I am yet to see any client request to see each frame shot. It's impossible, and most importantly, pretty boring. Clients prefer to look at "Hero" shots, discuss details and then continue checking e-mail and drinking coffee.

As for costs for digital vs film, I think it's fair to assume that in the average studio the costs end up being the same with digital capture and select fees equalling film and processing costs. For the client that is.

For me, the amazing thing about digital photography is the ability to wrap a shoot in a day and save the time usually needed for processing and scanning/printing.

I still prefer the magic of film though.

Do clients care if you shoot with films or digital?

They care so much! Just because they don't see the computer screen on the shoot they get so worried and cranky, even when polaroids are there.

However what I'm mentioning only happens in South-East Asia where I work, I'm not sure how it would be like elsewhere.

It's always good to have film camera as backup just in case the computer broke or whatever. And on really remote locations where you don't have outlets for computers or chargers.

Technophobes!! Haha :-D
Computers do not just break. They ONLY do what they are told to do. I have said this so many times; knowing computers flaws is the same as knowing cameras flaws.

I admit that I have a slightly bias view, due to studying computing throughout college, however computers ARE HERE. The digital age HAS ARRIVED. Digital photographic quality has almost completely exceeded film quality. Professional equipment in digital has made life easier for photographers. Progression is not cheating! We all drive cars. Horses and carts are so last century. Film is going to disappear also. It's just too expensive and unpractical with all the digital alternatives available.

At present however technology is advancing at such a pace that digital equipment needs to be purchased more regularly to keep up with expected standards. This will no doubt continue for several years as manufacturers have clocked onto profit that can be made in this area. On the other hand digital, I believe, will reach a state where it will not be able to improve. There are only so many pixels that can be interpolated. This will then see the advancement of more ergonomic camera designs, such as shrinking and reshaping. Who knows what cameras will look like in 100 years?

“Do clients care if you shoot with films or digital?”
Yes. Clients would love to see faster results. Who doesn’t? It is probably also their opinion that they can cut costs if you use digital.

“... really remote locations where you don't have outlets for computers or chargers.”
Power packs for digital are more effective than their predecessors being that they are the latest technology. I admit that digital cannot perform without power like a full manual but then we really are stepping back 40 years. Modern film cameras still use batteries. Perhaps take spare batteries? :-P

Sorry for long post. I am a keen digital photographer, as you can probably tell.

Interesting read for anyone wondering about or considering digital photography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_photography

Some of the most advanced warplanes in service today have their computer systems running from the 80486 series of processor chips, what does that speak of technology?

Hehheh. Whereas the hardware in digital photography is still in development, all users double as testers of the technology. Film has arrived at a point where the technology is already stable like the 486s, but improvements are still being made to the film stocks, finer emulsions, more stable dyes, improved base materials.

Should we also take into consideration the improvment in printing technology, which is one of the most deciding factors of the end product.

.......you can use all the latest state of the art technology in photography or whatever ...etc... etc......but I ask myself would all of that give someone the ability to create...improve..... or help to master the ability to produce really recognizable leading aesthetically ' unique' and original compositions in the true artistic sense ?...................if the inborn needed talent is not there ?