In article ,
Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

That's really what digital is about: money. But the problem for
professional work as I see it is what's the benefit of a streamlined
work flow (which in fact requires significant investment not only in
high end digital cameras but constant computer upgrades...) if
at the end of that work flow all you have is the money and not
concrete images? A professional's portfolio is what gets them work.
I've never interviewed with a potential client yet who wasn't
"Oooh!" and Ahh!" impressed when they see an actual 4x5
transparency. Digital just doesn't have the same impact.

No doubt.

A lot of things can go wrong with electronics; I witnessed a
photographer recently lose all his images due to a bad storage
card (don't let anayone tell you these storage cards are reliable...)
Film is less problematic and more reliable. I'd always rather
rather add the extra step of shooting and then scanning the image.

Again I concur. Still with dying labs all around means I'll have to
process my own C41 & E6,.... as long as I can get chemistry.

You'll get better quality if you run your own
E6 w/control strips one shot than with any lab's
dip and dunk or machine. You just need to run
enough conrtrol strips to adjust the chemistry
per batch. Course you need status A densitometer.
Very economical when processing large batches of
film (far less than labs charge per sheet.) For
just a few sheets labs are cheaper.

OTOH, if you want a good lab to send out to try
www.reedphoto.com I know Bob Reed and Reeds does
E6 and lab work for many well known photographers.



--
Tom Phillips