D-slr economics with portraiture...

I have a couple of questions regarding a d-slr and portrait photography. First, it's easy to say I save money because of processing and film costs. However, I never hear anybody talk about editing time. It seems that anytime I get near the PC I can just about guarantee I'll spend at least at least a 1/2 hour per photo. Now, if I consider my time is worth $50 an hour. All of a sudden, processing costs don't seem that bad! How do you validate this? Second, what about your printing costs? Do you not give clients a contact sheet for proofing? Inks and paper are also very expensive. I can get excelent processing done on the best papers for a reasonable price.

Also, do clients automatically think digital is better? I'm not convinced digital images surpass film with portraiture (as well as time spent on the final image). With film I get a good 4 stops of lattitude and I use it. With digital, I find the lighting needs to be kind of "flat" in order not to blow out a highlight. In other words, I have to expose for the highlights, and insure I have almost equal lighting for the fill. With film, I expose for the shadows. This means I meter the main and overexpose a full stop for the shadows. With digital I seem to have to meter the main and underexpsose 1/3 stops to not blow it out!

MikeMiles said:

I have a couple of questions regarding a d-slr and portrait
photography. First, it's easy to say I save money because of
processing and film costs. However, I never hear anybody talk about
editing time. It seems that anytime I get near the PC I can just
about guarantee I'll spend at least at least a 1/2 hour per photo.
Now, if I consider my time is worth $50 an hour. All of a sudden,
processing costs don't seem that bad! How do you validate this?

Click to expand...

Some things are garded secret in the digital world If your pics are all keepers then digital is a lot costlier then film. But doing the processing yourself give you a freedom and control that film cant unless you are running your own wet printing lab.

MikeMiles said:

Second, what about your printing costs? Do you not give clients a
contact sheet for proofing? Inks and paper are also very expensive.
I can get excelent processing done on the best papers for a
reasonable price.

Click to expand...

yes, an individual cant beging to get near the low cost of a lab.

MikeMiles said:

Also, do clients automatically think digital is better?

Click to expand...

don't tell them it is digital. let them see for themself.

MikeMiles said:

I'm not
convinced digital images surpass film with portraiture (as well as
time spent on the final image). With film I get a good 4 stops of

Click to expand...

only 4 ?

MikeMiles said:

lattitude and I use it. With digital, I find the lighting needs to
be kind of "flat" in order not to blow out a highlight.

Click to expand...

you shoot about the same as for chrome. It is more touchy.

MikeMiles said:

In other
words, I have to expose for the highlights, and insure I have
almost equal lighting for the fill. With film, I expose for the
shadows. This means I meter the main and overexpose a full stop for
the shadows. With digital I seem to have to meter the main and
underexpsose 1/3 stops to not blow it out!

Click to expand...

different technic for different medium, you will get use to it.

--
Gaetan J.
'when you assume something you make an ass out of u and me' B.Hill

Gaetan J. said:

Gaetan J. said:

Also, do clients automatically think digital is better?

Click to expand...

don't tell them it is digital. let them see for themself.

Click to expand...

This is ALWAYS a strange one. I showed one client a studio shot and the same shot using a 550ex on my camera. He thought the the latter shot was better! It's a paradigm. This is what a lot of people are used to seeing on their shots, so they think it's right. So, in an odd way, a flat, hard-lit, non-diffused shot, may be what some people want.

Gaetan J. said:

Gaetan J. said:

I'm not
convinced digital images surpass film with portraiture (as well as
time spent on the final image). With film I get a good 4 stops of

Click to expand...

only 4 ?

Click to expand...

Maybe 5, plus a couple more in processing.

Gaetan J. said:

Gaetan J. said:

lattitude and I use it. With digital, I find the lighting needs to
be kind of "flat" in order not to blow out a highlight.

Click to expand...

you shoot about the same as for chrome. It is more touchy.

Click to expand...

I noticed. I've used astia at weddings. But prefer portra in the studio.

Gaetan J. said:

--
Gaetan J.
'when you assume something you make an ass out of u and me' B.Hill

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I better think about this one...

With digital you have to expose for highlights, and get the exposure correct.

When I was learning commercial photography I was taught to shoot chrome, since it DEMANDS proper exposure. Be off more than a half-stop in either direction and you probably screwed up the shot.

With a slide you could see if you nailed it or not. With film the lab would hide your mistakes and you often wouldn't notice unless you were off by at least TWO stops.

