Before going digital, I had gotten to the point where my two major clients -- magazines and stock -- were insisting on digital files. So I had resorted to scanning medium format. That was both very expensive and very time consuming. Digital was the obvious solution.
> 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 > > > >
