I've had a lot of fun over the past several years with about 6 digital cameras. But "they" say that for really superior results quality-wise, film is better than digital. So I bought a used Nikon N75 SLR w/ a Nikkor 28-80 lens.
So far I've shot and processed only 2 rolls of film - CVS Drugstore ISO 200 color print film. One roll was processed and scanned to CD by the local CVS store, and the other by the local Walgreens store. In both cases, the jpg files on the CD's are surprisingly small: around 1.2 mb and .6 mb. And the viewed and home-printed images are about equal to what I get when printing from my 7MP p&s digital camera.
As you know, it's A LOT easier to shoot a compact digital p&s than to deal with film and a large SLR camera. If the film results are no better than digital, why bother?
But, I suspect there are better ways to shoot film, and thus my questions:
1. Does it make much photographic difference whether I shoot cheaper store-brand film compared to Kodak or Fuji?
2. What can a dedicated camera shop processing lab do what the drugstore can't?
3. My understanding is that there may be good scanning or bad scanning (to CD). Are there questions I can ask to find out whether a particular processing "lab" is even capable of a good scan?
Carrying an SLR around in my tank bag is a lot harder than shooting from a tethered digital p&s. I guess it's possible that a film SLR is never going to do me much good. If that's the case, OK, I can easily revert to digital. But I do like the idea of film.