Medium or Large?

I`ve often been asked where medium format ends and large format

begins! Is it 6x9, 6x12, 6x17 or 4x5? Maybe it`s at the point where

we leave rollfilm and use sheet?

 

Dean Jones.

Don't know if you can still get sheet film in 2-1/4 x 3-1/4, so that's where LF begins for me. But if you ask the folks that do 12 x 20 and 20 x 24, you may get a different answer. 8)

IMHO it's at the point when we start tilting/shifting/manipulating the focus plane. Be it even with a 35 mm adapting back. <br>

Michael

I have copies of 1940's and 50's magazines that refer to 120 and 35mm cameras as "miniature format" so I guess it is a definition that changes with the times....

 

FWIW, I would say LF starts at 5x4. By convention, "LF" in this forum has generally been taken to mean any camera with movements -perhaps a rename to "View Camera Photography" is in order...

 

Cheers,

By convention, I think of LF as sheet film or wide rollfilm (as for the Cirkut camera or 5" or 9.5" aerial cameras) and MF as 120/220 rollfilm, and the distinction between the view camera and the fixed camera is something else. As far as the forum goes, though, I think medium format view cameras are relevant.

Anything smaller than what YOU have is medium.

Large format begins at 4x5 (and/or the European analog.) Anything up to and including 120/220 roll film is NOT large, nor is 6x9 cm sheet film because it's a format that can be shot on 120/220. And sorry, but using camera movements as a definition of "large" is not going to gain much acceptance IMO. "Large" format has to do with square inches of film, for which there is NO SUBSTITUTE.

Surely Large Format is defined by the following: the equipment weighs a ton, the process baffles observers who think you are part of an historical re-enactment society, and the existence of film is denied by high street camera shop staff.

There is of course the additional definition: A complex apparatus erected by patient, saint-like counsellors; in order that the general public can tell them all about the advantages of digital cameras.

 

Charlie.

I don't know. But I do know that no matter what it is you're shooting, you'll be asked if it's a Hasselblad.

"Large format begins at 4x5 (and/or the European analog.) Anything up to and including 120/220 roll film is NOT large, nor is 6x9 cm sheet film because it's a format that can be shot on 120/220. And sorry, but using camera movements as a definition of "large" is not going to gain much acceptance IMO. "Large" format has to do with square inches of film, for which there is NO SUBSTITUTE."

 

Not on this forum - LF here has also tended to include monorail and folding field cameras in 120 format.

 

check out

 

Large format photography Forum - 6x9: cameras and lenses threads

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-one-category?topic_id=1547&category=6x9%3a%20cameras%20and%20lenses

Who cares?!

At one point, 4x5 was considered medium format, but is now clearly entrenched as the generally-accepted entry point for large format. Smaller view and sheet-film press cameras, notably the 2¼ x 3¼ models, are tolerated here, I think, because of the similarity in technique.

 

But, with the proliferation of digitals having miniscule CCDs, perhaps 35mm will come to be called medium format, too. ;-)

<I>Not on this forum - LF here has also tended to include monorail and folding field cameras in 120 format.</I><P>

Only because people insist on misusing the term and others fail to correct them.

"Not on this forum - LF here has also tended to include monorail and folding

field cameras in 120 format."

 

"Only because people insist on misusing the term and others fail to correct them."

 

LOL - what a load of BS!

Years ago when I was still living in Washington, DC, I read a newspaper column by (I believe) Meg Greenfield. In it, she retold the story of her visit to a restaurant. She noticed an item on the menu called "fresh fruit", which she ordered. The waiter (or waitress) brought back a bowl of what was obviously canned fruit cocktail. When Ms. Greenfield pointed out that the fruit in the bowl was obviously not fresh, the waiter replied "we just call it fresh".

I think the definition was termed traditionally based on the film area and size, so how about this threshold...large format is where a negative size is large enough to make presentable size contact prints as the end product. It's a loose interpretation, I know, and it varies with different people.

Henry - so that would mean 8x10 was the LF entry point? ;-)

Doesn't View Camera magazine allow 6x9 entries?

 

Also, all along I thought I was large format but my girlf friend thought different.

 

And, it's not the size of your equipment, it's what you do with it.

I'm with Henry -- Large Format starts at 3.25x4.25 (quarter plate).

<I>Doesn't View Camera magazine allow 6x9 entries?</I><P>

Possibly, but a view camera need not be large format.

yes - Quarter Plate should probably be the dividing line. Either that or anything under Full/Whole Plate (6½" x 8½") is to be considered a "miniature" camera/format and therefore please don't bring those funny little cameras onto this list, or we'll set the Large Format Police (Davenport) on to you. There will be fines for talking "minature" cameras and formats, with a re-education process for those who continue to offend and who will not correct themselves.

I think Charlie's on the right track, define it by the questions you get asked when using it: "is that an antique camera?" "how old is that camera?" "how come everything looks upside down?" (asked after you've decided you won't be able to get rid of them until you've let them look under the dark cloth); "how come I can't see anything?" (same); "everything is in color, I thought you said you were using black and white film" (same). Also "is that a Hasselblad" but I get asked that one when I'm using my Pentax 67 too.

So I have a Horseman VHR that I don't use much. If I shoot 6x7 with a roll film back

on the camera and another time use 2 1/4x3 1/4 sheet film in the same camera have

I switched to large format? And really, what does it matter? The historical

perspectives noted above are perhaps interesting. Anyway, what would happen if we

paid more attention to the creative process and the images than the equipment. Jeez,

perhaps we'd be actually doing something with our medium/large format stuff than

merely talking about it ad infinitum, ad nauseum. (In my opinion).

...in other words - if we answer this question even definitively, would it make us

better photographers, our images improve or advance much of anything? Trivia is

interesting, but this is a bit too rich in the genre.

One of my panoramic cameras uses 70mm roll film, a single frame is 18 inches long, the camera has a groundglass,rise and fall but no other movements....is it a large format camera? By definition it would split you guys in half but does it really matter...no I don't think so, just get out there and use it!!