Examples of Large Format shots that cannot be done with small

[Jim Jones]

William Henry Jackson thought well of the Leica he had in his 90s. As for Carleton Watkins, the great San Francisco Earthquake destroyed his studio, his negatives, and perhaps his will to do anything significant in those remaining years of his life.

[Drew Wiley]

His will? It took his mind too. He went to the insane asylum afterwards. The fire not only destroyed his inventory, but did so right after he cut a deal to sell it all to Stanford and be financially set for life, with his prints preserved for posterity. No delivery, no deal. Fortunately, he sold many prints beforehand, so we still have
a good representation of them. I think most of us have the distinct advantage of realizing that to even be engaged in large format photography, we must be insane
to begin with, so have nothing to lose!

[Drew Wiley]

Let's see... did I make a mistake about O' Sullivan? He was on the second Powell trip down the River as I recall. Who was on the first? Wasn't Watkins. And as everyone knows, what put Watkins utterly out of commission was the SF earthquake, so he probably never did use pan film. Makes no difference. Standing in front of his classic albumen prints should silence anyone thinking any kind of miniature camera can stand up to that task. Timeless images. I could hang one of those on my walls the rest of my life. All those cute, clever digital alterations in the Natl Geo that arrived last nite have already started to bore me. Doubt I'll even finish
the articles.

[archphotofisher]

Frankly I posit this question differently for people, because I know that from vast comparable experience that I can fairly well match MY LF images with a DSLR and T/S lenses.

I don't need LF-I like LF. I like the methodology. I like the historic practice. I like the challenge. I like the deliberateness and the pace. I shoot digital almost every day for commercial work. I appreciate that my personal work is done radically different so it doesn't feel like just more work.

Beautifully said Kirk!!

[Jac@stafford.net]

Frankly I posit this question differently for people, because I know that from vast comparable experience that I can fairly well match MY LF images with a DSLR and T/S lenses.

I don't need LF-I like LF. I like the methodology. I like the historic practice. I like the challenge. I like the deliberateness and the pace. I shoot digital almost every day for commercial work. I appreciate that my personal work is done radically different so it doesn't feel like just more work.

And the difference is that the outcome of your LF work cannot possibly be shown on today's digital presentations/monitors so it will live beyond, for the better.