Why do you (still) shoot LF?

[Uri Kolet]

And also because there's room for only ONE person under the dark cloth.

[Capocheny]

And also because there's room for only ONE person under the dark cloth.

Hi Uri,

Not always!

Cheers

[domenico Foschi]

For the quality of the approach.
It has taught me economy, discipline and strangely enough, freedom.
I can fit to my cameras 140 years old lenses!! That alone is enough.
Better tonalities and less grain than smaller formats.

[Daniel_Buck]

for me coming from 35mm film and digital, I like the slow pace of the 4x5, everything being deliberate. I'm not quite sure why I enjoy this, but I do. Maybe subconsciously it makes me appreciate the photos more?

[Bule]

Because it's so damned much fun! The cameras themselves are marvels of mechanical ingenuity and craftsmanship, and operating one is like a hands on lesson in optics and perspective control, while composing an upside down and reversed image on a large screen under a dark cloth is an exercise in psychooptical physics, with so many pitfalls along the way, making a useful exposure is akin to running the table in billiards. And if you like puzzles the way I do, calculating an exposure is a multivariable grinfest. In fact, every step of the process, from loading the film holders, to framing the print is accompanied by giggles, despite the multiple and accumulative errors and miscalculations that always leave perfection visible on the horizon, but seductively beyond reach. The gear, the materials, the processes and the expressive opportunities they present provide me infinite fascination and endless amusement. I suppose if I was the golf club throwing type, I might be less tolerant of my many, photoruinous mistakes, and seek a format less prone to failure, but I am failure-friendly, and love the format, warts and all. Besides, no one is watching, or keeping score, and I only show my best work, as if it was made as casually as a Polaroid snapshot, otherwise my sanity would be an open question, and my allocation of resources "under review". In short, large format = big fun.

[Narcissist]

Mostly because a digital back of comparable quality costs over £20,000 and even then I’m not sold on digital b&w. Sort these 2 issues and my camera would probably be on ebay.

6x7 cameras do not offer me movements and with it the freedom to use the compositions I often desire.

[Peter Lewin]

Aside from many of the other reasons already given, there is something about the darkroom process that just feels different with an LF negative, the tactile feel of a 4x5 for example, as compared with a strip of 35mm. I guess it is a subset of "image quality", burning and dodging and contrast choice seems more rewarding when its a large negative in the enlarger, and in some perverse way I enjoy tray developing...(is that the source of the phrase "enjoying getting your hands wet?")

By the way, I loved the response "because a chimp can't do it." Reminded me of the old VW campaign which showed a shift knob above the text: "It makes you feel needed."

[Ron Marshall]

If and when an approximately 40 MP digital back (not scanning) is available for less than $5000 I would probably buy one.

[ljb0904]

I don't like squinting through the stupid little 35mm eyehole. I can't focus well.

[sanking]

Thanks for the medical advice, I'll consider the source and take it for what it's worth. But just so you know - I don't print larger than 16x20.

Just so you know, my remark was not personally directed toward you, nor did I even have you in mind when I made it. I was already aware that you do not print larger than 16X20 because you have made that point several times in the past.

Sandy King