]If you're just going to shoot film, but then scan and print digitally, I'd have to ask - what's the point? The hassles of purchasing, storing, exposing and then getting film processed isn't terribly romantic or fun. The results will not be as good as current digital capture, so what's the point? And, of course, there's always the expense.
The nature of the problem nowadays is that the world is sold on digital, is it not???
... and because of that, a good lab for developing is scarce to come by, lets not dare mention that a quality scan of film can be complete jaw dropping compared to digital, even more so if you stare down with a quality Schneider loupe on the original SLIDE. Film and digital simply are different. There is a another dimension there in film in its colors and drop off at brights and dark, not to mention that it comes complete pre-programmed with what is already a pleasent rendering, if exposed correct at a good condition. In that way, I would say that film is still superior to digiral today, but... the problem is that it must be made digital today, because... ehhh... the world is (oversold) on digital??? Often that is made on not top grade scanners, because that is what is available, and often also affordable. That to me is downside of film. Else, to be frank film is simpler. I should not say superior, since it might be incorrect word, but film is different to digital. Also... film should not merely be viewed on pixel level, but as an image. I still shoot slides; FUJI VELVIA 50 + FUJI PROVIA , but... I hate to say... not as much as I should... because they made film more difficult, simply selling the world on that digital and advanced auto all camera is made sold to be better than a simple one when you capture the magic moment, and to instead using a dslr snap the trigger hoping you get the magic shot as one of the captures.... - or am I being sarcastic, or... in seriousness do I actually have a good point?? I prefer the slow because yield better images, yet that is me.
I made this post the other year;- The MFDB vs Slide Film Challenge!, Mamiya ZD vs. 7II - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=20970
In it I posted RAW files from Mamiya ZD 22MP digital back and asked people to do their own processing. I also stated that I was going to get film scans of Mamiya 7 Velvia 50 6x7 film scans of same scenes made, both on flat bed and drum scanners. To be frank, I believe both scanners were a tad too old technologies... nevertheless... one poster stated towards end "the film scans have a real wonderful quality to them. While looking at these last 100% crops, I find that I'm really drawn to them and the ZD images that looked so great before look lifeless in comparison."
Now any of you might wish to argue that a D3X or 1Ds3 beats the crap out of 6x7 slides and ZD. Sorry, I will disagree. There are qualities to the ZD files when shot at optimum conditions that beats that out of those two, albeit ZD is limited and is a problem camera (search my post ZD has problem).
Digital does not beat FILM. Film is different. Yet, I miss the simplicity of film... and to point the finding of a lab that with ease could process quality slide FILM, and make quality scans for cheap. This is in fact what turned me to digital in the first place, and claims that crummy D200 was superior to film Utter nonsense! As an amateur I have found that digital is MUCH more $$$ than film ever was, and I mean considerably many times more if you look for quality results and are not sold on new high tech technology and upgrading all time to latest incremental advancement in camera rather than image.
Years ago it was stated that a DSLR of 6MP beat 35mm film. Did it? Really, really? Utter nonsense. What experience has the reviewer? What year is viewer? What sensitivity of eye? Does a 20MP beat 35mm film? I dare say no, because film is different. That is not only in pixels, digital look different. One is better than the other, depending on subjects and situations. And... Yes!! I for sure miss the simplicity of using film. Actually, I have recent added 4x5 FILM and I am not please with my DP1 which is supposedly best capable image quality compact.... Well... I do not miss film scanning of 35mm scans.... many, slow.
Film was simple. Also in small camera you could have quality image capture, simply by plugging in that cheap sensor as was called FILM....
I miss that simplicity, and indeed low $. I now shoot Leaf, before I had F100 + Velvia 50, but to be honest... I also wanted larger format... which with digital translates to BIG $. B.t.w. my Aptus 65 is the first digital product I have found pleasing. 6MP rivaled 35mm film?? Nah....
Above is my view and observation.