Tim said >>>"For me, the lure of film is completely centered around the silver print. I miss those prints. I lust for them. But I will never build a print darkroom and the nearest available rental darkroom space is a two hour drive away. Can you get interesting results from medium format film that's been scanned? Absolutely! But do those results provide a substitute for my silver-paper darkroom dreams? No"<<<
Just my personal opinion:
I agree with Tim's statement (above). Having started with film and fine art and reportage photography many years ago, the finished product "the print" was the cullmination of the effort, from taking the shot, developing the film, culling through negatives, to creating the final "silver" print. That print was not just an image but the cumulation of all that went into creating the image, such as choice of film and developer, developing times, choice of paper and chemicals and of course selction of enlarging lens. Each step is like ingrediants in a food receipe....leave one out or change it and things change. Same thing with eliminating steps (and taking shortcuts), the final product often looks similar, but doesn't taste the same (or in the case of the image, doesn't look the same or evoke the same emotions). I used to cut out the the wet darkroom part and simply get film developed locally and then scan it myself and print on high end inkjet (which has come a long way). Is it nice, yes, is it the same (product wise) as the entire wet darkroom process described, no in my opinion.
Eventually though time constraints and expectations of others (especially clients) for the having the final product delivered quickly and in large number (of images), dictated a move to digital very early on, and as much as I'd occcasionally take a roll of film, it's been hard to go back....but boy do I miss it and have been tempted time and again to have a go at another round
Dave (D&A)
