No, I'm not thinking of jumping off a bridge, swallowing poison, or watching a Matthew McConaughey movie; this pertains mostly to architectural photography.
I'd like to ask, with the stitching and perspective control available in PS, and armed with, say, a 5D MkII and maybe even a tilt/shift lens, why would I or anyone bother shooting LF?
Am I carrying around all that gear for a small increase in image quality?
I have to correct in PS half the time as it is; I imagine this might get better over time as I'm a newbie to the precision involved with buildings, but I'd still have to use PS.
I shot four buildings yesterday from a moving car with my 5D, and I was able to correct all but one in PS in under 5 minutes each. When I go back with a tripod and a few minutes to spare, the photos will turn out much better, but still...
I've never been an advocate of "fix it in the mix", but it's quite tempting to try to work that way.