There are photographs that are simply not possible with larger formats. The weight of the camera, the subject matter, the need for discretion all affect what camera would be right for the job. I tend to see the difference between formats as a static vs. dynamic dichotomy. What photographs from the greats, however you define them, would be better on a bigger format? What I've noticed, as I've gotten into film, after starting with digital, is that I take fewer risks with film. For one, film, chemicals and paper all cost money, and the process after taking the photograph requires a considerable amount of time. I think trying to be stingy robs your creativity. It leaves less room for happy accidents. I've been down to the last shots on a roll and walked by a lot of subject matter looking for the shots to finish the roll. Later I was disappointed when I developed the film and remembered those scenes, and realized that none of them were on the roll. Why miss out on something because of your dedication to a way of doing things? Doesn't that shortsightedness undermine creativity? What I know about my own development as a photographer is how much being able to be liberal in the use of the camera contributed to my abilities. If nothing else, as a starting point, being able to not think about the minutia that a photographer can choose to think about is a good way to ease into the craft. Doing something the hard way has nothing to do with being a photographer. Making photographs does. Besides, the cello is not necessarily a more creative instrument than the violin. Each is its own genre and lends themselves well to their domains.
