Would you consider overstating film merits, as opposed to digital, to
potential clients, a dishonest and un fair practice?
Should the photographer spell out the disadvantages with film usage?
If making images for a client, I would normally not even get into this question. They would normally want a finished product, and their aim, what they want to achieve would govern MY choice of tools.
If a client wants a particular tech or tool used (rare, for me at least) I would probably do what they want, (assuming i have it).
But I would allow myself to advise a client sometimes. For example, the client "wanted" film and they wanted the image say for advertising on both flat art and the web, and other uses overtime, I would probably steer them towards digital, for cost/process reasons over time, if for no other reason.
--
'Good composition is only the strongest way of seeing the subject. It cannot be taught because, like all creative effort, it is a matter of personal growth. In common with other artists the photographer wants his finished print to convey to others his own response to his subject. In the fulfillment of this aim, his greatest asset is the directness of the process he employs. But this advantage can only be retained if he simplifies his equipment and technique to the minimum necessary, and keeps his approach free from all formula, art-dogma, rules, and taboos. Only then can he be free to put his photographic sight to use in discovering and revealing the nature of the world he lives in.'
Edward Weston, Camera Craft Magazine, 1930.
'Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.' G. Marx
