I think it could be argued that a film based work flow is econmically more efficient during hard economic times. If you run a portrait studio with two shiny Eos 5d MkII's thoses cameras are going to depreciate at the same rate no matter how busy or quiet you are (it could be argued that they will depreciate faster in a bad economic climate as second hand prices tank). With a film workflow you can pretty much assume that your equipment has depreciated pretty much as far as it will go so your only workflow cost would be film and developing. That has the advantage that if you aren't working you aren't buying film so in quiet times some of your costs go down in a way they won't with a digital camera. Of course you can get round this by using a digital camera for longer before you upgrade, but of course with digital all your equipment has to be new and shiny so you give off the sweet sell of success to your clients, so the pressure to upgrade is higher. Add in the fact that it's easier to bill a client for film and processing than it is for depreciation, and you may find that the figures for a black and white studio are better in the medium term than for a digital workflow unless you have a very high volume of work.
But yes, it is important to know what the client is looking for.


