A few interesting aspects about this: All those guys are more workshop oriented than professional photographer. It gets stated too often about the cost of film, but in a proper professional billing environment, that expense is paid by the client, either directly, or it is included in the overall fees. The same goes for drum scanning. Seriously, film is a zero cost item for me; I don't see why anyone else would eat the cost of film and processing in commercial imaging.
Drum scanning is a huge bag of worms. The cost can easily be billed out directly, or someone could take that same $30k that was mentioned and buy a nice drum scanner, or even a high end flat scanner. Anyone with a film catalogue of years of images is not likely to throw out all their old film, even if they thought a digital back was the best idea since holes in Swiss cheese. A Heidelberg Tango is now over seven years old; I even saw a couple sell recently for under $8k (complete and working, including dedicated computer). That Aztek is better, but not by much; want the latest in drum scanners, find an ICG; with the qualification that any scanner is operator dependant, so results will vary. High end flatbed Creo, Screen, and Fujifilm scanners come super close to matching many drum scans.
I guess if anything really bothers me about these comparisons, it is the implied message that you must have some form of digital capture. People use to be able to get really nice looking images, either chemical based or published, starting with film capture. I don't think that has changed. Anyone who got nice images in the past from 4x5 should not have much reason to not get nice images today. Basically, if you cannot create compelling images, then maybe it is not the camera, nor the form of capture (digital .vs. film, choice of film, et al).
Last item is digital capture as pacifier. There is a certain doubt everytime the shutter is released. Despite the best and most careful set-up, lots of thought into composition, or even long time of contemplation, the reality remains that what you just exposed to film might be boring, or just so-so. That digital back, tethered system, or any preview of that careful set-up you hope makes a compelling image, is the pacifier. Some people will find this works better for them; they can shoot with more confidence because some slight doubt is removed. Those without good editing skills, or those somewhat unsure about editing choices, can use the preview. Obviously, such use of digital capture is mostly a digital Polaroid. I think that while some will greatly appreciate this approach, and thrive with it, this is more something that alleviates doubt, rather than a path to greatness.
Simple approach to all this:
Creativity should not be technology, nor economically, limited.
Film allows plenty of room for profits in commercial imaging today, unless you have a bad invoicing system.
Digital capture is faster, and can sometimes alleviate doubts.
Not all of us have a question/problem that digital capture answers.
The bleeding edge of technology is expensive, and turnover rate is high.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Bookmarks