--
Dario Bonazza wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
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?
It depends on the use a pro picture is meant for. Since in many cases the slide/neg should become a digital file (scanned and then balanced, and then despeckled, and then done everything a digital picture needs), the all-digital process is an appreciable shortcut. In this kind of instances the savings are even more than those discussed here so far. They are both for cost of developing and for photoshopping time.
If your slide just has to be used straight as a slide... a slide is needed!
I mean that there are several possibilities in comparing cost and time to spend between analog and digital, and the balance can be vary a lot in different situations.
Dario Bonazza
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
