>>3991332I hope Ilford is able to hold out on B&W indefinitely. They've got a nice, complete lineup that's really no different in capability from what you would have had before digital.
Color films are getting lean. If you ignore lomography/boutique films there's basically Portra, Ektar, and three slide films.
>>3991334The 5 can get the job done, I'm just not crazy about some of the compromises in the ergonomics. My favorite 35mm by far was the EOS 3, but in a moment of weakness I sold it because I just don't shoot much 35mm. I still think about buying another one.
>So do you develop and scan everything yourself? For B&W I use CineStill's Df96. For a long time I had a dedicated 35mm scanner, but sold that off and need to finish putting together a DSLR scanning kit (as opposed to "winging it" with a tripod and iPad).
I'm curious to try CineStill's color developers, but haven't done it yet.
>There's a local lab near me that will develop and scan for $12That's not too bad, it's what The Darkroom charges. There are cheaper options but then you have to pay shipping.
>>3991335Different film's still have a unique look. Velvia is Velvia whether you scan it or not. I'm not one of those people who thinks film is "better", but it is different. That said, if you can take a local JC course in traditional B&W film developing and printing, do it. It's a fun experience.
>>3991336You are much better off scanning film directly.