So yes, unless you want to spend a LOT more time in the digital darkroom correcting your mistakes, you're going to need to tighten your technique.

Or stick with film.

BTW, there was a good sized discussion on this about a month ago.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=3520307

I believe that although we have some great DSLR’s on the market right now, they’re just a little behind on the software side, especially when it comes to portraiture. It seems like everybody is trying to move over to digital, but they’re having problems from a workflow perspective as a result of hard to use, or even non existent software. People are used to shooting film, dropping it off at the lab, and picking up a finished product… it just doesn’t work that way with digital images. You have to be willing to put in a little (or sometimes a lot) of extra work to produce acceptable work from digital images. This condition will certainly change for the better as more and more people get into the digital realm.

Michael,

This discussion is filled with 1/2 truths. I'm not anti-digital, nor am I anti-film. I am a realist who values his time as much as money. Sure, If you like being on the PC, you will value this over dropping film off, or sorting prints, or dropping chrome in a top loader. But to say you can edit your clients pictures in PS faster than you can drop film off and get back, or sort pictures in PS faster than you can do with prints, is nuts. That's like telling me you know how sharp a picture is from the lcd panel.

I know exposure well. I actually shoot mostly chrome. But digital, and chrome, portraits look "flat" to me because of the lack of exposure lattitude. Of course, I can "fix" this in PS. This is the point I'm trying to make. Not how good you are with exposure.

I'd like to know what clients think. Or do they care? Probably, most people never had a portait taken from anywhere besided a "mall" photographer. It also seems a lot of people ASSUME digital is better for no apparent reason. At least nothing that they can articute.

Mike

Interestingly, most of my clients (weddings) have seen all varieties of digital photos, most of which are from low end cameras, and are skeptical about having their cherished moments captured via digital. Most have not seen digital photos from D-SLR, and many have not seen prints from anything other than non-photo quality office printers. So my experience is opposite yours: A lot of people ASSUME digital is not up to the task.

Kind regards, Calvin Wilson

MikeMiles said:

It also seems a lot of people ASSUME digital
is better for no apparent reason. At least nothing that they can
articute.

Mike

Click to expand...

Dennis Haas said:

I believe that although we have some great DSLR’s on the market
right now, they’re just a little behind on the software side,
especially when it comes to portraiture. It seems like everybody
is trying to move over to digital, but they’re having problems from
a workflow perspective as a result of hard to use, or even non
existent software. People are used to shooting film, dropping it
off at the lab, and picking up a finished product… it just doesn’t
work that way with digital images. You have to be willing to put
in a little (or sometimes a lot) of extra work to produce
acceptable work from digital images. This condition will certainly
change for the better as more and more people get into the digital
realm.

Click to expand...

Two reasons I have held off on digital for weddings (sports, dance photography, you bet!).

1. The sheer quantity that I shoot and put into albums. I would spend a week tweaking each one.

2. I've had three potential, 2 eventual, clients ask me this week if I shoot digital weddings. When I said no, they said "great. That's the answer I'm looking for." I think inexperience with digital has burned some photogs in weddings, where the lighting is not always . controlled. Many are happy to know, however, that my lab uses a digital printer and the options of cds, retouching, etc. is there for them if they want it.

Once you get some practice under your belt with the new medium, you'll find yourself adjusting your photos less and less. I have a D60, and honestly, all I do is sharpen, crop, and convert to profile for the printer. My exposure is good, and color is good enough that I don't have to do a lot of post processing. Check these two out

http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=276122

http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=275745

Both shot with my D60 in a studio. One main light, one fill light, one hair light. I meter, take a shot at the metered reading, look at the histogram, and maybe take two more test shots to get it perfect. Then I don't touch it again unless I change something.

As far as dynamic range goes, this shot

http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=166753

Was on a Camedia E-10, which doesn't have a lot of range, IMHO, and you still get a lot of modeling/contour. The lighting might look flat to your eyes, but the camera will punch up the contrast a lot.

Most of my shots require minimal tweaking. Only if a shot has a problem (a little OOF, really bad color) but looks good enough to try and salvage will I spend more then 5 or 10 minutes on it. A good shot can be ready to print in about 2 minutes worth of photoshop time. Not to mention, you're not going to be adjusting each and every shot. Print out proofs, tell the client they're not color corrected or adjusted, and then only work on the ones they want to buy. Include in your prices the time for working on the print in Photoshop.

