What’s your most “unpopular” opinion about LF?

[Michael R]

"lol"

[martiansea]

Last I heard, painters didn't use lenses...

David Hockney would disagree!

[Vaughn]

David Hockney would disagree!

And perhaps Holly Roberts...

[John Layton]

yes...some painters (and draw-ers) used lenses in their early "pre-photographic" era camera obscuras to help them in their craft. (also camera lucidas, which were a bit different). Many of the obscuras were later pressed into service as (photographic) cameras, once that guy Herschel figured out how to fix an image for greater permanence. (lots of controversy about this, also with due respect to Josiah Wedgwood - but I'll leave this alone for now!).

But what is completely over the top is that the Vikings gained enough skill in lathe-turning and polishing glass so that some of their "lenses" (likely used to start fires) could actually rival mid-20th century optics! Then there was that guy Ibn al Hatham (9th century I think?) ...convicted and jailed as a heretic because he could not reverse the course of the Nile (as he had earlier promised) to satisfy early political/engineering desires - and then spent his time while in confinement basically writing a treatise on the human optical system! Oh...and then there was Nero - who made use of naturally occurring crystals as corrective eyeware! All kinds of amazing early talents conspiring to ultimately cause all of us wild and crazy photo-geeks and nerds to end up on this forum! Imagine!

[linhofbiker]

Exposure is not complicated - just follow the "sunny 16" rule or "sunny 22" at the beach. Kodak can't be wrong since they put it in/on the box (for little films)

[xkaes]

All kinds of amazing early talents conspiring to ultimately cause all of us wild and crazy photo-geeks and nerds to end up on this forum! Imagine!

And, as you point out, let's not forget about all the anti-science ignoramuses who got in the way! Imagine where we might be today if the "Dark Ages" never happened. Who knows, digital cameras might be an artifact of the distant past, and as obscure as the camera obscura.

[rdenney]

Monorail cameras are too heavy and wood folders are better for use in the field

That was going to be my entry.

Rick “out…standing in the field” Denney

[pdmoylan]

That was going to be my entry.

Rick “out…standing in the field” Denney

…as long as the field cameras have all movements but particularly rear rise, fall and shift. Makes compositions that much easier.

Have always preferred the precision and rigity of a monorail in the field, but sure lighter and compact is preferred.

[Vaughn]

Not all monorails are heavy. My 4x5 monorail is 1.75 pounds (800 grams).

For some tastes it not as rigid enough, no indents...so not very precise for some (but very accurate -- what is on the GG goes onto the film), the only rear movement are swing and tilt, and a few other minor details which definitely keep it out of the class of the more expensive and heavier machines.

Eureka Valley Dunes taken with the camera and my (boring, and only) 150mm lens -- my friend in the distance is also using the same camera, but he used more exciting lenses.
And a skull in the snow in the upper Mono Lake Basin, taken with the same boring lens on the same trip as we were heading home.

[Corran]

I'm sure most of us field cam folks wouldn't turn down a sub-2lb monorail (Gowland?). But I think the vast majority of commonly-available monorails, especially in the lower price brackets, are much heavier and bulkier than a cheap Intrepid, Crown Graphic, or any of the many field folders.

At least that's what I see from new 4x5 shooters, toting a $100 Calumet and cursing the weight/size. And God-forbid they've dragged it out in the storage box!