[LargeFormat] Why Large Format?

[Paul and Paula Butzi]

> So then, ladies and gentlemen, here is the question:
> 
> Why Large Format?
> 

I started using large format because I wanted prints larger than
5x7 to be 'sharp', whatever that means.

Along the way, I discovered that (conventional wisdom to the
contrary notwithstanding) large format photography is easier 
that 35mm and medium format.  The negatives require less
enlargement, so that errors like camera vibration are
less of an issue.  There's no need to make sure that each
negative is exposed just enough, and no more, just to
avoid graininess; grain is just not an issue.  Exposure errors
are easier to recover from - a massively overexposed
35mm negative is nearly worthless, but a similarly
overexposed 4x5 negative may print quite nicely.
I'm not sure I understand why, but I'd far rather
try to dig shadow detail out of an underexposed
4x5 negative than do the same with an underexposed
35mm frame.  You've got movements, both for
perspective correction and creative manipulation
of the image, and for moving the focus plane.

I worked exclusively with 4x5 for about 4 years.  When
I started working in 35mm again, I discovered that getting
prints I felt were decent from 35mm negatives was
an arduous, painful process compared to printing
from 4x5.  Doing the printing for my most recent
project done in 35mm, I quite literally put dents
in the darkroom walls from banging my head
in frustration.

But in the end, it's not the 'sharpness', nor the
more forgiving larger negative, or even the
somewhat more contemplative, slower
working style.

It's the tonality.  You can make nice prints
from 35mm, and really nice prints from
120 roll film.

But you look at a good print from a good 4x5 or
larger negative, and by golly, there are more
shades of grey and subtle tonality, Horatio, 
than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

-Paul