Thanks for listening

Russ

MikeMiles said:

I have a couple of questions regarding a d-slr and portrait
photography. First, it's easy to say I save money because of
processing and film costs. However, I never hear anybody talk about
editing time. It seems that anytime I get near the PC I can just
about guarantee I'll spend at least at least a 1/2 hour per photo.
Now, if I consider my time is worth $50 an hour. All of a sudden,
processing costs don't seem that bad! How do you validate this?
Second, what about your printing costs? Do you not give clients a
contact sheet for proofing? Inks and paper are also very expensive.
I can get excelent processing done on the best papers for a
reasonable price.

Also, do clients automatically think digital is better? I'm not
convinced digital images surpass film with portraiture (as well as
time spent on the final image). With film I get a good 4 stops of
lattitude and I use it. With digital, I find the lighting needs to
be kind of "flat" in order not to blow out a highlight. In other
words, I have to expose for the highlights, and insure I have
almost equal lighting for the fill. With film, I expose for the
shadows. This means I meter the main and overexpose a full stop for
the shadows. With digital I seem to have to meter the main and
underexpsose 1/3 stops to not blow it out!

Click to expand...

MikeMiles said:

This discussion is filled with 1/2 truths.

Click to expand...

???

But to say you can edit your clients pictures in PS faster

MikeMiles said:

than you can drop film off and get back, or sort pictures in PS
faster than you can do with prints, is nuts.

Click to expand...

Digital has workflow issues, true. Part of it is finding the right tools for the job. I can copy images to the drive, turn ThumbsPlus loose on the directory, then organize the images a lot faster than I can going thru stacks and stacks of slides. I don't sort in PS.

MikeMiles said:

I know exposure well. I actually shoot mostly chrome. But digital,
and chrome, portraits look "flat" to me because of the lack of
exposure lattitude. Of course, I can "fix" this in PS. This is the
point I'm trying to make.

Click to expand...

"Flat" has a lot more to do with gamut and contrast/saturation settings than exposue lattitude. As someone else has indicated, with just a little work you can determine optimum settings and then batch process images as needed. Or better yet, setup your camera so you get what you want out of it to start with.

MikeMiles said:

I'd like to know what clients think. Or do they care? Probably,
most people never had a portait taken from anywhere besided a
"mall" photographer. It also seems a lot of people ASSUME digital
is better for no apparent reason.

Click to expand...

I've been shooting chrome since '83 up until about three years ago. My last film body was sold last year. If digital wasn't "better" for me I wouldn't have done so.

But if you're not into the digital darkroom then you're losing out on most of the benefits. I get much better work out of it than I ever got from pro labs printing C, R, and ilfachrome. I can do corrections, burn, dodge, color correct, spot, and fundamentally craft the image.

So if you think that your part's done once you've pressed the shutter, and it's up to the lab after that, then stick with film.

If your market doesn't want hand-crafted images, then stick with film.

If you just want to use your 602 as a digital polaroid, stick with film.

If you don't want to spend the time to learn the workflow, or find the tools needed to optimize your time, stick with film.

If you simply don't like the way it looks, stick with film.

In that you're in luck, since Kodak just announced that they're still going to manufacture a few rolls next year....

MikeMiles said:

I have a couple of questions regarding a d-slr and portrait
photography.

Click to expand...

I believe what matters is how much you sell, not so much how many pennies you save. Bear with me while I relate this story. I was on holiday with the wife and passed a shop window advertising 50% off for makeovers. Basically an hour with a cosmetician + a film shoot for $45, prints extra. Absolute bargain! They had a studio at the back. Thought I'd treat the wife for around $100 to $200 max. All went well and a couple of rolls of film later we got to see the pictures on a lousy TV, right then and there. This studio had a MF camera with a mirror/electronic link to some kind of PC video capture. 15 minutes later I was aghast at being committed to $900 worth of prints! That's what the immediacy of the results did to the wife. The final prints were so-so (lots of soft focus and high-key printing, looks great in B&W, pretty awful in colour). Moral of the story? Integrate your digital imaging into the sales process! I do not believe that a computer monitor with sharp images would have done as much selling. The limited TV resolution helped a LOT in making the unretouched images look better than they finally did in prints. Apart from the TV-set proofiing, everything in this studio was chemical. Do not use a digital SLR just to replace film, use it to devise new marketing. Best of luck ;-)

Why is it anytime I ask a question about digital someone like you has to reply? It reads like a broken record. You read between the lines to get up on your pulpit on why film is dead and digital is better. I look at them as tools. With the current gendre' of digital cam's, while they'll meet a majority of my needs, there are things it STILL doens't do as well as film.

