As Valerie mentioned, MF & 35mm are quickies, LF is a long slow... rack and pinion focusing, knob twiddling. I wanted a 4x5 camera so I could do proper sized alt process prints as opposed to my box brownie 6x9 negatives. I like close up shots and the 4x5 camera is quite good at that without needing extra lenses.
I have patience for craft, less so for process, whatever gets me there in the end.
And honestly I like developing sheets singly as I could never really finish off a roll of 35mm. I have a few rolls of 120 hanging around in some cameras too, one of which has been in there for definitely over 6 months. It's almost more immediate, in that context, that I can shoot something, pop it in my paterson tank (yeah I know I'm weird), pour in some rodinal-y water, shake shake shake, 15minutes later I can see how the exposure was and in the context of my self portraits, if I got the focus right or the composition right.
It's repressed only if you don't buy an 8x10. Once you buy one, all that repression is released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Miller
Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?
__________________
I just want to feel nostalgic like I used to.
The only photographer whose enlargements are so close in quality to his contact prints that I have trouble telling the difference is Brett Weston. However, I cantell the difference if I look really closely, so if you want truly best possible print quality out of a negative, don't enlarge it. But you're only gaining 2% or so of quality. Is it worth it? Maybe.
Caressing the voluptuous 8x10 (err, 10x8) is far more gratifying than the teeny 35. Sliding the film holders in and out is like an act of love with each shot.
- 
Linear Mode
