Examples of Large Format shots that cannot be done with small

[Vaughn]

I suppose I could post many of my LF photos here. I think the primary difference between LF and any other imaging device is the amount of image control one has -- it can not be matched with your standard 35mm or MF camera. Tilt, swing and all that is what I am referring to. The trouble is is finding an image that the use of movements is obvious -- I generally do not want it to be noticable!

"Mistaking the Map for the Territory" 16x20 silver gelatin print from 4x5 negative.

[Kirk Gittings]

Not quite Garrett. There is virtually nothing that I do with LF that I cannot do with digital. I don't use soft focus lenses or alternative processes etc. My work is pretty straight forward. Having said all that-to get what I want in a final product via digital actually takes MORE work and MORE time with digital than LF.

[Vaughn]

Not quite Garrett. There is virtually nothing that I do with LF that I cannot do with digital. I don't use soft focus lenses or alternative processes etc. My work is pretty straight forward. Having said all that-to get what I want in a final product via digital actually takes MORE work and MORE time with digital than LF.

The extra work to get the digital to match you LF work -- is that primarily post-processing? Or perhaps something like 20% more work photographing and 30% more work post-processing? (by post-processing, I mean time spent working on the image after photographing).

[Bill_1856]

Polaroid.

[Kirk Gittings]

20 and 80 more like it I think Vaughn because my standard in a digital FA print is based on 4x5 film.

[Bob Salomon]

Polaroid.

There was a Polaroid back for the Nikon F in the 50s. And, of course, most MF SLR cameras had Polaroid backs.

[Bob Salomon]

I once had an assignment to photograph the world's largest collection of watch cocks at 1:1. At the time I shot every thing from 35mm up to and including 810. It was far easier, and faster, to shoot them ganged on 45 then doing them individually on smaller formats. Also much less expensive to shoot and print not to mention processing and finishing time doing 4 at a time rather the 1 at a time.

[Jim Galli]

If it wasn't for soft focus pictorial work, I'd ditch the big cameras. Include Pt/Pd printing as well. Other non traditional methods of print making also. For soft focus, you need brute force. 8X10 film. Although I've seen some nice soft focus things done digitally too. Send them to my web pages. It's not an argument anyone really needs to "win".

[Paul Metcalf]

Bill_1856 brings up the only thing I can think of, and I'll generalize a bit more on his response, by stating that you can only make in-camera "originals" with LF. "Original" in this sense meaning a final product for presentation without any additional processing (i.e. printing) or projecting. So polaroids (on edit - but maybe not given Bob S.'s response above), or shooting directly on positive printing paper, or coated plates, etc. etc.

I need to turn your question around in order to think of at least one thing I can do with my 35mm system that I can't do with LF, and that is sports, or action, photography. You can do street photography (obviously) with LF but it's kind of hard to do sports stuff well.

I'm with Kirk, I don't use LF for any advantage over 35mm, just like the workflow and process of LF (and I've shot about 500 digitial pics since the new year). I just shrug off any debate on this subject.

[Kirk Gittings]

I just shrug off any debate on this subject.

Me too. These issues don't interest me much anymore. I love film and what I can do with it. I love digital for what I can do with it.