Originally posted by tuco Yes, Norm, I have a 4x5 and I post in a large format photography forum. I have owned a 4x5 for about 20 years and shoot it now and then and certainly not as much as medium format. Since I never seen you post any of your film shots, I can only guess you don't shoot it much if at all except maybe for some class you took?
That why I posted picture by famous artists who did shoot large format... just saying, many of the most famous were great at keeping their whole subject in focus. You constantly ignore the historical perspective, narrow DoF is an artistic conceit championed by a group of photographers led by Alfred Stieglitz. It was not at the time of it's invention nor has it ever been universally accepted. The ƒ64 group, which included Ansel Adams championed a completely different perspective. Not everyone is, or ever was in love with narrow DoF. Personally, myself and many others find the whole extreme narrow thing tedious and un-inventive. IN fact if you go into landscape and wildlife you'll barely ever see it used except out of necessity. I haven't shot large format since I left school. That doesn't mean I haven't forgotten the challenges.
SO all you've said here is you like shooting large format for narrow DoF. I liked shooting large format for tilt shift controls and intense image quality. I'm not seeing a problem with either of those approaches, unless one of us starts trying to say all large Format photographers prefer narrow DoF features of large format. Many of us did our best to overcome them and produce large completely in focus stunning photographs through the manipulation of the lens position and tilt, and the incredible detail of the Large format sensor size. My whole studio class was devoted to that. As I said, in many assignments ,if you didn't get your whole subject in focus, you failed. Picking part of the subject and just emphasizing that one part, any fool can do that.
Just putting out a different perspective to the endless barage of "I have to have an FF for narrow DoF" non-sense. The opposite view is, many really good photographers, would have considered it displayed a lack of skill. They would have failed my studio class.
Much of the narrow DoF stuff here is proposed as if it's universally accepted, and there are no other perspectives on the subject, and that's just wrong.
I'd be happier with a statement like, "you'll be happier with an FF if you are hoping to achieve narrow DoF, but that may not actually suit your style." And leave it up t the individual to decide if that's important to him. Saying I need an FF for narrow DoF, well first you have to establish that the person actually wants that. Not everyone does. Or not everyone would buy a camera just for that. You have lots of narrow DoF opportunities with your APS_c gear. You have to be a bit of a narrow DoF enthusiast to require equipment , just to achieve more narrow DoF than APS-c offers. Not that there's anything wrong with that if you are.
Now if you're a professional and you want a distinctive look to set you apart from the amateurs, that's a whole different argument, and definitely one that leans towards MF.