It was not a work trip, but an extended holiday (and character building exercise, eighties in China...). Even then the sales from the photos paid the whole trip, all the expenses, for both me and my wife.
Those 1000 frames a day I shot on my last trip to Tibet yielded enough keepers to pay for the trip and then some. I do believe, like I said in a previous post, that having the possibility of shooting practically unlimited number of frames does result in better quality of top ten frames than stingy old school shooting with film. The rest 990 per day can go to the digital hell or heaven, costing nothing.
Not sure why people are comparing today with film when the debate started with this inaccurate nonsense.
There are several ironies about the digitalisation of photography that I reflect upon with a certain wry amusement. The foremost is the enthusiasm with which it was greeted by professionals; it was cheaper, quicker, more cost efficient for not only did it do away with film but also the necessity of having someone else do the printing, the photographer retained control of the whole process as Rob C. has pointed out. Now we are told that digital cameras have ruined photography because anybody can now do it cheaper, quicker etc.
Digital was silly expensive when it first started and all the cost comparisons with doing it now vs film have little bearing on changing to digital 10/12/14 years back. Things changed from film due to advantages of the new medium, but it certainly was not price for quite a few years.
When I first looked at changing it was a probably 1200 rolls of film, paid for 2-3 years upfront. A cost which one couldn't then claim back from the client, so effectively you needed to charge more to make up for the film expenses you were no longer getting. A tricky one that because as far as clients were concerned, they inaccurately thought you no longer had consumables.