After having used digital a while, I am beginning to wonder. Would I be better off going back to film. More likely a hybrid workflow.
The biggest issue is just how short the lifespan of the equipment is, especially the camera bodies. My old scanner is still chugging along. Though the printer is dated, a 2200 still puts out good work. Yet its expensive, but if its for clients that isn't a big deal. If the cost of the print is much of an issue in the production of client work, you are not charging enough in the first place. I still am rarely satisfied with a digital b&w but that is just me.
Yet stock in particular is one part of the industry that just doesn't for the most part justify a lot of expense. Yet they have no problem asking for file sizes that are the same as what comes from an $8000 body for a 4x6 print in the occasional magazine only for the portal to want to try to take 80% of the revenue. No way on many fronts, and for those that do stock work I definitely don't do micro. Why do they think they need it? Because it is out there.
Going back to film provides an instant back up to the digital that can be redone when technology improves scanners. Storage is easier and with bodies only lasting 18 months or so before the next latest and greatest comes out, it makes me think long and hard
