cannisters could also be considered "formats." It's confusing.

Maybe it's like that old definition of pornography -- I know it when I see it.

 

[BrianShaw]

I believe most photo shops on the web do, too. B&H, Calumet, Adorama... I always thought that's what "format" referred to -- the format (size) of the negative. I always thought -- as Allen said -- that terms like "rangefinder," "SLR," and "GG" referred to types of viewing. That's not the same as format. But sheet film, roll film, and cannisters could also be considered "formats." It's confusing.

Maybe it's like that old definition of pornography -- I know it when I see it.

Yup, this makes perfect sense to me. I'm confused too. Especially when my brother refers to 4x5 as "MF", yet he doesn't have anything bigger... except his ego. (Yes, I love him, but like most brothers he drives me CRAZY.) I'd take this abuse when using a roll film back, but not when using sheet film.

So, let's have a go at it... start posting some pornography and we can all decide if it is or not.

 

[Soeren]

Interesting discussion.

I have always been taught that the method of film handling is what describes the format.

For example, LF is sheet film of whatever size. All sheet films are generally processed by common means. MF is roll film on spools of some sort with paper backing of some sort, and 35mm is in the typical cassette. By this definition thought MF would then included 828 and 127 along with 616, 120 and 220 among others.

IDK if I agree with this way of thinking myself, but that is one school of thought that I have long accpeted without any real question as it seemed logical, but now I'm thinking it through.

Actually, in the 'really old days' there were really only two divisions, and that made more sense. There was LF and everything else. LF was sheet film and everything else was roll film. Even though MF cameras existed, they were classed as roll film cameras, but the 35mm were classed as miniatures. Sometimes they were classed as sub-miniatures, but then the 16 mm cameras came out.

Then, the asteroid hit the earth and all of the dinousaurs were killed and the present age of cameras started.

PE

Does a 6X6 or 6X7 e.g. Mamiya 67 change status from MF to LF when a polaroid back is mounted ?
Cheers Søren

 

[25asa]

4500 square millimeters makes it large format.
52000 square millimeters makes it ultra large format.

 

[Ole]

4500 square millimeters makes it large format.
52000 square millimeters makes it ultra large format.

4500 square mm - that's 5x9 centimeters. An unusual point to pick - even 6x8 is larger. A 6.5x9cm negative is about 5800. Or do you mean "a tad more than 6x7"?

I can understand the other one - 8x10" and a sliver.

 

[Soeren]

4500 square mm - that's 5x9 centimeters. An unusual point to pick - even 6x8 is larger. A 6.5x9cm negative is about 5800. Or do you mean "a tad more than 6x7"?

I can understand the other one - 8x10" and a sliver.

Remember that the 6X-- is actually 5,6X--
Not that it changes much
Can we agree that it is Sheetfilm and of a certain minimal size larger than the normal MF sizes ?
Cheers Søren

 

[markbb]

Does a 6X6 or 6X7 e.g. Mamiya 67 change status from MF to LF when a polaroid back is mounted ?
Cheers Søren

What do I call my 10x8 camera with it's 5x4 back in place into which I've put a roll-film adaptor? Has it magically turned into a MF camera? I've done this to shoot onto fast colour negative film, with a long lens (too long for my 5x4) whilst needing camera movements.

 

[gnashings]

I once tried to buy a coffee. I asked the rocket scientist behind the counter for a large coffee, double-double. She replied that they don't have large - only small and medium... I looked at her, somewhat puzzled and asked if they simply ran out of large cups... She said no - they have always, as long as she can recall (this means a long time, believe me!), had TWO sizes.
Great, I said - I'll have the large one. Look of hatred and utter frustration from behind the counter pierced me to the bone. I she simply refused to serve me the largest coffee she had until I asked for it by the term "medium"... which usually refers to something in between two other things, and in this case... AArrrggghhhhh!!! Well, you get the point...
The moral of this story is - don't be like that woman, go out and take some pictures

This was intended as humorous, please - DO take it that way

Peter.

 

[Soeren]

What do I call my 10x8 camera with it's 5x4 back in place into which I've put a roll-film adaptor? Has it magically turned into a MF camera? I've done this to shoot onto fast colour negative film, with a long lens (too long for my 5x4) whilst needing camera movements.

"My precious" ?

 

[df cardwell]

I once tried to buy a coffee. I asked the rocket scientist behind the counter for a large coffee, double-double. She replied that they don't have large - only small and medium... SNIP....

Peter.

Maybe it's time to ponder the myriad ways to order coffee in different places.

"Double-Double"... I know where THAT is...

"Regular".... either Black, Cream and Sugar, or Cream depending where you are.

 

[df cardwell]

What do I call my 10x8 camera with it's 5x4 back in place into which I've put a roll-film adaptor? Has it magically turned into a MF camera? I've done this to shoot onto fast colour negative film, with a long lens (too long for my 5x4) whilst needing camera movements.

Cue the drumroll..... ahem .... What do YOU call it ???

 

[markbb]

Cue the drumroll..... ahem .... What do YOU call it ???

This is a family forum, pets may be watching.

 

[rbarker]

I'd call that a clever way of using a long lens on MF film.