Originally posted by PPPPPP42 I'm quite certian you do have far more experience than me, but for the other 95% of us who don't have commercial scanners or medium format cameras I still say its DSLR or full do it yourself film.
I fully agree the best image quality possible in photography would come from a professional scan of larger format film. I should have been more specific since I was referring to the current situation of a person asking about scanning 35mm at home.
Many people do get results they like from home scanning of color 35mm, but in everything I have seen the quality is no better than a DSLR at that point so I feel it defeats the purpose of using film in the first place and the DSLR can do it much easier.
Having semi-retired, my only scanner is an Epson V700. A lot of "experts" consider that a "home" scanner. I work in a corner of one room of my home, not a big lab. My entire collection of medium format gear cost about the same as a K-5. As a salaried employee for the last 20 years of my career, I acquired a steady stream of fairly advanced gear, but I didn't get to take it home when I retired.
I am able to produce large prints that very sophisticated viewers find technically excellent- from 35mm as well as larger formats. It is a matter of knowing what you are doing, not of having enormously expensive equipment. My main investment has been in time and effort learning to scan and edit images properly. I think that after over 40 years as a photographer I know what a good image looks like.
A lot of "home scanning", and nearly all scanning from labs, looks like crap because the people involved do not scan properly, do not edit properly, and have not taken the trouble to learn the difference between a technically excellent image and a crappy one.
I shoot 35mm because it's fun, takes me to my photograhic roots, and produces results that are received with respect in the fine art world. If I wasn't getting the results, I wouldn't waste my time.
I shoot medium format because it blows away any digital camera I can afford right now..
I also get very fine results with digital. I would have no problem replacing 35mm with digital if I had to. For someone entering photography, I would certainly recommend a good DSLR over 35mm film.
With my best lenses and very fine grain film, I am able to squeak out larger prints than I woud make from 15 megapixel camera files.The difference is not great and would not be noticeable to most people at "normal viewing distances." Nonethless, I can do it.
I can certainly understand why you wonder about the benefits of 35mm film vs. DSLR. You are asking a good question. I won't quarrel with your conclusion that
DSLRs are a better bet technically speaking, particularly if you get into the 24 megapixel range.
On the other hand, you are not justified in writing off 35mm film as a serious medium.
Cheers
John