Why not just buy an older film leica than the M9

[photogdave]

Although scanning film produces very hgh quality files, it is VERY time consuming, people compare it to the time used in photoshop with digital images, but a scanned negative will need just as much photoshop workflow as a native digital image (if not more, dust, scratches).

That's a myth. If I exposed my negs properly they require almost no photoshop work. All it takes to make good scans quickly is practice.

 

[HenningW]

That's a myth. If I exposed my negs properly they require almost no photoshop work. All it takes to make good scans quickly is practice.

While I certainly have had some just shot rolls of film that don't need spotting etc, that is more the exception than the rule. If I scan correctly, and have exposed and developed correctly, little PS or LR manipulation is necessary.

The latter naturally also applies to digital files.

The fact is that both scanned images and digital RAW files are best put through a short massage in your software of choice, and if both are of high quality to begin with, there is little difference in the work necessary on them. Older film is another matter, especially if digital ICE can't be used on them.

I've always shot a fair bit, and my film budget before developing used to be as much and often a lot more than the cost of an M8. I now shoot more for my personal stuff as that cost doesn't loom anymore. Film makes up less than 15% of my current shooting and my costs are way down. Also, between film and digital my options are up.

My film shooting is all local, as I'm not going on a plane anymore with film. I used to have my full carry-on stuffed with film, and worry about X-rays and other damage to the rolls.

In any case, film and digital serve somewhat different purposes. Where they overlap you can choose one or the other, but the fussier you get about one aspect or another, the more likely you'll choose one on attributes but have both available.