In article <312BC1E9.19C3@inow.com>, jeffp@inow.com says...
>Robert M Atkins wrote: (snip)
>> I never shoot slower than f16 (applies to 35mm of course, not LF!)

>Why doesn't this apply to large format? I have seen LF lenses with
>ridiculously small min apertures. Is there some reason diffraction
>plays less of a role in larger negatives? Is it just that you end up
>using less enlargement in printing, so the reduction in sharpness is >not as noticeable?

You've got it! I do find my limit for 4x5 to be about f32 rather
than the smaller aperture a bit of number-crunching would indicate,
probably since I expect more from 4x5 than 35mm and want to be able
to peer closely at the print made from 4x5 - and I generally make
larger prints from 4x5 negatives than from 35mm. BTW, one of my
lenses has an f128 on it - I tried it just once!
Hope This Helps