I chucked MY Hassy system then as well, and it did and still does make sense. Customers were asking for immediate results and digital files. If you said you couldn't do digital, you lost a customer. I didn't have the resources to keep my Canon and Hassy gear and invest in digital too, so the Canon and Hassy gear went down the road to fund the next system. I kept customers and I kept working, and I provided what my customers were after. No, the final product probably wasn't as good, but it was good enough to meet the needs of my customers and I couldn't have done that with a film product.
And there still isn't a market for products from negatives in the commercial world, so there still isn't a reason in mainstream commercial photography to own film gear. I recently bought a Leica M4-P body solely for the pleasure of shooting film for my own work. It'll likely never see the light of day for commercial work. I haven't had a client ask for negative-based products since about 1998.
I can see why you were forced to do this - it was a matter of survival from a business standpoint. Back then, the clients of commercial photographers valued instantaneous results over quality. Today, digital cameras have come a long way in terms of image quality; they are virtually neck and neck with film, if you compare small format to small format and medium format to medium format.
There is a different look or visual fingerprint when you look at digital images vs. film images. Admittedly, the subtle (and not so subtle) differences are lost on the masses; the lowest common denominator of "good enough" is okay with this sector.
Some people and clients prefer the hyper sharp look of digital; some prefer the uniform exposure look of HDR images; some prefer the light and shadow of film based images, and some prefer the visual texture that different emulsions and developers give a finished print. Today, there's something to please everyone's eye (and everyone's stopwatch).
😉 That's a good thing.
A small minority of wedding and portrait photographers still work in film, even though it's slower than digital. Most clients want instant results though, so most of these photographers are forced to work in digital.
It seems like the more a client's needs are tied to revenue generation, the more they demand the instant results that digital provides. This is also true for clients who must meet time deadlines such as news media and magazine publishers.
The digital vs. film divide seems to come down to the issue of revenue generation. Commercial photographers are not in control of their time - their clients, who are in the business of revenue generation, are. They want it now. No, they want it yesterday.
The more the photographer is in control of his/her own time, the more he/she can afford the luxury of shooting film. Most wedding and portrait photographers are not - the demands of the client control their time.
In today's world, it seems like only true lone wolf type photographers - almost exclusively fine art photographers - have the ability to create their work on their own terms. They have no clients badgering them about the time factor.
Just some observations...
