Digital BW, The Print

Peter writes:

> 1.  The pro's (or the art directors or other
> clients) have high standards for quality.

Not necessarily.  Photojournalists have low standards for quality, because
most print and electronic use of images does not require anything beyond a
postcard-sized reproduction.  Their priority is timeliness.  Naturally, they
went to digital early and en masse, since digital provides time savings,
even if the quality suffers a bit (but it is still enough for PJ use).

Art directors are sometimes under time constraints, too, like catalog and
product photographers, and some other types of photography.  When time is
more important than quality, digital wins.  When quality is all that
matters, film wins.

> The fact that they are working in digital
> shows that digital can meet high standards.

See above.

> 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.

This conflicts with your first assertion.  Is quality job one, or isn't it?

Non-pros have a very wide variety of reasons for taking pictures, and few
constraints.  They don't have to be fast or productive.  They don't even
have to be consistent or reliable.

> Many film shooters are not thinking through
> the money angle on digital.

Many digital shooters aren't, either.

As a group, photographers tend to be more artists than engineers.  They
usually go by feeling, not by fact.  In both the digital and film camps, it
is hard to find any photographers who actually base their preferences on
cold, hard facts, and not simply on intuition, superstition, rumor, habit,
advernture, or incorrect/superficial impressions.

> They only see the cost of the body but they
> fail to take into account the cost of the film
> and processing ...

Rather like digital photographers who only talk about the cost of film and
processing, and sweep the $10,000 they've spent on gear under the rug.

> But serious amateurs who shoot a hundred
> or more rolls of film a year are probably
> way ahead with digital.

If all they care about is money, that might be true.  But if amateurs cared
only about money, they wouldn't be amateurs.

In my case, I care essentially only about quality.  I want the best quality
I can afford.  Currently, that requires film.  It's as simple as that.