Michael Long said:

"Flat" has a lot more to do with gamut and contrast/saturation
settings than exposue lattitude. As someone else has indicated,
with just a little work you can determine optimum settings and then
batch process images as needed. Or better yet, setup your camera so
you get what you want out of it to start with.

Click to expand...

Hmm, do you really shoot? It appears you have no idea what I'm talking about....Oh! It must be something I'm doing wrong if I find film does anything better! I can always dodge and burn in PS to get the results I want.

Michael Long said:

Michael Long said:

I'd like to know what clients think. Or do they care? Probably,
most people never had a portait taken from anywhere besided a
"mall" photographer. It also seems a lot of people ASSUME digital
is better for no apparent reason.

Click to expand...

I've been shooting chrome since '83 up until about three years ago.
My last film body was sold last year. If digital wasn't "better"
for me I wouldn't have done so.

Click to expand...

I've been shooting chrome longer then you! HA! Ditto, ditto... Plus, don't you think I've ran a barrage of experiments pushing in every direction? This is NO DIFFERENT than I've done with film.

Michael Long said:

But if you're not into the digital darkroom then you're losing out
on most of the benefits. I get much better work out of it than I
ever got from pro labs printing C, R, and ilfachrome. I can do
corrections, burn, dodge, color correct, spot, and fundamentally
craft the image.

So if you think that your part's done once you've pressed the
shutter, and it's up to the lab after that, then stick with film.

Click to expand...

Back on your pulpit about something completely off track....

Michael Long said:

If your market doesn't want hand-crafted images, then stick with film.

Click to expand...

Again, wording to make YOU feel better about what you're doing...

Michael Long said:

If you just want to use your 602 as a digital polaroid, stick with
film.

If you don't want to spend the time to learn the workflow, or find
the tools needed to optimize your time, stick with film.

Click to expand...

I never said I can't do it. Hmmm, you're still answering what you want to answer.

Michael Long said:

If you simply don't like the way it looks, stick with film.

Click to expand...

The only thing you read correctly! However, If I can "craft" with digital right our of my camera the way I want, I would switch. However, I can't get this "look" without adding some PS. Unlike you, I find them as tools, not status icons. Even if I do get to this point, digital cams still won't do everything that film can. I doubt it will for a while yet....

Russ,

Nice shots! I especially like the camedia shot! This is more the type of shot I'm getting frustrated with. I like doing thing like pushing a highlight to it's limit, while using a black reflector for fill, and want to get a certain result without having to dodge and burn in PS. Which is where I'm at now.

Of course I've experimented pushing the exposure. For my taste, it seems like at one point it's not highlighted where I want, 1/3 stop more, and it's too cooked. So I take the previous one and dodge and burn in PS. Maybe I'm being to anal...

This is side work for me (one I don't need, but enjoy). By day I design chips that go in things like your camera;^) I like creating pictures, like the one in you link, that most people have never had done. Sure, I can do a simple, what I call "mall" lighting, and be done with it. But this isn't as fun for me!

Thanks for your comments, Mike

Russ Jennings said:

http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=276122

http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=275745

Both shot with my D60 in a studio. One main light, one fill light,
one hair light. I meter, take a shot at the metered reading, look
at the histogram, and maybe take two more test shots to get it
perfect. Then I don't touch it again unless I change something.

As far as dynamic range goes, this shot

http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=166753

Was on a Camedia E-10, which doesn't have a lot of range, IMHO, and
you still get a lot of modeling/contour. The lighting might look
flat to your eyes, but the camera will punch up the contrast a lot.

Most of my shots require minimal tweaking. Only if a shot has a
problem (a little OOF, really bad color) but looks good enough to
try and salvage will I spend more then 5 or 10 minutes on it. A
good shot can be ready to print in about 2 minutes worth of
photoshop time. Not to mention, you're not going to be adjusting
each and every shot. Print out proofs, tell the client they're not
color corrected or adjusted, and then only work on the ones they
want to buy. Include in your prices the time for working on the
print in Photoshop.

