>>2917305Well I shoot enough volume to justify it on the time to scan basis.
But even then, my reference for "good enough" quality, as in, is it worth it to shoot film, has always been "at fullscreen on a normal screen, is it as good as a digital photo would be?"
I know that almost any film is capable of that quality in 35mm if it's exposed correctly, but absolutely not in any sort of lab scan, and ususally not with a shatbed or any variant thereof.
I'll give the coolscans and imacons their due, they can get to that level. But they're still stupidly expensive, and a basic DSLR surpasses them.
A better DSLR than mine would be a speck in the distance.
