Talk:Medium format

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Photography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not sure quite what this means: "Upwards, the division is more easily defined, since large format camera use sheet film, not rolls."

Aren't rolls available for aerophotography (I'm not sure whether they're 4 or 5 inches wide)?

And, sheet holders were available for medium format (e.g. Mamiya Quadra, or some such name) in the not-too-distant past.

Also, Polaroid sheet-film cameras are medium-format.

So why not simply say that 4x5 is, as a practical matter, large format?

Okay, I decided to be bold and make some major changes to this page. Initially, I intended to only change the formatting but added and deleted content. I'm a long time reader, 2nd time contributer, so I apologize in advance for any break in convention. If I did do something wrong, either with the content or with my editing, let me know so I wont do it again. --Clngre 00:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Section on Lomography is confusing, first sentence seems like a run-on. rewrite suggested. 68.44.73.253 17:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into medium format for an upcoming job. This article gave an excellent overview, but as a 35mm photographer I'm curious how focal lengths in medium format relate to 35mm format.

While shopping, I noticed that medium format lenses tended to be in the 80mm - 120mm range. What would be a good choice for someone doing portrait photography vs. landscape photography?

In October last year

That's not entirely true. I was able to decide where to direct it. It was directed at the format disambiguation page because it potentially has other meaning especially for those who aren't too familiar with the english language. My reason for moving it was to stop a trend on wikipedia of using terms and phrases that could potentially means something other than the narrower scope that is being used. Someone else as since redirected back.

There seems to be another trend on wikipedia where people don't like disambiguation pages. They'd rather have potentially ambiguous words directed to their most common use in the English language, other uses or potential uses be damned. It opens the way for territorial battles of who gets to monopolize words and phrases in the English language. I personally think any potentially ambiguous words should be found on disambiguation pages first.

The only reason to direct it back here is to accommodate those who are too lazy to disambiguate. It doesn't take much time to specify "(film)" at the end of the link. When I redirected it, I added the line to format page and spent an hour manually added "(film)" all existing links. What's the harm in helping people be specific? Oicumayberight 01:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conspiracy to get rid of disambiguation pages as you seem to imply. It is simply a matter of people trying to do their best to name articles clearly so that they can be found easily but still allow for different contexts.

• The Wikipedia policy on
  article naming
  says: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature..

• The guideline on
  disambiguation
  says: Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?

• It also says: When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (...), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top.

I'm afraid I simply do not see what the problem is. I am having a lot of trouble finding a non-photographic meaning for "medium format". Doing a Google search for "medium format" is turning up ALL photography links. I'm checking the summary for every single link and even after 20 pages (200 links), they're still all photographic. The article currently has what could be called disambiguation links at the top, linking to both medium and format. That seems adequate to me.

The fact alone that

medium format (film) for five months now without anyone changing it, including yourself, pretty much tells me that there is little or no need to disambiguate this term. I see no ambiguity and cannot find any even when I search for it. Please, tell me where the ambiguity is! --Imroy 13:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't use the word "conspiracy", you did. I used the word trend. Here is a list of links with alternate meaning:

[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

[21][22]Oicumayberight 00:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a step back, wouldn't it be better to rename the page to

The last point is a good one, but rather than changing this page to be broader, why not stub the digital talk to "medium format (digital)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.227.179 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these brands have merged or gone under. Move for breaking into two sections: Current and Legacy companies --Tom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.176.4 (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article jumps about a bit between imperial and metric measures. At some point it talks about an "8×10 sheet of paper". 8×10 what? I'm guessing it's inches and maybe that's obvious to anyone who already knows the topic, but we shouldn't be assuming that much knowledge. I don't have the time to fix this, but thought I'd just flag it here. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 11:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the way it is within photography circles - and yes, it's "strange" to outsiders. Medium format and 135 format both use metric units to describe their sizes, with 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, etc. referring to cm. However, within the realm of large format, it is standard that the units of inches are used due to the history of paper sizes linking to film sizes - borne out of the common task of contact printing (or enlarging with perfect ratios) of large format film. Changing it to something like 20.3 x 25.4cm, just for sake of consistency, would probably confuse more people than it helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.227.179 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150208175128/http://www.image2output.com/products/photographic/sinar-digital-camera-back.html to http://www.image2output.com/products/photographic/sinar-digital-camera-back.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130503034257/http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/technical-report/2042226/medium-format-camera to http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/technical-report/2042226/medium-format-camera

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gallagm2 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Gallagm2 (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added an image of a Hasselblad camera kit to the section on film types. -- Gallagm2 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]