Let me start by saying that I would love to have an ULF camera, especially a 12x20 or 7x17 or any of the Cirkut cameras. However, Iím having a hard time justifying the cost of the camera plus additional lenses, film, processing, etcÖ and Iím curious to know why those who use ULF are using them. I know that some people use ULF because they want to print with processes that require contact prints. However, it seems that inkjet negatives are becoming a real alternative for contact printing, and this process should only get better. Also, some will say that they just canít live with anything less than the detail and sharpness they get with ULF. But I'm not sure that I believe that enlarging, or scanning, a 4x5 negative, even if it's cropped, to any of the ULF contact print sizes is enough of a loss to worry about. And some will say that they like the slower, more thoughtful pace of working with ULF. But I can do this with a 2 megapixel digital camera if I choose to. So what am I missing here? Is there any real utility to ULF? I guess Iím attracted to ULF because Iím fascinated by the cameras themselves and especially the historical aspect of the older cameras and processes. (Iím starting to think that coated glass plate negatives would be fun.) But what do I tell my wife, other than there's a fine line between a hobby and insanity, to justify spending this much money on yet another camera? Thanks for your thoughts!