The commercial photog I know is quite profit motivated, as is the photog that shot the magazine cover, as I'm sure many other local and area commercial photogs are. A lot of them have tried digital and gone back to film. I don't think it's profit motive that's the issue. I think there are issues of quality. You yourself said that there are no, or few, decent labs in your area. Here we have more than can be counted. Last time I looked there were more than 77 labs processing film with an hour drive of San Francisco. Huge amounts of transparencies and C41 are processed at the NewLab (http://www.newlab.com/) in The City, as well as digi work. Pictopia (http://www.pictopia.com/) in that one square mile radius I mentioned earlier provides service to photographers world-wide. If you were to see the small gallery in their entrance area you's recognize some very well known photographs and be totally blown away by their quality (and size). My point here is that maybe film still lives in the area because we've got the labs with the skills and the desire and the temperament to work with it and do a good job.
And personally, I still believe film can provide better quality than digital in many situations. It seems I'm not alone in that feeling ... at least not out here in the boonies <LOL> Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 6/22/2005 4:03:18 AM > Subject: Re: Are your photos too good? > > I'm pleased to here that film thrives in the bay area, but you have to > remember that San Francisco is unique in so many ways. It boasts a > broad arts-based culture that has spawned a group of serious > photographers who aren't anywhere near as profit motivated as those in > other cities.
