airfrogusmc wrote in post #13235751
Then I'm really not sure what your point was. Film is not more difficult or harder to master then digital because they both involve learning to see and thats what is the thing that is valuable. Its the ability to see photographically and then the skills to capture that vision but the technical skills are relatively easy compared to the seeing aspect which is really what people pay for. Not the way the image was produced but the visual content which came from the ability of the artist/photographer to see, the final image.
His point was that the perception of the uneducated masses is different. The public perception is that in the days of film photography, the photographer had to physically buy the film, then process it in the darkroom with all sorts of chemicals and stuff, or send it off to a lab. Then when all the processing was done, you had the prints and the negatives. However, (public perception again) with digital all you have to do is aim the camera and mash your fat monkey finger on the button. If it's blurry or doesn't look good, just mash the button again until DOES look good. There's no film to buy, no negatives to develop, no special room full of scary chemicals. It's just a digital file.. it's not a tangible item, so it should be cheap or free. I don't know how you think you can charge so much for a bunch of digital files that didn't cost you anything to make.
Perception is truth? Or so I've been told.
If your client is knowledgeable in the ways of imaging and photography, they know there's much more to it than that, and will pay an appropriate price for your skill, talent, and equipment. However, as we've seen in this thread, even the top decision makers aren't always educated about the skill and time required for top-quality digital photography. "We'll just have Janet do it, she just bought a DSLR last week."