The job wasn't difficult though it had to be done right the first time as we wouldn't get a second chance. So, I shot 7 frames total. Two each on Astia and 64 Tungsten and three with Fuji NPS. The backup shot with each film was in case there was a processing glitch on the first one. I also used the three films because we had four differing light sources in the image. The image is attached so you can see how it turned out.

I first went to the site, framed and shot a B&W and had the client approve the shot. Then we waited three months for the sun to travel southward so our late evening light would be above the main part of the building to showcase it and balance out the Big O tire sign which would loom over the work bays on the other end. As you can see, it worked well.

Metering was relatively easy as I spot metered the light through the translucent awning and opened up 2.3 stops to hold the edge of detail. I metered the sky and had it one stop under midtone to give a nice complement to the top of the building. We had washed and watered down the drive to get reflections from the building and I metered it to make sure it wasn't going to disappear on me. With three different types of lighting on and in the building I thought the print film would work best but shot the two chromes to cover me just in case. The primary film was the 160 NPS, with the two others shot after it in succession, giving a bit more exposure on each to cover the slower film speed.

It worked well and the lab did a nice job. We burned in one area in the background to the left of the building where you can see street lighting. On the finished 30x40 this street light is gone. That was the total of what was manipulated. The lab folks said they seldom see 8x10 anymore and the owner made my day when he came out & said it was well done. No digital, no problems and no crazy bracketing everyway from sunday. A straight shot and a straight result that did the job.

So, with the 8x10 I am ready for anything.

But, the 8x10 can't do it all by any means. For this job I could have shot anything from 4x5 up, but the loss of detail in the edges may have been more than I could live with. As it is the signs inside the building can be read in the print. Smaller formats wouldn't have allowed this. 35mm wouldn't do as the enlarging factor was too much. Having the control with the view camera made the shot this time. But, try using the view camera for wildlife. It just doesn't work.

If I shoot wildlife I use 35mm. Some friends shoot medium format but they don't do much with birds in flight or too much with really long lenses. They are more controlled. If I shoot sports I shoot 35mm, primarily B&W. Wildlife for me is always in color unless you are paying for B&W and even then I prefer color. Sports is just the opposite. I shoot B&W whenever possible. It is a balance of equipment and what I prefer. Just try shooting a flying duck with a 6x7 and you will see why 35mm is the camera of choice. Mount an 8x10 and you will be pulling your hair out. Match the gear to the job and you will get better results. And yes, I know a few masochists who insist on doing it the hard way, even myself on occasion.

If you can, use a larger format to do the job and you will end up with images that are sharper, cleaner and more impressive... all else being equal. But the trouble is that all else is seldom equal.

If I can, I shoot large format, with all its baggage. Bigger tripods and slower working methods. Portraits I do often with 8x10 and 5x7, with a few 4x5's in there. Otherwise I drop down to 35mm and go for more of a photojournalistic feel. I just opened a new show, Faces of Utah, here in Brigham City at the Cities museum gallery. Kent Miles and I are the two photographers in it. Kent has 18 images of Russian Jews who immigrated to Utah. Stunning images, flawless printing and excellent presentation. Kents works is excellent and most of these were shot with a Rollei twin lens reflex camera. Mine vary form 8x10 and 5x7 contacts, some enlargements from 5x7 negs and then 35mm with lenses from normal to 600. Very different tools and different styles. Both of us chose what worked for the images.

Some ask often what format camera to buy. They know I shoot big cameras & then they see me on the sideline at a wrestling match (real wrestling-HS, college & international-not the TV slobs) with a 35mm and 300 f/2.8 lens. It is a matter of using what works. I shoot wrestling with a 105 f/1.8 and the 300 and both work for different images. I shoot 8x10 with the few lenses I have and can afford. If you will buy me some I will use more. But, you can't do it all, at least not at the same time. Shooting wrestling or football with an 8x10? It can be done but you would have to be crazy to do it. 35mm is the format of choice here. Motor drives and quick handling make it work. A team photo calls for the 4x5 or larger. Exquisite detail and tonality make for good prints. A lot of faces in the picture and sharpness helps here.

Maybe one of these days I will get a Mamiya 6 or 7, or a Fuji 645. We will see. I can't carry everything and I tend to move up to 4x5 or larger from the 35mm cameras. Yes, you can make anything work if you push hard enough but doing so often compromises more than just the gear. I compromises the final image as you push to make it with gear that doesn't really do the job right. Fewer good images and frustration in getting them. I have photographed sports with a 4x5 and will take a 35mm motor driven camera any day of the week. Greater output and more lens choices. I have photographed buildings with 35mm and will go for the adjustable view camera in a heartbeat. As for people, if I were doing a lot of weddings and portraits I would use medium format for its quality.

Choosing the right tool for the job makes it a lot easier and more enjoyable. As always, it is the finished image that counts and the client doesn't care what you use if the result is great. That is what we always try to give them and choosing the right tools makes it easier to do so.