You post proves it - just trolling.

I'll just bite a little more. I am an Electrical Engineer who spent 20 years designing and implementing image processing systems for the graphic arts industry. Our team's major task was to change prepress from film to digital. We were very, very successful. Have spent a significant amount of time studying film, optics, scanners, digital sensors, image processing, ... That's where my love of photography formed. At the end of the day, we all choose our own paths and it is rude to challenge other people's paths. Happy trolling. BTW, https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D850---Measurements has a nice graph of the dynamic range of the D850.

I agree with you on my lack of talent, but I never said that prints are not important. Please try to comprehend what is being said. If you think that your pictures are going to be stolen, you should get off your high horse. That is the very argument every untalented shutter pressers use. You should try to be more creative. And stop lying please. You have never posted a photo that you took. All you are doing is hiding behind your computer screen. But I know the outcome and you’ll be soon gone, looking for your narcissistic feed elsewhere. For that, I thank you. You are not the first or last.

No matter what you say, you cannot be taken seriously at all. Your claims about smaller sensors are ridiculous. You are trying to be someone you are not. But you would make a good comedian.

I'm glad someone has finally come on UHH and made this statement: "To be fair, I don’t think that a poster’s displayed work on UHH (or lack thereof) is any reason to discount any contention or argument that is made."

For me, the idea that I would have to post "bigger and better" in order to hold an opinion, or a express a like/dislike about someone else's image or "photograph" borders on the emotionally juvenile. Furthermore, 'name calling', malicious, or otherwise, is equally juvenile (i.e.;"troll" and "trolling" are popular indictments on so many forums).

Thank you for an "adult" post.

P.S.: I agree with the OP's statement; "The validity of an argument or truth of fact does not depend on who says it."

Sure, the right tool for the job! So how come the "right tool" nearly always seems to be the same tool, these days?
It didn't used to.

What other choices? Almost the only cameras being made now are color sensor digital cameras--99% of them are
miniature format or smaller.

If you want anything else, you have to buy it from elves int he Black Forest for $$$$$$$$. Or you
have to buy old equipment and restore it--the challenge there is that almost everything is missing
pieces--you can spend a fortune trying to get everything you need.

You can't even buy a digital camera with a monochrome (higher res, larger dyanmic range) sensor
except from Leica -- an M9 Monochrome for $8,000. Monochrome sensors are cheaper than color ones--
they're used in security cameras.

And you can forget about new rangefinders (extremely expensive), Twin-Lens Reflex, box cameras,
stereo cameras, or even an IR-capable camera (you have to have someone convert the sensor). All
of these things were once common. And the experience of using each type of camera is different:
you will do different work.

It's as if there were now no restraurants except burger joints. Sure, I like hamburgers! But sometimes
I want something else. And a diet of nothing but digital color minature format is bad for your
photographic health.

Optical laws dictate what each time of camera and each format can and cannot do well. But the
people who buy all these dinky digital color cameras are told they can do anything. And then
they tell each other that. But nobody believe that of film cameras--- you had to have the right
tool for the job. Marketing wasn't as powerful as it is today and there were a lot more companies
making cameras (many not based in Japan).

A 4" x 5" field (baseboard) camera is not necessarily heavy. The main reason 1920s and 1930s large
format cameras are heavy is they were made out of wood. They could just as easily be made from
aluminum (later, some were) or even plastic.

Please don't compare dodging and burning -- hands-on manual techniqued -- with running digital
algorithms that you didn't even write and don't know what they are actually doing to your image.
"Let's see, I'll click on 'sharpen', and then I'll click on...."

Obviously, if you want to take photos of cracks in the ground, you're going to need a very compact
and portable cameras. As it happens, I've photographed a lot underground, mostly in abandoned
mines. Most of those shots were taken with flash cubes, because at the time that was the smallest,
most rugged and most portable flash. Exposures always ran from white up close to yawning black
tunnels.

The shot you posted looks great--you should enter it in a contest. But do you really want to look at it?
For how long? What does eroded bedrock mean to you? And in most photography, not being able to tell
the scale of the subject or where the light is coming from are considered flaws.

It must have been a very challenging exposure. But other than that, this type of photography makes few
demands on your lens or camera: contrast is low, there are no straight lines, there are no essential details
that would be missed if lost. If the image had chromatic aberration, or geometric distoration, how would
you know?

OK, I realize there is now this thing "slot canyon photography" and photographers try to outdo each other.
I admit: I don't get it. Pictures of rocks.... and rocks.....and more rocks.... And not even any interesting
minerals.

Sure, it's is kinda like what Edward Weston did in the late 1920s and early 1930s with vegetables, sea shells,
and women's bodies. But those things are living --and he varied it. It wasn't just green bell peppers all the time.
And then later, he quit doing it, because it was becoming a cliche, other people had started doing it, and he didn't
want to be "founder of the green pepper school".

And it's never just about abstract forms with Edward Weston. Many of the images are eroticized. And mody of
the images are contrasty and employ a full range of tones. And then there's the fact that B&W emphasizes form,

But shoot landcape or architecture, and you very quickly find the limitation of you lens and camera.
Different tools for different jobs, indeed.

Finally, when I go backpacking in the desert, I'm not worried about the weight of my camera, so much
as about all the water I need to carry to go two to four nights. But most of the time---like most photographers--
I'm on a day hike or close to my car. So how come -- even at roadside vista points---I never see anything but
miniature and subminiature format color digital cameras? For landscape, that's not the right tool.

"What camera do I use? The heaviest one I can lift!" -- Ansel Adams