Thanks for listening

Russ

MikeMiles said:

I have a couple of questions regarding a d-slr and portrait
photography. First, it's easy to say I save money because of
processing and film costs. However, I never hear anybody talk about
editing time. It seems that anytime I get near the PC I can just
about guarantee I'll spend at least at least a 1/2 hour per photo.
Now, if I consider my time is worth $50 an hour. All of a sudden,
processing costs don't seem that bad! How do you validate this?
Second, what about your printing costs? Do you not give clients a
contact sheet for proofing? Inks and paper are also very expensive.
I can get excelent processing done on the best papers for a
reasonable price.

Also, do clients automatically think digital is better? I'm not
convinced digital images surpass film with portraiture (as well as
time spent on the final image). With film I get a good 4 stops of
lattitude and I use it. With digital, I find the lighting needs to
be kind of "flat" in order not to blow out a highlight. In other
words, I have to expose for the highlights, and insure I have
almost equal lighting for the fill. With film, I expose for the
shadows. This means I meter the main and overexpose a full stop for
the shadows. With digital I seem to have to meter the main and
underexpsose 1/3 stops to not blow it out!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MikeMiles said:

I have a couple of questions regarding a d-slr and portrait
photography. First, it's easy to say I save money because of
processing and film costs. However, I never hear anybody talk about
editing time. It seems that anytime I get near the PC I can just
about guarantee I'll spend at least at least a 1/2 hour per photo.
Now, if I consider my time is worth $50 an hour. All of a sudden,
processing costs don't seem that bad! How do you validate this?
Second, what about your printing costs? Do you not give clients a
contact sheet for proofing? Inks and paper are also very expensive.
I can get excelent processing done on the best papers for a
reasonable price.

Also, do clients automatically think digital is better? I'm not
convinced digital images surpass film with portraiture (as well as
time spent on the final image). With film I get a good 4 stops of
lattitude and I use it. With digital, I find the lighting needs to
be kind of "flat" in order not to blow out a highlight. In other
words, I have to expose for the highlights, and insure I have
almost equal lighting for the fill. With film, I expose for the
shadows. This means I meter the main and overexpose a full stop for
the shadows. With digital I seem to have to meter the main and
underexpsose 1/3 stops to not blow it out!

Click to expand...

Mike, these are excellent points and I believe that if you count the amount of time you spend in front of the computer, digital may not be cheaper for you. I have been 100% digital since May and haven't scratched the surface in editing capabilities.

What digital offers is additional options and control. I originally went digital in order to add photojournalism to my weddings without having to handle 35mm negatives. I began by shooting the portraits in medium format, and the rest of the day in digital. Within two weddings I was all digital, as it was outperforming my medium format.

I shoot about 450-500 images per wedding with digital and spend about three hours total in prep time for proofing. Most of the time is spent culling out the out-takes...takes about two hours because I have to view every image. Then change the pj stuff to black and white, renumber everything, resize a set for cd proofing, burn CD's and a couple of other housekeeping things.

I'm not sorry I went digital, but it's alot more work in my opinion. The end product is better, however.

--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com

Mike

Glad you like my shots. I've been shooting digital since July, almost every day of the week. I work at Glamour Shots, and we went from a static, fixed lighting system shooting on a huge bulky film camera, to movable lights with the E-10. Completely changed everything about how we shoot. When we first switched, I would meter the lights almost every shot, metering for highlights and shadows to make sure they weren't too far apart, etc. I'd also look at each and every image in the LCD to make sure it was good. The E-10 won't, AFAIK, show a histogram which kinda sucks, that makes it very easy to tell if you got good exposure.

Now, after hundreds of hours of shooting with this system, I only meter once or twice during an entire day. I've put marks on the floor to show where each light should go (this is more to help out my lesser experienced coworkers) and marks on the back of the lights to show the various f/stops. F/5.6 @ 5 ft is a lot more useful then 1/8th, ya know? But I've also learned how to move the lights to get the shot I want, etc.

Nowadays, I'm almost kinda bummed when I open Photoshop. I admit, I love playing around and tweaking. But, every adjustment you make degrades the image just a tiny bit. If you bump up contrast, you're losing data. You increase noise, etc. My images are getting good enough, straight out the camera (ESPECIALLY when shot in studio) that they require almost no tweaking, except for sharpening and cropping. For my personal work, I like Velvia level saturation, which I bump up myself in PS. But that's about it. That way I can preserve all the levels the camera can capture, instead of throwing them out. Plus, on your end, it saves a lot of time that you'd otherwise be spending.

