Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:

> > It's MOST of what there is professionally.
> 
> And most of photography in the world is done with disposable film 
cameras.
> Should we look to the use of disposable film cameras
> for future trends, then?

Only if that's the level of skill and quality we aspire to.

The reasons why the pro's matter are:

1.  The pro's (or the art directors or other clients) have high 
standards for quality.  The fact that they are working in digital 
shows that digital can meet high standards.

2.  The pro's need to be productive, so technology that allows them 
to work faster, create a larger percentage of "keepers", and get 
more consistent or reliable results, appeals to them and should 
appeal to non-pro's on the same basis.

> > Being cheaper doesn't make something better.
> 
> No, but being both cheaper and better makes something 
> a more logical choice for someone who wants the best 
> quality for his budget.

Many film shooters are not thinking through the money angle on 
digital.   They only see the cost of the body but they fail to take 
into account the cost of the film and processing, or the value of 
their own time and cost of chemicals if they develop the film 
themselves.

Weekend snapshooters who only shoot a few dozen rolls a year may 
still find film cheaper.  But serious amateurs who shoot a hundred 
or more rolls of film a year are probably way ahead with digital.   
I use an Olympus 3030, which was $700 when I bought it a few years 
ago, for studio test shots and that's paid for itself many times 
over by reducing the amount of film I use, just in the studio!   If 
Nikon had a full-format DSLR then I could switch to digital for 
everything and save an even bigger bundle.   So I just don't 
understand the argument that digital is "expensive".   I see it as a 
cost REDUCTION option.