I don't understand.
If you are now getting your film developed to a JPEG of a scanned slide (unless they expose onto CDs) then how is that better than a decent digital SLR with the same lenses?
As for the ink mentioned above -- how many photographs do people really keep anyhow? Plus, for proper prints you would use dye-sub at home, wax or laser for bigger and archival quality huge inkjets for posters -- so if you want a piece of paper you can have it.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Thu 4 Nov 2010, 17:47, 1 reply)

film
I really like using film as you really have to take the time to actually carefully compose your shots. Think about it for a minute, can a slight change of angle, focus, zoom, height, etc create a dramatically better photo?

Digital has made it so easy for us to shoot our little hearts away until our finger is numb but in return we aren't producing as high quality photos. When you shot with film it cost you for every shot you took, so for most, more time and care i think is put into each shot.

I am not saying this is the same for everyone but there are a lot of articles, posts, etc out there with the same kind of thought process. I think about my shot a lot more before I pulled the trigger because film is expensive and I didn't have the time to waste developing crap.
(Bermuda_import Beach party this weekend, Thu 4 Nov 2010, 18:55, closed)

True but there's the other side to that.
If you want to try three different exposures or ISO settings etc. Then you can on digital -- so the picture can be the best you can get. Plus, the framing is of the same importance regardless of media.
That said, if you find the constraints artistically helpful then "Go for it!" I say.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Fri 5 Nov 2010, 17:29, closed)