Why digital?

[arthur_gottschalk]

Remember that some of these comercial photo shoots have budgets deep

into six digits. A top commercial pro -- product, food or fashion--

has a very large budget to work with and has many high-end jobs each

year. Much of the gear is rented or leased, and the costs of the gear

that is purchased can be amortized over several years. The whole

thing strikes me as quite similar to the conversion of newspapers

from manual typeset to computerized page make-up. Those type setters

were quickly out of a job once the union's stranglehold was

broken,and the newspapers saved millions. The entire process-- from

editing to hard copy was streamlind, and the newspapers saved

millions.

I believe that traditional wet photography will soon be reduced

to an antiquarian hobby and/or fine art. I'm comfortable with that.

[jason_j.]

I know it's been said many times above, but I just wanted to again

state why digital IS important and worth that kind of $$$ in some

situations. I've assisted at some catalog studios where it will save

them money and pay for itself in the matter of a year and a half or

two years. No more polaroid costs, film costs, processing costs,

delivery costs to run film to the developer, shipping of film since

digital can be sent via modem and even the extra labor costs

associated with waiting for film at the lab.

 

<p>

 

In 35mm and medium format, newspapers and magazines get the instant

photos without development time. I freelance for one of the biggest

papers in the nation and they use digital at sports events so they

can send photos via modem straight back to the editor's desk. This

saves an extra hour or so associated with driving the film back to

the paper and waiting for development.

 

<p>

 

So, it's all about time and money...

[dan_smith]

Complaining that View Camera didn't offer the alternative of using a

new Canon D60 rather than the high end digital camera backs is

foolish at best. View Camera is a Large Format magazine... and the

D30 and the comparable cameras are nowhere near large format.

Then there is the difference is professional tools designed & made to

do a specific job. A world apart from "adequate", which is why these

large sums are spent.

The price of top of the line LF gear is a lot more than an old

Calumet woodfield. Deardorffs have been thought overly expensive & a

waste of money by many who would not pay the price years ago.

It is all relative.

Pixelography is a fine way to go for many even with its limitations.

It is continually finding more use in the LF fold as well and will

only continue to do so.

Digital and film is no longer a debate but a choice we make for

ourselves. A viable choice both ways depending on your goal.