OK I see -- I've never thought of fine artists as "pros". I think of them as serious amateurs. That is not a bad thing since it means they pursue photography for the love of it. Quite a few of the "pros" I've known really don't like photography and do little to none for themselves.
I miss film for several reason that I've stated -- the look being one. Somehow my mind feels like it is being fooled when I look at a digital image. Now in your case though you are digitizing your beautiful silver images and thereby corrupting them. To keep the silver look you need to enlarge to silver prints. I don't miss the darkroom.
Film basically died here and digital allowed the photographer pool to multiply times ten. People that couldn't begin to figure out film suddenly became expert shooters with digital -- lighting? What's that? Fix it in post.
That RZ is a nice camera -- the scanner a nice one too. I've had a microtec flatbed that does ok on film and a Minolta that does 6x7 and down. But I find that spotting the film is too tedious. The Minolta uses a glass carrier and is a nuisance -- soft image and sharp dirt.
Years ago I did a shoot with 20+ table tops for an annual report on fuji 4x5 transparency film. It was a Friday and I turned the film into the lab. On Monday I had another shoot but I had the film picked up from the lab at noon. I found out that they had accidentally run the film through the C41 process. Those were some really nasty negatives. I had to shoot the entire brochure over after the other job was finished. The lab gave me a new box of film for their mistake. This is just one of the many reasons that I wouldn't shoot film commercially.
I have a Canon IPF 5100 printer that I really like except for the ink costs. Also my Sinar 4x5 sits idle, I should probably sell it along with the unused darkroom equipment.
Advertising photography appealed to me because I liked being in control of everything on the shoot. Weddings though, seem to be an "out of control" type situation. Good luck on those.
BC
Personally, I don't make distinctions between types of Professional Photographers. If they make their living at it, then they are a pro IMO.
I once bought a small Kenna print from a well respected gallery to add to my modest collection of B&Ws. I then decided to focus my collection on images of famous artists photographed by famous photographers and sold the Kenna for a Henri Cartier-Bresson print of Mattise working in his sun filled Avignon studio ... that Kenna print has appreciated so much that I could not afford to buy one today. Trust me, fine art photography CAN be a business ... and photographers like Cindy Sherman are millionaires from it.
I think when we discuss digitized film images, we have to understand that there are huge qualitative differences in both how an image is digitized, and then how it is processed and printed. Dedicated desktop scanners like those from Minolta and Nikon cannot hold a candle to something like the Hasselblad X5 (basically a rebadged Imacon 949) which costs as much as a high-end MFD digital back ... and in some cases, professional drum scanning can be even better. Steve McCurry not only uses a H camera for some assignments, he uses a Imacon 848 to scan his film images. Joel Meyerowitz also uses a Hasselblad scanner ... so does Magnium Photos.
Digital post processing for B&W has advanced a lot in just a few years. Nik Silver Efex-2 is just an amazing piece of software with every tonal spread and grain structure of every film I've ever used.
Printing is another area that has evolved considerably ... I use an Epson 3880 with a RIP and fiber papers like Crane's Silver Rag that looks and feels like double weight Zone VI Brilliant that was one of my favorite darkroom papers. For larger prints, a well scanned image looks pretty good when laser printed onto silver-print paper.
One other amazing thing I discovered is how faithful a flat bed scan of an existing silver print can be. I was trying to scan my film archive when there was a neg I couldn't locate, so I scanned the print I had from that neg on an Epson V750 PRO. Wow! Does that ever work well. I believe Elliot Erwitt used that technique rather than scanning his film negs. So, if you still make true silver prints, I'd suggest scanning the print as opposed to the neg if you also want a digital version of that image.
Of course, for film lovers like me, there is still a shimmering magic to a well made darkroom silver print ... but I do have to admit that with today's evolved digital conversions, it is getting harder and harder to tell them apart.
I also like the control aspects of much commercial studio photography. However, it often involved so many other support people and marshaling independent resources that I felt like a symphony conductor more than a photographer. Weddings can be chaotic, but I am basically shooting alone or with just one assistant.
Sadly, you are right that digital has swelled the photographer pool in all areas of photography. I do have to say that I think this is because of the people buying the work, not those making the work. Seems more and more buyers don't value the craft and think anyone can do anything if they call themselves professionals.
-Marc
