jnanian Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 great question dean! since the term large format was probably "invented" when 35mm, 1/2 frame, minox and 110 formats were booming. it is a relative term. i guess there are a few other questions like yours : what is the sound of one hand clapping? does a tree make a sound when it falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it? does the light in the fridge *really* turn off when you shut the door? will the "M"s on M&Ms really float to the surface if you put an m&m in luke warm water? can you really freeze a gold fish in a block of ice ... thaw it out and have the fish swim away? ===== ====== as depicted in the far side: is the glass 1/2 full or 1/2 empty? answer: i ordered a cheeseburger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_kasaian1 Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 FWIW, I kind of like the quarter plate thing, but 120, if we went by square inches or millimeters or whatever, could be "large format" if the size of the negative exceeded the square surface area of what ever is deemed the upper limits of medium format, right? So what is "medium format?" Who said 35mm was miniature format and why should we believe him/her? There is sadly, no magisterium to guide us. My vote goes for scrapping the term "Large Format" and replacing it with "Big Ass Honkin Format." I'd like to see the digital camera promoters assert that their latest DigiWhizzbang 5000 exceeds the resolution of those Big Ass Honkin' Format cameras. Imagine the websites devoted to Big Ass Honkin' Format Photography! Art Professors would refer to E.W. and A.A. as those West Coast Big Ass Honkin' Format Photographers! LOL! I'm getting some new business cards printed up tomorrow! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_kasaian1 Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Onlooker: "Gee Mister, is that a Hasselblad?" BAHF Photographer(for the 23rd time that afternoon): No son, Its a Big Ass Honkin' Format camera!" Hehehehehe;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie_skelton2 Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Re: Is that a Hasselblad? I have been asked many questions, but never that one; either the folks over here in the UK have never heard of Hasselblad, or they know better. Charlie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvp Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 <B>"Big Ass Honkin Format"</B><P> ROFLMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ole_tjugen Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 "I'm with Henry -- Large Format starts at 3.25x4.25 (quarter plate). -- Bill Mitchell , August 13, 2003" Hrmph. Reading this from Europe, I have to wonder what size plate you are referring to? AFAIK there were at least 6 different "full plate" sizes, with corresponding quarter plates. And I would call 6.5x9cm sheet film (one of the standard quarter plates) "small large format" ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainer_viertlb_ck Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 lf starts logically with 6x12. or is a 4x5" film which you mask to have more panoramic effect not a lf format...meanwhile a 4x5" "fullframe" is? doesnt sound logic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 In one sense, what we call "large format" has more to do with state of mind than with size of the negative. Someone using a Canon EOS with a T/S lens on a tripod has in many ways more in common with a Technika user shooting landscapes, than a Banquet Camera devote has with an Arca-Swiss product photographer. It's more a matter of aesthetics than equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvp Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 <I>It's more a matter of aesthetics than equipment.</I><P>Bill, this entire thread has nothing to do with photography. It started as a discussion of the definition of "large" versus "medium," and it has become clear that we should all just agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d._kevin_gibson Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Mr Davenport - you certainly aren't shy about telling us all what you think we ought to be doing? If a thread doesn't meet your standards, why bother reading it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvp Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 <I>If a thread doesn't meet your standards, why bother reading it?</I><P>Where did I say that? If you think what I say is incorrect, please show me the error of my ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandeha Lynch Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Reflecting on this thread, (how long is a piece of string anyway?) you've probably still got time to consider that both an elephant and a mouse can be described as (being relatively indeterminate adjectives) small, medium, or large. Oh, and that miniature implies a difference of kind rather than degree. I don't have a PhD in taxonomy, (nor even an LF camera) but I would ask what the word 'format' applies to here; the film base I imagine, (size) and not to how it is manipulated, (roll, sheet) ... or is LF a truncation and abbreviation for Large Format Camera? In which case BAHF is probably a step in the right direction ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now