Have Fun,
Jeff

I too am shocked about Kodak. I never imagined that they would go bankrupt. And I too shot cases of Tri-x, Plus-x and Kodachrome.

“You burden digital with an expensing that results in a more dynamic, flexible product and call it even.”
I’m not burdening digital with extra expenses, it’s just that digital requires software manipulation and calibration.

“Your thesis says that a box of slides is just as good as a cataloged, keyworded, color-corrected LR database, and cheaper to boot.”
They are. I’ve been taking photographs since before there were personal computers. My slides and negs are still cataloged on 3×5 cards, and I have no problem finding any image I’m looking for. These 4×5 cards are my catalogue, and are keyworded. Slides don’t need to be color corrected either.

“Now, that box of slides may have the last laugh in 100 years”
I’ll let you check that out. I feel that I will be otherwise occupied in 100 years.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Film and digital each have their own pros and cons. Like any tool, you have to choose the right one for a specific job. I find that I shoot the same number of exposures with digital as I did with film. The unit cost was not a consideration to me, getting the proper image was all I was interested in.

“If I’d used film I’d have shot a roll and then neither I nor him would have known if the image was acceptable until a day later.”
That really doesn’t make sense to me. When I would shoot with an art director he would just look through the viewfinder to check composition and framing. I knew how to expose the image properly so that wasn’t a consideration. If he approved the composition, I took the shot and that was that.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Now, that box of slides may have the last laugh in 100 years when a LR database and it’s optical and magnetic backups are gone from digital rot or obsolescence. As long as that box of slides is Kodachrome. Oh, wait. Never mind.

“In the film workflow you have a box of slides. What are you going to do with the slides? At the very least, you’d have to add the cost of a loupe and a lightbox for the slides or a carousel projector, but that still won’t get those photos distributed.”
When I shot film I was working for a client. All they wanted was a box, or several boxes, of slides. Distribution wasn’t an issue. And before digital I can’t tell you how many loupes I was given by various companies. I have three sitting on my desk right now that were given to me. I was also given several light tables. Film related products were cheap and companies loved to hand them out. I never owned a carousel projector.

“Try sending a slide to a publication and see how far you get these days.”
Many publications still accept film, including Arizona Highways and Outdoor Photographer.

“Seems to me to be fair, you have to set a standard of production for both; like estimate the cost to get the photo into a distributable modality. So, for the film totals, you’d have to add in a scanner or scanning service, calibrating monitor, software, etc.”
Film is distributable and you don’t need to scan it. You can scan it, or make duplicates if you want, but it depends how you plan to use your photographs. If you’re just selling prints, you don’t need anything but a lab. And if you’re shooting for a specific client, the film is all you need.

“C’mon…you don’t need both [Lightroom and Photoshop}, and you certainly don’t need upgrades, and you certainly don’t need upgrades every year.”
Every pro photographer I know has both, but I have been reading about many photographer dropping Photoshop and just using Lightroom. It depends what you need to do with your digital images. Do you need to upgrade whenever a new version comes out? No, but I would advise it.

I think the main problem with photographers who have not shot film (I don’t know if this is your case or not Brian) is that they are so entrenched in digital that they can’t image how photography can be done without. Even with film they want to instantly digitize it, thus bringing all the digital expense and time into the equation. Film is a simpler process, and less time consuming, than digital. They both have their pros and cons, and you need to choose the right tool for the job. But don’t insist that film must be made digital or it’s not viable, because that isn’t the case.

Besides, the main purpose of the article wasn’t to bash digital, but to counter all those digital photographers who keep saying digital is free because it doesn’t use film. Digital is many things, but free isn’t one of them.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Have Fun,
Jeff