If my tone was "frustrated", to use a word, it is because that is how I was feeling when I posted! The I am going to have to crop my images with this format is a just-plain-ol' frustrating statement. I can't see how anyone who is truly thinking and on the ball about images and technique would think that...but it is sooo common!
I did not say that there was no good reason for the 6x8 option. Not at all. Where did you get that? I said that what it does is dreadfully obvious: to give one a different size of image. What is the difference between one and two? Well, two is more. It goes without saying. Your question was, then, "What does more do for me?" This is what frustrated me, as it is such a basic question for someone with your high amount of participation in photography discussion. The advantages of larger formats is such a common question, and many, many discussions of it can be found on these very forums.
I too have never used an RB in 6x8 format, and learned two very important details: One terribly important detail added was that the you cannot compose the entire shot in the viewfinder. The other was that the image size is only 7.4 cm on the long side. However, these are specific details of a specific system, not a sweeping comparison of two formats, which is what you asked for. ("What is the main advantage if any of a 6x8 negative over a 6x7 negative?")
I do not state nor imply that my way of thinking and doing should be everyone's way. Not at all! I was stating exactly the opposite, in a way, because I was stating that you should do things your own way, instead of the paper company's way. I stated that if you are letting standard paper sizes alone determine the aspect ratio of your images, then you aren't really thinking about images (vision and intent), or about technique (largely common sense). You are thinking in boxes.
Did I say there was never any reason whatsoever to print to fit a standard paper size? Of course not. But there is no good reason to do it as a matter of course, unless working commercially and that is one of the criteria for the client...and there is also no good reason to shoot 6x8 instead of 6x7 if you aim to always fill a standard-sized printing paper...except perhaps a slight amount of "shift".
So, you think I said stuff I did not say, and do not think that what I said means what it says.
Here we go again with the "Where are your pix?" argument on the Internet. SO common when someone doesn't like what someone sez, but an argument that makes no sense. My analog photos are just that: analog. Additionally, I am, for the most part, except for purposes of demonstration, against the Internet at a tool for sharing my pix (digital OR analog). If you really want to see them, really, truly, honestly, then ask to look at my negs or prints. No big deal. I am working on a million projects any any given time, always shooting, and though I am not extremely outgoing with the work, I don't mind flipping through it with folks I personally know. If you just want to use the fact that you can't see them online as a weapon against me, then do not bother mentioning them. The Internet is no place for photography that I intend to have for myself, in a book, on a wall, or for a "client", IMHO. I am not here to show pictures and get people to like them, or me. I am here to have fun B.S.ing about photography in an honest way, as I do with all things.
As for ass and idiot, well...OK. You are wrong, and I have a very thick skin, especially on the Internet, so you saying this is not a huge issue to me personally, but it does do something to the forums that is undesirable, I guess. You can use the ignore button if that is your opinion, and if you believe I am an ass and an idiot, you should. I certainly do use it, and would not hold it against anyone for doing the same!
I thought this thread was more about why people favour 6x8, and there are many reasons.
. That ratio is 1.6 exactly. I didn't plan it that way, I simply thought 5x7 was a bit short and since I have 5" roll film, I thought why not give it a go.
