Many (if not most) news media personnel have gone to digital. There are still some major holdouts, but the times are changing rapidly. Considering the majority of cameras bought and sold are basic consumers, this alone can kill the chem-photographer. If noone is developing their film, the cost to produce, store, etc.... all those chemicals goes up since volume has gone down. So now the film community is paying even MORE than teh digital community.
The writing is on the wall, for better or for worse.
The real holdout are major bodies of recognition... Pulitzer and the like. You can match a photo evenly, but if the judges get one hint that your photo is digital, it takes a nosedive. This is true of most magazines and such.
It is the old Fender through a MArshall Stack argument, or the Vinyl versus CD. We don't hear much of thsoe arguments any more, and we will not here the Digital versus Film argument much longer either I think.
|
