Talk:Medium format

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)

What about lenses?

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?

Move back to original name?

In October last year User:Oicumayberight moved medium format to medium format (film) and evidently thought that the term "medium format" applied to other stuff besides film. But he was unable to decide what to redirect the original to[1] and it's been redirected back to medium format (film) since February of this year. I can't see any point in keeping this article here with this name. Does anyone have a good reason to keep the article at this name and to not move it back over the redirect? --Imroy 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 has redirected to 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)

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)

Common brands section needs filtering

Many of these brands have merged or gone under. Move for breaking into two sections: Current and Legacy companies --Tom.