So, while one saves a few bucks on film, much more time can be spent editing and correcting the work. Then, really, is there that much of a savings (just talking about $$ v time, nothing to do with quality, etc.). I can see this as being less of an issue for some bigshot pro who's billing a high hourly or job rate, but for the average photog who's doing fewer and smaller jobs per year, is the savings really that great?
Shel > From: William Robb > Fra said: > > Well, how much time did you spend on it yourself? That's unpaid > > hours > > of photoshop work I surmise? A lot of my smaller clients are really > > surprised that I ask for "that much" when I am shooting on > > digital... > > not getting that I have to work at it on the computer, even if I > > got > > the photographs pretty right in the first place. > > > > Thats digital's dirty little secret. It takes much of the workload > off the photo lab and puts it squarely in the photographers lap. > > William Robb >
