Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
Yes, I suppose you are correct and my initial reply was rather flippant. There is a difference between the original and scanned and digital copies. In the same way there is a difference between an original painting and prints from the original. I apologise for my previous rather crass remarks.
Nothing to apologize for! I agree completely with your assessment: The hard but true facts of life are that digital portraits are easier and, for the most part, are just as good in the eyes of 99% of consumers. Better, actually. People like it when I shoot tethered and they can see things immediately.

But I do think (or hope) that there is a market for "real film" portraits. I'm thinking the prototype client is one that is (a) somewhat fashionable and (b) interested in leading a trend and (c) has money and (d) wants to stand out. The cardiologist's wife that wants to show her friends their new family portrait and have something to brag about. That sort of thing. I think if its positioned properly, the idea that a portrait was shot on film could be a powerful advantage. If nothing else, I can tell you from my limited experience doing this that people are quite impressed by the sight of my RB-67. Compared to the cookie-cutter DSLR's everyone else is using, the RB looks like a proper camera.


Quote Originally Posted by David Brown View Post
Excellent. Thank you for the references.