Again, I think the best way to do it is either print proofs, or show them images on a monitor, and explain that these are not final images, the result will be much much nicer. Then you're not working on images they're never going to buy. Just include in the print prices 20 minutes of Photoshop time, and you're taken care of.

Another option is to take the CD to wal-mart, and for 29 cents each, print 4X6's on their frontier system. It's fast and cheap, and the system will do color corrections and exposure adjustments as it see fits. Again, you can probably do a better job then the machine does, but you won't have to waste time adjusting every single image.

Russ

MikeMiles said:

Also, do clients automatically think digital is better? I'm not
convinced digital images surpass film with portraiture (as well as
time spent on the final image). With film I get a good 4 stops of
lattitude and I use it. With digital, I find the lighting needs to
be kind of "flat" in order not to blow out a highlight. In other
words, I have to expose for the highlights, and insure I have
almost equal lighting for the fill. With film, I expose for the
shadows. This means I meter the main and overexpose a full stop for
the shadows. With digital I seem to have to meter the main and
underexpsose 1/3 stops to not blow it out!

Click to expand...

There's no need for a client to know that you are using digital. Unless you are marketing to technology geeks, there's no reason for them to be concerned about how you get the image onto paper. I don't tell anyone unless they ask. Their concern should be final product.

Regarding exposure, it's true. You have approximately one stop of latitute...maybe even a bit less. You have to expose for the highlights. It's much like chrome, but more so. Highlights get blown out easily.

But you have the ability to correct it as you are shooting. I recommend using a handheld meter for portraits because of this lack of latitude.

--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com

doesn't cost anything - there's no film

Hi Jim,

Are you shooting in JPEG, TIFF, or RAW? I like the results I'm getting with RAW, but it does significantly increase the computer time.

Also, I agree - you put more time in, but you have much greater control over the end result - as well as avoiding the beating of handling negatives.

Jim Herndon

Jim DeLuco said:

Mike, these are excellent points and I believe that if you count
the amount of time you spend in front of the computer, digital may
not be cheaper for you. I have been 100% digital since May and
haven't scratched the surface in editing capabilities.

What digital offers is additional options and control. I
originally went digital in order to add photojournalism to my
weddings without having to handle 35mm negatives. I began by
shooting the portraits in medium format, and the rest of the day in
digital. Within two weddings I was all digital, as it was
outperforming my medium format.

I shoot about 450-500 images per wedding with digital and spend
about three hours total in prep time for proofing. Most of the
time is spent culling out the out-takes...takes about two hours
because I have to view every image. Then change the pj stuff to
black and white, renumber everything, resize a set for cd proofing,
burn CD's and a couple of other housekeeping things.

I'm not sorry I went digital, but it's alot more work in my
opinion. The end product is better, however.

--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com

Click to expand...

MikeMiles said:

Why is it anytime I ask a question about digital someone like you
has to reply? It reads like a broken record. You read between the
lines to get up on your pulpit on why film is dead and digital is
better.

Click to expand...

And you expect... what? You're on a pro digital forum.

You asked about long editing times. I responed that finding the right tools can help, and that I find that the creative control it enables over the final output justifies the time spent.

You also made an erroneous statement regarding digital being flat. It doesn't have to be. You didn't say what camera you're using, but consumer cams, like the 602, can be more sensitive to this and blown highlights.

There are also different kinds of portraiture. You didn't say what you do, or what kind of clientele you shoot. From my perspective, the higher-end the photography, the more justified the additional editing time becomes.

And to answer another question, I don't shoot professionally any more, but I've done commercial work, shooting 35mm (Nikon/Canon), 6x6 (Hassie), 6x7 (RZ), and 4x5 and 8x10 (Sinar). As such I've pushed a lot a film.

Finally, I never said film was dead. I just said I don't use it anymore...

I am new to digital but having used film for over 20 years I find that the advantages to shooting on film aren't that many, apart from the enlargement aspect. Most people are happy with a 15x12 or 10x8 for framing and 8x6 or 7x5 for album use. I can show my customers the choice of pictures on their TV sets, delete the ones they don't like or messed up on, preview exposures for general acceptability and they can make their choices there and then. I don't waste film any more, keeping the costs down for the customers and generally provide a very rapid service too. Film, especially slide, has it's uses but I think with the advent of 20 megapixel SLRs in the pipeline, digital, in my opinion is the way forward. If you get a large print done at a printshop, it will look as good as a print from a neg and possibly last just as long.